Benghazi 3.0

by Errington C. Thompson, MD

It is almost hard to remember when the word Benghazi actually represented a fairly dysfunctional city and was not synonymous with partisan bickering. Remember that strongman Muammar Qaddafi fell in 2011. The United States looked at Libya as an excellent opportunity to get a foothold in an Arab country.

As Vanity Fair wrote, “Libya was a target-rich environment for American political, economic and military interests, and the United States was determined to retain its diplomatic and intelligence presence in the country—including an embassy in Tripoli and a mission in Benghazi.” We had an aggressive ambassador who was familiar with the Arab world, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. He was perfect for the job.

Stevens was named to his Libyan post in March of 2011. He had a complex job in Libya. He needed to try to promote US interests plus work with the CIA to secure shoulder-fired missiles. On September 11 at 9:40 p.m., a large group of men gathered outside the American compound.

The attack appears to have been immediately recognized by a diplomatic security service agent and “Attack. Attack” was called out over a loudspeaker. At 10:30 p.m., according to CNN, six US security agents and 16 Libyan security guards got control of the compound. By 1:15 a.m., when an American team arrived from Tripoli, Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were dead.

Somehow, this whole ordeal is painted as Obama’s fault.

Now it is possible that there were protocols that were not followed. It is possible that protocols were not adequate, but I just don’t understand how this is the President’s fault. McClatchy News reported that General Carter Ham, head of US Africa Command, offered additional military assets to Ambassador Stevens on not one, but two different occasions, and Stevens said no, he didn’t need any additional troops. The ambassador was twice offered more security but turned it down.

So how is this Obama’s fault? It was only when Secretary Panetta stated that Obama told him to “do everything we needed to do to try to protect lives” that some Republicans began to back off.

Now, after months of quiet, after hearings in numerous committees in both the House and Senate, the CBC television show 60 Minutes decided that they would wade into the Benghazi mess.

Now, today’s 60 Minutes isn’t the news show that I grew up with. In the late ’70s, 60 Minutes was must-watch TV: every week it seemed they found some scumbag who was ripping off old women, polluting our drinking water, or stealing our tax dollars. It was invariably 60 Minutes that nailed those guys to the wall.

So on October 27, 60 Minutes aired an “eyewitness” account of the Benghazi attacks. The eyewitness was a British contractor, Morgan Jones (not his real name), who told us a great tale. Unfortunately, that was exactly what it was: a tale. A tall tale.

It turns out Mr. Jones, whose real name is Dylan Davies, told a different story elsewhere. He reported to his employer, in writing, that he was nowhere near the attack; instead of seeing the Ambassador’s body at the hospital, as he told 60 Minutes, he learned of the Ambassador’s death three days later, from a colleague. It also later was discovered that Mr. Davies’ book contract is with a CBS subsidiary—a conflict of interest that 60 Minutes didn’t see fit to mention in their story.

Benghazi is the “scandal” that keeps on giving. Senator Lindsey Graham, who is running for re-election, couldn’t get in front of the cameras quick enough after the CBS broadcast to state that he was going to block all of Obama’s nominations until he gets answers. But there is no scandal there: Benghazi is about an Ambassador who got out too far in front of his security. He appears to have been the one with final say over his protection. He was wrong. He died and three other Americans died because of his error in judgment.

It is very sad, but it isn’t a scandal. President Obama and Secretary Clinton appear to have done everything in their power to fix a hopeless situation. And to quote Edith Ann (Lily Tomlin) from Laugh-In, “and that’s the truth.”

I’m so looking forward to 2014. We have to take back the House. Only then can we begin to tackle some of the problems our country faces. We have more than eight million Americans who are unemployed or have stopped looking for work. We need to have a stimulus program that will put people back to work (I know there are some who hate the word “stimulus,” but that is what we need).

We need to fix the debt ceiling so that we aren’t wrestling with this every three or four months. We have serious problems like healthcare that we aren’t addressing because we have spent far too much time on a non-scandal like Benghazi. It’s time for a change to a government that works—and works for us, the people.