Benghazigate: Three Scandals for the Price of Two

Benghazigate is three scandals for the very heavy price of two. The first concerns the fact that the diplomatic staff in Libya called for extra security and didn't get it. The only defense the Administration has on that one is to say that embassies and consulates are always calling for more security. That defense deconstructs itself. The administration's job is to decide when such requests should be granted and when not. If you fail to grant such a request and an ambassador is murdered by a terrorist attack, then you blew it big time. VP in charge of sighs and sneers, Joe Biden, assures us that neither he nor the President new of the requests. I believe him. Without attending his national security meetings, how would the President know anything about it?

The Administration is wisely withholding comment until an investigation is concluded, since the results will not be released until after the election.

The second scandal concerns the Administration's full court press to convince all of us that the blame for the attack falls on the infamous film. Ambassador Rice's words aside, President Obama and his staff spent weeks talking about an anti-Islam film clip when it was clear from day two that the wave of protests had nothing to do with the attack on the Benghazi Consulate. Either the Administration was lying or the Administration was incompetent. These aren't mutually exclusive.

The third scandal, more important and therefore largely neglected, is what Benghazigate says about the President's Libya policy. Destroying the Gaddafi regime from the air may be regime change on the cheap, but it left us with precious little influence on the ground. Libya is now crawling with heavily armed militias over which the government, such as it is, has no control. Apparently some of these militias are Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, blowback from the collapse of Gaddafi's regime has destabilized nearby Mali.

The Administration's war in Libya has left the region in rather worse shape than before, not to mention killing the War Powers Act dead. The President launched that war while on spring break in South America. Whatever he was doing back then, he wasn't spending much time in foreign policy briefings and he wasn't thinking his Libya policy through. Ambassador Stevens has paid with his life for the President's policy. That might not be the biggest price that will come due.

Comments

[Donald Pay]

Some questions for you are included here: When you say, "the Administration," which division of office within the Department of State has the responsibility for security at the Benghazi consulate. What information was or was not passed on to various people on up the chain of authority? What information was passed down the chain of authority? What was the information being passed through intelligence agencies that may have contradicted or supported any information from the people at the State Department? Was the fact that much of the security was being conducted by private security companies, as Republicans have demanded, rather than by government agencies, played a role in lack of clear communication between levels of the government?

In order to understand the problems that occurred you have to engage in an investigation. Republicans have no interest in that: they want it all ways---they wanted US troops in Libya, they wanted us to stay out, they wanted us to arm the Libyans, they wanted us. Sometimes they took these positions on the same day!!!!

So, we are left with your confused prescription: not enough US troops on the ground. I didn't notice you, KB, or any of Romney's sons volunteering to lead the charge. So, let's discard the chickhawk strategies, should we? War is very easy to suggest as an alternative when you lack the guts to go yourself.

[Donald Pay]

ABC has looked at Mitt the Twit's "policy" on Libya. The Etch-A-Sketch Libya policy can be found here:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/mitt-romneys-evolving-position-on-libya/

[A.I.]

Perhaps we should untangle your last paragraph a bit KB:

There were two 'War Powers Acts' passed during WWII which gave the President enhanced authority in the conduct of war. You seem to be referring to the 'War Powers Resolution' of `973 which limits this authority.

As for killing the resolution, your hero Ronald Reagan beat Obama to that punch as per Wikipedia: "...the War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Reagan in 1981 by sending military to El Salvador and later the Contras in Nicaragua, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for the attack on Libyan forces, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for violations.[2][3] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional."

[Jon S]

A.I., sending military aid is not the same as sending bombs. All of us should remember that the War Powers Resolution was passed over Nixon's veto and since that time no president has recognized its validity. But it is odd that now liberals are arguing, because it's there guy, that the president can engage in acts of war against a sovereign state without any authorization from Congress. That, friends, is not consistent with the Constitution.

[Donald Pay]

I can't wait for the smackdown Obama is going to give Romnesia and the Republicans during the debate. Multiple Choice Mitt has been on every side of this issue. I used to have a friend like that. We called him "Pete the Cheat." He'd make multiple predictions about who was going to win a game, then say he was right when one of them turned out to be right. Pete was at least a better liar than Mitt. By the way, KB has "Kenesia" about his ever-changing position on Libya.

[larry kurtz]

The FBI file on Mitt and Bain bulges with foreign policy bad actors: October will only surprise the remaindered. Watch for the glue in Romney's pompadour to melt into his eyeballs.

[duggersd]

Yeah, Donald, just like the smackdown Obama gave Romney in the first two debates. Keep dreaming. The facts are the Obama administration has been a disaster for the US. This situation is only a result of the last 3 1/2 years. You want an investigation. However the most transparent administration in history seems to be unable to be transparent. The administration has been lying and changing the story since it began. Keep drinking that Koolaide.

[Jon S]

Donald, you are precious. "Romneisa." You are such a good little soldier. What did the DNC tell you to eat this morning? The Wheaties or the Cheerios?

[A.I.]

And it's equally odd Jon that now CONSERVATIVES are arguing that because it's NOT there guy, the president can'NT engage in acts of war against a sovereign state without any authorization from Congress. That, friends, is not consistent with anything--with the exception of employing a double standard.

[Jon S.]

AI, can you give me an example of a Republican president going to war without congressional authorization?

[larry kurtz]

@RickiLake LOL! “@AlbertBrooks: If Romney sweats anymore I get a royalty.”
Retweeted by D Gregory Smith

[A.I.]

I suppose that depends on your definition of war Jon. There are numerous examples of both Democratic and Republican presidents taking at least warlike actions without specific congressional authorization cited here: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html#_1_16

Note, I neither defended nor criticized Obama's actions in Libya relative to the WPR. I simply said his actions were no more a death knell for the WPR than those of Reagan and others.

The Obama Administration claims they complied with the WPR as have other administrations that have been criticized as not in compliance. The real question then is: what makes criticism of Obama's actions any more valid that that of actions taken by previous presidents, not if a Republican president went to war without congressional approval.