Imagine it is September 11th of 2004 and the US Ambassador in Middle Eastern country and 3 others are killed in a terror attack. Let us also suppose that said ambassador had sent multiple requests for added security and reported that there had been attacks on the embassy. Further, let us say that the British ambassador had been withdrawn on account of a terrorist attack. Moreover, let us say that the embassy reported the day before the attack that terrorists were massing and that the embassy's locally-hired security forces (not US Marines) appeared to be casing the embassy. Would the press treat this as a distraction from the campaign? Would they paint it as an effort by the Kerry campaign to draw attention away from the Swift Boaters?
Suppose it was discovered in the aftermath that a former Navy Seal had requested permission to aid the besieged embassy and was refused. Not once. Not twice. No, three times. He finally ignored the order and went to assist anyway. Would the press not demand the identity of the person who told the Navy Seal to stand down?
Assume that the attack on Americans proceeded for 7 hours and the US had forces one hour away but those forces were not dispatched. Let us suppose that there were drones in the sky that supplied live pictures of the attack to the Situation Room at the White House and there was also constant contact between embassy staff and the State Department. Now, suppose that the administration said it didn't act because it didn't know what was happening. On top of that, let us say that the administration had reduced the security present at the embassy the previous month despite the protest of the head of security and the ambassador.
Suppose the President and his administration had claimed that the attack grew from a protest of a YouTube video that got out of hand. Presume that the administration continued that claim for two weeks. Then we learn that there was no protest. All had been quiet on the streets at 8 pm, not a protester in sight. Also, such had been reported to the Situation Room at the time. Would the press be disinterested in such revelations?
Obviously, there would be calls for everyone involved in the fiasco to be fired for incompetence and the press would hammer the president for failing to aid Americans. The event would be the story of the ongoing presidential campaign and every question to the president or the administration would have asked about it. It would have destroyed President Bush's re-election bid if such had happened, and rightly so.
As it happens, everything above has happened but Barack Obama is president and the media are letting the story slide. To pursue the story is to torpedo the re-election of their candidate. Whether Obama is re-elected or not, the truth about Benghazi will come out. If he is in office, it will be a massive blow to his presidency. This isn't sex with an intern that can be overlooked by saying "move on" or "it's only sex." Nor is this a burglary cover-up by the administration. Here is a case where there were multiple warnings of danger to the embassy from multiple sources and the administration responded by reducing security. To add insult to injury, the administration then misled the public about the attack when it knew - or certainly should have known - what happened within 24 hours.
One wonders why the administration prevaricated. The most likely answer is that only a week earlier at the Democratic Convention, it was repeatedly voiced that al Qaeda was crippled (i.e. Osama bin Laden was dead). A successful al Qaeda attack the following week looks extremely bad. Better that it was a protest that got out of hand. Thus began the cover-up that has only made things worse. The administration just wants to keep the story from breaking until after the election, like Nixon with Watergate. We know how well that turned out for him. But he was Republican, so perhaps Obama will fare better.
No comments:
Post a Comment