Let’s get straight exactly what the issue is:
Before the anniversary of 9/11 this year, there was credible intelligence that the Benghazi consulate would be attacked. Al-Qaida had issued a call for revenge against Americans for the drone killing of one of its leaders.
The security officials in the region urgently requested that additional security be provided. The state department turned them down. Ambassador Stevens’ personal journal also said he was very worried about the security situation.
The requests for additional security were not honored. In testimony last week, one official said that he asked for 12 additional security officers, and was told by the state department that he might as well as for the sun, the moon, and the stars.
On Sept 11, the consulate was approached by a group of heavily armed men and attacked. The attack lasted about 5 hours, and at the end Ambassador Stevens and several other Americans were dead, and the al-Qaida flag was raised over the consulate.
Those are the basic facts as to what happened. Now, the scandal, as usual, is more about the attempted cover-up than anything. This is what the administration did about this:
First, they came out with a story that said that there was a riot in front of the consulate due to an anti-American video published on Youtube. No one knows how they came to this conclusion, but it was flatly untrue. Bear in mind that there were Americans on the ground shortly after the attack in Benghazi, and they’ve testified that it was immediately obvious that there was no riot, and that this was a planned terrorist attack. The Libyan government also contradicted this story.
The administration claims that they didn’t know this, and that when they found out, they changed their story to match new evidence. But the facts show that the administration knew exactly what had happened within 24 hours, and they continued to peddle the video/mob storyline for at least 5 days. The administration also claims that it received no requests for additional security, and seems to have blamed the State Department for not passing the requests up the chain. The State Department apparently disagrees, but this is still under dispute.
In any event, it’s clear that the administration kept on telling the media that this video was to blame long after they knew it was a terrorist attack. And the maker of the video was arrested in the middle of the night in front of cameras and hauled away surrounded by guards. The purported reason was a probation violation (not even a parole violation as some have reported), but in fact it’s pretty clear to everyone that this was an attempt to show the Muslim world that the U.S. was ‘doing something’, and also to help deflect blame for this attack on the filmmaker. Pretty sleazy stuff.
As for motive, the obvious one is that it’s much better for the administration in an election season to portray this as random violence, because otherwise it damages the narrative that Obama has successfully hunted down al-Qaida’s leadership and destroyed it, that peace is blossoming and al-Qaida is on the run, and that the administration’s foreign policy is a resounding success. But if it’s a terrorist attack, then suddenly al-Qaida doesn’t look so weak, and it opens up all kinds of questions regarding the administration’s policies and whether it had done enough to protect its people in the middle east.
That’s the essence of the scandal - the administration attempted to portray a terror attack as random mob violence in order to avoid difficult questions about its policies during an election season.
Republicans are also trying to make hay out of a few other things. One is that there is a report that Obama was informed of the attack at 12:30 AM, and responded by going to bed while the attack raged on for 5 hours. This is the Republican version of the ‘my pet goat’ attacks against Bush for continuing to read to some children for a few minutes after he was notified of the attacks on 9/11.
Another issue is whether the U.S. government actually helped to inflame Muslims by referring to a video that was relatively obscure up to that point, but which was now known around the world. After the attack (and the administration’s blaming of this video), there were riots at a number of other embassies in the Muslim world.
There are 1st Amendment issues here as well. Apparently, the government requested that Google review its policies to verify that the video was in compliance, which could be interpreted as subtle pressure to pull the video. Google refused, citing the 1st amendment rights of the filmmaker. Then the filmmaker himself was arrested on specious grounds in a very public manner. That is also very troubling - the notion that if you say or write or produce something the government doesn’t like, agents will look for any justification they can find to arrest you and haul you in.
Then there’s the issue of Obama skipping his intelligence briefings, and in particular the intelligence briefing on 9/11. Obama claims that he’s just so brilliant that he doesn’t have to be there, because he gets the transcript and studies it and learns more that way. Frankly, I find this laughable. As someone who has to attend a lot of meetings, I understand the value of being there in person to be able to ask questions, see facial expressions, pick up nuances, etc. If reading transcripts of a meeting was as good as actually being there, we could get rid of a lot of meetings and just send notes to everyone. In any event, it would be interesting to know if the risks in Benghazi were raised in that meeting or any earlier ones Obama didn’t attend.