In the latest issue of the Washington Monthly, our fearless editor in chief Paul Glastris makes an astute historical point about the Iranian Hostage Crisis:
In the eleven years prior to the hostage crisis, five U.S. ambassadors were murdered by militants and terrorists in places like Lebanon, Guatemala, and the Sudan. None of those losses, which occurred under presidents of both parties, was seen by the public or in Washington as a grievous insult to America generally, or through a partisan filter, or as evidence of systematic failure by the U.S. government requiring root-to-branch investigations with presumptions of perfidy at the top. Rather, they were treated the same way [Libyan ambassador] Chris Stevens’s murder (the first of a U.S. ambassador since 1979) should be seen: as brave diplomats killed in the line of duty.
To explain why Steven’s murder wasn’t treated the same way as previous ambassadorial losses, Glatris goes further back than I did in my piece: The Origin of Benghazi Fever.
…because [the Iranian Hostage Crisis] happened on Jimmy Carter’s watch, in the midst of a presidential race, and ended at the very moment Ronald Reagan was sworn into office, the crisis validated Republicans’ inner sense that they and only they could be trusted to protect America’s security. Second, the crisis turned the general subject of the safety of U.S. diplomats into a political and ideological issue in a way it never had been.
So, in this telling, the seeds of Benghazi! outrage were sown in the way the Iranian Hostage Crisis went down– particularly in how it ended.
The effect of this outrage, however, has been to make the State Department and our diplomatic corp incredibly cautious lest another tragedy happen which, we now know, will be exploited to the final ends of the Earth by Republican mouth-breathing congressmen.
Stevens, who spoke the Libyan dialect of Arabic, lived openly in Benghazi with minimal security. His actions during that period became legendary among U.S. diplomats. It was an act of patriotic bravery, repeated a year late when, as ambassador, he returned to Benghazi, knowing as well as anyone the poor security situation there. We need more Chris Stevenses in our diplomatic corps. The Republicans in Congress are doing everything they can to make sure we have fewer, even if that isn’t their intention.
In today’s New York Times, Congressman Adam Schiff calls for an end to the select congressional committee investigating Benghazi. Schiff is a minority member of that committee, as well as the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
His rationale for shuttering the committee is primarily that it has broken its promises to be evenhanded and gone on the exact kind of partisan fishing expedition that Democrats assumed it would become. But another reason it should close is the one that Glastris pointed out: this kind of gotcha politics is actively harming our diplomatic mission in the world by making the State Department too gun shy to do its job the way it should be done.
We need to be talking to people, not worrying that the Republicans will exploit any tragedy in a conscienceless and opportunistic and wholly partisan way.
The Republican party despises the Democratic party so completely that they will knowingly and purposefully ruin any and all aspects of our government and, as they’ve proven, ruin the lives of American citizens here and abroad.
They have gone completely over the edge and will drag the rest of the country with them. Every day I read about their vengeful attacks on Planned Parenthood, immigration, medical aid programs, blacks, women, and pretty much anything to do with President Obama and it makes my blood boil.
The Republican Party, the party of destruction.
At least Sidney Blumenthal didn’t invoke the 5th amendment before the Congressiomal committee as Bryan Pagliano did who has hired attorney Mark MacDougall.
○ Staffer who worked on Clinton’s private e-mail server faces subpoena
○ Hillary Clinton E-Mails Reveal Bibi Mind Games by Ron Kampeas @TheForward
○ MSNBC Exclusive Interview: Hillary Clinton ‘sorry’ about email confusion
She’s only sorry that someone caught it, but she has successfully deflected any substantive questioning as to why she did it.
If I had to guess it went something like this:
HRC: The email system in this place sucks, what did the other guys do?
Staff: They used personal email accounts
HRC: Oh, okay. I’ll have to do that too then
I’m mainly joking but I’m guessing the biggest reason she did it was bureaucratic inertia than anything thing else.
Reports on Clinton’s tech skills suggest that she wouldn’t have a clue as to whether or not an e-mail system sucked. No public information as to whether her home brew system was equal to, worse, or better than the State Dept system for users.
So, you speculation as to the initiation of her private system doesn’t have a ring of plausibility to me.
DerFarm, thought, iirc, and I understood the reply correctly that it was because of requirement to maintain/ keep records. sounds plausible to me. serious issue as far as I’m concerned
Was that in another thread? Not that I understand what maintaining records would have to do with Clinton opting for her home brew system.
Here’s the deal. If she simply wanted to keep her personal communications private, there was nothing wrong with having a separate set up for that. However, personal mean non-government business and non-government employee communications. She attempted (and likely succeeded) in hiding records that properly belonged in the government system.
we’re all speculating, but I generally side with the fact that the GOP is blowing it up so it’s probably nothing like usual
We should have had a Benghazi! outrage investigation when those hostages were released the very day Reagan was sworn into office. That coincidence should have raised all kinds of flags. Maybe we could have impeached Reagan and saved ourselves all kinds of trouble, from Iran-Contra on down.
It wasn’t a coincidence. It’s pretty well known that the Reagan campaign cut a deal with the Iranians.
Precisely my point.
Gosh, where would we be now if Carter had beaten Reagan? With what we know now about both men and how events have unfolded, I’d have to say we’d be a hell of a lot better off.
Reagan continues to be the worst American ever.
Well yes, but . . .
It isn’t contravening the main point, but it was not a good idea for Stevens to return to Benghazi. It’s not at all clear that there was anything to be gained by his presence there, and the risks were obvious. And they weren’t just risks to his own person that he was free to assume. It should have been obvious that violence against the U.S. consulate was likely and would have all sorts of damaging political repercussions. Clearly this was terrible judgement. Just because it’s worthwhile taking some risks doesn’t mean that risk/benefit tradeoffs shouldn’t be carefully assessed.
Stevens was in the best position at State to make the decision as to where he went and when. He was also engaged with the CIA station operation/mission. Sort of a hazard for most embassies and ambassadors but one that they accept.
Again, it seems to me there was nothing to be gained by his presence there. The place was essentially anarchic and Libya, then as now, had what are called praetorian politics, i.e. local warlordism with no effective central government. Yes, he made a decision. I’m saying it was a bad one, that’s all.
Sorry. Thought you were saying the State in DC should have told Stevens to stay out of Benghazi.
I’m not so inclined to fault Stevens for his decision. He knew more than probably anyone else what the situation was and the risks it posed for himself.
The best way to end this growing problem in the USA. Is to declare The GOP and all members of it what they are, enemies of the Federal Government. Then deport them out of the country like they want to do to all the immigrants. Problem solved.
Have faith! If you believe the GOP, we have declared the Tea Party Enemy of the State…
○ Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A “Vision” of the Future
○ U.S. Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 [pdf]
I agree Benghazi! is rooted in Reagan’s October Surprise, Willard and Retards attempt to stage one. If Carter had only sent more helicopters…
I’ve always wondered about those helps.
My CT on this (with a couple of actual dots and lots of connecting leaps) was that it was to be a September Surprise in Cairo. Where it went wrong was that too few Egyptians were angry enough to storm the embassy and the embassy staff was able to handle the situation well enough. If one goes back to that day Romney was on the Cairo Embassy matter like white on rice.
Benghazi was probably a somewhat planned operation by some group but the real target was the CIA station. Only they didn’t know exactly where it was. Attacking the State Dept compound was an attempt to draw out the CIA. More successful than could have been expected, but the attack on the compound turned into a melee as it attracted unrelated men that joined in. That in turn led to various local protection forces showing up that impeded the CIA from getting into and out of the compound. Those same forces also made it difficult for the attack planners to make their way to the CIA station. We know that one sniper made it there and killed two CIA guys which was enough for Petraeus’ team to abandon the mission. Don’t know if what was left behind was what the attackers were after or if their goal was to get the CIA out of other town.
Oh, neglected to add that after the Cairo “surprise” was a bust, team Romney was slow to pick up on and run with Benghazi. The outrage over Benghazi developed somewhat slowly.
They did send more helicopters.
I was born years after the hostage crisis. Damn right I was insulted and outraged by the death of our ambassador. Would Rome or the Mongols ignore the death of an envoy by a little tin pot country?
That said it quickly became obvious there was nothing nefarious going on and it’s counterproductive as well as wasteful to react in any way other than that of the Obama admin. While I think the security of the ambassador was too lax, that’s a matter of opinion and rest of the administration conduct was absolutely appropriate. Hell we even caught a few of them.
I think you’re chasing a red herring to look for any principle at all in the obsessive outrage following the Benghazi attack.
Romney started the fire: It was a desperate and wholly cynical bid to save his sinking campaign. Once the election passed, savvy Republicans determined that the indignation which had already been stoked by the mighty wurlitzers of Fox News and talk radio could be repurposed as an ongoing taxpayer-funded issue ad and fishing expedition to undermine the impending candidacy of Hillary Clinton.