Benghazi controversy pierces presidential debate
A flashpoint in Tuesday’s presidential debate was the Obama administration’s handling of the American consulate attack in Libya, in which the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed. Solme of the latest opinion on the controversy:
Christopher Stephen,
Foreign Affairs: “(U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.) Susan Rice still has to explain what piece of intelligence left her sure that this vicious attack morphed from an anti-American protest that everyone now acknowledges never happened. And some of her Republican foes are equally wide of the mark in insisting this was a well-run alQaeda operation that has put America’s Mideast policy through the shredder. The baffling truth is that the consulate attack was haphazard, poorly planned and badly executed. It succeeded . . . because security, normally the watchword of U.S. missions across the world, was close to non-existent.”
Evansville (Ind.) Courier and Press,
editorial: “Republicans blamed the White House for ignoring clear warnings of an imminent attack; the White House responded that the Republicans had cut $300 million in diplomatic security funding. None of this sparring is at all helpful. . . . The U.S. cannot retreat into fortress-like embassies. . . . Unfortunately, a certain amount of risk comes with being a foreign service officer.”
Peter Roff,
U.S. News & World Report: “Simply accepting responsibility . . . is not enough. For a failure as pronounced and as tragic as this, there must be consequences. One that might be appropriate would be for (Secretary of State Hillary) Clinton to resign. . . . It’s clear the administration, including the president, was caught by surprise by what happened in Benghazi. There’s just no excuse for that. An admission of responsibility is a weak response to this most tragic failure in U.S. foreign policy, one that places an unerasable blemish on Obama’s record.”
Kevin Drum,
Mother Jones: “Republicans seems to think that this is some kind of huge gotcha moment. . . . But the more they dive into the conspiratorial weeds on this, the worse they look to ordinary Ameri- cans who don’t really mind that President Obama waited a few days to sift through the evidence. . . . I really doubt that Mitt Romney is doing himself any favors by keeping this up.”
The Denver Post,
editorial: “We want to know whether the State Department botched security in the region and why the White House has clung to the notion that the attackers were motivated by an insulting video as opposed to coming around to the view that it was an organized terrorist attack. . . . Though Congress may not be able to get to the bottom of the White House’s response, it can and should continue to probe deeper into the issue of diplomatic security raised by the deadly terrorist attack.”
Max Boot,
Commentary: “The U.S. has an overriding interest in showing that attacks on our diplomats will be met with an overwhelming response, and that response has been utterly lacking so far. It is possible . . . the administration is patiently collecting intelligence and waiting to strike. Admittedly, action between now and the election will inevitably be criticized in some quarters as a ‘wag the dog ’ scenario but . . . Republicans are likely to support any military action against terrorists. Politics aside, it is imperative for the U.S. to show that this attack will not be lost in a morass of dead-end criminal investigations.”