- ‘Welcome to the edge of freedom’: Biden’s boots touch down in DMZ
- Obama: Hole U.S. ‘digging out of’ requires billions more in unemployment benefits
- Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year: report
- Patriot Act author on James Clapper: Fire, prosecute him
- Russia P.M. Medvedev: No amnesty for political prisoners
- Michigan GOP Senate hopeful reminds government is the ‘servant’
- Christmas, by Congress: Members mull a 15-cent tax on trees
- U.S. unemployment falls to five-year low of 7 percent; 203K jobs added
- World mourns Nelson Mandela and celebrates his life; burial set for Dec. 15
- Bill O’Reilly reminds: Nelson Mandela ‘was a communist’
GOLDBERG: Benghazi’s smoking guns
Obama’s response was a circus with no sideshow
President Obama was asked about the metastasizing Benghazi scandal in a joint news conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday. Referring to the Americans who died in Benghazi, the president said, “We dishonor them when we turn things like this into a political circus.” He added that “the whole issue of talking points, throughout this process, frankly, has been a sideshow. There’s no ‘there’ there.”
He’s half-right. The talking points drafted by the State Department, the CIA and the White House and given to congressional Republicans and, most famously, to Ambassador Susan E. Rice are not the center of this story.
I think there was a lot of mischief behind those talking points, which we now know were sanitized, folded, spindled and mutilated to fit a political agenda.
It’s worth remembering, however, that Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton didn’t get their information from the talking points. They got their information earlier and from much higher authorities, such as CIA Director David H. Petraeus. The CIA believed the attacks were terrorist-driven early on. According to ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl, Mr. Petraeus thought the talking points were useless when he finally saw them.
More central are the talking points — written or unwritten — that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton used for weeks after the attack. The president said Monday that he immediately referred to the Benghazi attack as “terrorism.” This is at best a brutal bending of the truth (even The Washington Post’s fact-checker gave his worst rating — “four Pinocchios”). He used the word “terror” generically in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12. Then, for the next two weeks, Mr. Obama went on a media blitz blaming a video, including in an interview recorded that day with “60 Minutes.” In a segment that “60 Minutes” helpfully sat on for almost two months, Mr. Obama told Steve Kroft that “it’s too early to know” whether the attack was terrorism. He then went on “The View,” Univision and the “Late Show” pushing the idea that it was all about a video. At the United Nations, he condemned a “crude and disgusting” video but didn’t mention terrorism.
Mrs. Clinton followed suit. She told grieving family members of the fallen that the United States would track down the makers of the video. So far, the only person connected with the whole incident who has been punished is the filmmaker, who continues to languish in jail, admittedly on unrelated charges (though it is unlikely he would have been picked up swiftly were it not for the administration’s rush to denounce him).
If you assume they knew the truth about the nature of the attack, how are those statements not proof of a cover-up? The talking points are a sideshow.
In a very serious way, though, so is the cover-up.
As columnist Byron York of The Washington Examiner notes, the Republican obsession with the smoking gun stems from the fact that “they are captive to the Washington mindset that the cover-up is always worse than the crime.”
This Washington cliche isn’t an iron law of the universe. The media like it, I think, because the cover-up invariably involves them. When the story is about how the media have been misled, the media always can be counted on to perk up, as we saw Friday when White House press secretary Jay Carney was eaten alive on C-SPAN.
The true core of this story, however, has nothing to do with media vanity or talking points — or a political circus. The real issue is that for reasons yet to be determined — politics? ideology? incompetence? all three? — the administration was unprepared for an attack on Sept. 11, of all dates. When the attack came, the administration essentially did nothing as its own people were begging for help — other than to tell those begging to help that they must “stand down.”
Again, there is an arsenal worth of smoking guns, from uncontested sworn testimony at the Benghazi hearings to the State Department’s flawed internal review to the four dead Americans, including a U.S. ambassador sent to Benghazi on Mrs. Clinton’s orders. That’s the “there” there — regardless of what happened with the talking points. There is, from what we know so far, at best circumstantial evidence pointing to why they pushed this video story so hard. Though, as Henry David Thoreau once said, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”
Jonah Goldberg is the author of “The Tyranny of Cliches.”
Get Breaking Alerts
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- Kill team: Obama war chiefs widen drone death zones
- Obama administration issues permits for wind farms to kill more eagles
- Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
- Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress
- Craigslist killers: Police say newlyweds stabbed man for thrills
- Obama: Hole U.S. 'digging out of' requires billions more in unemployment benefits
- Rush Limbaugh: Obama trying to make Mandela death about himself
- Obamas call to close Vatican embassy is 'slap in the face' to Roman Catholics
- Colorado judge: Bakery owner discriminated against gay couple