Less than one month after criticizing President Obama for not having learned how to govern, after failing to get a new gun bill passed in the Senate, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is back hitting Obama for his handling of Benghazi:
THE capital is in the throes of déjà vu and preview as it plunges back into Clinton Rules, defined by a presidential aide on the hit ABC show “Scandal” as damage control that goes like this: “It’s not true, it’s not true, it’s not true, it’s old news.”
…The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth. After his Libyan intervention, President Obama knew he was sending diplomats and their protectors into a country that was no longer a country, a land rife with fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Yet in this hottest of hot spots, the State Department’s minimum security requirements were not met, requests for more security were rejected, and contingency plans were not drawn up… … Hillary Clinton and Ambassador Chris Stevens were rushing to make the flimsy Benghazi post permanent as a sign of good faith with Libyans, even as it sat ringed by enemies.
The hierarchies at State and Defense had a plodding response, failing to make any superhuman effort as the siege waxed and waned over eight hours… The defense secretary at the time, Leon Panetta, insisted, “We quickly responded.” But they responded that they would not respond.
Liberals like Dowd, who were initially quick to dismiss any attempt by Republicans to get to the truth about Benghazi, are now concerned that the White House’s stumbling will prove costly to the Democrats in the mid-term 2014 elections, as well as to Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The public deserves the truth and not excuses and obfuscation from the President.