On Benghazi

As the great contest for the nation's Chief Executive draws to a close, the murder of our Ambassador to Libya and three other men remains largely outside the political dialogue, thanks largely to the tacit conspiracy between the Obama Campaign and its supporters within the Bought and Paid For Media (BPFM).  The exact timeline of events remains muddled; what request were made or denied, what orders were given, who knew what and when--all of these questions are largely beyond our ability to know without access to highly classified materials yet to be widely shared. 

The Administration responsible for the deaths of these men--not my words, theirs--assures us that a thorough investigation is under way, one that of course, will produce no results until long after the election.  The Senate committee charged with these matters has refused to hold even a single hearing, as its Chairwoman was involved in a tooth and nail campaign in California with an opponent she is so threatened by that she has not even seen fit to debate her.  The House did in fact hold hearings, and it was through this process that we came to learn much of what we DO know about the events of September 11, 2012. 

The media--with the exception of Fox News and some others (Eli Lake and Sharyl Atkisson to name two)--seem quite content to let this story sit, uncomfortable as it is to the man they installed in office and in whom they continue to place their trust and confidence.  It is disquieting to watch what is supposed to be a bulwark of our democracy supine in complicity with the government it is nominally supposed to challenge.  Worse, they treat the story as if it is some weird conspiracy born of the marriage of Fox News and the Tea Party, confronted as they are with the inconvenient reality of the aforementioned murders and the ridiculous, orchestrated reaction of the Administration.

Here is a small taste of the sneer with which the BAPF media treats the story, tucked into an Atlantic blog ostensibly designed to warn Democrats about what they should worry: " 4. Benghazi. Actually, even a worrier like me can't find much to worry about here. The conspiracy theory suggested by Fox News -- that someone somewhere in the federal government ordered American security forces not to come to the rescue of Ambassador Chris Stevens and others in the Benghazi consulate -- hasn't held up. Romneyites have flogged the hell out of the Benghazi story, but I think that what little mileage they can get out of it they've already gotten"

There it is, friends.  There really isn't a story --just the conspiratorial rantings of Fox News (and of course, the bodies of four brave men).  What I find interesting about the above paragraph is what it identifies as the nub of the issue--that somewhere in the federal government, an order was given to security forces not to respond to the situation at the consulate.  This is of course, an important point, and it is of course, NOT undercut by the link to the Roger Simon piece in Politico, a work of political hackery that should make even Politico blush.  The truth or fiction of the charge is exactly what would be uncovered by Congressional hearings and or the glacially paced investigation being carried out by the Administration.  The Senate and the President, having chosen to forestall such answers, are immunized from their impact.  But we do not need those answers to justifiably accuse the Administration of  lying and incompetence.  THIS is the story that the BAPF media ignores, this is the threat to the comfortable narrative put forward by the President's campaign that "Bin Laden is dead and AQ is on the run".

We KNOW now that the Administration was informed that the attack at the consulate was a military-style attack conducted by terrorists HOURS after it began.  As to motive, identity and impact, the Administration was RIGHT in taking its time to mull over the intelligence.  In events such as that, there are bad reports, there is emotion, there is little real analysis and one can draw incorrect inferences from events witnessed without surrounding context.  THIS would have been an appropriate response.  They could have said "we don't have good information yet.  We don't have answers.  We are aggressively pursuing this."   But that isn't what they did. In fact, as the truth came out and we came to realize that this was in fact, a terrorist operation--well planned and executed, the Administration told us that the fog of war kept them from making that call, and that was something we all should assuredly understand. 

They blamed the attack on a spontaneous outburst of protest from people presumably upset by the presence of a video on Youtube.  I ask you, dear reader--if they hesitated on calling it a terror attack, waiting on additional information, WHAT WAS SO GOOD about the information they had on the attack that they could blame it on a video, send our UN Ambassador on the Sunday shows to claim it was a videotape and then have the President go before the UN and point to a video SIX TIMES?  Why are they not held to a common standard?  This is where the media is failing, failing horribly, and worst of all, failing by preference.

A well-planned and organized terror attack, carried out on the anniversary of the nation's great wound, completely undercuts the campaign narrative that Obama was pushing--that "Bin Laden is dead and AQ is on the run" and raises serious and important questions about the readiness of our diplomatic outposts.   AQ is NOT on the run in North Africa--it is in fact, gaining influence.  This too is inconvenient to the narrative.  By blaming the attack on a video, the Administration went for the easy call, knowing that we've all been treated to the spectacle of the "Arab Street" exploding in rage at whatever slight it perceives.  Why not this time?

I am proud of Fox News and the other journalists who continue to follow this story.  It is inconceivable that a President McCain would be getting the free ride from the BAPF media that Mr. Obama is currently receiving on this issue.  This is not unimportant stuff; the country's representative was murdered, and the Administration at best, bungled its response and at worst, covered it up.  It is a story worthy of press interest, even if the press is uninterested.