Behind The Times

Kari Travis | Managing Editor

Let's talk about Libya. Networks are still buzzing about the vicious attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi. You've probably seen some headlines about it. And you undoubtedly know the attack resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

It seems everyone can agree on the fact that the ambassador was killed, and that his death was a tragedy. But from there, the details of the story gets a little fuzzy. Not only that, but there are so many opinions swirling around accounts of the incident that we hardly know where to look first.

Or who to believe, for that matter.

Some analysts claim the whole fiasco is a cover up for what is the Obama Administration's biggest foreign policy faux pas. The Obama camp, on the other hand, insists it didn't bungle Benghazi. The latest statements from the administra- tion state that there wasn't enough information about the Libya attack to merit any defensive action.

In the meantime, we continue to sit here and wonder just one thing.

If both the analysts and the politicians would sit down and be quiet for just a few moments, what would the facts say about what really happened in Libya? Was it an inside job? An outside job? An outside job meant to cover up an inside job?

There's no time like the present to find out.

On Sept. 11, a group of about 150 men dressed in traditional Islamic garb blocked all Benghazi streets leading to the U.S. consulate, according to a report from CBS News. The display was menacing, bystanders later told The Associated Press.

The attack itself was staged as a protest, in which demonstrators, combined with heavily armed militants, violently beat down the consulate guards, then set fire to the compound, according to CBS.

Stevens and three other American officials were killed as a result.

Now here's where it gets really interesting.

The day following the attacks, the Obama Administration began to provide the media with what turned into a beautiful muddle of mixed messages.

The story the administration touted was that the Benghazi chaos resulted from a spontaneous protest against the offensive film,

"The Innocence of Muslims." But here's the real kicker. This media portrayal

followed reports (later released to the public) from both the U.S. Embassy and the CIA Sta- tion Chief in Tripoli Libya, that classified the incident as a planned militant strike, according to CBS.

And that's not all.

When emails were released on Oct. 23 which indicated the Obama administration was aware of the attacks before the incident, criticism erupted from Republican opposition, according to CNN.

The most incriminating email of the bunch, which pointed to the Al-Qaeda- linked terrorist group Ansar al-Shariah as the force behind the Benghazi violence, is reported to have circulated among several federal offices, including the FBI and the State Department, according to CNN.

Republican Senator John McCain stated Oct. 24 that the record of awareness provided by this paper trail points to the fact that the Obama administration neglected to act in order to prevent the attacks, according to CNN.

Now can you see why the topic of Libya has turned into quite a shark tank for the Obama campaign?

But as both presidential candidates stew over the questions about pre-attack communication, and post-attack action, the most important details of the Benghazi tragedy appear to be forgotten.

Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Paul H. Anderson, who was a good friend of Stevens, is disturbed by the ongoing political skirmish that serves to distract from the real issue behind the attack.

The fact that a U.S. hero was brutally killed.

"The stark reality is that present-day Libya is a very dangerous place," Anderson wrote in a blog for The Huffington Post.

"Benghazi is particularly dangerous. Benghazi was the crucible for the revolt against Gadhafi."

Anderson also pointed out that the U.S. officials will do no good for foreign policy if they continue pointing fingers.

And placing blame elsewhere.

"I have some suggestions for those who seek to exploit the Ambassador's death for political purposes," Anderson continued. "We all would be better off if we returned to the bygone ethic of past leaders who sought to unite our nation on issues of foreign policy, not divide it."

Good advice, to be sure. But the odds of officials dropping their blame game anytime soon doesn't look promising.

All hope for positive action is not lost, however. We onlookers might not have direct influence over the resolution of turmoil in a place like Libya, but we can do something to change the situation.

Remember Chris Stevens and the others who died in the attack, and mourn for their families. After all, regardless of what, or who, caused the Benghazi attacks, the end result is still the same.

America and Libya lost an important ally to the cause of human rights. In that case, it seems the least we can do is honor the memory of our slain ambassador.

And leave the finger pointing for another day.