"Minimizing Behghazi" the accusation
Ever since the attack on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya took place opponents of the administration have implied or asserted that the President minimized or hid the possibility that the attack was intentional and not part of a demonstration by outraged local Muslims triggered by the stupid movie trailer insulting Islam on YouTube.
And I find myself thinking, " hmmmm. Why would the President do that?". After all, one of the strongest rallying points incumbents can claim is the need for the country to 'rally around' because we're under attack. Instead, the State Department and the Obama administration made conditional, rational comments coupled with a strong message that whomever was at fault would be chased down and served justice. The best thing for them to have done in election terms would have been to inflame public sentiment. And that's not what happened. They acted like folks who didn't have all the information at their fingertips immediately, folks who aren't on a CSI show where everything is resolved in 42 minutes. Truly strange. Their response was pretty darned professional, acknowledging that they didn't know everything.
Not long after the attack, a congressional Intelligence Committee hearing was convened. And that is probably reasonable because the matter was serious and there were concerns being expressed about the security configuration at the Benghazi site. It is not unusual for congressional hearings on Intelligence matters to be 'closed' hearings in order to allow candor from those summoned to testify and to avoid giving information about our security services away. Not in this case. The hearing was public and without too much ado aerial photograghs and testimony revealed top secret security service facilities. The hearing ended up with many people flustered and did nothing to aid the protection of our diplomatic personnel.
Did President Obama and the inner circle in the White House get calls for more security at the station in Benghazi and heartlessly turn it down? That's the assertion that's being fronted by many Republicans. I return to my first question. Why would a crazed president willing to do anything to be reelected not play the 'we're under attack card'? And is it credible to think that the President has regular daily knowledge of the status of hundreds of State Dept postings across the world? How about all the NOAA weather facilities? Or maybe what's going on in each USAID site? It's a crazy assertion.
We got badly burned in Benghazi. Good men died. And it was on 9/11 which is not to be discounted. For me I can't fault the President's response and I think it's a long dry stretch to make the case that he somehow 'conspired' about something related to it.
And I find myself thinking, " hmmmm. Why would the President do that?". After all, one of the strongest rallying points incumbents can claim is the need for the country to 'rally around' because we're under attack. Instead, the State Department and the Obama administration made conditional, rational comments coupled with a strong message that whomever was at fault would be chased down and served justice. The best thing for them to have done in election terms would have been to inflame public sentiment. And that's not what happened. They acted like folks who didn't have all the information at their fingertips immediately, folks who aren't on a CSI show where everything is resolved in 42 minutes. Truly strange. Their response was pretty darned professional, acknowledging that they didn't know everything.
Not long after the attack, a congressional Intelligence Committee hearing was convened. And that is probably reasonable because the matter was serious and there were concerns being expressed about the security configuration at the Benghazi site. It is not unusual for congressional hearings on Intelligence matters to be 'closed' hearings in order to allow candor from those summoned to testify and to avoid giving information about our security services away. Not in this case. The hearing was public and without too much ado aerial photograghs and testimony revealed top secret security service facilities. The hearing ended up with many people flustered and did nothing to aid the protection of our diplomatic personnel.
Did President Obama and the inner circle in the White House get calls for more security at the station in Benghazi and heartlessly turn it down? That's the assertion that's being fronted by many Republicans. I return to my first question. Why would a crazed president willing to do anything to be reelected not play the 'we're under attack card'? And is it credible to think that the President has regular daily knowledge of the status of hundreds of State Dept postings across the world? How about all the NOAA weather facilities? Or maybe what's going on in each USAID site? It's a crazy assertion.
We got badly burned in Benghazi. Good men died. And it was on 9/11 which is not to be discounted. For me I can't fault the President's response and I think it's a long dry stretch to make the case that he somehow 'conspired' about something related to it.
Comments