Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sunday, Nov. 18, 2012 | 2 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
Conservatives in Washington have been loudly complaining about the Obama administration’s response to the attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed in the September attack.
Sensing a campaign issue, Republicans trumpeted the attacks as a sign of the administration’s weakness. Although their candidate lost and the election is over, Republicans in Congress have continued to pursue this in a way that shows they are trying to gain a political advantage. There have been serious allegations about how the Obama administration responded, and Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham have gone so far as to call for Watergate-style hearings.
That demand is stunning because it suggests that the president was involved in a nefarious cover-up. It’s a baseless and dangerous claim, and it’s the type of rhetoric that has encouraged conspiracy theorists over the past four years to press their insatiable demand for “proof” — and the facts be damned — to refute rumor, speculation and innuendo. (Remember, President Barack Obama’s birth certificate and the word of Hawaii’s Republican governor as to its authenticity weren’t enough to prove his citizenship to some of the people the GOP counts in its base.)
It is a shame that McCain and Graham would cater to the tin-foil hat crowd, especially in a situation of this magnitude.
Of course, the Obama administration did itself no favors with its muddled public statements in the days after the attack. However, according to reports from the congressional hearings this past week, those statements appear to reflect the different and conflicting lines of intelligence that developed after the chaotic and tragic event.
Instead of taking the Republican tack by looking for facts to support their conclusions, lawmakers investigating the Benghazi attack should carefully consider the situation in context and figure out how to improve intelligence and security. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.
Despite the Republican hyperbole, this was not the first attack on an American diplomatic mission. The University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism has catalogued hundreds of attacks against American diplomatic targets since 1970. According to an analysis of the consortium’s data by Mother Jones magazine, attacks on American diplomatic targets peaked under Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. In George W. Bush’s two terms in office, there were 64 attacks. Did we miss McCain and Graham’s calls for Watergate-style hearings then?
The questions about security are real, and Congress should consider how the nation protects its embassies and consulates. There’s a sense that Marines guard all of the United States’ foreign missions, but that isn’t the case. About 1,200 trained, armed Marines are stationed at about 150 of the nation’s embassies and consulates — about half of all of the diplomatic missions. Do the math and consider how many Marines that is for each mission.
Also, the Marines’ duty is to provide “internal security.” Although the State Department also provides security officers, the protection of embassies from outside attackers is, by international treaty, the responsibility of the host government.
As Congress considers what happened and how the nation protects diplomats and embassies, it shouldn’t lose sight of its own role. Some of the House Republicans who have been screaming loudest have voted for cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from the State Department’s budget for security.
If the country is to learn anything from this and move forward, it is going to have to have a sober conversation about the situation, what can be learned and what should be done. The deaths of a U.S. ambassador and American personnel are a serious matter, and the way they have been bandied about for political gain has been unconscionable.
If the attack on the consulate was so "well coordinated" why did it take 7 hours to be ended? Security consisted of a couple of lightly armed former SEALS, working as contracted security. What was the actual reason for alleged CIA presence at the consulate? I hope we find out soon, and put this debacle to rest. It took a guy driving a truck bomb about a minute to kill over 200 Marines in Beirut. Seems the same method could have been used in Benghazi. Just sayin'.
What lessons learned?
The investigation is still on-going. I believe it will end around the year 2054.
Today's (Sunday 11/18th) Sun online headliners scream 9 sports stories, 2 crime stories and 2 puffy full good stories.
Wow.....what an awesome news machine you have built.
Do you have like 3 news reporters or something?
@SgtRock: Agreed. The Sun reminds me of watching Chris Mathews. They almost refuse to print any news stories that have anything to do with Libya, or Fast and Furious or any other story that makes the WH look bad. But we're stuck with this overly bias rag. Its a shame too.
There are those among us who, because they are very sore losers, and have so much hate for this particular President of United States, that they will see any perceived 'failure' of the Administration as an 'OPPORTUNITY' to make some political hay...
and while Americans should know & care about what happens in Libya or any other outpost in which we have a presence, THIS...is not about THAT...
It's ALL ABOUT political opportunity for sore loser Right-Wing politicians, & for their lemmings that sit on their ample arses in front of FOX all day and hang on every word like their hearin' the Gospel of Jesus, just a' waitin' to give em' an AMMMMEN!
Right now, they're all SALIVATING & PANTING.
Here's video of Joe Heck trying to make HIS political hay, to feed both himself & his herd, and looking just like a GOAT in so doing.
http://americablog.com/2012/11/soledad-o...
Republicans are asking questions because the Democrat Party controlled media like the supposed "journalists" that write for this rag have decided their job is to protect the president instead of finding out what the truth is in this matter. As far as these media frauds are concerned covering Obama's butt is more important then finding out why our ambassador and 3 others where left to die in our embassy in Libya.Of course you can bet they would be singing a different tune if this had happened with a Republican administration in power
An "embassy" is the formal location of an ambassador's office and staff. An ambassador is the formal representative of one head of state to another. A country will have only one ambassador/embassy in another country. The US embassy in Libya is at Walie Al-Ahed Road -- Sidi Slim Area, in Tripoli. The Benghazi establishment was not an "embassy."
A US Consulate is a business office dealing primarily with personal, but officially-related, affairs of the citizens of the US as well as such affairs of citizens of the host country affecting the United States: example - issuing passports and visas. The Embassy will also commonly have a Consulate section to deal with such. There may be multiple consulates in the host country. A consulate is headed by a consul-general. The US State Department reports no consulates in Libya, other than the one co-located with the embassy. Neither State nor the news media has ever referred to the presence of a consul-general in Benghazi. It appears that the Benghazi establishment was not a "consulate."
Missions may be established to deal with a variety of specific problems - trade, agriculture, education, etc. Clandestine missions may also be established for various purposes. The US Embassy is in Tripoli; there is no Consul-General in Benghazi; it appears that the installation in Benghazi was no more than a "mission." The fact that its occupants called for CIA help in defense, is indicative of an intelligence mission. Indeed, one early report is that Benghazi was established to coordinate responses by the US government (particularly the CIA) and various Middle East governments to the events of the "Arab Spring" uprisings. As such, there is a valid argument that it constituted a legitimate target: that military intervention to defend the place was not desirable to avoid exposing it to too much publicity. Additionally discussions of the events would be highly classified, controlled, and spun by the intelligence apparatus: information reaching the public would be highly censored and unreliable. In those circumstances, release of factual data, even if such were available on the spur of the moment, would be blocked, and politicians of BOTH parties would argue that ANY failure to do so would be a major risk to national security.
No matter WHAT MS Rice said, someone was bound to sic a dog on her.
Liberals are nothing but political animals and as such look through their restricted lenses that everything is for "political gain." Therefore, if the Republicans are asking the hard questions why there was no protection given to the ambassador during an obvious terrorist attack and why the cover up that followed for two weeks later.
Watergate was about a burglary and no one was killed. Yet it was a cover up initiated by a US president. Back then atleast the news media did its job and looked into the affair. Now, the news media is a lapodog for the dems and are helping to cover the Benghazi affair. Shame on the LVSun for being a part of this. No wonder this newspaper turned from being a successful morning paper 30 years ago to a liberal rag supplement to its competitor the LJ today.
The very minute that Obama was sworn in to the office of the President on 1-20-2009, the attacks on President Obama, his staff, and his department secretaries began.
The radical extremist republicans dusted off the same playbook they used against President Clinton. They have accused President Obama of anything and everything, just like they did to Clinton.
The Benghazi incident is just another witch hunt by the radical extremist republicans that have majority control of the House of Representatives.
What do they do when they aren't witch hunting? They have obstructed and sabotaged the economy so they could blame Obama and gain politically.
They also passed the Ryan plan twice, repealed Obamacare 33 times, renamed post offices, and made many "Bills to Nowhere."
Is this what we pay $174,000 per year for the Republican Obstructionists to do?
Don't you think it is way past time for the so-called republicans to stop their obstruction and take care of the people's business?
Give your Republican Representative a call and tell them to stop with their sadistic obstruction that harms your fellow hard pressed Nevadans.
renorobert,
Thank you for your informative comment. Very good points on reality.
Inept leadership and the ensuing cover-up shouldn't be investigated?
Renorobert:
Your posts lately have been brilliant. I have been trying to figure out some logical basis for the Republicans peeing their pants over whatever happened, but there's nothing there except the wet spot on their pants.
It seems like in hindsight they want a new way of protecting diplomatic representatives that we have never done previously and a pound of flesh from Obama and democratic reps in Congress.
More defense spending and outrage against the Muslim brother from Kenya in the White House instead of being Americans intent upon capturing the KILLERS.
This current crop of Republicans are useless.
What part of a lie don't you get? The President and the media both misrepresented the actual details for personal and political gain, they all do it, but to defend it is deplorable. Good Grief!
Warrior and the rest of you conspiracy theorists:
From the AP:
"The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to alert them that U.S. intelligence was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended Petraeus' private briefings.
He also said it initially was unclear whether the militants had infiltrated a demonstration to cover their attack.
The retired four-star general addressed the House and Senate intelligence committees in back-to-back, closed-door hearings as questions persist over what the Obama administration knew in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and why its public description did not match intelligence agencies' assessments.
After the hearings, lawmakers who questioned Petraeus said he testified that the CIA's draft talking points in response to the assault on the diplomatic post in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. Petraeus said that reference was removed from the final version, although he wasn't sure which federal agency deleted it.
Adding to the explanation, a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the points said later that a reason the references to al-Qaida were deleted was that the information came from classified sources and the links were, and still are, tenuous. The administration also did not want to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages, that official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the process publicly.
Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not done for political reasons during President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.
"The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. "He completely debunked that idea."
"There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process," Schiff said. "They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information.""
I add: The process playing out would have the republicans take away the tactic of misdirection to ensnare our enemies and people who have, in cold blood, murdered our neighbors.
Republicans need to stand down, then stand back up again as Americans.
Since we have posters here who have all the answers, then try this question. President Obama, the Commander-in-Chief, said numerous times, we don't abandon Americans. He says he gave the order to his Sec Def Leon Panetta to do whatever is necessary to save the Americans in the Consulate and CIA Annex. Right? Tell me what exactly was done was done to help the 4 American heroes who were murdered? That's why we have Congressional hearings and investigations. And like it or not these have consequences.
CarmineD
The republican members of congress see this as yet another way to take the heat off themselves for the dismal job they have been doing and make their ignorant followers blame an ambassador and the President for everything that is wrong with the world.
<<renorobert,
Thank you for your informative comment. Very good points on reality>>
<<Your posts lately have been brilliant>>
Agree with Peacelilly's and JefffromVegas' (11/19 7:31am) comments.
"The republican members of congress see this as yet another way to take the heat off themselves for the dismal job they have been doing.." @antigov
Senator Feinstein from California, Chair of the Senate Intel Committee and heading up the Senate Intel investigation/hearing, is a Democrat.
CarmineD
Comment removed by moderator. Same (or similar) comment posted on multiple stories.
JeffFromVegas: It's obvious why the Republican'ts are so upset about the raid on Benghazi. It's just another of their childish attempts to embarrass a Black, Democratic President. They couldn't convince us to vote him out, so they're trying plan "AAL" (no, not plan B, they tried that in January 2009...) After all, none of the raids under W were worthy of a comment, and they voted against proposals to increase security, so it can't be the sole fact of the raid that is so upsetting.
Other Considerations - If this was a diplomatic mission, why did State call CIA for help, rather than Defense? Did the Defense order for troops loading up in Europe to "stand down" originate with the CIA? Who then promptly classified that fact? If that's the case, we'll never know: any such CIA action would be classified about as high as the system allows.
Allowing the issue of the ambassador and his would-be rescuers in Benghazi being murdered, the embassy destroyed, the lies the administration perpetrated and continues to, the cover-up of the president giving a stand-down order and the idea that 0bama could have been watching the whole thing in the situation room, to pass with impunity would be to have made the incident a campaign talking point only. The issue is indicative of the fraudulent re-election of the coutnerfeit-in-chief and deserves it's due attention. 0bama and those involved need to be punished to the limit of the law, in this case, impeachment, conviction, and incarceration. Anything less is a slap in the face of those who protect our nation, its citizens, our freedoms, and yes, even the frauds like 0bama.
Carmine,renorob,antigov, et al.
Wrong. Most Americans who have taken the time to educate themselves on 0bama and the issues du jour can actually see 0bama for who he is and haven't drunk the Kool-Aid you have. Face it, you voted for 0. and Reid,probably twice, at least--that says it all. This isn't about embarrassing the fraud-in-chief, Black, White, Pink, no one cares. We would have loved Alan Keyes or Herman Cain, had either one of them won the primary; both being true patriots, not counterfeits like 0 from Kenya is. This is about the truth of what happened. 0. has a habit of blaming everyone else and taking responsibility for nothing, but claiming victory for all things good, which happens in spite of him. All of his declarations of not leaving behind Americans are talking points for his ongoing campaign, and all in retrospect. The truth of the matter is, our kids are still stuck in Iraq, Afghanistan, and scattered around the globe in embassies like Benghazi, subject to the whims of a violent tide against Americans, with little and no real support from the so-called leaders in the White House and his administration.
Do some homework on your favorite czars. You might start with Bill Ayers, Cass Sunstein, and move on from there. One and all communists. Valerie Jerrett's father in law a leader in the muslim brotherhood.
I dare you to find out for yourself. I bet you won't, though, because libs just want to believe the lies.
John McCain is trying to set up this hearings thing so he can get a job. He is being dropped from this committee the beginning of the year.
As for this hole affair its all republican BS politics.
With a republicans congressmen rating of 10% you voted an other republican in to do nothing more the stir the pot and do nothing for the country!!
Why