What Questions About Benghazi Say About Today’s Political Climate

Partisanship has entered the discussion of a tragedy.

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 01: (L-R) U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell (Retired), former deputy director for the Intelligence and Knowledge Development Directorate (J-2) of U.S. Africa Command and former deputy commanding general of the Joint Task Force Odyssey Guard, Hoover Institution research fellow Kori Schake, Foundation for Defense of Democracies senior fellow Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Middle East Program senior associate Frederic Wehrey testify during a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee May 1, 2014 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The committee held a hearing on "Benghazi, Instability, and a New Government: Successes and Failures of U.S. Intervention in Libya."
Getty Images
Charlie Cook
May 9, 2014, 1 a.m.

For polit­ic­al ana­lysts — or at least those who try to be in­de­pend­ent and non­par­tis­an — an oc­cu­pa­tion­al haz­ard is that at al­most any giv­en time, one side or the oth­er will be angry about what you say and write. Dur­ing the run-up to the 2012 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion, many con­ser­vat­ives and Re­pub­lic­an par­tis­ans were un­happy to hear me say that a win­nable race was slip­ping away from them, some be­liev­ing all the way to Elec­tion Day that they would win. In 2010, and now in 2014, it is Demo­crats who are less than thrilled with our pro­gnost­ic­a­tions.

An­oth­er oc­cu­pa­tion­al haz­ard is cyn­icism. Elec­ted of­fi­cials and can­did­ates, along with their hand­lers, say and do things that I am pretty sure they know bet­ter than to do. Or ought to know bet­ter than to do. They at least know that there is an­oth­er im­port­ant side to every story, es­pe­cially when they de­cide to leave out per­tin­ent facts as they heave rhet­or­ic­al red meat to their party’s base. They do what they feel they need to do to max­im­ize their chances of win­ning, even if fair­ness or truth get a little bent in the pro­cess. A by-product of this tend­ency to bend the truth is that the pub­lic, or at least the slice that re­lies ex­clus­ively on ideo­lo­gic­al voices and sources for their news, can get an aw­fully one-sided per­spect­ive.

Fre­quent ques­tions have aris­en of late, mostly from con­ser­vat­ives, about the tra­gic killing of four Amer­ic­ans in Benghazi. These people have heard ques­tions raised on cable tele­vi­sion, and they haven’t heard or read sat­is­fact­ory an­swers to why and how the tragedy happened. I have no doubt that their con­cerns and ques­tions are sin­cere.

I also have no doubt that things could have been done to pre­vent the hor­rible in­cid­ent and that, in ret­ro­spect, Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials and polit­ic­al ap­pointees, as well ca­reer civil ser­vants and mem­bers of the mil­it­ary, wished they had handled some things dif­fer­ently. But many ask­ing the ques­tions seem un­aware of cer­tain facts and points of view. Last March, when Face the Na­tion mod­er­at­or Bob Schief­fer asked former De­fense Sec­ret­ary Robert Gates about Benghazi, Gates, who had left his post 14 months be­fore the at­tacks oc­curred, said, “Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my de­cisions would have been just as theirs were.” Keep­ing in mind that Gates had been ini­tially ap­poin­ted by Pres­id­ent George W. Bush and, in his book Duty: Mem­oirs of a Sec­ret­ary at War, was un­spar­ing in his cri­ti­cism of Pres­id­ent Obama and many ad­min­is­tra­tion de­cisions, this in­form­a­tion is something that people deeply con­cerned about Benghazi don’t seem to know, have for­got­ten, or con­veni­ently ig­nore.

Gates went on to say that cer­tain people seem to have a “car­toon­ish” view of mil­it­ary cap­ab­il­it­ies in such situ­ations:

“I’ve heard, ‘Well, why didn’t you just fly a fight­er jet over and try and scare ‘em with the noise or something?’ Well, giv­en the num­ber of sur­face-to-air mis­siles that have dis­ap­peared from [Muam­mar el-] Qad­dafi’s ar­sen­als, I would not have ap­proved send­ing an air­craft — a single air­craft — over Benghazi un­der those cir­cum­stances. And with re­spect to send­ing in spe­cial forces or a small group of people to try and provide help, based on everything I have read, people really didn’t know what was go­ing on in Benghazi con­tem­por­an­eously. And to send some small num­ber of spe­cial forces or oth­er troops in without know­ing what the en­vir­on­ment is, without know­ing what the threat is, without hav­ing any in­tel­li­gence in terms of what is ac­tu­ally go­ing on on the ground, I think, would have been very dan­ger­ous.”

The cyn­icism comes when one re­calls an even great­er tragedy that oc­curred on Oct. 23, 1983, when the Mar­ine bar­racks in Beirut, Le­ban­on, were bombed dur­ing Ron­ald Re­agan’s ad­min­is­tra­tion. In the latest New York­er, Jane May­er writes about hav­ing been in Beirut as a re­port­er for The Wall Street Journ­al at the time of the hor­rible bomb­ing, when 241 Amer­ic­an mil­it­ary per­son­nel, in­clud­ing 220 Mar­ines, were killed in the largest single-day loss of Mar­ines since Iwo Jima in World War II. Al­though Demo­crats con­trolled the House and Tip O’Neill was speak­er, there was little par­tis­an grand­stand­ing over the tragedy, even though mis­takes were made. As May­er notes, a gate was left open, and the per­son­nel on guard were un­der or­ders to keep their weapons un­loaded. Con­gress con­duc­ted a mat­ter-of-fact, brief in­vest­ig­a­tion, re­com­mend­a­tions were made, and every­one moved on. Scor­ing polit­ic­al points was not the name of the game, even though the loss of Amer­ic­an lives was more than 50 times great­er than in Benghazi. It was a dif­fer­ent era.

One won­ders how some of these con­ser­vat­ives would have re­acted to such cir­cum­stances. Se­lect­ive out­rage is rampant in our polit­ic­al pro­cess today. The facts are too of­ten swept to one side, or un­der the rug, for polit­ic­al pur­poses.

What We're Following See More »
WITHER TRUMP?
Jon Stewart May Debut on HBO Before the Election
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Jon Stewart could arrive on HBO in time for the November presidential election. In a Paley Media Council interview Thursday with CNN’s Brian Stelter, HBO CEO Richard Plepler was asked whether viewers could expect to see Stewart, former host of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show,” on HBO before the general election. 'Yeah, I’m hopeful,' Plepler said."

Source:
ALL RIDERS TO BE AFFECTED
Metro to Begin Rolling Closures Next Month
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Beginning next month, Metro will begin a series of "about 15 separate large-scale work projects," each of which will close down stations and/or sections of track for up to weeks at a time. The entire initiative is expected to take about a year. The Washington Post has a list of the schedule of closures, and which lines and stations they'll affect.

Source:
ANOTHER MEETING WITH PRIEBUS
Trump to Meet with Ryan, Leadership Next Week
5 hours ago
THE LATEST

A day after saying he could not yet support Donald Trump's presidential bid, House Speaker Paul Ryan has invited the billionaire to a meeting in Washington next week with House leadership. Ryan and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus will also meet separately with Trump. 

Source:
‘EXACTING STANDARDS’
Obama on Trump: ‘This Is a Really Serious Job’
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"President Obama used the White House podium on Friday to dismiss Donald Trump as an unserious candidate to succeed him, and said leading the country isn't a job that's suited to reality show antics." At a briefing with reporters, the president said, "I just want to emphasize the degree to which we are in serious times and this is a really serious job. This is not entertainment. This is not a reality show. This is a contest for the presidency of the United States. And what that means is that every candidate, every nominee needs to be subject to exacting standards and genuine scrutiny."

Source:
MORE EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Panama Papers Spur White House to Crack Down on Evasion
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS

In the The White House on Thursday night unveiled a series of executive actions to combat money laundering—"among the most comprehensive response yet to the Panama Papers revelations." The president's orders will tighten transparency rules, close loopholes that allow "foreigners to hide financial activity behind anonymous entities in the U.S., and demand stricter “customer due diligence” rules for banks.

Source:
×