During an appearance on CNN’s Starting Point on Monday, the former New York City mayor argued that the administration is purposely delaying investigations into the incident until after the election to “cover up” its own failures. But asked to substantiate the claim, Giuliani became agitated. He announced that he did not have to give Obama the benefit of the doubt or withhold judgment about the incident until a full investigation is complete because the president is a DemocratThe Republicans and the conservative echo chamber are accusing the Obama administration of a cover up. I can't believe that the Obama administration is that stupid - there was simply no way they could cover it up until the election. Now I will admit they didn't exactly tell the truth but are there reasons they would do this. Was the "cover up" directed at forces outside of the United States? We now know that many if not most of the occupants of the Benghazi compound were CIA agents - was there and attempt to conceal that? Did they have some leads as to who was responsible and they wanted some time to follow up on those before it became publicly known that we knew what happened? There was more going on here than we know.
As for security James Risen reported that this is not as simply an issue as the Republican political spin would like to make us believe it is. For starters the Libyan government would not allow a lot of armed security guards. That left the State Department with two choices, accept the risk or leave. Secondly the Diplomats themselves don't like turning embassies and other facilities into armed bunkers - it makes it almost impossible for them to do their jobs. If you are going to have a bunker facility you might as well leave. While it's true that the embassy had requested some additional security it was for Tripoli not Benghazi.
One question that should be asked is why did the ambassador go to such an unprotected facility on 911? Was there a leak that let the attackers know he was there? Good questions but not the ones that are being asked on FOX news.
Tom Watson points sez the Beghazi attack and aftermath were an unprecedented exercise in transparency.
ReplyDeletehttp://chirpstory.com/li/27885
And he's right.
The most serious foreign policy challenge the president faces is not from abroad but from the so-called "loyal opposition." Anything he says or does or doesn't say or doesn't do is certain to face a spinning whiplash from political opponents.
I was on line at the time of the attack having a conversation about events in Cairo when news came via Twitter that protests were starting in Behghazi. Within a few hours, of course, came news of the casualties. But at the outset there was nothing but confusion -- not only there but in other places around the globe. Claiming that there was a "attack" not a "protest" is nothing but conjecture. And a stupid one at that.
Whatever diplomatic problems we face in that part of the world have roots decades in the making, derived from US support of tyrants. When I imagine what the ham-fisted approach of a McCain or Bolton might have been, this administration's management of the State Department for the last two years seems close to perfect.