This Editorial -- which is not from a democratic stronghold by any stretch -- does have its insights:
Editorial -- Richmond Times Dispatch, Richmond, VA
May 8, 2013
[...]Making 'Political Footballs' over the victims of terrorism, is despicable no matter how you slice it, at least according to these editors. I tend to agree with them.
If Benghazi happened on George W. Bush’s watch, conservatives would be ferociously defending the administration’s behavior against any and all critics. Tragic as the episode was, it does not rank as a momentous event. It was a minor, overnight disaster made worse by poor intelligence and self-interested dissembling. Contrast that with the Iraq War -- a conflict that was months in the making and years in the execution. It took not four but 4,500 American lives, based on faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. How many of those lives might have been spared if conservatives had shown a tenth as much skepticism about Iraq as they have shown about Benghazi?
In the matter of the Benghazi attacks, neither Democrats nor Republicans are covering themselves in glory.
People died. The world is still a dangerous place. There is 'no silver bullet' to prevent these heinous acts. None that we've found yet (short of handing out cash to everyone).
If only there were a way to prevent the exploitation of such tragedies. In the Fog of Chaos -- the perfect choice is not always made. People are fallible.
Just ask G.W. ...
If Benghazi happened on George W. Bush’s watch, would the public had even heard about it -- let alone been been given a play-by-play recounting of the internal Government Agency Tic Tock, as we have now? To kick around to their heart's intent.
More likely under G.W. Bush, the Benghazi events would have received the same cloak of heroism, given to the rescue of Jessica Lynch, or perhaps more likely still, the cloak of opaqueness, given the events surrounding the death of Pat Tillman.
Afterall the Fog of War, does have its Executive-Media protocols ...
We used to notice those "Embed Zones" -- but barely not, anymore ...
Executive Privilege: George W. Bush beats out Barack Obama 6 to 1
by Samuel Warde, samuel-warde.com -- June 21, 2012
Most recently, the Bush administration invoked executive privilege on six occasions.[...]
II. In 2004 Bush invoked executive privilege “in substance” in refusing to disclose the details of Vice President Dick Cheney’s meetings with energy executives.
V. On July 13, less than a week after claiming executive privilege for Miers and Taylor, Counsel Fielding effectively claimed the privilege once again, this time in relation to documents related to the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Fielding claimed certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and would therefore not be turned over to the committee.
VI. On August 1, 2007, Bush invoked the privilege for the fourth time in little over a month, this time rejecting a subpoena for Karl Rove. The subpoena would have required the President’s Senior Advisor to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a probe over fired federal prosecutors.
Normally the country gives the President the "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to the Fog of War. We understand that the perfect choice will not always be made. People are fallible. Our Enemies don't always play fair.
Must be why so many of our Presidents over the years, rely on this semi-invisibility cloak, in order to launch their Midnight Missions, when and if the situation really calls for it.
by Reynolds Holding, Time.com -- Mar. 21, 2007
Executive privilege: George Washington invoked it, Dwight Eisenhower named it and Richard Nixon abused it. Now it looms as the nuclear option in George W. Bush's battle with Congress over its investigation into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
Executive privilege usually applies to White House deliberations, on the theory that the President needs candid and confidential advice from his staff. The Supreme Court acknowledged that need as early as 1803, in Marbury v. Madison. But the privilege also protects national security matters, especially when they involve military and foreign affairs, and has the very practical effect of allowing the Administration to keep things like the names of spies and informers and the progress of delicate negotiations secret.
President Obama has every right to exert Executive Privilege on this Benghazi matter, and how it has unfolded -- the issue does involve "military and foreign affairs" afterall.
But imagine the Republican outrage THEN -- IF the Administration HAD closed the files, instead of making them readily available to Congress.
It would no doubt match their Patriotic outrage (yeah right) -- that Republicans everywhere expressed when President Bush openly disclosed this little bombshell way back in 2002:
Bush: Truly not concerned about bin Laden
link to video
He's just a person [bin Laden] who's been marginalized.... I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.Bush, March 2002: 'I really just don't spend that much time' on bin Laden
by Joan McCarter for Daily Kos -- May 02, 2011
Where were the Republican cries for Executive Impeachment THEN?
Where was their lazer-like focus on finding the "guy responsible for" those 2996 US deaths; On US Soil?
Where was their Benghazi Outrage x 1000 then?
Answer: Nowhere to be found. Their political Outrage then, was simply MIA.
Dashing down the field, with such a Where is bin-Laden "political football" would NOT have met their crass and self-centered purposes back then, now would it have?
Just think of "those 2996 murders" GOP -- Where was your "anguished cry for answers" over them? Were their lives, not just as worthy of "the real answers" as the Benghazi Four, that you now seek?
"The People STILL have a right to know" -- just where and why "the ball was dropped" ... back THEN, when it was your political watch, R's. We haven't forgotten it.
Fair is fair. Long as your party is going to keep on insisting it should making political hay from heinous human tragedies.
But, Terrorism requires of us, a different response. Just ask the Richmond Times Dispatch Editors, about that.