Some Thoughts On Benghazi
It’s been fairly obvious that the investigations and political speech on the deadly incident in Benghazi have been pure politics. Rudi Giuliani admitted as much:
During an appearance on CNN’s Starting Point on Monday, the former New York City mayor argued that the administration is purposely delaying investigations into the incident until after the election to “cover up” its own failures. But asked to substantiate the claim, Giuliani became agitated. He announced that he did not have to give Obama the benefit of the doubt or withhold judgment about the incident until a full investigation is complete because the president is a Democrat
The Republicans and the conservative echo chamber are accusing the Obama administration of a cover up. I can’t believe that the Obama administration is that stupid – there was simply no way they could cover it up until the election. Now I will admit they didn’t exactly tell the truth but are there reasons they would do this. Was the “cover up” directed at forces outside of the United States? We now know that many if not most of the occupants of the Benghazi compound were CIA agents – was there and attempt to conceal that? Did they have some leads as to who was responsible and they wanted some time to follow up on those before it became publicly known that we knew what happened? There was more going on here than we know.
As for security James Risen reported that this is not as simply an issue as the Republican political spin would like to make us believe it is. For starters the Libyan government would not allow a lot of armed security guards. That left the State Department with two choices, accept the risk or leave. Secondly the Diplomats themselves don’t like turning embassies and other facilities into armed bunkers – it makes it almost impossible for them to do their jobs. If you are going to have a bunker facility you might as well leave. While it’s true that the embassy had requested some additional security it was for Tripoli not Benghazi.
One question that should be asked is why did the ambassador go to such an unprotected facility on 911? Was there a leak that let the attackers know he was there? Good questions but not the ones that are being asked on FOX news.
Cross posted at Middle Earth Journal
Share This
I can’t believe that the Obama administration is that stupid – there was simply no way they could cover it up until the election.
I agree.
The question of why Mr. Stevens went to Benghazi is partly answered by the Risen piece. Diplomats are being hamstrung by the security officials. Whether Mr. Stevens presence was even known by the attackers is still unknown. Their attack was certainly a powerful and well executed one. This wasn’t just a bunch of yahoos with a few RPGs. Their ploy of burning the compound down, which is what killed the ambassador, is a tactic that has been used ever since the beginning of war.
The White House must surely have had information within hours of the attack about just how fierce it was, unless the people with responsibility for security were incompetent – that’s happened before as Mr. Risen’s piece mentions.
Secty. of State Clinton has accepted responsibility for Benghazi and all that entails. The conflicting and still incomplete information that has been floated by media, State Department officials, and politicians to this point is rudimentary at best. Ms. Rice is her employee. Ms. Clinton is Mr. Obama’s employee. The buck stops at the White House and they must decide what is best done.
We’ve seen Issa’s committee in action before and should know how to judge what they are doing. Incompetence exists at many levels of government, but we knew that. This was a particularly deadly result of either incompetence or forced risk taking by diplomats. It’s not something to score political points on as Mr. Steven’s family has stated.
One thing I can’t quite get out of my head…
A little over 8 years ago, four American civilian contractors were killed in Falluja in Iraq. Their bodies were desecrated, dragged through the streets, and hung in public.
How much would our mission in Iraq have changed if the right wing had shown as much concern over those four deaths as they’re showing over the four American casualties in Benghazi?
Those four American casualties are being used as political fodder for everything from arguing we never should have gotten involved in Libya all the way up to a reason to possibly impeach the President.
Where were these concerned folks when those American bodies were hanging from a bridge in Falluja?
Where were they. Where have I heard that before, and before…………..
what cover up?
I still don’t understand why that term is being used.
Here’s where they were in 2004 just after the Fllujah attack:
[As the issue advanced to the forefront in Congress, Blackwater took action. The day after the attack, Blackwater owner Erik Prince hired the Alexander Strategy Group, an influential Beltway firm with strong Republican ties.
During the following week, Prince had two private meetings with the Republicans who run Capitol Hill.
First he met with Rep. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader; Rep. Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee; Rep. Porter Goss, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee; and Rep. Bill Young, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
Later, Prince met with Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, the Appropriations Committee chairman; Sen. John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee; Sen. George Allen of Virginia; and Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.
Neither Prince nor the politicians would discuss the meetings. Blackwater spokesman Chris Bertelli, who attended, described the meetings as "serious but collegial, not uncomfortable."
Warner later called security contractors "our silent partner" in Iraq.]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1182837/posts
But that was then, this is now. Issa and Burton were on the government oversight committee in both cases. Issa sniped at the relatives who were suing Blackwater and appeared at a congressional hearing. Nothing new, move along.
Ok, Ohio, that lookback completely erased my memory of Ben what? and who cares if Rice deliberately lied since we can troll the past for worse mendacity.
I care if Rice deliberately lied. Apparently she didn’t (see new thread). The logic of lying just doesn’t hold up. If actual al Queda operatives, again apparently not the case, successfully attacked a mission and killed four more diplomats, why wouldn’t that strengthen the need for keeping the president in place – it worked for Bush II, he got a second term out of fighting the bad guys.
I’m not a mind reader so, though I’m sorry about your memory loss, don’t understand “Ben what”. Issa and Burton are two of the smarmiest people in congress and ain’t nothin’ gonna’ wipe that out. They were then and are now and why anyone would take their word on anything is puzzling. We ignore past mendacity at our peril.
Ohio, no one has to take Issa/Burton “words”, but I do believe the people on the ground in Benghazi (thank you for jogging my memory by coming back from the past), and Ms. Lamb who said she was in contact “live” during the six hour attack.
Has anyone accused the Issa witnesses of lying, exaggerating, twisting or anything. NO.
And, why doesn’t Rice lying hold up when State knew it to not be a video? This was days after the attack. What will the intelligence community say when they are under oath? Will they also fall on their swords like Hillary, who really didn’t have a choice since the buck does stop at her desk, and why not sooner, btw?
Your side’s argument has more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese and smells like Limburger, with all due respect.
And, yes, I would expect and would approve of this type of reaction if the shoe was on the Rep’s foot.