Republicans gleefully make political hay from the Benghazi attack, repudiating a long standing tradition of solidarity in the face of enemy attack. It is just common sense: if somebody attacks us, the best strategy is to present a united front.
Instead, while the President and the executive branch are working to track down those terrorists and bring them to justice, Republicans in Congress are working hard to undermine the President, who heads that effort. The terrorists could hardly have found a more potent ally.
If the terrorists read the news, it's not difficult to formulate plans to exploit this rift in American politics. Republicans have, in effect, sent this message to the terrorists: Attack our country, and we will attack the President, and do it with as much public fanfare as possible. If your attack puts Republicans in a favorable light, so much the better.
Republican accusations about Benghazi range from incompetence to outright lies to criminal cover-up. These accusations give our enemies aid and comfort, which is the very definition of treason. There is not even a plausible cover story for the obvious intention of damaging Obama and Clinton politically. The "investigation" is an outright farce, and cannot possibly uncover anything of investigative value. The Republicans lack any access to modern forensics. They have no intelligence of their own (in both senses of that word). They are not privy to any highly classified information that may be relevant. (At least I hope not.) They cannot operate any of the sophisticated equipment that actual intelligence agencies use. They are not the least bit technically competent to conduct this investigation. Everybody knows this. Everybody is fully aware that they are willing to damage the executive branch in order to gain political points.
our own Georgia Logothetis calls it a witch hunt. But I think, with all due respect to Logothetis, that Republicans have crossed the line that divides politics as usual from matters that have real consequences on our national security. When the deaths of four brave Americans are exploited for partisan political gain, we have reached a new low. Repeating the thesis of the diary title, how close does this come to treason? Darrell Issa and his ilk have put their partisan gain in front of the very security of the nation. Members of Congress enjoy immunity for their actions on the floor, but I hope the nation remembers this perfidy at election time. Their hatred of the President has obscured their obligation to act in the best interests of the country.
So, what should they have done if they truly had the best interests of the nation in mind? It is not difficult. First, they ought to have announced complete solidarity between Congress and the executive branch. The slightest hint that they would like to take Obama, or Clinton, or the State Department down, is welcome news to the terrorists. Instead, within days of the attack, Republicans were attempting to use the Benghazi attack as political fodder in the presidential race. (How did that work out?)
Second, the intelligent and patriotic thing to do would be to meet with the President behind closed doors, and express their keen interest in the investigation that professionals would obviously be undertaking. Surely, Congressional leaders are entitled to be kept advised of the progress of the investigation, at least to the extent that security be maintained.
Third, Congressional leaders might have examined their own consciences. Did they give full consideration to the funding requests of the executive branch for the security of our diplomatic efforts? This consideration alone should make Republicans everywhere cringe in shame.