The Benghazi Bungles Print
Politics
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Monday, 29 October 2012 06:50

I have followed the Benghazi story generally but have not said much about it to date here in this space. But as more and more information comes out about it, the debacle appears to be either evil and high cyncism that got caught in the act, or it is the result of a staggering incompetence,. And, given the fact that more than a few people had to have been involved in it, it was perhaps both.

There are at least three layers to the story/scandal. The first was the denial of additional requested security. The second was the doubledown attempt to misrepresent the nature of the attack, claiming it was a mob, protesting them a video, when it was nothing of the kind. And the third appears to have be a denial of military reinforcements during the attack, a denial that came from someone high up in the chain of command, and perhaps from the president himself. Throw into the mix some terrible optics (Obama jetting off to Vegas, Biden's classless remarks, arresting the maker of the video, etc.), and you have a perfect storm of scandal.

But it is clear that the president is playing the electoral game with it, wanting to push the "findings" of any "investigation" that might be conducted out past the election -- which they may be able to do.

What I am suggesting here is more of a thought experiment than a prediction, but I would like to ask you to work with me here. Grant me a few assumptions, and see what happens then.

Right now the president can point to the polls as evidence of a country divided right down the middle. This means that he has a certain amount of political cover for his stonewalling on the story. But if I am right about how the presidential election is going to go, and it is a Romney landslide, this means there will have been a massive repudiation of Obama on the merits, and then the scandal will erupt, full force, in the first few weeks of his time as a lame duck. This will make him the lame duck of all lame ducks -- still responsible, and unable to defend himself as he is doing now.

It is possible that these choices were made despite the fact that a video feed of the whole situation was going straight to the situation room at the White House. But whether that is the case or not, it is certain that the White House staunchly maintained that this whole thing was the result of a protesting crowd that had run amok because of an anti-Muslim video, despite knowing within hours that this could not have been the case. Obama then flies off to a fundraiser in Vegas the next day while the bodies are still warm. The administration maintains, for an insane length of time, that this was the result of that stupid video. The maker of the video is in solitary confinement for a "parole violation," and his first hearing isn't until after the election. The whole thing is simply horrific.

In other words, if people are as angry with Obama over this as they are now, what will it be like when he has no cover, after he has been repudiated electorally, and the facts start tumbling out? The information that is coming out now is being leaked -- some people are settling scores, others are just covering their butt, and others are trying to manage a job into the next administration. In other words, people are betting on the election. There will or will not be a transition of power in the next few months in Washington, and a number of functionaries are betting (with their leaks) that Romney will take it. So what will the leaks be like a week from now when everybody knows that Romney has taken it? What will it be like when it becomes apparent that there will be hearings in the House and the Senate, and, given the realities of modern warfare, there is a paper/video trail for absolutely every element of this farce?

Note that I am not talking about what Romney and the congressional Republicans will do. I am talking about what all the people with damning evidence will believe the Republicans will do, and what they will do with the media as a result and in the meantime.

 

 



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Rob Steele  Monday, October 29, 2012 9:17 am
Should be a circus once the MSM turns on him. If I were in charge of ironic plot twists I would make Obama's fecklessness a pose hiding a noble and principled patriotism. This would all be part of a secret operation to pants the mullahs or something.
Dan Phillips (Pyromaniacs)  Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:05 am
"Should be a circus once the MSM turns on him."

You mean November 8?
Brian  Monday, October 29, 2012 10:49 am
It seems you meant to write 'cynicism' in "...either evil and high cyncism that got caught...."

Sad to see so much of the media and the population being represented so accurately since they also could care less.
Eric Stampher  Monday, October 29, 2012 2:03 pm
Speculate us if'n the President wins another four. Can he bury this?
Matt Weber  Monday, October 29, 2012 8:09 pm
O's main goal is to avoid the perception of having caused a mini-Iraq: taking a stable country and turning it into an anarchic hellhole. Romney can and should attack on the cover-up, but his options are limited due to his enthusiastic agreement with the initial operation. He doesn't want Libya to be seen as a boondoggle any more than Obama does.
Jonathan  Tuesday, October 30, 2012 9:20 am
Is Libya an "anarchic hellhole" or a "boondoggle"? I honestly haven't read a lot coming out of Libya, but that's definitely not a narrative I'm familiar with. And considering that the early storyline was that Obama was "leading from behind" in assisting the rebels, how would Obama be blamed for the new situation?

I opposed Obama's actions in Libya, and still don't support them. But so far the transition to Democratic government appears to be going far better than it did in Iraq, with less violence, quicker elections, and more reputable people winning elections.

Also, in terms of freedom, Libya was won of the least free countries in the world last year, however "stable" it was. Though I don't agree with how it was fought, I think that stability should not be praised at that cost.
Jeanette Faulkner  Friday, November 02, 2012 6:51 pm
Pastor Wilson,

I know you have great sources. You might want to check into what happened to all the arms that were sent into that country to help the civilians overthrow Kadafi. You may have noticed that the letters CIA have been in every news story about Benghazi. You may wonder how someone might want to get those arms out of Libya to say,...someplace else they're now be needed in the Middle East and how certain nations might react to such a covert effort. Perhaps your sources can inform you as to why details have been so hard to get and why a major political candidate might be loathe to talk too much about Benghazi. Perhaps this is an even greater outrage than bungling or cynicism. If so, How Should We Then Live?