After every attack, the general Beltway consensus was that these were unfortunate tragedies that are, sadly, all too common in the war-torn regions where the U.S. diplomatic corps often operates. There was no political grandstanding about “demanding answers” or threats of impeachment.
So what makes Benghazi different from those previous attacks? Nothing, really. It’s just another example of the violence and bloodshed that results from the sorts of unnecessary foreign entanglements that Washington warned about in his farewell address. It’s a symptom of nearly a century of American meddling in the Middle East.
Look, I’m not saying Obama is blameless in this situation. As much as I think his administration has done a lot of things right, it’s basically just continued America’s tradition of a myopic, self-centered Middle East policy. So there’s definitely room for legitimate criticism here… but that’s not what the Right is engaging in. They are just so desperate to pin something negative on Obama, they’ll latch on to the slightest hint of scandal. They want to turn him into some nefarious Bond villain, and they absolutely refuse to give him the basic respect due the office of the presidency.
Why? It’s like there’s something that makes him different from the 42 men who held office before him… I just wonder what it could be…