Jane Mayer; Reagan’s Benghazi

| May 6, 2014

Jane_mayer

ChockBlock sends us a link to New Yorker in which journalist/Yale grad, Jane Mayer strains to make a comparison between the Obama Administration’s tribulations in comparison to President Reagan and the Beirut bombing;

There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials’ feet. But unlike today’s Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation—but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding “very serious errors in judgment” by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.

In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report’s findings, by the way, were bipartisan. (The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)

In March of 1984, three months after Congress issued its report, militants struck American officials in Beirut again, this time kidnapping the C.I.A.’s station chief, Bill Buckley. Buckley was tortured and, eventually, murdered. Reagan, who was tormented by a tape of Buckley being tortured, blamed himself. Congress held no public hearings, and pointed fingers at the perpetrators, not at political rivals.

If you compare the costs of the Reagan Administration’s serial security lapses in Beirut to the costs of Benghazi, it’s clear what has really deteriorated in the intervening three decades. It’s not the security of American government personnel working abroad. It’s the behavior of American congressmen at home.

Yeah, well, there are vast differences between the two incidences which resulted in the murders of Americans by jihadists. In Benghazi, warnings were made to people in Washington to reinforce security personnel. In Beirut, there were already hundreds of troops, but they weren’t deployed properly with sufficient security measures employed to protect the facility. Although some of that was the fault of Washington, and ultimately the president, the culpability was also shared by commanders on the ground who didn’t foresee a truck bomb attack, although that method of attack had been employed in the recent past.

Mayers claims that Hillary Clinton took responsibility for Benghazi, and something about the “dismissal of four employees”. If I remember correctly those four employees were just moved to other jobs, and Hillary Clinton told us that the deaths of those Americans at Benghazi don’t matter.

The Reagan Administration were forthcoming with information to Congress in regards to Beirut, the Obama Administration has not – they let it out in drips and drabs to drag out the investigation, ala Bill Clinton so that America tires of hearing about it. All of the surviving victims of Beirut were allowed to have their say abut the investigation. There are 30 surviving victims of the Benghazi whose names we don’t even know yet.

She claims that there are Republicans calling for the impeachment of the President. Yeah, no one rational is doing that, but there are impeachable offenses in regards to the lack of candor in the executive branch. Not to mention that the Reagan Administration took their portion of the blame immediately, they didn’t blame some virtually unknown movie or video.

But you can bet that the low-information voters are going to eat this vacuous shit up like applesauce. Mayer just wanted us to know that she was at Beirut back when she considered an unbiased reporter, but years of drinking the koolaid has made her an apologist for the naked emperor.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Media

36 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
USMCE8Ret

It’s a rather large document, but well worth the read:

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/FreeTitles/Beirut1983BombingDoDReport.pdf

MCPO NYC USN Ret.

Argh … Thee shant compare Reagan to Obama …

The Other Whitey

In memoriae magnae Ronaldus Maximus.

On his worst day he still had more integrity in his toenail than this whole administration. He wasn’t perfect, but he was damn good!

68W58

“Thee shant compare Reagan to Obama”

Except to point out that Obama isn’t a fraction of the man or leader that Reagan was.

Pinto Nag

That rug they’re trying to sweep everything under must be getting pretty lumpy by now.

UpNorth

PN, I don’t think there’s but one corner of that rug that even touches the floor now, with everything that’s been swept under it.

Martinjmpr

Jonn, I’m not an Obama or Hillary supporter, but I have to say that this whole Benghazi thing is a tempest in a teapot. Remember that the “scandal” is not about what happened, it’s about the misleading story the administration told about it. That’s it. As much as the lefties screamed and caterwauled about it under Bush, “Lying to the American people” (which Bush did not do, anyway, because being wrong is not the same thing as lying) is not an impeachable offense. The reason there was no talk of impeachment in 1983 is because people back then knew it would be a stupid, futile waste of time. Unfortunately, the Republican party under the leadership of the likes of Gingrich, did immense harm to the political process by impeaching Clinton for lying about the Lewinsky scandal. It was a dumb stunt that gained the Republican party absolutely nothing, and it set the stage for the modern political realm where the first thing that happens as soon as a new president’s hand leaves the bible on inauguration day is that his opponents start calling for his impeachment. [blockquote]Hillary Clinton told us that the deaths of those Americans at Benghazi don’t matter. [/blockquote] Jonn, that is extremely disingenuous. What Hillary was saying was that at this point, the story that was told to the public about the cause of the attack doesn’t matter. That’s a far cry from sying the deaths of 4 Americans doesn’t matter. I understand that a lot of folks here at TAH are right wing talk show listeners, I get it, and I’m sympathetic. But the talk show hosts have tried to turn this into a huge scandal and it’s just not there. The Americans who hate Obama may be all over it, but the ones who don’t are just shrugging their shoulders and saying “what’s the big deal? So the administration told a self serving and deceptive story to explain a horrible attack. This is news? This is a scandal?” Because it’s not, and all the wishful thinking in the world from the Rush Limbaughs won’t make… Read more »

Pinto Nag

There is more to it than just what the adminstration said about it. Here’s one link to that effect:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/09/20/admiral-admits-special-ops-ordered-to-hold-in-place-during-benghazi-attack-83752

MGySgtRet.

If the “most transparent administration in history” had not tried to hide behind the myth of a video causing this attack and had been forthcoming with who knew what and when, then this would have faded away. But instead, they have hidden the truth or at least shaded it for political purposes.

Hillary Clinton, by telling the American people that the reason for the attack don’t matter now just fueled the fire. It does matter because the original story was concocted to shift any blame from the administration. Remember, this happened right before a hotly contested election and Obama might not have survived if it was thought that his administration did not do all that they could for the people on the ground.

I will agree with Martinjmpr that it was stupid to impeach Clinton for being a pervert. This has had the effect of making bipartisanship a bad word.

Any attempts to equate Benghazi with Beirut are bound to come up full of holes. The Reagan administration and the military took the blame. I was on the ground in Beirut immediately after the bombing (with the 22nd MAU) and we were the beneficiaries of much more liberal rules of engagement than the MAU before us had operated under. We were actually allowed to load our weapons. And to fire back at identified threats. This was due to a quick acceptance of facts on the ground and the realization that in order to avoid this sort of thing happening again, troops in harms way needed to be allowed to defend themselves. We vigorously applied this in dealing with the threats we faced.

The Reagan administration did not try to hide behind a false narrative. President Reagan regretted what happened to his Marines for the rest of his life. President Obama, for all intents an purposes, seems to regret that he was not able to suppress information on the truth of what happened on September 11 2012.

Hondo

Clinton was not impeached for being a “pervert”, MGySgtRet. He was impeached for (1) perjury and (2) obstruction of justice. A second perjury charge was proposed but was not passed by the House; the same is true of a charge of “abuse of power” (whatever the hell that means).

I don’t give a rat’s ass how Willie got his willie slicked, or with whom. Hell, I can understand the attraction to an older married guy of getting his cigar smoked by some willing young honey. While I consider that morally wrong, barring coercion that’s IMO a matter solely between him, his spouse, and the Deity.

However, I do have a problem with lying under oath while giving legal testimony, then trying to cover up same. That’s particularly true given Clinton’s position at the time: the guy running the Federal Executive Branch of government, and thus in charge of executing (and enforcing) Federal law.

Allow unpunished perjury, and you can forget ever seeing a fair trial – period. And to a lesser degree, the same is true regarding obstruction of justice.

MGySgtRet

Hondo!! I know the charge was perjury. Brought on by having an affair with a woman not his wife and if accounts are to be believed, inserting a cigar in places that smoking material had not dared before to tread. And I agree that his lying under oath was reprehensible. But his impeachment has colored the discourse between the political parties ever since and I wonder if there were other options that could have been considered, like perhaps censure, that would have lessened the need in this day and age for all of the rancor that has infected our political system. A lesser punishment for the common good.

Hondo

I disagree, MGySgtRet. For two reasons.

First: it wasn’t Clinton’s impeachment that killed Congressional bipartisanship. It had been dead for over a decade by then.

Congressional bipartisanship effectively died with Tip O’Neal’s retirement from Congress in 1987. He was the last truly bipartisan leader in his party. All since him have IMO been political partisans first and Americans second. (GOP leadership took a lot longer to figure out that they were being hoodwinked on “bipartisan” efforts after 1986, but they finally figured that out – with the result that today IMO they’ve become much the same.)

Second: perjury and obstruction of justice, regardless of subject, cannot be allowed if you want to preserve anything resembling a fair justice system. That’s particularly true when you’re talking perjury on the part of those entrusted with executing and enforcing the law.

Allow unpunished perjury, and fair trials become impossible. Allow obstruction of justice, ditto. Regardless of subject, neither can be tolerated. Period.

MCPO NYC USN Ret.

Speaking of Monica “the Ugly” from Blowmetown … She is in the news today and it sounds like she is teaming up with people like DW to fight all the online attention they richly deserve.

68W58

Hondo- not only that, but at the time the Weekly Standard did a piece about a VA doctor who was screwing a patient, lied about it under oath and went to jail on a Federal perjury rap. That was important because lefties at the time swore that no one was ever convicted of perjury for lying about sex.

Case was prosecuted by the Clinton DOJ BTW.

MGySgtRet

Info Wars has pictures of him scaling the wall Jonn……: )

Martinjmpr

From the old Paratrooper.net days, right? 😉

OWB

Martinjmpr?? Not talking about “mistake,” Not talking about “lies.” And I, for one, almost never listen to talk radio beyond a bit of local news programming.

So get off the wishful thinking bandwagon there!

I also don’t care who you voted for, as long as it was an informed vote, and singular in nature.

My outrage over Benghazi remains first and foremost that Americans were hung out to dry and died as a result of those who might have saved them being ordered to stand down. That is NOT the American way of doing things.

Instead of admitting to making a mistake in judgment (which we have all made), there were lies all around from this administration, lies which continue to this day. So, yes, lies and mistakes are part of the problem, but the scandal is that they knowingly left Americans to die, apparently deciding that the political career, or fundraising for it, or something, was more important than the lives of Americans.

I also don’t care what party controls which branch of government. My expectations are the same – you don’t go to bed instead of dealing with a crisis. You don’t put your political career ahead of the needs of this country.

Call me naïve, call me all sorts of things, but don’t tell me that we had no military assets available to effect a rescue when we all know that is a lie.

And please do me the courtesy of acknowledging that I have enough brain function left to draw that conclusion from facts and personal experience, not based upon some talking head.

James in Gulf Breeze

Had Benghazi happened in a republican admin – there would have been much more investigation as soon as it happened. Especially stuff like why were troops who were going to respond and possibly save these guys told to stand down. It’s being represented as a tempest in a teapot b/c of successful spin by the administration. Worse yet – this was an attack on US soil that has been blamed on other Americans instead of the perpetrators.

Sparks

First, she’s a liberal dumb ass. She’s confirmed that. Second, Reagan took his share of blame and when it reports he was tormented by the tapes of a man being tortured, I believe he was because that is the kind of man he was. What he did not have then, was live time feeds and observation of the events as they happened in Beirut until after it had happened. Fast forward to Benghazi. Live time observation of events, live comm links from Benghazi to the situation room, advanced intel of the potential threats in Benghazi, speculation that Obama was NOT EVEN IN the situation room as it unfolded. Military asking if they could deploy…being told NO. Screw up after screw up. To summarize, in my opinion, had it been Reagan today handling Benghazi there would have been troops from every available place there ASAP or sooner. But before that he would have heeded the advanced intel and either not sent them there to start with or made sure the compound was absolutely covered with troops to withstand the attack. Obama, Kerry and Clinton watched it happen, said no to help and let four Americans die. That is on their heads and always will be. Differences, Reagan was tormented by whatever he considered his part in failing. Obama, Kerry and Clinton have NEVER lost a NIGHT’S sleep from the four dead Americans. They have never cared about American deaths and never will. They are not about taking any responsibility. They are about keeping their party in control in 2014 and 2016. I will even venture to say, that if it costs another hundred American lives to accomplish their political goals in the coming elections, their answer would be, “Where can we get the hundred and have them at the ready, how soon can we get them where needed and make sure we have our asses covered ahead of time. Jay Carney, I want solid, ass covering, deniable, press ready to go before the hundred even hear what’s coming to kill them. You got that! Yes sir Mr. President!” That is my… Read more »

The Other Whitey

I have read speculation that the unpleasantness in Mogadishu back in ’93 had a lot more of Hillary’s fingerprints on it than Bill’s. I don’t know if it’s true or not, she’s certainly a vile cunt either way, but if so, it suggests a pattern of thought and behavior that should be nowhere near any position of power.

One thing is certain: Hildebeast’s hands are awful bloody.

David

Certainly fits with everything else we know of Hillary’s attitude toward the military, which at absolute best is a “screw ’em, they should have known better” to outright antipathy.

Obviously the woman who wrote this piece is unaware of a huge fundamental difference – Beirut was a failure in the military, and military heads rolled and changes were made. Overall control in Benghazi was civilian, under State, and the response has been shuffling, obfuscation, and attempts to blame anyone or anything possible to avoid truly accepting responsibility.

UpNorth

Sparks, according to Tommy (Dude, that was, like, two years ago) Vietor, Obama was not in the situation room that night, nor was he even seen by NSC staff that night. Nor have I read anything on where Cankles was that night.
That said, how does one go from a truck driver in ’08 to an assistant National Security adviser in ’12?

MK75 Gunner

Dude, 2008 was like 6 years ago…/s

Farflung Wanderer

What a nutball.

What happened in Beirut is far less of a scandal than what happened in Benghazi. I hope this blows up in their faces and we can see our imperial president out the door.

nbcguy54

Unfortunately, I think Benghazi is going to painfully stay in the news. I personally feel that it’s less about Obama and more about Hillary’s prez bid in 2016. Obama’s a lame-duck, there’s not time to do anything about him so all sights are set on Hillary. If you remember, Benghazi was dogging her to death until she stepped down as Sec of State.

Martinjmpr

FWIW I don’t know that the Beirut issue compares, and in any case, it’s ancient history to the current electorate, many of whom weren’t even born then.

However, when it comes to military screwups that cost lives, I think the Republicans are going to be faced with embarrasssing questions about Iraq, and THAT is where the real comparisons will come down.

And if any of the Republicans in the house committee were supporters of OIF, then they’re going to be asked whether the 4,000+ deaths in OIF are somehow less of a “scandal” than the 4 deaths at Benghazi (I don’t watch “The Daily Show” but apparently Jon Stewart made exactly that comparison yesterday.)

My point in all of this is that while I hear people on the right cackling with glee about being able to rake Hillary and Obama over the coals about Benghazi, I think in the end it’s going to either do nothing, or it’s going to harm the Republicans more than help them, and at the end of the day, the conclusion will be exactly the same: Shit happened, bad decisions were made, and people got killed. Just like in every other conflict in human history, past, present and future.

David

“and what does it matter now anyway?” You may as well finish up the thought.

I trust my disdain for your position comes through loud and clear. While you are at it, the Democrats supported slavery in the South – it’s at least as relevant.

MGySgtRet

That comparison does not hold water. Majority Dem voted for war in Iraq, though many of them tried to spin out of it at a later date. “Voted for it before I voted against it”. Just remind the public of Dem voting records.

Martinjmpr

Ah, but that’s going to be explained away by either lies told by the Bush admin or “bad intel.” Either way, it hasn’t stuck to them so far, no reason to think it will now.

Martinjmpr

What bothers me most about this is the “One Big Scandal” nature of it all.

After Watergate, the goal of every out-of-power party has been to find the “One Big Scandal” that will bring the current administration down and sweep them into power. It worked for the Dems in 1974 and by the time it was over a Republican couldn’t get elected dogcatcher (hell, we elected Jimmy Carter for God’s sake!)

Then the democrats were stinging from the rebukes that the voters gave them in 1980 and 1984, and finally, by God, in 1987, they had their “One Big Scandal” in the form of Iran Contra. And how did that work out for them? Not that good. Most Americans didn’t care, didn’t understand the issues, and gave it a big “meh.” And Bush 41 was elected in 1988 pretty resoundingly.

The Democrats didn’t have time to gin up a “One Big Scandal” against Bush (although they tried tying Iran-Contra to him) and by 1993, Clinton was in office and it was the Republicans who were trying to come up with the “One Big Scandal” that would wreck the Clinton presidency.

Again, it fizzled. Sure, Clinton got impeached and then acquitted by the senate, the Democrats rebounded in 1998 based at least in part on sympathy generated by those mean, nasty Republicans.

In 2006 after they retook the House and Senate, the Dems tried again to gin up a “one big scandal” with hearings on the Iraq war. While that may have helped Obama win, he was also helped by an absolutely feckless Republican candidate, one who’d spent most of the past 8 years sticking his finger in the eyes of other republicans.

So now the Republican house has their “One Big Scandal” again, and I predict it will end up exactly as Iran-Contra did, i.e. in a big collective shrug of the shoulders from the American people.

NHSparky

My issue is, as I tell my kids, it’s not what you did that you’re in trouble for so much as the fact that you LIED about it.

Same with Nixon, Clinton, et al. If Clinton had gotten on television and instead of wagging his finger at the camera had said, “Hell yeah, I banged her like a cheap Chinese gong, what about it?” I would have been fine with it.

Hell, look at the Kennedys, for Chrissakes.

Blaster

NHSparkyAgreed.

Also, I have always said and believed that the problem was that Bill lied about his affair and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars because of those lies (Ken Star Investigation).

That said, and integrity aside, I couldn’t blame him for trying Monica. Have you taken a look at Hillary? GAG/YUK!!!

The Other Whitey

Far be it from me to defend Bill Clinton, but let’s be real about this. Consider Hildebeast. If you were married to…THAT, you’d be feeling up fat chicks in the office, too!

Imagine the sympathy he could have gotten if he would have presented it that way!

Navy Patriot

Let’s see if I have this right. The Obama administration’s diction in talking points has been the subject of seven investigations. When Reagan, against the advice of his SecDef, the Chairman, and the entire Intelligence Community, decided to place 240 Marines in an exposed area on land instead of at sea and further ordered that they not create an armed fortress, it resulted in the entirely predictable death of more Marines in one day than at time since IWO Jima. It was hubris and negligence. The upshot — one serious study of the event and Tip O’Neil calling his caucus together and saying -“we’re all Americans, we’re not going to play politics with this.”

Even without a Democratic equivalent of Grand Theft Auto Issa, by the end of the Reagan administration, over 135 Administration officials had been indicted, convicted or investigated for official misconduct. Historians are in agreement that this is the worst record ever. Given the serial misjudgments in Beirut (where we cut and ran), the S&L scandal, the Pentagon Procurement scandal, the HUD kickback scandal, and Iran Contra, the white collar prisons were overflowing until the blanket pardons began. The Democrats had all they needed to impeach Reagan. They didn’t. They asked for someone to be held accountable. They got Elliot Abrams and John Poindexter. Nothing else. They quietly took the deal. Imagine if Obama had Reagan’s record. Just play that game for a minute and you can’t imagine Obama surviving. And yet Republicans think Reagan should be on Mt. Rushmore. Talk about a double standard!!’ The good news -100 years from now Benghazi isn’t going to be in the history books. Beirut and Iran Contra, and most of the other Reagan transgressions will be.