Amid the burgeoning controversy over what the administration–and who in the administration–knew what, when about Benghazi, Marc Thiessen raises an important point: “the more serious scandal” is “the Obama administration’s utter failure to respond.”
As he notes, it took less than a month for the Bush administration to respond to 9/11 with an invasion of Afghanistan and less than a month (two weeks to be exact) for the Clinton administration to respond to the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya with cruise missile strikes on al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on a suspected chemical-weapons plant in Sudan. The latter strikes were utterly ineffectual–but at least the U.S. did something.
In the case of Benghazi, it has taken the FBI three weeks merely to get to Benghazi to investigate the attack which left our ambassador and three others dead, even though reporters had no problem getting to the site of the consulate immediately after the attack. The administration appears to be confused about whether to treat this as a criminal investigation or an act of war and seems, at least for the time being, to be leaning toward the former option. In this, the Benghazi attack resembles the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which both the Clinton and Bush administrations allowed to pass without a military response. Those unwittingly setting the stage for 9/11.
Admittedly, a response in the case of Libya is complicated by the fact that it has a friendly government, thus the U.S. is under pressure not to undermine that government’s standing with a unilateral military response. But the U.S. has an overriding interest in showing that attacks on our diplomats will be met with an overwhelming response–and that response has been utterly lacking so far.
It is possible, of course, that the administration is patiently collecting intelligence and waiting to strike. Admittedly action between now and the election will inevitably be criticized in some quarters as a “wag the dog” scenario but, just as they did with the 1998 strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (which occurred in the middle of the Monica Lewinsky scandal), Republicans are likely to support any military action against terrorists. Politics aside, it is imperative for the U.S. to show that this attack will not be lost in a morass of dead-end criminal investigations.
As I understand the situation, the President (or PM) of Libya was recently removed and a 'new' one installed. The removed PM robustly and almost immediately after the attack criticized the US for calling the terrorist attack a 'demonstration' and not what it clearly was. Did Obama influence the removal of the PM of Libya in order to protect his ridiculous incompetence and deviousness? This, among other aspects of this affair, raises the possibility of impeachment of Obama if the American people are idiotic enough to reelect him.
the now removed PM of Libya failed to form a governing coalition. nPlus, why would anyone think Obama has any influence in who is PM of any country?
Well, cards are on the table and election might prove who will win. It is a great achievement of democracy that people can make an informed choice or even just to have a chance to have informed choices. n n
Hi, Max nThe Benghazi event is not really fitting into the President Obama narrative that al-Qaeda is on the run and defeated because Osama Bin Laden is dead and we are droning al-Qaeda leaders (to be honest with good results). It is an election year and all (Democrats and Republicans) will play politics with this event. However, do we own those fallen four who served our country so bravely a proper American response and truth to their families and loved ones? President Obama administration failed utterly those four: there was no proper security on the ground, no attempts to respond when attack happen, and no investigating boots on the ground right after the attack. We could safe Libyan administration or council’s face after our response but instead we lost evidences and American people were misled. It might be Obama-gait and it could potentially bring administration down. If it happens, it will be not because Republicans play politics with this but despite it. n
why should we expect the Obama administration to do anything at all? remember when an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington DC was discovered? remember how Obama and Hillary bloviated about this being "unacceptable" (their favorite word) and that it would not go unpunished? what did they ever do about that? bupkes.