Does Benghazi Matter? 3 Reasons Why it Does

The most highly talked about moment in Tuesday's debate isn't the fact that Obama had a strong performance---it isn't that the president "won" the debate---and much to Obama's dismay, the focus isn't "binders full of women."

Like it or not, the focus continues to be the Benghazi attacks.

Image from ABC News

During the debate, Mitt Romney said, "It took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."

The president then interrupted and said, "Get the transcript." (Who was he talking to?)  Then out of nowhere, the debate moderator Candy Crowley, interjected and declared that the president did indeed call it an "act of terror."

Wait...When the president said, "Get the transcript," did he actually cue the moderator?  Had the president actually prepared her in advance with materials to help him at just the right moment?

Is that even allowed?  Isn't that a conflict of interest?

Well, I want to know if Mitt Romney was granted the same courtesy.  Because I am sure Romney would have appreciated Crowley's "fact checking skills" when the president flatly denied that his administration has cut the number of permits and licenses for oil drilling on federal lands and waters. Obama said Romney was lying.  Fact checkers and analysts have confirmed that Romney was right.

{It is worth noting, that following the debate, Crowley admitted that "Romney was largely right on Libya."}

Image from Wall Street Journal

But thanks to the debate, Obama finally offered some clarity:  He wants the American people to know that on September 12th, he officially, although somewhat ambiguously, called the embassy attack an "act of terror."

Well, I would argue that there are three reasons why Obama made a huge mistake in "clarifying an act of terror:"

***

#1 Did the President Prioritize Fundraising over National Security?

1) If the president firmly believed that the attacks were an "act of terror," how did he justify hours after the attack, to leave the confines of closed door meetings with his National Security Advisers and Intelligence Staff at the White House to parade himself around at fundraisers and campaign events? 

Obama in Las Vegas on September 12th (Image from Flickr)

Hadn't terrorists just committed a despicable act of war on America's interests abroad?  Wasn't an Ambassador dead?  For the first time in 30 years, an American ambassador had been murdered in an attack on our embassy and hours later, the president is off talking to supporters in Las Vegas about looking "Forward?"

That doesn't exactly look like leadership.  And it certainly doesn't show the terrorists that we have a president who is serious about terrorism.

#2 Who Fed the President False Information? Why Did he Believe Them?

If the president was convinced on September 12th that it was terrorism, then at what point did he change his conviction?  Who told him that it was a spontaneous attack in response to a YouTube video and why did he trust them enough to believe it?  Who had the president's ear?  And how did they convince him so quickly to change his description of the attacks to repeatedly say that it was simply a spontaneous protest in response to an obscure 20 minute video? 

Image from UPI.com

Whoever fed the president and Secretary Hillary Clinton this false information should be fired.  This information tarnished their reputation and their judgement.  My heavens, days after the attack, our president and the Secretary of State stood before the caskets of the four dead Americans and in front of their families, they simply condemned the video.  

Even worse?  Obama and Clinton spent millions of dollars on a commercial aired in Pakistan where they actually apologized for any offense that the video had caused---yet not one condemnation of terrorism.  

For two weeks, White House spokesmen, Obama and Clinton repeated claims about the video.  President Obama appeared on The View, David Letterman and he even spoke before the United Nations, but never once clarified that our embassy had been attacked by terrorists.  Rather, we simply heard that there was an investigation and that the video clip had sparked the violence.    

We now know that this not true. 

#3 Why Are Only Women Taking the Heat?   Did Obama throw Women Under the Bus?

Five days after the Benghazi attacks, the White House sent the current UN Ambassador, Susan Rice to appear on five different Sunday talk shows.  On each of these shows, Rice adamantly and consistently insisted, "Our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, a spontaneous protest prompted by the YouTube video." 

The Washington Post reported that Rice says that "days before her TV appearances, she relied on updates from Security Officials and also on a set of talking points prepared by the administration."  She says that there was no attempt on her part to "pick and choose" possible explanations.  

Either she is lying or someone deliberately used her to downplay suspicions of terrorism.  Why?  Either way, Rice's reputation and her credibility is ruined and someone in this administration is letting it happen.

Secretary Hillary Clinton is also at the center of this controversy.  She now takes "full responsibility for what happened on September 11th."  Full responsibility for what?

Is Hillary confirming that she was the one who ignored Ambassador Steven's repeated requests to beef up security in Benghazi?  Was she responsible for the phony talking points provided for Susan Rice?  Was she the one who had the president's ear and convinced him to waver on his September 12th "act of terror" declaration? 

Was she the one who failed to inform the President and Joe Biden that this was truly terrorism and that there were security breeches?  Because according to the last two debates, apparently neither of them were "aware" of any security issues at this embassy.

If all of this is true, will the president be forced to fire Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton?  If it isn't true, then why is President Obama allowing these two women to take the blame?

Either way, his administration seems perfectly willing to throw these women under the bus.

***

The president and his administration have handled the Benghazi tragedy with sloppiness and careless ambiguity.   An ambassador is dead.  American interests have been attacked by terrorists.  American security has been breached.  And yet, all we see from this administration is that a strange cover-up is unraveling.

To defend the president on many things is fine with me, but to defend his handling of the Benghazi attack is indefensible.

The press may not want to hold him accountable for it, but in 19 days, we can.  We should.  We will.

Go Mitt.