Enter
tics — though there’s plenty of politics to be had. Rather, I’m dismissive because the current probe is
obsessed with matters that haven’t
managed to journey outside the
realm of the superficial.
To wit, there seem to be two
matters under investigation. The
first has to do with whether or
not the response offered in what
was clearly a dire emergency was
adequate. With the benefit that
hindsight offers, critics-slash“whistleblowers” have stepped
forward to suggest that the military response was lacking. The
Pentagon has officially pushed
back on these claims, suggesting
that they offered up an accordingto-Hoyle response and that they
were not in the position to do
more than they did. Absent some
dynamic, evidence-based break
in the case, this is probably going to end up a “he-said/another
he-said” argument that won’t be
resolved until such time as the
military has another emergency to
which to respond, at which point
maybe one side will prove to have
been correct. Or not!
The other critical track the inquiry is on involves inter- and
intra-agency memo-mummery.
What talking points got changed
LOOKING FORWARD
IN ANGST
HUFFINGTON
05.19.13
and why. What low-level functionary took the blame so that
principals didn’t end up looking
embarrassed. How much energy
was spent on a State Departmentwide cover-your-ass effort, and
how it compares to the energy
spent on properly and efficiently
disclosing the relevant information to the public.
(A third thing that is being investigated is how well prepared
the State Department was to deal
If you strip all government
agencies down to their
constants … what you will be
left with is bad lighting, indoor
plumbing, and a small army of
bureaucrats striving to shield
their superiors from cock-ups.”
with the predictable contingency
of an attack on their facilities.
There, we have consensus: the
State Department was not well
prepared, and the State Department officially agrees.
Thomas Pickering, who ran the
State Department’s Accountability Review Board, concluded that
the “changing situation in Benghazi was not understood either on