Spinning Terror, Again11:45 PM, Sep 16, 2012 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
The Obama administration continued to claim Sunday that the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were not planned or coordinated but spontaneous responses to news of an anti-Islam video that happened to take place on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. It’s a highly dubious claim, challenged by top Libyan officials, eyewitness accounts, several U.S. officials with access to the intelligence on the attack, and, it must be said, by common sense.
But Obama officials are undeterred. As they have done on two previous occasions after attempted attacks on U.S. interests – the attempted bombing of an airplane over Detroit and failed bomb plot in Times Square – top Obama officials are stubbornly clinging to a narrative that is politically advantageous but increasingly hard to square with reality.
On Sunday, it fell to Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to make the administration’s case.
“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” she said on This Week. “In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated…. We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons…. And then it evolved from there.”
That’s unlikely.
“The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” said Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif.
On September 12, the New York Times reported: “American and European officials said that while many details about the attack remained unclear, the assailants seemed organized, well trained and heavily armed, and they appeared to have at least some level of advance planning. But the officials cautioned that it was too soon to tell whether the attack was related to the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.”
Many other outlets – foreign and domestic – carried similar reports sourced to U.S. intelligence officials and witnesses on the scene.
After his briefings the day after the attacks, Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News that evidence showed the Benghazi attacks were planned. “Absolutely, I have no doubt about it. It was a coordinated, military-style, commando-type raid.”
Read more...
Foreign Policy as Tie-Breaker5:30 PM, Sep 16, 2012 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Bill Galston, one of the most intelligent center-left observers of contemporary American policies, is surprised:
"Still, the current state of the campaign is surprising, at least to me. The people say, as they have for a long time, that the economy is their principal concern. But job growth has languished since late winter. Unemployment remains above 8 percent, where it is likely to stand on Election Day. Household income remains well below where it was when the recession officially ended more than three years ago. Manufacturing is weakening, as are exports. Gas prices are very high. Most people continue to say that the country is off on the wrong track. Political science suggests that elections involving incumbent presidents are closer to referenda on past performance that a choice between two futures. And yet, Obama leads."
My colleague Fred Barnes, one of the most intelligent center-right observers of contemporary American politics, is puzzled:
"Since Obama took office in January 2009, the well-being of Americans has declined. Slow growth, high unemployment, increased poverty, and millions of dropouts from the job market are hallmarks of his presidency. The median income of American households has fallen to its lowest level since 1995. From June 2009 (when the recession officially ended) to June 2012, median annual household income diminished from $53,508 to $50,964. All age groups under 65 suffered drops in income, 25-to-34-year- olds a drop of 8.9 percent. Yet Obama, despite this litany of failure, has a 50-50 chance, maybe better, to win reelection."
Galston and Barnes suggest various explanations for the voters' disinclination to turn against Obama as strongly as might have been expected. Many of those explanations are reasonable. But here's one reason neither discusses: George W. Bush.
The recession began in late 2007—under George W. Bush. The financial crisis happened in the fall of 2008—under George W. Bush. The very sluggish recovery, to be sure, has happened under Barack Obama—and he's paid a political price for that. But one reason the price hasn't been much higher is surely that voters remember which party had the White House—and had controlled Congress for most of the recent past—when the troubles began.
This is where the historical and political science models may break down. We don't have recent experience of, in effect, a five-year recession. We don't have recent experience of a reelection campaign happening in a bad economy for which there is what might be called ambiguous causality. But given that ambiguous causality, it shouldn't be surprising that voters are hesitating to drop the hammer on Obama.
As Frank Cannon and Jeffrey Bell put it in the current issue, |
