Tuesday, May 14, 2013

New York Times Editorial, "A Bumbling Response on Talking Points": Bumbling Only on Talking Points? Sorry, this Is a Debacle

Having systematically sought to ignore the Benghazi disaster (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/david-brooks-beyond-fence-new-jg.html) and with their credibility hanging by a thread (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/05/13/all-the-banality-thats-fit-to-print/), the editorial board of The New York Times is back with more buffoonery. In a short editorial entitled "A Bumbling Response on Talking Points" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/white-house-under-fire-it-fumbles-benghazi-response.html), these geniuses would have us know:

"No matter how often Republicans denounce them, the initial talking points used by the White House to describe the attack in Benghazi, Libya are not the real point. But they have become a major political issue in large part because of the White House’s inept response to questions about how they were written."

An "inept" response to the redaction of the talking points, amounting to twelve versions of "spin" with no concern for the truth on the ground? Sorry, but I would label the White House's would-be indifferent response, i.e. Jay Carney's "Benghazi happened a long time ago," as "mendacious."

The editorial continues:

"It is also true that the details of crises often take time to sort out; we now know the attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others were carried out by Al Qaeda-linked groups, though at least initially, that was unclear."

Rubbish. As apparent from the first draft of the talking points ("we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack"), the Obama administration, the State Department and the CIA knew real time who was behind the assault.

The editorial says:

"But both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have accepted responsibility for the security failures."

Obama and Hillary have accepted responsibility? Oh, really? One day after the attack, Hillary stated (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/new-york-times-editorial-republicans.html), "we are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault" and then linked the attack to "inflammatory material posted on the Internet." Months later, of course, Hillary would infamously declare:

"With all due respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans. Whether it was because of a protest or because guys outside for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?"

"What difference at this point does it make"? That's a peculiar way of accepting responsibility.

Obama? In an appearance on the "Daily Show" with Jon Stewart on October 18, 2012, the president declared:

"When a tragic event like this happens on the other side of the world, immediately a whole bunch of intelligence starts coming in and people try to piece together exactly what happened. And what I have always tried to do is to make sure we just get all the facts, figure out what went wrong, and make sure it doesn’t happen again. And we’re still in that process now. But everything we get, every piece of information we get — as we got it — we laid it out for the American people."

Needless to say, "every piece of information" was not laid out for the American people. In fact, no information was subsequently laid out for examination. Is this an appropriate way to go about accepting responsibility?

The Times editorial next tells us:

"It was surprising that [The Accountability and Review Board] did not question Mrs. Clinton or her two top deputies because, as Thomas Pickering, the former diplomat who co-chaired the inquiry explained, the board concluded mistakes were made by less senior officials."

It may be surprising for the editorial board of The Times, but it was not surprising for me. Pickering just happens to serve on the advisory board of the National Iranian American Council (http://www.niacouncil.org/site/PageServer?pagename=About_pickering), he has met with Hamas leaders, and he serves as the chair of the Board of Trustees of the International Crisis Group where George Soros also serves as a member of the Executive Committee (http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about/board.aspx).

The editorial concludes:

"There are serious issues that need follow up, including the C.I.A.’s role in responding to the Benghazi attacks, stability in Libya, which is in disarray, and the status of diplomatic security reforms. But none of that seems to concern Republicans who are out for political vengeance."

Sorry, but this is not a matter of Republicans versus Democrats. Rather, this involves the death of a US ambassador and three other Americans, and the failure of the Obama administration to lift a finger to come to their aid while they were under siege. This also involves the secretary of state and the president arrogantly deceiving Americans regarding the identity and motives of those responsible for this horror.

In short, there should be nothing partisan about pursuing this investigation. It is a simple matter of right and wrong, which has sullied US government credibility at home and overseas.

See also: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/david-brooks-next-scapegoat-benghazi.html

No comments:

Post a Comment