Originally Posted by spence
One item I do think has to be given to the Administration is that the talking points were in context of the broader situation which included Benghazi. This can be inferred by reading it.
How do the talking points operate in the context of Benghazi? It is Benghazi which is in question now. And it was Benghazi which was the BIG story, the main context, at the time the talking points were made.
And the "broader situation" included a broader context than the focus on the video. There was a long train of events over a long period of time that were all part of the "broader situation" involving radical Islam, jihad of the sword, terrorism, Al Qaeda, and more, which spread into various violent "events" worldwide. And the leaders of those events were partly responsible for the "Arab spring" and were certainly about coopting it and using it as the means to further advance their hegemony in Muslim lands. The administration's talking points certainly wanted to "infer" that its policy was steadfastly and competently addressing the broader picture. They were intended to "infer" that there was this isolated glitch in the administration's lead, from behind, against terrorism and the rise of democracy in the Middle East. It had killed Bin Laden, Al Qaeda was decimated, on the run, ineffectual. The temporary glitch in the picture was the result of a video, not failure of policy.
By the time Rice when on TV there were some 1/2 dozen violent protests at American missions all related to the video. We still don't know if the Benghazi attack was completely independent of the video either.
Again, it is vital to make the distinction of how the video was related to protests. If the relationship was strict, if the video in itself was the cause of the violent protests, if they were the "spontaneous" expressions of offended Muslims acting on that offense, and not instigated by Al Qaeda or its affiliates, it might be "inferred" that administration policy was not at fault. But if the video was a tool of "extremists" of the Al Qaeda brand (or even taken by them "as an opportunity" as you say), then failure of policy was to be "inferred." And certainly, the Benghazi attack was not "rooted" as the memo put it, in the video, but was carried out by those with whom the administration was not concerned. It was a la the memo, a "broader failure of policy"
Certainly it wasn't completely about the video but it's still quite possible the timing of the attack was inspired by the violence in Cairo or perhaps taken as an opportunity...as was reported at the time.
It was completely about a well coordinated terrorist attack by Al Qaeda affiliates. There was no protest before the attack, or remonstrations against the video during the attack. the influence of the video, if any, was very peripheral and unnecessary. If it had any influence, it is far more likely that influence was fueled by Al Qaeda brand rather than spontaneous reaction. The timing . . . 9/11.
I'd be willing to wager Benghazi has had more government investigative focus than even 9/11.
And yet all that "government investigative focus" didn't retrieve the memo. It was by the limited but singular focus of a private group. To a great extent, the government investigations were not focused. They went in different tangents by different investigators, many of whom were not "investigating" but rather were obstructing. A lot of it was blather. On the other hand, much was found that was damning of the administration's handling and policy. And, like Watergate, it took time to develop in a meaningful way. Watergate took 2 years to culminate in Nixon's resignation. There was no talk from the Democrats about "old news" or moving on. They persisted, and with the help of media, and private investigating, they got their man. Most of the current media are not as adversarial to Obama as they were to Nixon, so the outcome for Obama will probably minimal. For Hillary--who knows?
Think about that for a while, it really puts everything in perspective.
-spence
|