Most Read: Opinions

direct signup

Today’s Opinions poll

Would you use an app that tells you the partisan affiliation of products you're considering buying?

Submit
Next
Review your answers and share
Right Turn
Posted at 02:23 PM ET, 11/01/2012

Obama escapes scrutiny on Libya

In case you thought there was a thorough investigation to get to the bottom of the Benghazi disaster, think again. It seems the key player in the episode — President Obama — is taking no part in the investigation. Jay Carney in today’s White House press gaggle told reporters: “These investigations are being conducted by both the FBI and the Accountability Review Board, and he is not participating in the investigation. He is anticipating results that show us exactly what happened, who was responsible and what lessons we can learn from it in terms of how we ensure that it never happens again.”

What about what the American people can learn about his role? That’s not happening, it seems. But the good news is Obama’s not planning on blocking the results of the investigations that don’t include him: “So the President is very committed to letting the facts come through and ensuring that we find out exactly what happened and who is responsible.” Don’t expect any of this to tell us what Obama did, said and why he acted as he did. That’s not happening so long as he’s pushing the investigation off his plate.

This is quintessential Obama. When it serves his purpose to be the guy in charge (Sandy), even if no real duties are involved, he’s all over the TV. When actual governance and detailed attention to national security are at issue, someone else is “responsible” when things go wrong.

Three advisers to Mitt Romney — Eliot A. Cohen, Eric Edelman and Meghan O’Sullivan — have an op-ed today, the closest the Romney camp has come in recent days to taking on the president on Libya. In detailing Obama’s foreign policy failures, the trio writes:

Candidate Obama defined our war with Islamist terrorists as being against the Al Qaeda organization that existed on September 10, 2001. But targeted killing is a tactic, not a strategy. The president and his advisers have crowed that the enemy is “on the verge of strategic defeat.” That complacency explains their bafflement at the precisely executed mortar barrage, the rocket propelled grenades and machine gun fire that demolished our consulate in Benghazi, killing four Americans, including the first American ambassador to die violently in over three decades.
The lapping of the Islamist tide through North Africa, Yemen, parts of South and Southeast Asia, and now in Syria suggests that they never really came to grips with who the enemy is. We have changed; so too has Al Qaeda, which has spread far beyond the Pakistan borderlands.

Obama, you see, is not only responsible for the U.S. actions on 9/11/2012 but also for the faulty policy leading up to those events, as well as the serial misstatements following the murder of four Americans.

Romney hasn’t personally taken up this issue for reasons that baffle conservatives. (It’s not like the press is going to cover it if he doesn’t speak up.) What is now clear is that Obama is trying to separate himself from these events, which is how he’ll get through the election unscathed. It is not such good news for his underlings, however, who will get blamed, or for the mainstream media, which, with some notable exceptions, have shirked their obligation to ferret out facts. The people have a right to know? Not so much in the Obama era with a lapdog press.

By  |  02:23 PM ET, 11/01/2012

 
Read what others are saying
     

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company