Mr. President, release the Benghazi emails

The Benghazi ball is now in President Obama’s court: Will he release the White House emails? Photo: AP

CHICAGO,  May 13, 2013 – The White House continues to dig itself deeper into the hole that is Benghazi. The resulting damage will be serious- not just for Hillary Clinton’s prospects in 2016 but it could also dash any hope the Democrats have to regain the House in the Midterm elections.

The Benghazi ball is now in President Obama’s court: What will he do to resolve this mess before it unravels his Administration any further? Will he order the release of the White House emails on Benghazi as he should do and as House Republicans requested last Thursday?

SEE RELATED: No racism: Why did PepsiCo pull this Mountain Dew ad? (VIDEO)

Unless the White House has something to hide, there are compelling reasons why the President should release them.

Obama’s power is rooted in his likeability and the historic nature of his Presidency, enhanced and protected by a too compliant media. Would any other President have survived the weak job market, skyrocketing debt, and the slowest economic recovery in U.S. history to win re-election?

But it is human nature to dislike someone who has deceived you, regardless of the President’s place in history. What the Benghazi cover-up investigation revealed to us last week is that, while the President may not be a crook, he and his Administration have been lying to the American people.

What we now know:  For the last eight months, the Obama Administration has deliberately and systematically misled the public. On Friday, ABC News reported that it obtained 12 different versions of the Administration’s talking points ie. the original CIA account of events to the final version, which deleted all references to al-Qaeda, and its affiliate in Ansar al-Sharia. We know that top Libyan officials had identified the affiliate as the source of the attack the same night four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were murdered.

SEE RELATED: Republicans selling out to Rahm’s billionaire in GOP race

We know that the Obama Administration has shifted away from the use of the word “terrorism” for years and has even banned phrases like “Islamic extremism” from National Security documents. What role did this worldview play in the Benghazi cover-up?

We know that all references to early CIA warnings of terrorist threats to the U.S. diplomatic mission were redacted after State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland complained to the White House and the CIA in an email that such information “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?”

These facts contradict Press Secretary Jay Carney’s position, back on November 22 that only a single adjustment was made to the talking points and that the word ‘consulate’ was changed to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Who is to blame for the redactions? On Friday, Carney fingered the State Department and the CIA, putting the Administration at odds with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and ex-CIA Director Gen. David  Petraeus.

SEE RELATED: Bill Ayers: Rahm Emanuel is a one-term mayor (VIDEO)

We know that the State Department ignored repeated requests for additional security. Eric Nordstrom, a former security officer in Libya, told the House Oversight Committee Wednesday that the department’s response to his requests were “Basically, stop complaining.”

We know that special forces in Tripoli were ordered not to intercede because the strike would have been called a terrorist attack – a categorization the Administration was attempting to avoid.

So key facts were stripped from the talking points and a more politically advantageous storyline was advanced in its place. The new story would accomplish two objectives: one, to continue the President’s re-election narrative that al-Qaeda was no longer a threat and two, to protect the State Department (and the Administration) from criticism for its failure to heed early CIA warnings that could have saved lives.

Armed with the final talking points, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice promoted a different version of events on the Sunday talking show circuit five days after the attack: That the attack was inspired by spontaneous protests in Cairo triggered by an America-made anti-Islam video and that it was not the result of a planned pre-meditated terrorist attack. The CIA’s initial talking points had mentioned this as a possibility so the Administration went with it. But the hard facts were thrown out.

We also know that former deputy chief of mission in Libya Gregory Hicks testified Wednesday that he was stunned about the Rice’s claim that an anti-Islam YouTube video inspired the attack when there no evidence to support that.

It is clear now that the White House knew it was deceiving the public and has since been trying to cover-up the lie. The longer this drags out, the worse it is going to be for President Obama. The public’s faith in their President is eroding daily as more information comes out about the cover-up.

The release of the talking points by ABC’s Jonathan Karl has forced mainstream media outlets to finally pay attention to this story, to ask the questions that should have been asked eight months ago. The Administration will no longer be able to sweep the murders of four Americans under the rug.

Yes, Hillary, it does still make a difference now.

The American people need to know who directed the CIA to strip the talking points of the facts and why they promoted a false story to the American people and the world. We need to know why special forces were ordered to “stand down” when the “diplomatic mission” was under attack. And we also need to know why the mission’s requests for security were repeatedly ignored when the CIA had warned of numerous terrorist threats.

 But will the Obama Administration comply with full transparency?

At Friday’s White House briefing, Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the Administration would not release the email communications between the White House and the CIA. Such a move would help confirm – or deny – the White House’s statements.

So, Mr. President., will you finally order the release of the Benghazi emails now?

The American people are waiting for your answer.

Read more from Chicago with Bill Kelly’s Truth Squad

William J. Kelly is an Emmy award-winning TV producer and conservative columnist. He is also a contributor to the American Spectator and He is a native from Chicago’s Southside.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from Bill Kelly's Truth Squad
blog comments powered by Disqus
William Kelly


Conservative commentator, satirist, and radio talk show host William J. Kelly pens the “Kelly Truth Squad” and “The Tea Party Report” for the Washington Times Communities and is a contributor to the American Spectator and Kelly is also a producer of Emmy award-winning TV and received an Emmy nomination himself for outstanding achievement on-camera. He was previously the Executive Director of the National Taxpayers United of Illinois, a taxpayer watchdog group. He is a native of Chicago’s South side. For more information, visit

Contact William Kelly


Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus