The only real accountability for the Benghazi scandal will have to come in 2016.
By JONAH GOLDBERG
Tribune Content Agency
Reading through the competing partisan reports and listening to the congressional testimony of various officials this past week, it seems fair to say that no actual crimes were committed (though you never know what you dont know).
There were, in at least a figurative sense, criminal lapses in judgment by senior officials. Many of those lapses are recounted in the Accountability Review Board report. It found systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department that resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.
Translation: U.S. officials were caught by surprise by a terrorist attack on 9/11 in a country where our ambassador had repeatedly warned his superiors including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that security was grossly inadequate. That ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was vindicated in a pyrrhic sense when he was murdered by well-organized terrorists.
Clinton picked four of the five members of the independent board, and they were kind enough to show her a draft before they released it to Congress. The ARB assigned all meaningful blame to some mid-level officials. ARB members declined to interview Clinton because, according to testimony Thursday by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen (the chairman and vice chairman of the ARB), they determined at the outset that it wouldnt be necessary. None of the people who were interviewed for the report were under oath.
Congressional Republicans would like to get relevant witnesses to testify under oath, but they claim that the State Department and CIA are blocking that. CNN has reported that many potential CIA witnesses have been subjected to frequent, even monthly lie detector tests to discourage them from leaking information. One insider told CNN: You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.
Thats all very ominous, and Im at a loss as to why its outrageous for Congress to try to get to the bottom of what happened. But to listen to defenders of the administration and a lot of allegedly neutral journalists, this basic exercise in congressional oversight is a deranged and entirely fabricated partisan witch hunt. Its an odd charge given that the only obvious fabrication in the whole affair was the relentless effort to cast the attack that killed four Americans as a spontaneous reaction to an obscure and shoddy YouTube video.
But we probably know what happened. In the midst of a hard-fought presidential election, the administration, and specifically the president, was caught embarrassingly flat-footed by a terrorist attack. And even when it knew the attack was still going on without any possible knowledge of when it was going to end it still failed to send any help. The ARB establishes that much.
At the time, the Obama campaign had been touting its success in the war on terror. The last thing it wanted less than 60 days before the election was to lose that issue. So, afraid of the political fallout, the White House and State Department circled the wagons.
Hillary Clinton is a master of the passive-aggressive art of dragging out investigations until the press and public lose interest. The irony in this case is that its precisely that tactic that has now turned a political problem for President Barack Obama into a political problem for Clinton. And unfortunately, the only real accountability we can hope for on Benghazi will come when she runs for president herself.