It’s funny because, unlike David Ignatius, I did not think the emails on the Benghazi talking points read like a spy novel or disclosed any real incompetence whatsoever. What they showed was mainly that the entire national security community was genuinely under the misimpression that the Benghazi attacks had begun as spontaneous demonstrations that had been inspired by the protests at our embassy in Cairo. While they had some intelligence that al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda affiliated groups might have been involved, they didn’t know that with certainty at that point in time.
I have never quite understood why it really mattered if there was a demonstration or not. Our people were dead either way. The mistake was understandable. That September 11th, our national security team was mainly focused on the safety of the people in our Cairo Embassy, not some CIA outpost in Benghazi. And the demonstrations in Cairo were related to an anti-Islamic YouTube video.
The other part of this so-called scandal is the accusation that the president refused to acknowledge that we had suffered a terrorist attack. I have never quite understood this argument, either. First of all, he repeatedly called it an act of terror. But insofar as also made some noncommittal remarks about whether terrorists were behind it, I don’t see what the problem is with that.
Ordinarily, it’s not called terrorism when armed gunmen attack foreigners who are operating in their country against their will. It’s called war. Terrorism is a tactic designed to frighten people. Shooting at people and lighting their building on fire aren’t designed to frighten people. They’re designed to kill them. Terrorism is normally practiced on civilians, not CIA outposts. The fact that the gunmen also happened to be radicals with ties to al-Qaeda justifies calling them terrorists, but they didn’t set off a bomb on a civilian bus or kill by suicide. They weren’t trying to prove a point. They were simply murdering people because they wanted those particular people dead.
The Benghazi emails show how speculative talking points about possible al-Qaeda links were removed from the list. They weren’t sure such accusations were solid and they didn’t want to have to walk them back later.
What’s most disturbing is how the Republicans were so eager to try to exploit the tragedy in Benghazi for political gain. That they’re still trying to do that is infuriating. It’s like they think the election was fraudulent because the president didn’t say “terrorism” instead of “act of terror.”
