Streetwise Professor

It’s hard to know what is more appalling: the administration’s handling of Benghazi before the assault on the consulate and the killing of Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans, or its handling of the aftermath.

The ranking doesn’t matter really, because both are off the charts bad.

It is now abundantly clear that the security situation in Benghazi was atrocious before September 11, and that there were myriad warnings that Al Qaeda was active in the city.  The Brits withdrew their personnel from the city in July.  American State Department personnel asked for more security-and were turned down.

It is now acknowledged that the judgment of the intelligence community within 24 hours of the attack was that it was a planned terrorist attack by Al Qaeda.

Well, duh.

Even a cursory review of what happened made the administration’s “spontaneous flash mob in response to a movie nobody saw” narrative obvious bullshit.

But in some respects the planned vs. unplanned debate is a red herring.  Would it actually be better for the administration and the State Department if the consulate and the ambassador were so vulnerable to an extemporaneous, unplanned attack that such an assault could overwhelm security in minutes and kill 4 Americans?  It’s a defense that American security was so bad that an ad hoc attack could kill the ambassador?

The only thing that really matters is that there were armed, hostile elements in the vicinity and that American security was completely insufficient to handle it.

Now there are reports that Obama-personally-refused to commit US military forces to respond to the attack on the consulate because it would violate Libyan sovereignty and “inflame the situation.”

Inflame the situation.  Consider that choice of words, after viewing photographs of the conflagration that engulfed the consulate.  How could the situation have gotten any more inflamed-literally?  Do these people have a freaking clue when they open their mouths?

And who really gives a rat’s ass about Libyan sovereignty?  Especially inasmuch as whatever sovereignty they have is largely courtesy of the USAF and USN.  And inasmuch as the facility under attack was sovereign US property.

But for days after the administration knew the truth, it insisted on the bullshit narrative.

And now, when confronted with the truth, it refuses comment.  The execrable Jay Carney (and execrable hardly does justice) responded thus to the charge by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darrell Issa that consular personnel had been denied repeated requests for additional security:

“I’m not going to get into a situation under review by the State Department and the FBI,” Carney said. …

The press secretary said that “from the moment our facility was attacked” the president has been focused on providing security to all diplomatic posts “and bringing the killers to justice.”

About the list of security issues, Carney said it was a “known fact that Libya is in transition” and that in the eastern part of Libya in particular there are militant groups and “a great number of armed individuals and militias.”

If it was a known fact, why the hell was security so appallingly bad?  Again: that’s a defense? That’s the best he can do?

Oh, and another thing: Thanks, carnival barker, for bringing up the “review by the FBI.”

First, note that he didn’t say “investigation.”  Because that would require, you know, people actually on the ground investigating.  But the FBI isn’t in Benghazi investigating anything-despite the fact that earlier Carney and the rest of the administration had suggested the FBI was conducting an investigation.  They won’t go there without military escort.

So there is, in fact, no real investigation to defer to when refusing comment.  Though it is very convenient that the investigation be delayed indefinitely, thereby extending the “I can’t comment while the investigation is underway” excuse indefinitely.

And yeah.  More than two weeks after the events I am sure an investigation will reveal just loads of information.

Memo to carnival barker: Anderson Cooper-and the terrorist assailants-have already picked the “crime scene” clean of any useful information.

Second, putting the FBI in charge suggests that this is a crime, not an act of war.  Another devastating revelation of the mindset of this lot.

This is a military/intelligence matter, not a law enforcement matter.

And speaking of intelligence, sources within the intelligence community rate the aftermath of the attack as a 10 out of 10 on the disaster scale.  A failure to predict, and one that reportedly resulted in the complete disruption of anti-Al Qaeda intelligence operations in the area.

If anyone was president other than Obama, this would be a huge scandal.  Who would need an October surprise?  The September surprise would have torpedoed his candidacy more thoroughly than the USS Indianapolis, and anyone surviving the explosion would be consumed by media sharks.

But the “bumps in the road” outrage goes almost totally unremarked.  The preening over killing Osama, which allegedly proved the end of Al Qaeda, and which makes Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” boasting look Julian-Assange-pale by comparison, draws no criticism.

And that may be the most appalling thing of all.