I had feared that the political outrage about the Benghazi attacks in Libya that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans was just the product of the 2012 presidential campaign. The focus on UN Ambassador Susan Rice and those talking points was simply an attempt to taint the Obama White House with strategic and management deficiencies. The Benghazi controversy was, I thought, nothing more than a distraction.
I was wrong. It gave us the Benghazi hearings Wednesday, which turned out to be remarkably educational — though not for the reasons that Hillary Clinton’s House and Senate inquisitors expected.
Comments
The reason this situation got out of control is because susan rice went on five sunday shows and claimed it was a protest about the video, that was a mistake. General Patreaus reported 24 hours after the attack that it was a terrorists attack and had nothing to do with the video. It looks like a cover up, which I'm sure it was. They should have just said there was an investigation into what happened that night. Ambassador stevens asked for extra security and was denied,a that's another problem, all this is documented so it's hard to deny. the problem I have with government inefficiency is the State dept. has a marine unit guarding our embassy in Paris, didn't realize it was so dangerous over there, it certainly should have been the other way around.
Of course Juliette can wax over the extreme incompetence that allowed a abd situation to become horrfic, and how the administration's reaction was dictated by the re-election campaign. Clearly, sending Susan Rice to blather about a video was a political move. It gve them cover to get through the election. That is the real story, Juliette.
A great theory except it would not have effected the election one iota. Terrorism, foreign affairs weren't on the radar screen. The public was purely focused on the entitlement programs and the economy. Whether one agrees with Obama on either of these issues as a person is irrelavent, the fact is that's why the folks came out. Benghazi no one cared about then or now. So in fact there was no political reason to cover up anything. To think otherwise is to simply over inflate what the event meant to the public.
Attaturk:
So what if it had no impact on the result of the election? The idea that communicating with the public on this issue in sauch a naked, crass, political way is what is infuriating. The slobbering media knows no anger, if the target is a Democrat. I can imagine a hearing in congress if Hillary Clinton had robbed a 7-11 store. The media would still show more anger toward the Republicans, for asking tough questions.
If the media had any shame, they would be embarrassed by this.
I think is wasn't the fact the administration didn't realize what was going on, to more the fact the administration didn't want to send armed forces into the situation. I also am of the opinion, Hillary's boss made her "fall on the sword"', when all is said and done.
This comment has been removed.
DNC talking points masquerading as an op ed. Meh.
The reality is that the general public could have cared less at the time of the attack whether it was spontaneous or planned. Whether it was caused by a video or simply by the desire to kill. When legislators carry on about the publics "right to know" they are simply talking about their "right to know". The outrage is nothing more than political theatre. All one need do is read the ARB which is online to understand what happened and what needs to be corrected.
So instead we get a show of Dems. saying how wonderful she is a Republican's trying to convince us that they are dismayed and outraged. When of course it is nothing but a show for the camera's. So if folks want to carry on like fools as if this had some greater meaning outised the ARB knock yourself out.
Well I suppose some our hopeful it is something they can use if she runs in 2016, can't ever waste a good sound bite in DC you know.
In case you actualy want information:
http://www.cfr.org/libya/accountability-review-board-report-unclassified-benghazi-embassy-attack-december-2012/p29691
Unfortunately, even if the ranters bother to read past the title, there's that "obscene" word: unclassified. The Alex Jones crowd will insist that constitutes absolute proof of a coverup. I am inclined to speculate that come 2016 Sec. Clinton will still be just too weary of the game, but if she does run, you are all too correct that she'll have a fight like no other.
I leave the conspiracy stuff to the Oliver Stone's and the partisan wingnuts.
Mrs. Clinton a lawyer, a politician and a member of the Obama brain trust, made one thing perfectly clear yesterday! The morality of telling the truth means absolutely nothing! What difference does it make? We can only hope she doesn't pass on to her grand children, this despicable family trait!
Interesting article. Some of the points are valid, but there is some "spin" in this article too.
I have a problem when four people getting killed due to a failure on someone's part and the subsequent congressional hearing is held out as "educational" opportunity. Towards the end of the article, Kayyem writes
"Yet Clinton’s critics surely can’t believe that the alternatives — civil war there, propping up Moammar Khadafy, or putting more troops in — would have guaranteed Stevens’ safety or anyone else’s. We have no idea."
How about having had US Marines stationed at the embassy in the first place? Not for show, for security. Clinton tried to cover this negligence by testifying that Marines are stationed at an embassy in case classified documents need to be destroyed. That is incredible. An entire contigent of Marines to burn classified? That could easily be handled by civilians. No, Marines are stationed at embassies to provide facility security. Note that Marine security does not come out of State Dept budget, as Hilary testified.
More spin is applied concerning Obama's inaugral speech. In a very well done explanation as to why no "grand plans" were put forth, the author explains to us why those are not real world solutions. I can go along with that, however, Obama campaigns by telling voters that he has a "vision" for the world at large, etc. Sooooo, was he doing a bait and switch? I will tell you all about great visions, but I really don't believe there is such a thing? So, POOF! after I am elected, they are vanished.
Hilary said "Let's be honest...this is unprecedented" Yup, and that is exactly what she was appointed to that office to handle and be, honest and hanlde unprecendented situations. In foreign affairs, exactly what events have precedents? The seizing of the Iran embassy? The 911 attacks? WWII? All of it is "unprecedented".
Well, Madam Secretary, and Ms Kayyem, let's be honest. This event was not an "educational" experience that we can all learn from, it was four people getting killed. Let's be honest and tell people "We don't know yet." (like she tried to do yesterday, by referring to the ARB to cover her behind) Let's not write articles that try to make it sound that we should be thankful Hilary gave us all a wonderful opportunity to learn about foreign diplomacy by letting 4 people die through her negligence. (she does not like the image the US Marine Corps presents at embassies, it is well known within the Corps and around Washington, DC, now people are dead because of her ideas)
This comment has been removed.
You know, if you wrote well you could be paid by the word (a small fortune, considering the quantity), rather than wasting your efforts here.
This comment has been removed.
Here come the wingnuts crawling out from under their rocks bringing that good, old 20-20 hindsight to the matter. There was plenty of Marine security in Beirut back in the 80s when their barracks was bombed and over two hundred Marines died. These same Republican politicians would have been all over Ms. Clinton about "Why were all those Marines stationed in Benghazi?" had there been a larger security contingent. Republican Party nowadays consists of evangelicals, crazies and incompetents, so their total strategy is based on carping and bitch!ng about anything and everything the administration does. The Party of No continues its plunge into total irrelevance.
The BARRACKS were bombed, not the EMBASSY, got it? That was an oversight on the part of the Marine Corps. Obviously they were not expecting an attack on the barracks, dumb.
However, after haviing a hole blown in the embassy wall, and and IED tossed over the wall in BenGahzi, duh, think you might need Marines defending the place?
Your characterization of the Republican party is just stupid, I suppose I could characterize the Democrats as the party of:
"Yes, We Can, Yes, We can, ooops, No, We Didn't, and now 4 people are dead. But it is not important, move along, nothing here to see"
This comment has been removed.
another lawyer, lying. she said what difference does it make? then why go on national tv, not her as the head of state dept, but un ambassador and tell blatanly untrue facts. if we didnt know then say so and dont lie whether on purpose or by mistake. it makes a big difference. who was fired? who resigned? what responsibility was taken and how? please...
Depends upon what your definition of "is" is
Does it?
Juliette Kayem is trying to obfuscate the facts. In fact this and any Globe, AP, or NY Times article that attempts to blame Republicans for DOING THEIR JOB is really trying to prove political cover for Hillary Clinton. And legal cover as well. meanwhile the Senate Democrats are NOT doing their job. Hillary is uder oath, and it can be proven.
that she lied before and is lying now. ..But the state Dept and the administration are doing everything they can to hide more evidence that she has lied. John McCain asked where are the State department e-mails to and from Bengaaz? Drone surveillance videos? And why are all 20 Benghazi survivors completely unavailable to Congress? Even their names are being kept secret...We know what the answer is..They would prove beyond a doubt that Hillary has been lying all along.
A good chunk of those 20 Benghazi survivors are CIA operatives that responded to the initial attack on the Consulate; I am sure the CIA and the White House want to keep their identities secret so that they can continue the work that they do. Secrecy in this case does not necessarily mean a cover-up.
Sorry, with this Administration, secrecy DOES mean a coverup. Just like with the "Fast and Furious" gunrunning operation. And Barack Obama had NO PROBLEM blowing the covers of our Navy Seals so that he could BRAG about killing bin Laden. And blowing the cover of Pakistanis who helped the US. Then, even worse, he lets Iran know that the US and Israel have been spying on Iran's nuclear sites. ..And there are the hundreds of e-mails coming out of Benghazi within minutes of the attack. Those are NOT classified, as the administration wants you to believe.
A number of commenters below have pointed out that this will 'haunt' Clinton if she runs for President in 2016. My read of yesterday's theatrics on the Hill is that 2016 is the most important element in all of this. I think it was grandstanding on all sides for the next Presidential election. Republicans are falling overthemselves to get on record that they criticized Clinton. Clinton said some things yesterday to cover herself for 2016. Democrats in the House and Senate did likewise. I think the outcome in 2016 is more important to almost everyone involved on the Hill than getting to the bottom of Benghazi is. If McCain et al. genuinely cared about the "truth" - they would have held these hearing behind closed doors so the classified elements of what happend could have been discussed. Holding them in public tells me that the spectacle of the hearings is more important than the substance.
It is seldom I see intelligent analysis of a political even in the comments section, but this is one. What you see is what it was.
Joe in 2016!
This comment has been removed.
Rather disappointing to see some of the folks writing who though I may disagree with them often write fairly objective pieces write about this non-issue. We had a tragedy within a department and the appropriate reviews have been done, fingers pointed as usual, the issues of lines of communication raised, as usual and beyond that all we got is political nonsense.
Clinton's Chappaquidick, my God what a partisan and naive idea about politics. This will be nothing because it is nothing. On my part I'm not a big fan of Hillary's but please this a big deal. Seems as if some folks one: don't get politics and two: don't understand the DC game at all.
This comment has been removed.
Agreed I finally nothing special about her or especially instructive or outside of the loss of life horrible. A typical FUBAR that occurs in the military and in govt. on occassion. You lament it, fix it and move on. This is when politics gets stupid.
I am a big fan of Hillary. I think she is the best Sec. of State since Baker. Time and time again, she has shown her intelligence, resiliency, fortitude and skill. She showed it again at hearings where she was given faint praise then subjected to ininformed opinions in the guise of "questions." She was probably the most aware person in the room that the Stevens' Family did not want the ambassador's death politicized. The GOP exhibited its usual tone-deafness. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-14/libyan-ambassador-s-death-not-a-political-issue-says-dad.html Nevertheless, this seemed like such a wonderful opportunity for the GOP to sully a monumental 4-year effort and a building reputation against a possible political contender. They continue to be opportunistic, like bacteria in a wound. To do something like this under the cover of patriotism and chagrin is really disingenuous. Take a look at GW Bush's diplomatic outpost episodes. They far outstrip the four deaths in Benghazi. Here's one sample: " On December 6, 2004, Al-Qaeda gunmen raided the diplomatic compound at Jeddah (Saudi Arabia), killing nine Americans." Here's the link: http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-132602-US-diplomatic-missions-attacked-at--least-44-times-in-52-years This is a serious attack, but no more serious than the other 44 times it has been done in the last 52 years. But this time, it's a possible Democratic Presedential candidate.
You are a big fan of Hilary? Really? Could have fooled everyone. What part of PUBLIC life do you not understand? The democrats also take every opportunity they get to sully a potential contenders reputation. They are also opportunistic. They do it under cover of patriotism and chagrin. If this had happened to a Rep, you would have seen the same theatrics played out in reverse.
It is P O L I T I C S.
OOOOOoooo, a possible democratic candidate, so hands off? When did that rule come into effect? Do the dems practice that? Not hardly.
This comment has been removed.