Benghazi deceits: Evidence mounts |

Benghazi deceits: Evidence mounts

Having captured Ahmed Abu Khatallah and begun prosecuting him as the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, the Obama administration has shown the cards it’s playing against him. And in the process, it has tipped its prior Benghazi hand as the failed bluff that it was.

Mr. Khatallah’s indictment “spells out a calculated conspiracy” behind the Benghazi attack, The Washington Times reports. The indictment says Khatallah, a commander of terror group Ansar al-Sharia, conspired “to provide material support and resources” to himself and other terrorists “in preparation for and in carrying out” the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

That makes the indictment “a death knell for a theory that the attack resulted from a spontaneous protest against a U.S.-produced video,” The Times says. The administration pushed that theory during the 2012 campaign’s home stretch, hoping it would stick.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, formerly No. 2 in Pentagon intelligence, says Khatallah’s whereabouts were known in late September 2012 but the administration “had to see how the video story was going to play out and how big the whole Benghazi issue was going to be” before capturing him.

With Khatallah now in custody, it’s an even bigger issue than it was on Election Day 2012. This indictment makes the Obama White House’s Benghazi deceit clearer, and more shocking, than ever.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.