Obsessing over Benghazi-Gate
Published in Süddeutsche Zeitung
(Germany) on 10 May 2013
by Matthias Kolb (link to original)
Is Benghazi another scandal like Watergate or just the result of individual mistakes? Conservative America is obsessing over the questions surrounding the deaths of four Americans in Libya in September 2012. The latest hearing on the subject was marked by attacks on Hillary Clinton, the most promising Democratic presidential candidate for the 2016 election. Republicans are driven by a mixture of anger and cold calculation.
The outcry was deafening. The daily newspaper USA Today promised a showdown on Benghazi, and commentators for conservative television outlet Fox News muttered about shocking revelations for days. Shortly before the start of the actual hearings by a House of Representatives committee, The Washington Post published a story claiming that a special forces unit dispatched to aid the people under siege in Benghazi was denied permission to take off on their mission.
Visibly shaken and angry, Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of mission for the U.S. in Libya, spoke about the night of Sept. 11, 2012 when extremists attacked the consulate in the harbor city of Benghazi, where J. Christopher Stevens was stationed. He was killed in that deeply upsetting attack along with three other consulate employees.
The attack took place eight months ago and American conservatives are still obsessing over the “Benghazi incident.” The fact that the questioning of Hicks and two other embassy staff members has thus far produced essentially nothing new will not suffice to dampen the zeal and the outrage staged by the Republicans and House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
All the committee members stress their desire to get to the truth and expose the “smokescreen tactics” of the Obama administration. They accuse the White House of downplaying the connection between the Benghazi attacks and Islamic terrorism in order to allow Obama to continue claiming success in his war against al-Qaida.
But the only thing the five-hour hearing confirmed was exactly what an independent U.S. Department of State panel had documented in December 2012: Security measures at the Benghazi consulate were completely inadequate, the danger level had been improperly evaluated, and the personnel were poorly prepared. Four State Department personnel resigned. A Washington Post article said Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Benghazi, was responsible for the earlier conclusions.
That the Republican obsession with Benghazi is so strong and will persist for some time to come is due to three factors.
Problems for Hillary Clinton: The former secretary of state is considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination in the next presidential election in 2016. She has basically taken responsibility for mistakes made in connection with the Benghazi incident, despite the fact that no direct accusations have been made yet. But that all changed on Wednesday when, according to a blogger from Foreign Policy, her name was mentioned 32 times during the congressional hearing.
The strategy is apparent: Voters are to associate the deaths of four Americans with Clinton. While many columnists grumble about “a witch-hunt,” conservative blogger Alex Castellanos says it is entirely appropriate to tie Clinton's political future to Benghazi. Castellanos said she may have had the misfortune that her boss, Obama, is a weak president, but the bottom line is Benghazi was her responsibility.
In the course of this, one Hillary Clinton quote from her January 2013 testimony is often repeated over and over: “What difference — at this point, what difference does it make?”
It is supposed proof that Clinton is unconcerned about the death of an American citizen. The importance of this question in the right-wing media spectrum is shown in a video clip proudly presented by Fox News moderator Eric Bolling. In it, he links a TV spot used in the 2008 presidential primary campaign, in which Clinton poses the hypothetical foreign policy crisis scenario:
"It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep ...
"Who do you want answering the phone?"
The Right Wing Fights Its Favorite Battle
A profile of the right-wing base: It is well-known in the U.S. that extreme political polarization exists and that neither party trusts the other. The representatives have to take care of their own constituents or put their re-election chances at risk, running against an even more radical challenger from their own party, not from the opposition.
Republican hatred of Obama continues unchanged. Many believe every accusation made against Democrats, which is why descriptions comparing Benghazi to “a Shakespearean tragedy that will make Watergate look like child's play” are so well-received by the base. In the closing days of the 2012 campaign, many Romney supporters showed up at gatherings with signs on the subject of the four deaths at the consulate. They exhorted the press to do its job and focus on Benghazi.
Mistrust of the mainstream media is widespread: Conservative America largely believes national television broadcasters and the major newspapers see it as their duty to support the liberal agenda in general and Barack Obama in particular. Signs and bumper stickers warning “Don't believe the liberal media” are extremely popular.
Such conspiracy theories continually abound in the Benghazi incident. Fox News icon Bill O'Reilly figured out how much time the major media devoted to the Hicks testimony: Fox devoted nearly two hours of reportage to it while, O'Reilly claimed, MSNBC devoted no air time at all to it and said his analysis of morning TV news broadcasts showed the same results.
In response, TV satirist Jon Stewart put together a montage of Fox News broadcasts that illustrates where the bias is the strongest.
Our prognosis: The subject of Benghazi will dominate U.S. politics for the foreseeable future — and the same arguments will be constantly repeated. Liberals will complain about uncooperative Republicans and accuse them of blocking measures that would have made diplomatic missions more secure.
The conservatives will counter with “transparency,” while most of those paying attention will have already made up their minds: Neither the White House nor the Department of State reacted optimally and declared transparency as their main goal. No one in Washington believes Obama's advisers failed to see the explosive power of another terrorist attack and stonewalled. ABC News gave detailed accounts of how the government's official story changed a dozen times. The National Journal aptly determined there was "incompetence, but no cover-up."
To date, Obama's promise to bring the perpetrators to justice remains unfulfilled. Last week, the FBI released pictures of three Libyans said to have been brought in for questioning. Should that result in arrests or a trial, interest will be rekindled.
And what does Benghazi mean for Hillary Clinton? Should the former first lady decide to run for president in 2016, the subject will again come up. But it is probable that political professionals will have had sufficient time by then and will have come up with good arguments to explain her previous actions.
James Carville, former advisor to Bill Clinton, says it would be absurd to assume that hatred of Hillary Clinton had disappeared entirely and that it had just taken a time out, saying that even conservatives treat a sitting secretary of state with respect. That sounds plausible: The events of Sept. 11, 2012 will not cause them to change their opinion of Hillary Clinton. Many conservatives see her as a feminist activist and vehemently reject her, while for progressive Americans, she will remain a female role model and their hope for the office of president.
What would aid Republicans more against a Hillary candidacy would be if their party adopted moderate and more modern policies and ran a competent candidate of their own. Their persistence in constantly bringing up Benghazi makes it seem as if they are grasping at straws.
The outcry was deafening. The daily newspaper USA Today promised a showdown on Benghazi, and commentators for conservative television outlet Fox News muttered about shocking revelations for days. Shortly before the start of the actual hearings by a House of Representatives committee, The Washington Post published a story claiming that a special forces unit dispatched to aid the people under siege in Benghazi was denied permission to take off on their mission.
Visibly shaken and angry, Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of mission for the U.S. in Libya, spoke about the night of Sept. 11, 2012 when extremists attacked the consulate in the harbor city of Benghazi, where J. Christopher Stevens was stationed. He was killed in that deeply upsetting attack along with three other consulate employees.
The attack took place eight months ago and American conservatives are still obsessing over the “Benghazi incident.” The fact that the questioning of Hicks and two other embassy staff members has thus far produced essentially nothing new will not suffice to dampen the zeal and the outrage staged by the Republicans and House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
All the committee members stress their desire to get to the truth and expose the “smokescreen tactics” of the Obama administration. They accuse the White House of downplaying the connection between the Benghazi attacks and Islamic terrorism in order to allow Obama to continue claiming success in his war against al-Qaida.
But the only thing the five-hour hearing confirmed was exactly what an independent U.S. Department of State panel had documented in December 2012: Security measures at the Benghazi consulate were completely inadequate, the danger level had been improperly evaluated, and the personnel were poorly prepared. Four State Department personnel resigned. A Washington Post article said Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Benghazi, was responsible for the earlier conclusions.
That the Republican obsession with Benghazi is so strong and will persist for some time to come is due to three factors.
Problems for Hillary Clinton: The former secretary of state is considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination in the next presidential election in 2016. She has basically taken responsibility for mistakes made in connection with the Benghazi incident, despite the fact that no direct accusations have been made yet. But that all changed on Wednesday when, according to a blogger from Foreign Policy, her name was mentioned 32 times during the congressional hearing.
The strategy is apparent: Voters are to associate the deaths of four Americans with Clinton. While many columnists grumble about “a witch-hunt,” conservative blogger Alex Castellanos says it is entirely appropriate to tie Clinton's political future to Benghazi. Castellanos said she may have had the misfortune that her boss, Obama, is a weak president, but the bottom line is Benghazi was her responsibility.
In the course of this, one Hillary Clinton quote from her January 2013 testimony is often repeated over and over: “What difference — at this point, what difference does it make?”
It is supposed proof that Clinton is unconcerned about the death of an American citizen. The importance of this question in the right-wing media spectrum is shown in a video clip proudly presented by Fox News moderator Eric Bolling. In it, he links a TV spot used in the 2008 presidential primary campaign, in which Clinton poses the hypothetical foreign policy crisis scenario:
"It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep ...
"Who do you want answering the phone?"
The Right Wing Fights Its Favorite Battle
A profile of the right-wing base: It is well-known in the U.S. that extreme political polarization exists and that neither party trusts the other. The representatives have to take care of their own constituents or put their re-election chances at risk, running against an even more radical challenger from their own party, not from the opposition.
Republican hatred of Obama continues unchanged. Many believe every accusation made against Democrats, which is why descriptions comparing Benghazi to “a Shakespearean tragedy that will make Watergate look like child's play” are so well-received by the base. In the closing days of the 2012 campaign, many Romney supporters showed up at gatherings with signs on the subject of the four deaths at the consulate. They exhorted the press to do its job and focus on Benghazi.
Mistrust of the mainstream media is widespread: Conservative America largely believes national television broadcasters and the major newspapers see it as their duty to support the liberal agenda in general and Barack Obama in particular. Signs and bumper stickers warning “Don't believe the liberal media” are extremely popular.
Such conspiracy theories continually abound in the Benghazi incident. Fox News icon Bill O'Reilly figured out how much time the major media devoted to the Hicks testimony: Fox devoted nearly two hours of reportage to it while, O'Reilly claimed, MSNBC devoted no air time at all to it and said his analysis of morning TV news broadcasts showed the same results.
In response, TV satirist Jon Stewart put together a montage of Fox News broadcasts that illustrates where the bias is the strongest.
Our prognosis: The subject of Benghazi will dominate U.S. politics for the foreseeable future — and the same arguments will be constantly repeated. Liberals will complain about uncooperative Republicans and accuse them of blocking measures that would have made diplomatic missions more secure.
The conservatives will counter with “transparency,” while most of those paying attention will have already made up their minds: Neither the White House nor the Department of State reacted optimally and declared transparency as their main goal. No one in Washington believes Obama's advisers failed to see the explosive power of another terrorist attack and stonewalled. ABC News gave detailed accounts of how the government's official story changed a dozen times. The National Journal aptly determined there was "incompetence, but no cover-up."
To date, Obama's promise to bring the perpetrators to justice remains unfulfilled. Last week, the FBI released pictures of three Libyans said to have been brought in for questioning. Should that result in arrests or a trial, interest will be rekindled.
And what does Benghazi mean for Hillary Clinton? Should the former first lady decide to run for president in 2016, the subject will again come up. But it is probable that political professionals will have had sufficient time by then and will have come up with good arguments to explain her previous actions.
James Carville, former advisor to Bill Clinton, says it would be absurd to assume that hatred of Hillary Clinton had disappeared entirely and that it had just taken a time out, saying that even conservatives treat a sitting secretary of state with respect. That sounds plausible: The events of Sept. 11, 2012 will not cause them to change their opinion of Hillary Clinton. Many conservatives see her as a feminist activist and vehemently reject her, while for progressive Americans, she will remain a female role model and their hope for the office of president.
What would aid Republicans more against a Hillary candidacy would be if their party adopted moderate and more modern policies and ran a competent candidate of their own. Their persistence in constantly bringing up Benghazi makes it seem as if they are grasping at straws.
Next article![]( "An Uneventful Visit")