Thomas Sowell tells it like it is on Benghazi-gate. But Professor Sowell is a conservative and a Republican. Where are the voices of our liberal and Democratic friends and fellow citizens? Why the lack of curiosity about critical questions of governmental responsibility and accountability? Why the silence?
For heaven’s sake, an American ambassador and three other Americans were brutally murdered by terrorists (terrorists who appear to have links to Al Qaeda). This is a serious business, not a minor political dust up in which partisans can be excused for circling the wagons.
Why have so many on the liberal side of the political spectrum praised Secretary of State Clinton’s theatrical performance before the Senate committee, rather than damning her appalling evasions of the central questions? Why are so few–indeed, none, so far as I am aware (but someone please correct me if I am wrong)–demanding that President Obama tell the public when he became aware of the fact that the murders of Ambassador Stevens and the others were premeditated attacks by a terrorist unit, not (as he and others in the administration stated or implied for nearly a month) acts of spontaneous violence by a mob enflamed by an anti-Islamic film. Where is the Democratic “Howard Baker”?
Is there no one left in the party of Franklin Roosevelt and Adlai Stevenson, the party of my grandparents and parents—the party to which I myself once gave allegiance—with the integrity and courage to demand answers to the key questions: What did the President know and when he know it?
If it is only conservatives and Republicans demanding answers, they will be dismissed as partisans simply trying to harm their political opponents—and the questions will go unanswered. No one will be held accountable for the falsifications and deceptions that went on for weeks in the run up to a national election. If the public good is to be served—and if we are to deter government misconduct of this nature in the future—it is critical that demands for accountability be bipartisan. Someone must be willing to break the (in this case blue) wall of silence. Someone on the Democratic side must speak.
January 30th, 2013 | 10:11 am
At least one reason why there has been silence owes to the fact that we’ve been diverted by trivialities like the Susan Rice ‘controversy.’ Clinton was right last week–What’s the difference? But there is one difference–conservatives did her a great favor by distracting everyone from the real issue, the security of the Benghazi mission and its personnel. Well played, GOP!
January 30th, 2013 | 10:16 am
Keeping sensitive foreign policy and intelligence information from the general public is not dereliction of duty. It’s what diplomats and spies are supposed to do.
There’s no gate here.
January 30th, 2013 | 10:47 am
I agree very heartily with Prof George’s assessment of the Benghazi hearings, but I think FIRST THING is the wrong place for his post. Those hearings are important, but they are rather far from FIRST THINGS valuable focus on religion and culture.
I want FIRST THINGS to be widely read, and to be effective and influential, even among those who do not vote Republican.
January 30th, 2013 | 11:05 am
The question should be pointed at the “news” media. Politicians are expected to be partisan–on both sides.
Mainstream journalism likes who they helped place in power. Their profession has become nothing but falderal.
January 30th, 2013 | 11:41 am
Mr Millies writes: “We’ve been diverted by trivialities like the Susan Rice ‘controversy.’”
Ambassador Rice was the voice of the administration misleading and misinforming the American people, assuring us the attack was a one-off fluke driven by rage over a video. For a while, Secretary Clinton spoke as if it was an understandable rage even though it generated unjustifiable actions, and we were diverted into First Amendment controversies.
The man who made the video was arrested in the middle of the night on Sept 15th, and Charles Woods, whose son Tyrone Woods, a former Navy SEAL, was killed during the attacks on our Benghazi consulate, said that as the bodies of the four Americans arrived at Andrews Air Force Base, Secretary of State Clinton said “We will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”
It was the Obama administration that did the “distracting,” and those who “cover up” are inseparable from what is being hidden.
January 30th, 2013 | 12:01 pm
Here’s the real cover-up: What’s with the glasses?
January 30th, 2013 | 12:19 pm
Felapton, Congress is not the general public. If the questioning of Hillary Clinton needed to be secret then she should have asked for a closed hearing. And if there were any private briefings to the congressional or committee leadership, we would have heard about it.
n.really, I read that the glasses are to correct a double-vision problem stemming from the concussion.
January 30th, 2013 | 9:59 pm
“Felapton, Congress is not the general public.”
Thnats true, and the general public does not have a security clearance. The Congressional Intelligence Committee was briefed in closed session on November 15, 2012. Nobody knows what was disclosed.
“And if there were any private briefings to the congressional or committee leadership, we would have heard about it.”
Apparently not of of us are that interested.
“and if we are to deter government misconduct of this nature”
What, exactly, was the governemt misconduct?
Anyone who has ever manned an operations center or been involved in an emergency response situation knows well of the “fog of war.” it is very likely that accurate information cannot be immediately disseminated to the public–hence the qualifications (“As far as we know”) given by Rice.
September 12, 2012: Obama calls Benghazi attack “act of terror.” He called it othe next day. Where’s the beef?
I’m honestly unsure of the nature of Robert George’s complaint. Does he claim the President caused the deaths of 4 Americans for his own political purposes?
Assuming that was true—how about a President causing the deaths of 4484 servicemembers and the wounding of another 33,184 by misleading the American people on the presence weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
What should we do in that hypothetical situation?
January 31st, 2013 | 9:39 am
I am afraid that Franklin Roosevelt and Adlai Stevenson are dying definitively.
Attitudes have changed, and unfortunately I think the USA are no longer “the” first great power. Now, we have to learn to accept it.
Addio Bel Passato !
NB: France died in the revolution of 1789 and French in the war of 1914/1918.
February 4th, 2013 | 3:46 am
The blogpost raised important nonpartisan concerns … and moral concerns.
The questions are valid. Where are the valid answers? Where is the concern amongst Dems and nonpartisans?
Clinton demonstrated her intention to not provide answers. The Dems are silent and that won’t help getting answers. The newsmedia is indifferent to asking these questions.
It is fraudulent to hide behind “fog of war”. It is immoral to stonewall now. Obama ought to feel compelled to volunteer the valid answers … even if it means loss of face and/or impeachment.
Even Clinton’s husband had to face the valid questions and he was compelled to provide the valid answers during his impeacment. Obama is trying to play out the clock like Nixon tried.
February 8th, 2013 | 2:36 pm
One problem with this post is the assumption of both wrongdoing and the primacy of political calculation on the part of the Administration. Democrats and nonpartisans should join with the Republicans, Prof. George says, when there is no consideration that the opposite movement might also be a valid direction. It is not that Republicans and conservatives in Congress are demanding answers – it is that they are demanding that their already-determined answers be validated. The questioners from the conservative side have poisoned the well from the beginning and this is an invitation to drink that water, rather than finding a fresh stream.
I would also point out that Mr. Sowell is making his argument from an impassioned and nakedly partisan foundation and is therefore not a valid starting point for demanding cooperation from anyone who does not already agree with him. He dismisses the likelihood of ever knowing all of the salient facts in this incident, including any which might contradict his thesis, with a wave of his hand and immediately pivots back to his concerns that Mrs. Clinton will run for President, and how he thinks she will not be impacted sufficiently by her alleged errors here. Most of the column is a personal and political criticism of the Administration and has little critique or presentation of the facts with which Mr. Sowell claims to be so concerned.
If conservatives were actually concerned about the truth of the matter, they would gather their facts more completely before voicing an opinion. Instead, we see again the presentation of conservative political ideas and goals as Truth and an invitation for the rest of us to accept that truth uncritically.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact