Benghazi: Does it matter

 A headline that has been reported on almost non-stop by Fox News is that of the embassy bombings in Benghazi. Last time, the question was whether the Ambassador and others were left to die. This time, the question is whether there was a cover up as to the reasoning behind it. The Republicans cite many internal memos, the public questions why Clinton was not aware of the situation, and GOP members criticize it as, among other things, the “worst incident to happen in a Presidential administration.” Dick Cheney said those last lines. And while your sides are hurting from so much laughing at the irony, Lindsay Graham says that Benghazi is “Not a Fox News story; it’s a real-life story,” completely ignoring the fact that only Fox News is covering the story in this much depth and negativity. They’ve had everyone from lawmakers to former high-ranking military members to the general public interviewed on their show. And all of them—surprise, surprise—say that the administration bungled their response. But enough about Fox News. The question I am addressing here is: does it matter whether there was a cover-up?

The answer, to me, is no. Though the Republicans do have some interesting talking points, the most compelling of which I’ve found to be that the Obama Administration has no problem trotting out successes such as the killing of Osama Bin Laden, they are barking up the wrong tree. Rather that worry about the 12 revisions of the talking points, the last of which was handed to Susan Rice when she went on TV and, as they say, “deliberately misleading the American public,” there are simply other areas of this “Scandal” that they could be focusing on.

If you really want to show your party’s strength on Benghazi, forget about the pettiness of who knew what, and when they knew it, you should be using these talking points:

#1: On the Intelligence Committee, you should be stressing for major overhauls in the way embassy security is handled. If there have been, as Fox News has reported, numerous security breaches in the past in Benghazi or elsewhere, there should be insistence and the putting-forth of solutions as to how to fix these problems. It should be stressed that, going forward, these security risks should not be ignored and should be dealt with as quickly and as quietly as possible, pushing for more technology and more armed guards if the situation merits it.

#2: On the Armed Forces Committee, you should be stressing for a Rapid-Deployment Force. This will be one that could, especially in times of crisis, go into an area, take out the offenders, and leave. This force would be able to be scrambled rapidly and would be on alert constantly for when the next security breach happens.

#3: On the National Security Committee, you should be stressing for those tasks with Terrorism to do their job and drag this failure out into the limelight. National Security focuses on terrorism. How in the world could the President’s National Security team not be prepared for an attack anywhere in the world on, of all date, 9/11.

#4: In general, Republicans should be pushing for more transparency, not only on the Congressional committees, but also with the public in general.

What the above approach does is it changes the focus from hindsight to telling the American public, “Look, this happened, and if you vote us back into office, it will not happen on our watch again. We are serious about National Security.” And after all, isn’t that what the Republicans want, to own an issue again?