Listening to all the carnival barking by Republicans and their Amen chorus in the media, you’d think the Obama administration actually conspired with al-Qaeda terrorists to attack the US Consulate in Benghazi on 9/11.
They are calling for Watergate-style hearings. But their only credible charge is that, for national security reasons, the Obama administration used “CIA talking points” to characterize this attack.
UN Ambassador Susan Rice delivered those talking points when she pulled a full Ginsburg, appearing on all five network Sunday morning talk shows on September 16, just five days after the attack. Here, courtesy of CBS News, is what she said:
- The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex.
- There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
- This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed, and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
- The investigation is ongoing, and the U.S. Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.
Foremost, Rice cited the precipitating role the protests in Egypt played in the Benghazi assault. Yet this point alone has caused the latest outbreak of Obama derangement syndrome among Republicans.
Of course, these talking points were the product of a collaborative effort by all US intelligence agencies. Which is why it’s sheer political folly for Senator John McCain and others to be criticizing the Obama administration for relying on them.
But the inconvenient truth is that anti-American protests were rife throughout the Muslim world in the days preceding this assault. In fact, they became so threatening that Obama ordered the evacuation of all nonessential personnel from American diplomatic missions in Sudan, Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya. More to the point, all of these protests were triggered by an online video that mocked the Prophet Mohammed.
Therefore, it hardly seems farfetched that Islamists would see a relatively defenseless consulate in Benghazi as a target of opportunity, using these protests against that video as a pretext.
Republicans are criticizing Obama for this outpost being so defenseless. Yet, another inconvenient truth is that they are the very ones who cut his budget request for additional funds to reinforce security at all embassies and consulates throughout the Muslim world:
For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration’s request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 — cutting back on the department’s request by $331 million.
(CNN, October 10, 2012)
All the same, the Obama administration does have some ‘splainin to do. Because it was put on notice that terrorists were targeting this specific outpost in Benghazi, but it failed to either evacuate all personnel or reinforce security. This failure caused the death of four Americans. Still, it pales in comparison with the failure of the Bush administration to heed notice that terrorists were targeting New York City. It behooves the Republicans hurling patriotic indignation at this failure to appreciate this fact. After all, that failure — on the original 9/11 — resulted in the killing of 3,000.
In any case, McCain and others would have you believe that the Obama administration is guilty of a Nixonian cover-up. The blame Obama for “failing to tell the American people that the assault on Benghazi was in fact a terrorist attack.”
Except that, they’re so blinded by hatred for this president, they cannot see that this charge is belied by the CIA’s talking points. Not to mention that Obama himself told the American people as much within 24 hours after the attack. Granted, perhaps he did so with too much subtlety for these diplomatic Neanderthals to appreciate:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
(White House.gov, Rose Garden press release, September 12, 2012)
The above compels one to wonder if McCain is getting his Depends all in a twist simply because Rice used the word “extremists” instead of “al-Qaeda/terrorists?”
Of course, McCain is notoriously petty, petulant, and pugnacious. Hell, on one day, he could be throwing a hissy fit over something as insignificant as this semantic distinction without a difference. Yet, on the next day, he could be calling for the United States to bomb Iran. In fact, if he had his way:
- The United States would be in an even bigger military quagmire in Iran today than it ever was in Iraq.
- It would be leading a coalition of one in bombing Syria.
- And it would be joining Israel in an equally misguided invasion of the Gaza Strip.
And, by the way, when did the American people become entitled to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about military intelligence? If that were the case, President Bush would have been impeached for having his National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, help make the case for his war in Iraq. After all, it turns out she lied to the American people about Saddam Hussein possessing nuclear weapons.
Sadly, Congress has become hopelessly dysfunctional and misguided. Only that explains even erstwhile sensible senators, like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), threatening to hold hearings to find out who replaced the word “terrorists” with “al-Qaeda/extremists” in the CIA talking points. What’s the friggin’ point?!
Again, everyone already knows someone in the intelligence community drafted Rice’s talking points. In fact, CIA Director David Petraeus pooh-poohed all conspiracy theories in this respect when he testified in closed session on Friday. What’s more, even die-hard critics concede that the only editing the White House did was to change the word “mission” to “consulate” for technical accuracy.
On the other hand, Obama’s campaign operatives were loath to ascribe this attack to al-Qaeda. They feared doing so would undermine Obama’s re-election boast about killing bin Laden and decimating al-Qaeda. But instead of fretting about al-Qaeda’s involvement, they should have urged Obama to select a (known) terrorist site in Libya and bomb it to kingdom come. That would have mitigated any deflation of his wholly justified boast: as Bill Clinton might have advised, wag that dog, baby!
At any rate, I urge you to keep all of this in mind when you hear McCain leading the chorus of those fulminating about a White House cover-up. More importantly, you might wonder why Obama’s critics (and the media) seem more interested in attacking Rice than in finding out what Obama is doing to bring the extremists/terrorists who perpetrated this assault to justice.
Meanwhile, McCain is threatening to oppose Rice if Obama nominates her to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. For the record, Rice is eminently qualified and, as indicated above, her statements about Benghazi are not disqualifying. Besides, thanks to Petraeus’s testimony, many Republican senators are now distancing themselves from what is clearly McCain’s personal vendetta. So it appears Rice would have no difficulty being confirmed.
Ironically, the worst anybody can fairly say about Rice’s statements is that she was not the most qualified person to make them. Indeed, Obama himself gave credence to this criticism during his press conference on Friday when he asserted that, “she had nothing to do with Benghazi.” This clearly begs the question. Why put her out there instead of, say, Hillary or the director of national intelligence?
Obama is chauvinistically defending Rice by challenging McCain to a “discussion” over his specious criticisms of her. Instead, he should explain why he selected her as the point person on Benghazi.
To be fair, Bush set the precedent by having Condi, his national security advisor, be the point person on Iraq. After all, with her hysterical nonsense about nuclear mushroom clouds, Condi clearly knew no more about WMDs than Susan knows about Benghazi. And it’s arguable that she, too, was just auditioning for a promotion to secretary of state, as some are accusing Susan of doing. But I suspect Obama has a far more compelling explanation.
Apropos of which, I feel constrained to note that women and Blacks have monopolized this job long enough. After all, the last four Secretaries of State have been a woman (Madeleine Albright), a Black man (Colin Powell), a Black woman (Condoleezza Rice), and a woman (Hillary Clinton). This, in part, is why Senator John Kerry should be Obama’s nominee:
Obama should nominate John Kerry to serve as Secretary of State. After all, he has more foreign policy experience than Hillary; he is fluent in at least one foreign language, French (she is not); and he would surely be more loyal…
This would be an ideal way for Obama to repay Kerry for inviting him to speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention – the seminal occasion that launched his meteoric rise to the presidency just four years later.
Not to mention that Kerry endorsed his candidacy when most in the Democratic establishment were still riding Hillary’s bandwagon on her purportedly inevitable path (back) to the White House….
(“Hillary As Secretary of State? Don’t Do It Barack,” The iPINIONS Journal, November 15, 2008)
That said, here’s to this Benghazi-gate knocking McCain flat on his ass, when it swings back from this silly Washington obsession into the dustbin of history — where it belongs. In the meantime, Congress is fixated on finding conspirators to participate in its conspiracy, and the media are focused on the “Petraeus affair.” So, you’d never know that President Obama is currently on a historic trip to Southeast Asia, where today he became the first U.S. president to visit Myanmar (and its internationally acclaimed fellow Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi).
Even so, iPINIONS condemns the GOP’s Benghazi hysteria as political theater — and shows how scapegoating Rice became the real scandal. Indeed, it’s debatable whether partisan politicians or tabloid media are doing a greater disservice to the American people.
Related commentaries:
Hillary as sec of state…
* This commentary was published at 5:48 this morning, but due to technical difficulties, it was not posted until just after 10. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
Legacy Note: With over 5,600 posts spanning 20 years, I am easily the most prolific blogger on the most eclectic array of topics on the web. That makes The iPINIONS Journal an unparalleled archive of informed political and cultural commentary. Visit the ARCHIVES section in the sidebar or search by topic. You won’t find a more consistent, independent voice on world affairs.