Who Politicized Benghazi?

from http://www.geneveith.com/2012/10/17/so-who-won-this-debate/

Dan October 17, 2012 at 10:26 am

It is a shame when the first death of a US ambassador is politicized. What has politicized it?
On 9/11/12 US embassies around the world were surrounded by protesters. This was not the case in Benghazi. In Egypt, though, where the embassy was assaulted, the embassy staff communicated apologies for the anti-Muhammad video and said unfortunate things regarding American freedom of speech.

Before it was known that Ambassador Stevens was killed, Mitt Romney released a statement criticizing the Egyptian embassy for its “apology.” Romney’s statement was essentially a pointed version of the walking back the State Department also made regarding the embassy statements. The Obama campaign, despite the essential agreement between Romney and State, criticized sharply the “politicization” of Romney’s statement.

Then we- the American public- found out about Ambassador Stevens’ death. The State Department had known about this from the moment it was happening. They had been on the phone with people in Benghazi while the attack- which had no connection to any Libyan protest- was occurring.

In President Obama’s comments the day after, he condemns the “attack” in the third paragraph. In the fourth paragraph he speaks about the video not justifying the general violence of the region. In the eighth paragraph he talks about the 9/11/01, tying together the 9/11/01 deaths, the soldiers who died in Afghanistan’s war, and the death of Ambassador Stevens. In the tenth paragraph, he says, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.”

Because the statement was unclear, follow-up questions were asked over the course of the next two weeks. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied that it was a terrorist attack. Ambassador Rice denied that it was a terrorist attack. President Obama said we did not know if it was a terrorist attack. Instead, the video-led-to-riots narrative was used as an explanation for what happened. For a summary, re-watch how President Obama discussed this with Letterman. He said there, “Here’s what happened. You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who — who is an extremely offensive video directed at — at Mohammed and Islam, making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. This caused great offence in much of the much of the Muslim world. But what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies.”

There was no protesting mob in Benghazi. The State Department is on record saying they knew this from the beginning.

In the debate last night, President Obama said, “The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”

This comment was indistinct enough to be worth clarifying. CNN had previously reported that September 20th was the first time the Obama administration had called the attack “terrorism.” Romney was right in his follow-up that the President might be making news if he would clarify his comments. If the President had believed the event to be a terror attack on 9/12, it raises questions on why the White House line was so different.

Romney was teeing this up in the debate. He asked the President to give a clear answer. The President would not give a clear affirmation, saying only, “Please proceed, governor.” Before Romney could draw out the implications of contradiction, Crowley intervened. She said, “He did call it an act of terror.” Applause broke out from the crowd. Video shows that Michelle Obama was one of the ones applauding.

The debate rules were left shattered at this point. A moderator is not supposed to fact check in a debate, nor is a crowd supposed to cheer or boo, because it is important to let the two debaters set the first impression of what happened. Fact checking after the debate is important. During the debate, however, any time an opponent decides to counter an assertion he brings more attention to it. The two debaters should be allowed to decide which assertions need correction and which do not.

The intervention on President Obama’s behalf by Crowley and the first lady and others in the crowd skewed the debate at this crucial point. Because Crowley cut off discussion soon after, Romney was left looking like he did not know what the President said. Only after the debate did Crowley admit that Romney was “right in the main.” Of course, he was also right in the specific. Romney had asked, “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?” Obama had not used the singular in his comments on 9/12, and the president had also then implied a connection to the spontaneous demonstration.

Crowley’s response to this question was the exact opposite of Martha Raddatz’ in the VP debate. Given that neither POTUS nor the Vice President have been available to answer questions on this topic, a journalist should hunger for an opportunity to clarify the record here. Raddatz did ask follow-up questions that made news last week. She made news for what VP Biden said. Crowley made news for what she said.

What is at stake here? President Obama’s Libya policy was to allow Europe to take the point position and to keep all American boots off the ground. If he had succeeded in Libya with this strategy it would be influential in how we consider using American influence in future events like these.

But the refusal to put American soldiers into Libya- even after the embassy had requested more security- had the cost of the lives of our Ambassador and three other Americans. The successful attack further emboldens Al-Qaeda. Remember what an impact Somalia had on Bin Laden’s strategy. How much more so will the death of the ambassador impact ongoing Al-Qaeda strategy?

The President’s administration has incredible incentive to cover this up. If he will not make himself available to the press, is Romney supposed to say nothing? Romney’s handling of this has appeared to me to be very restrained, in fact. (Partisans on Romney’s behalf have not been as restrained, I agree.)

To me, the debate is the side show. The unanswered Libya questions and the response by some- not all, not Raddatz, e.g.- in the fourth estate is outrageous. Watergate was a cover up of a campaign break-in. Scooter Libby went to jail for the “cover-up” of a CIA agent’s outing. This is a potential cover-up of Al-Qaeda’s murder of our Ambassador. That it was an incompetent, ineffective cover-up does not excuse it.