Has Benghazi become the Obama administration鈥檚 Watergate?
What sent Richard Nixon into political disgrace during the time of Watergate was 鈥渘ot the crime, but the cover-up.鈥� Or so historians and pundits have been saying for nearly 40 years.
Smarting ever since, Republicans now are trying to make the same point about the Obama administration鈥檚 handling of last year鈥檚 terrorist attack on the US diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, when US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.
The 鈥渃over up鈥� in this case is alleged to be political fiddling with the talking points initially used to describe the attack at a time when President Obama was running for reelection and didn鈥檛 need any suggestion that he鈥檇 failed on an important national security issue 鈥� a point his then-rival Mitt Romney immediately tried to make, which earned the GOP hopeful a wrist-slap from some Republicans.
Democrats and other left-leaning sources are clearly on the defensive, and with good reason.
鈥淎mericans are more likely to disapprove than approve of the way President Barack Obama has handled the aftermath of last September's attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and many think that the administration intentionally misled the American people about the attack,鈥� according to a new聽HuffPost/YouGov poll.
The poll found that 42 percent of Americans said they disapprove of the way it has been handled, while 27 percent said they approve, reports Huffington Post.
Not surprisingly, Republicans disapprove 78-4 percent and Democrats approve 56-7 percent. Most troubling for the White House, Independents disapprove by a margin of more than two-to-one (47-19 percent).
As political as the terrorist attack in Benghazi has become, Republicans naturally see campaign ammunition for 2014 and perhaps 2016.
Republican strategist Kyle Downey tells the Associated Press that Benghazi has exposed a trove of Democratic vulnerabilities, which might grow as inquiries continue. For example, he said, Republicans should use the findings to challenge the competence, truthfulness and judgment of 2016 presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton 鈥� Secretary of State at the time, who has taken 鈥渇ull responsibility鈥� for the episode.
The drip-drip-drip of trouble for the administration regarding Benghazi continued Friday when ABC News reported State Department e-mails showing that official talking points on the attack were 鈥渆xtensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows聽the Sunday after that attack.鈥�
鈥淪ummaries of White House and State Department emails 鈥� show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points,鈥� ABC reported.
In a piece headlined 鈥淪pinning Benghazi,鈥� the New Yorker鈥檚 Alex Koppelman writes: 鈥淔or a long time, it seemed like the idea of a cover-up was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.鈥�
鈥淚t鈥檚 striking to see the聽twelve different iterations聽that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice,鈥� Koppelman writes. 鈥淥ver the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.鈥�
Much of what comes out of political spokesman (and politicians themselves) is spin. But this was about an event in which an American ambassador and others were killed in an apparently preplanned and coordinated attack that revealed failures in intelligence and security preparations.
Left, right, and center, pundits put their own spin on Benghazi.
鈥淲as all this incompetence? Or was it politics disguised as the fog of war? Who called these shots and made these decisions? Who decided to do nothing?鈥� asks Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan. 鈥淲ill this story ever be completely told? Maybe not. But it's not going to go away, either. It's a prime example of the stupidity of all-politics-all-the-time. You make some bad moves for political reasons. And then you suffer politically because you made bad moves.鈥�
On her MSNBC show Friday night, Rachel Maddow tried to put Benghazi into broader context, citing many Republican scandals and failings.
鈥淥ne of the challenges for conservatives pushing Benghazi conspiracy theories is the leap of imagination,鈥� Maddow blogged the same day. 鈥淚n order to actually see the elusive wrongdoing that only Republicans and Fox News can see, one must accept bizarre accusations with no basis in fact鈥� has Fox News convinced you that Barack Obama is an inhuman madman? If yes, then it stands to reason Benghazi is the most important story in the world. If no, this story is about a tragic attack that left four Americans dead, but it's about little else.鈥�
Benghazi certainly was a tragic attack, no matter how its aftermath is spun. But it鈥檚 become far more than that.
