Las Vegas Sun

October 25, 2014

Currently: 86° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

OTHER VOICES:

Real scandal of Benghazi

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.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Benghazi scandal.

The scandal is that Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and some Republican colleagues are dishonoring the memory of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans by making a political circus out of their deaths.

As chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Issa is ready to manipulate the pain and anger of relatives and colleagues of the victims but shows little interest in making U.S. diplomats safer. The hearing he held last week ignored the real issues raised by Benghazi in favor of promoting conspiracy theories about “talking points” that administration officials used after the tragedy.

The Benghazi-mongers think they’ve found a new Watergate, even though their claims fall apart upon examination. “I’d call it a cover-up,” intoned Sen. John McCain, who should know better, on ABC’s “This Week.” They distort, or ignore, the real issues raised by the attacks — Why was security so inadequate? How can it be improved? — in favor of theatrics.

So let’s look at which Benghazi issues are real — and which are not.

Atop the nonissue category are the famous “talking points.” Here are the key details: Shortly after the attacks, the deputy head of the House intelligence committee asked the intelligence community for some talking points on what had happened so that he could publicly comment without revealing any secrets (including the fact that the Benghazi “consulate” was mainly a CIA station).

Bureaucratic caution, and a CIA-State Department tussle over which agency would take more heat for the tragedy, led to a set of watered-down talking points that mentioned “extremists” but not terrorists. Then-CIA head David Petraeus testified in November that any reference to al-Qaida was removed to avoid tipping off the perpetrators, which was verified in emails released Wednesday by the White House. Yet, Republicans still insist there was a nefarious White House plot to withhold the “truth.”

Much more relevant is the question of why security at the Benghazi facilities was so inadequate. Here, too, political posturing has muddied the facts.

An accountability review headed by Adm. Mike Mullen, former head of the Joint Chiefs, and retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering slammed senior State Department officials for relying on local militias for security, and for ignoring requests for more guards at the Tripoli embassy.

Three senior State Department officials were forced out (perhaps the sweep should have included Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy). But Issa charged that the review was “flawed,” even though senior officials have almost never been fired in many previous cases where U.S. personnel were killed abroad because of official lapses, including the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, or the 1998 bombings by al-Qaida of two U.S. embassies in East Africa.

Issa could have used the Mullen-Pickering review as an excuse to rethink Republican efforts to cut funding for State Department security, a critical issue as the department expands its security personnel dramatically in the wake of Benghazi, but faces sequester cuts. Instead, Issa focused on the political, on whether former Secretary of State (and potential 2016 candidate) Hillary Clinton was to blame for Benghazi “because it was on her watch.”

On another critical issue — why rescue efforts were so tardy — Issa again chose circus over substance. The Pentagon insists it had no forces readily available to dispatch to Benghazi. The nearest AC-130 gunship was in Afghanistan, Delta Forces commandos were in Fort Bragg, N.C., and there were no armed drones within range of Libya. The U.S. Africa Command has no rapid strike force to respond to emergencies.

This inability to respond raises serious issues about readiness. Then-Sen. John Kerry was correct to ask late last year whether the military needs to play a greater role in protecting diplomats in dangerous regions.

But rather than examine such questions, Issa insisted, despite Pentagon denials, that the military could have sent planes to relieve Benghazi. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who has served under Republicans and Democrats, called Issa’s idea a “cartoonish impression of military capabilities.” Given the number of surface-to-air missiles in jihadi hands, Gates said he would have nixed such a mission, which couldn’t have saved the men on the ground.

That won’t stop the Benghazi-mongers from hinting that the White House deliberately let Stevens die. Nor will it shame them into working in bipartisan fashion to prevent future attacks. That’s the real Benghazi scandal, right there.

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 6 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. The column is spot on. The political silly season is in full bloom, as if it ever stopped in the first place, after the 2012 election. Karl Rove's Super Pac has already generated a political attack ad on Hillary Clinton, in the assumption that she will run for president in 2016. The ad uses the incident in Benghazi as a backdrop, of course. No one who follows politics can come up with a plausible denial that the Benghazi issue has been totally and irretrievably politicized. That genie is out of the bottle, and will be used from now until (a) Hillary decides not to run in 2016 or (b) another trumped up "scandal" takes it's place.

  2. Perhaps when the columnist authored this piece Benghazi, Libya was the only scandal and the author was right. In the meantime, one week, 2 more puzzles arose: I.R.S. and DOJ. Are more on the way? The issue is trust or better still the lack thereof. If and when Americans lose trust in their leaders and government then there is irretrievable damage. Americans historically hold someone responsible for the damage. That someone is called the President.

    Carmine D

  3. Not caved, just put into proper perspective. The issue is no longer about "a" scandal, it about trust in government, or better to say the lack thereof. The latter is far more significant than the former.

    Carmine D

  4. RHG58: Your crocodile tears over 4 unfortunates in Benghazi really moves me. LOL. The true 9/11 cost over 3k lives and happened on American soil. Where is the comparison? There is none. Get over your little heartfelt sorrow over 4 dead, and move on to reality. Bush and his criminal cabal got away with far more, and the fact is the Iraq war was created by lies and cost an additional 4k plus American lives in the process. I'll trade 4 lives for 7k plus lives any day, any time. Shed some fake tears for the 60 foreign service personnel who died on GWB'S watch. Who is responsible for all of that? Bush. And who received a pass from Obama, in the process, in 2008? Bush. By the way, what difference DOES it make now? NONE.

  5. This article completely failed to address two things?

    1- Why did the Obama Administration fabricate a completely false story to cover-up the Benghazi attack? To answer that question you have to understand why the attack took place to begin with.

    2- Why did the attack take place to begin with? When we learn that Ambassador Stevens was directly involved; coordinating the shipment of the surface to air missiles from Libya to Syria in support of the Muslim Brotherhood which changed the course of the war in that country, then you will understand that the urgency Obama has in covering this attack up, and disparaging any investigation.

  6. Call your congressman and urge him/her/it to sign onto and support House Resolution 36.