CBS 11 Header TXA 21 Header MeTV Header KRLD Header The Fan Header
CBS DFW WEATHER APP: iPhone App Store | Android App Coming Soon | More Information

Opinion: Benghazi-Gate: Obama’s Unconscionable Actions

Damage inside the burnt US consulate building in Benghazi (Photo credit: GIANLUIGI GUERCIA/AFP/GettyImages)

Damage inside the burnt US consulate building in Benghazi (Photo credit: GIANLUIGI GUERCIA/AFP/GettyImages)

The Right Politics

Seven weeks after the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the horrendous story which continually points to President Barack Obama and his administration’s wrong-doing in not providing security for the now-dead Americans prior to the terrorist attack. It is not being used as the political issue it should be by Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney and his running-mate United States Representative Paul Ryan a week before the election.

As recently as Monday, President Obama repeated his statement in which he says he’s “offended” by accusations stating that his administration did not do enough to protect the consulate and the murdered Americans.

Be offended. Be extremely offended. It doesn’t change the facts which are pointing more and more to the president for the unconscionable wrongdoing.

What’s offensive is that there are reports saying that President Barack Obama watched the attacks in the Situation Room at the White House, and then headed out to Las Vegas to campaign party-style. Did he think that by ignoring the situation it would go away?

Why is it that he stays in Washington, D.C. to give the appearance of being “presidential” for storm Sandy but didn’t for the death of four Americans? Perhaps one incident – the Benghazi attack – could have been avoided and the other – the storm – couldn’t.

As the “left” continues to threaten to use the mere mention of the incident as a “political” move, many on the “right” believe there is no time like the present for such a political move. It seems incomprehensible that Romney and Ryan, as well as others on the political “right” have been basically bullied into not using the story – at least, not since it was introduced during the first presidential debate on October 3 of this political season.

Many believe this is the Watergate of the 2012 election and the story that can – and should – definitely put the presidential election victory in Mitt Romney’s hands. However, the story which makes President Barack Obama, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others appear to be totally-out-of-line with their immediate and up to two-weeks-after allegations of a YouTube video – disrespecting those of the Islamic faith – being the cause of the 9/11 attack, is being buried in the news and by the Republicans on the campaign trail.

Much like Watergate in 1972, this story is going to get bigger after the election. Much like Watergate, this story is going to totally occupy the White House’s time and effort as they continually try to appear offended by the notion of having done anything wrong. Much like Watergate, many people on the opposing party – this time on the “right” – will be incredibly and justifiably angered that the story was buried until “after the election” if Obama wins. Why would Obama or America want the presidency entangled in such a scandal by electing Obama with this concern on the table? Those who remember 1972 and the aftermath of Watergate know that it’s a terrible situation to have such a scandal in the White House.

Perhaps, other news outlets will follow Fox News’ lead by reporting on the new information regarding the 9/11 attack which states “an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command – who also told the CIA operators twice to ‘stand down’ rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on September 11.”

By now it’s obvious that Obama and his administration did not handle the situation correctly. Rather than taking a presidential stance during the horrendous incident, Obama kept his mind and actions on his 2012 reelection campaign and tried to alter the obvious reasons for the deadly attack. To many, it was obvious the moment the 9/11 incident was reported. After all, it was in the Middle East and on 9/11. Was there honestly ever any logical doubt that this was a terrorist attack? How insulting for the president to think that Americans would believe anything else.

Again, the stories are beginning to surface which say – just days before the election – that Obama was in the Situation Room of the White House watching the attack just before heading out to Las Vegas to campaign. How does one stomach watching such a deadly attack and then go party for votes in Vegas? Beyond being incredibly wrong, it’s unconscionable.

Romney began the deserved-criticism of Obama’s non-actions and denials made during and after the attack but shied away. He shouldn’t have. He should have been – and should now be – as vigilant with his Benghazi allegations of wrongdoing on Obama’s part as Obama has been with his diversionary tales of Big Bird, folders, and his spin on the questionable auto bailout. Obama only wants to talk about rape when Benghazi and the economy need to be discussed equally, if not more right now.

There are seven days – no more – before the election that is justifiably being called the most important election of our time. This is no time for the media to get away with ignoring the obvious importance of this story – other than reporting Obama is “offended” – in an effort to help Obama win the election. Furthermore, this is no time for Mitt Romney to fall for being bullied into not talking about the story.

Romney was right to mention the Benghazi incident during the first debate. He has been wrong to not run with that issue until November 6. The truth is going to come out eventually anyway, therefore it ought to be come out before the election – regardless of when the hearings have been apparently conveniently planned to occur after the election for political reasons.

About Scott Paulson

Scott Paulson writes political commentary for Examiner.com and teaches English at a community college in the Chicago area. The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of CBS Local.