- Published on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 20:59
- Written by Super User
By CHARLIE ALLO
The attack in Benghazi still has not come to any resolution; this condition is understandable given the conflicting motivations involved in this situation. The administration thought that it had presented a case that would satisfy the public, but there were too many explanations that just would not pass muster.
It’s hard to shake the feeling that the narrative that was presented was intended to protect the administration from any negative press during the election period; this strategy helped the administration through the election, primarily due to three factors.
The first of these factors is the President’s ability to use words that allow him to move in more than one direction, and the Republicans were, and still are, oblivious to this fact and how to counter this style. The second aspect was the lack of critical analysis from most of the mainstream media; this regrettable condition would require more space than is reasonable for this article.
Thirdly, the Republican Party was ill-equipped to deal with this subject in a rational manner, this is due in part to the fact that the style that the President was using is a hallmark of most politicians, just look at most of the legislation that is passed by our political leaders.
The Press Secretary is tying himself in knots because the media is finally forcing him to use langue that does not have more than one meaning; this is the tack that should have been employed at the very beginning, as a matter of fact it should be employed whenever a politician speaks, or when a legislative bill is drawn up.
The President choose the term “No acts of terror” in his speech because he could use it as a general term or suggest that he meant it to be used to suggest it was the act of Islamic terrorist; this was used very effectively during the debate with Romney
Now the Whitehouse Press Secretary is being pinned down on the eleven changes that were made to the CIA’s talking points, he’s trying to use the same tactics that were used so effectively the first time around, but the press is starting to get wise to this maneuver. After the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense took out any language that might call attention to their lack of proper oversight in their respective areas, it was sent back to the CIA in an unrecognizable format; unfortunately the CIA consented to the changes that were made, but commented, after the fact, that the changes left much to be desired. The Whitehouse’s Press Secretary has stated that the only change made by the Whitehouse was in the designation of the targets’ status, this may be true, but it is hard to believe that the President was not aware of the other changes that were made to the talking points. It is illogical to blame the CIA for the final draft, when the last change was made by the Whitehouse with the President’s approval. If the President was acting responsibly he could have rejected the changes.
One last point, the President is the Commander in Chief, and it would seem reasonable that if any action was to be taken to protect members of our foreign embassy that this decision would have to be made by the President, but one gets the impression that even in this critical area it appears the President does not want to put his fingerprints on this problem. There was no definitive command to execute a rescue mission for these embassy staff members, it was more like a suggestion that the Secretaries of State and Defense could do whatever they felt was needed. If thing went well he could take credit for the action, if they went south then it would be someone else’s fault. It is doubtful that the Secretaries have the authority to order an action of this nature, so the only thing that would be open to them is to tell the rescue team to stand down, meaning they did not receive a clear and definitive approval from the President. One would think that this aspect would receive more attention than it has.