Benghazi DOES Matter
By RU Twisted
With recent findings by a Senate Intelligence Committee that the tragedy in Benghazi was “preventable,” I feel it is necessary to revisit—albeit briefly—why this is important and why it matters. After all, if nothing good comes from this unfortunate episode, then why should it even be in the news?
In the report by the Committee (which is where freedom goes to die, by the way), fault was found with the State and Defense Departments, as well as citing failure on behalf of the White House. It claimed that “ample strategic warning” was provided by the intelligence community and that the State Department should have increased its security—something it failed to do.
The Chair of the Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, stated that they took a truly bi-partisan effort to shed light on what happened and what could have been done to prevent the failures from occurring. The report stated that there were multiple instances that offered substantial indication that the threat present warranted better security and that the State Department neglected to act upon the warnings.
Let me just take this moment to state for the record that if Dianne Feinstein thinks your security posture sucks, you done screwed the pooch, son!
Seriously, this is a woman who has successfully kicked freedom in the balls at nearly every opportunity throughout a too-long career. Her ability to further statism is only eclipsed by her shrewd, elitist attitude towards the average citizen, yet even she managed to get this one at least somewhat correct.
But why does it matter? Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked the question “what difference, at this point, does it make?”
It matters in several ways, most of which are probably too deep to go into here. But I think we can cover the most important parts very quickly.
First, it matters because dishonesty in government should always matter. Most problems in government stem from either ignorance or dishonesty; this particular case is most certainly an instance of both. The attempts at appeasing people with the notion that the attacks in Benghazi were a response to a video about Islam were either known to be outright lies or monumentally ignorant—I’m not sure which is worse.
Clinton did her best to lay the blame of the attacks in Benghazi at the feet of a video that supposedly angered Muslims and continued to do so after evidence plainly showed that this was not the case. That isn’t misinterpreting intelligence reports—it’s lying. And when government officials lie, everyone suffers.
Lies by officials at the level of Secretary of State are inexcusable. Yet we see them on a regular basis and by individuals from all political parties. Unfortunately, the term “accountability” in our current system of government is an absolute joke. Will there be a punishment for her or any others involved in this failure? Doubtful. In that regard, this story is very much relevant.
Our inability as a people to hold politicians accountable for their actions is catching up with us quickly. Benghazi is just the latest in an already-long list of examples of how an elected or appointed official blatantly ignored the rule of law, did their own thing, and walked away unscathed other than a few headlines. Journalism has dropped the ball in this regard, as we all know; but ultimately the people have failed because of what can be done without repercussions at the highest levels of representation.
Second, it matters because our involvement in places like Libya is a giant question mark—what are we doing there? Do we have a plan? Is it a workable plan? Unfortunately the answer to that first question is mostly an “uhhhhhh….,” which makes the follow-up questions essentially irrelevant.
Our lack of any kind of a solid plan—and the seeming inability to recognize that void—continues to haunt our actions around the world. The bumbling mess of bureaucracy in foreign lands is furthered by expanding budgets that are justified because of failed policies—the term “stuck in a stupid circle” is more than slightly applicable.
I imagine conversations at the Department of State going something like this:
“What is the plan in Libya?”
“I’m not sure, but we’re doing it at full throttle!”
“Are you sure? I mean, you can’t be at full throttle with the funding you have. You need more!”
I’m sure there are a lot more words used, but don’t kid yourself, that doesn’t make them any more meaningful.
Thirdly, it matters because it is reflective of how passive we have become regarding the actions of our own government. Remember, it is supposed to be “our own,” but that is not what is going on. Agree or disagree with current foreign policy, it is happening completely without the say of the people. Those holding elected office did not run on a campaign of “fixing the unfixable” in the Middle East because they wouldn’t have been elected.
No Congressman has his job in Washington because he said “hey, vote for me and I will send millions of dollars to places that hate you and will treat it with all the respect of a crack whore.” These initiatives happen at a level that nobody—including those intimately involved with the operations—understands.
“Why are we in Libya at all?”
“Well, see, we’ve been involved with them since Thomas Jefferson was president, so…”
And that’s the logic. No one seems to question whether or not we should be there—only how best to throw cash at the situation.
A wandering, aimless foreign policy shouldn’t be treated like a board game that players can simply walk away from.
Regarding these points, Benghazi still matters. Americans lost their lives because of a government that can’t successfully do what we’re not even sure it should be doing…but is doing it anyway. It matters because what we as a country do abroad affects not only the lives of the people in those locations, but those living here, as well.