Krauthammer: "Zero Interest" From The WH To Keep Their Word On Benghazi
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The first thing [Hillary Clinton] hast to explain is why, for two months after the event, and before her injury, she didn't say a word. She is the head of the department, the ambassador worked for her. She didn't work for Susan Rice. And she said the buck stops here and then she said nothing.
We don't know what she knew about security before. We don't know what she was doing during the seven, eight hours of the attack. And we don't know what her rule was in this spinning of stories and tales afterwards. The other thing that is remarkable to me, Jay Carney, I mean, how prejudice they are about the story. Carney, as we just said, the highly politicized issue. It's not political if you ask the administration to explain what happened. That's all that the critics have asked since the beginning. What happened before? Why were all the warnings ignored? What happened during the seven hours?
The one thing that we should hear from Brennan is, as the close adviser to the president on terrorism, what was the president engaged in in the seven hours? What did Brennan know? What did he tell the president? Were orders given, were they carried out? There is so much unknown here. I'm not surprised we have let go the only suspect.
There is zero interest in the White House for what they, you know, sternly said in the beginning -- they're going to track them down, bring them to justice.
We know the leader of the attack was a certain, Ahmed Abu Khattala, who was seen a few days later in a coffee shop outside Benghazi, unmolested and he remains unmolested in Benghazi today. I think there is a lot of explaining and the administration clearly wants to pretend it's political. It's not. Simply, it's to seek out what actually happened.
KRAUTHAMMER: What happens is, you give it to the FBI, as we used to do before 9/11, and we treat it like a burglary, you know, in the embassy. And once you do that and say it's law enforcement, there are all kinds of rules -- privacy and procedure -- which preclude the administration explaining what had happened.
It was not a burglary, it was not a crime; it was an act of terror. We have to treat it as that, the way that we have after 9/11. This is a retreat to pre-9/11 thinking and that's the reason that; a, why we haven't gotten anywhere and; b, we aren't hearing anything about it.