No clarity on debacle in Benghazi

Why is it so hard to get straight answers from President Barack Obama about the assassination of the American ambassador in Benghazi, Libya? Judging from his halting, incoherent rhetoric so far, you'd think the American people were asking him to explain the value of pi.

President Obama obfuscates at every turn when confronted with the issue. The more he says, the less he says. Mitt Romney had him cornered in the last debate, but let him escape. And moderator Candy Crowley, like so many members of the Washington media, not only helped Obama escape, but also got in the way of adding clarity for the audience. (Note to the American media: It's not about you or your politics it's about the truth.)

Perhaps the next, and last, debate on Monday, which is supposed to center on foreign policy, will give Americans some kind of better understanding of what happened. In the meanwhile, Americans sit in the dark. Our ambassador came home in a body bag and our government spins the situation like it were Nixon and Watergate.

Here's what's so frustrating.

President Obama says that he called the assassination "terrorism" on Sept. 2. But a transcript of his words reveals a sentence so oddly constructed that it is not clear whether he referred specifically to Benghazi as terrorism, or to other acts since 9/11. But if the president now says that's what he meant, then fine.

It's what happened subsequently that doesn't jibe.

For the next two weeks or so, the president's administration, including his spokesman, Jay Carney, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, tried to sell a false narrative that the deaths were sparked by an obscure anti-Islamic video made in Hollywood.

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice repeated the spin, doubling down on it by saying that the president's popularity among Muslims is as high as ever. (Why Obama's Muslim popularity even enters the discussion is just plain weird.)

And, finally, on Sept. 25, the president, was asked directly on the television show "The View" whether Benghazi was an act of terrorism. He said: "We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. Now, we don't have all the information yet so we are still gathering."

If the president was convinced on Day One that it was, without doubt, an act of terrorism, as he now claims, why on Day 25 is he being such a pussyfoot about it?

"We're still doing an investigation?" C'mon, Mr. President.

The confusion on Benghazi became more maddening when the president in the last debate said that after the assassination of the ambassador he "got on the phone" and talked to his national security staff.

The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin points out that his phrasing implies that President Obama didn't meet directly with his national security team because he then flew directly to Las Vegas for a campaign speech.

Imagine that. A U.S. ambassador and three others killed on foreign soil in an attack the president now says he knew was terrorism. What does he do? He flies to Vegas without meeting face-to-face with his national security advisers.

What kind of president behaves like that? If it was terrorism, don't you stay in Washington and do your job as president of the United States? You don't waste time flying to Las Vegas to campaign, do you?

Look, the terrorism in Benghazi and the troubling reaction of our president in the aftermath demand clear, point-by-point explanation. Something seems dreadfully wrong. Americans ought to get answers even if it does come at an awkward time in the president's re-election campaign.

A little honesty, Mr. President.

Sherman Frederick, former publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and a member of the Nevada Newspaper Hall of Fame, writes a column for Stephens Media. Read his blog at www.lvrj.com/blogs/sherm.