Benghazi - Plot hole (The Economist)

[Proud Public Servant]

Best, most succinct dismissal of Benghazi I've seen yet. Never been a big fan of The Economist, but this just nails it.

Benghazi
Plot hole
May 16th 2013, 21:13 by M.S.


THE inquiry into the Benghazi affair is lending increasing substance to opponents' charges that the Obama administration massaged its talking points on the attacks, playing down the possible involvement of al-Qaeda-linked extremists and playing up linkages to an anti-Muslim video, in order to [EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS WOULD MAKE SENSE TK].

Let us return to the basics here, because what's going on in Washington right now is devoid of reason.

Yesterday the White House released a large dump of emails detailing the process of talking-point revision that took place in the run-up to Susan Rice's talk-show appearances in September. Those emails show a long series of contested revisions between staffers in the State Department, the CIA, and the White House over whether or not to include mention of al-Qaeda, whether or not to note CIA warnings of possible attacks, and various other topics. The CIA wanted to fend off possible accusations that they were at fault for failing to protect the Benghazi location. The State Department wanted to protect itself from what it felt was a CIA effort to blame it for insufficient security, particularly since, as is now known from testimony (though not mentioned in the emails, and obviously not in the talking points themselves) the Benghazi outpost was primarily a CIA operation. The White House intervened, in its own words, to protect the "equities" of the different agencies. Conservatives charge, however, that White House intervention was biased towards the State Department.
At this point the key question is becoming clear. That question is, as it has been from the beginning: who cares?

The accusation made at the start of the Benghazi affair was that the administration had mischaracterised the attacks and misled the American people in order to protect itself in the presidential campaign. This accusation never made any sense, because there was no electoral advantage to be gained by implying that the attacks at Benghazi were pre-planned rather than spontaneous, or that al-Qaeda was or was not involved. In the current round of shark-feeding, the accusation seems to be that the administration intervened in order to shield the State Department from the CIA. This appears not to be true; the initial ABC reportlast Friday on which it was based turned out, once the full emails were revealed, to be false and based on altered quotes. But if it were true, so what? Or perhaps the accusation is that the administration intervened in order to minimise the impression that State or the CIA had made serious errors by failing to adequately protect the Benghazi mission. But the subsequent independent inquiry quickly did come to that conclusion. If the administration happened not to make that statement in its immediate response three days after the attacks, and instead left it for an independent inquiry that came out a month later, what difference does that make?
There have been more serious accusations during the course of the hearings. The most serious was that the administration or senior military officials intervened to deliberately order units that could have come to the aid of the besieged mission to "stand down". These accusations have the disadvantage of being both untrue and completely crazy, not to mention slanderous towards the US military, and have been thoroughly debunked.

So what are we talking about here?

What we're talking about, at this point, is one thing. In November, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, told the press that the talking points Ms Rice received had only been altered once, to change a minor terminology issue, and that this had come at the behest of the intelligence services. That was false. Why did Mr Carney say it? It's hard to figure out. It certainly would have helped end the controversy more quickly if it had been true, but given that it wasn't true, it clearly helped prolong the controversy. And the press that reported Mr Carney's lie is naturally furious. That's reasonable. I've been lied to by government spokespeople on subjects that were far more serious than this one, and it sure is infuriating. Spokespeople should not feel that they can get away with telling little white lies to the press. If they think they can, they may lie on matters of consequence.

This, however, is not a matter of consequence. How extensive the edits were on the talking points that Susan Rice used for TV appearances on one Sunday in September, and whether they came only from CIA or from CIA, the State Department, and the White House—this makes no difference to anyone outside the DC political and press community. Washington is obsessed by this affair. People around the world should recognise that Washington's obsession with this affair is yet another sign that America's capital is turning into a self-obsessed viper pit of scheming courtiers who care only about winning favour and office, and not about governing the country they're supposed to be running.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/benghazi

[liberal N proud]

1. The GOP is devoid of reason