The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi has become a political football, in ways that the father of slain US Ambassador Chris Stevens wants to see stopped. That’s not likely, as both sides highlight the aspects of the story to their advantage, and suppress the aspects that present vulnerabilities.
For the Obama-Biden team, they have to downplay the fact that the White House initially attributed the attack to an anti-Islam video rather than terrorism. They also have to distance from Joe Biden’s claim during the Vice Presidential debate that the top of the ticket never heard about requests for more security in Benghazi. The White House said Biden only spoke for him and the President, not the Administration as a whole, including the State Department, which did receive multiple requests.
For the Romney-Ryan ticket, they have to downplay the fact that House Republicans cut embassy security by around $300 million in the past year, as well as the fact that US embassy attacks actually dropped during the Obama Administration, and are at a low ebb generally. One sort of justifies the other, but the prescription that Romney and Ryan have put out is to increase security at embassies, including using the US Marines (which can only be deployed with the permission of the host country to safeguard intelligence information). Ryan, in the debate, also wanted to paint a picture of an out-of-control world rebelling against the United States, when the evidence for that cannot actually be found with the images out of Libya.
The incident has sparked a debate about the use of private diplomatic security along the lines of Blackwater, which sounds like the exact wrong thing to do, and which host countries have balked at. I suppose it’s natural to reach for whatever solution is on the shelf in the event of a tragedy, but I think it’s been made perfectly clear that private mercenary armies answer no questions but pose more problems. If internal diplomatic security lacks resources, the answer would be to bolster them, not to spend more money on mercenaries.
Ultimately, this line of attack appears to be subsiding. While important questions should be addressed about the Benghazi assault, the political lens just distorts it.




2 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Yes, the “political lens” distorts it but so to does the fact that both candidates and both parties (by and large) have supported both the Terror War and the Libya regime change mission, so that no one is asking the questions that should be asked, about Terror War blowback and the empowering of militants in anarchic “post-war” Libya
This post misses the point entirely.
The security was a minor point. The Administration doesn’t care about that.
What they care about is their entire policy house of cards collapsing and ANY chance of the public catching on.
Obama said he had a smarter way, and that these countries, with just some deft work by him, would begin to like us again.
Wrong. Not just the assassination or the demonstrations, but public polling in a number of the Mid East countries (I think by Pew, not a right leaner) shows that dislike for the US has actually gone UP 10% since Obama was elected.
The demonstrations were only concrete evidence of what people there (80% near) told the pollsters.
The whole “we got Osama and Al Quida is on its heels” line collapsed. First, with a successful attack and assassination, and second with thousands of demonstrators chanting, “We are all Osamas, Obama.”
The admin could not allow such to be seen and so came up with a phony story that they KNEW was false about spontaneous demonstrations, video, etc. etc. (by the way, what did “We are all Osamas, Obama,” have to do with a video trailer?)
THAT is the beef of this, THAT is the cover up.
Whether State heard of security requests or Obama heard of them is a side show.
They purposely lied to the country and world in order to coverup for their own major incompetence. Major incompetence.