Steady drips of information about the deadly attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya last year are fueling Republican criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the crisis.
The revelations are also bolstering ads designed to fire up the conservative base and undercut the early favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016: former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Democratic and Republican strategists sharply disagree on the issue’s power to influence future elections. But after eight months of trying, Democrats are still struggling to move past last September’s terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, which killed ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Democrats contend that an independent inquiry, the dismissal of several State Department officials and nine congressional hearings leave little new to say on the matter. But Friday turned up the sort of nuggets that feed conservative activists’ belief that a major scandal may still be at hand.
Newly revealed communications show that senior State Department officials pressed for changes in the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used to explain the attack a few days after it occurred. The officials expressed concerns that Congress might criticize the Obama administration for ignoring warnings of a growing threat in Libya before the attack.
The White House has insisted that it made only stylistic changes to the intelligence agency talking points, in which Rice suggested that spontaneous protests over an anti-Islamic video set off the attack. The new details suggest a greater degree of political sensitivity and involvement by the White House and State Department.
Rice and others eventually acknowledged that the Benghazi assault on Sept. 11, 2012, was a premeditated terrorist attack. Republicans charge that her televised remarks on Sept. 16 were just the start of administration efforts to mislead Americans about what happened in Libya.
The Benghazi violence was heavily politicized from the start, occurring less than two months before President Barack Obama’s re-election. Moreover, the secretary of state at the time was Clinton, the former senator and first lady who ranks high in speculation about the Democrats’ 2016 presidential nominee.
Friday brought another round of conservative broadsides against Clinton, Obama and the administration’s handling of the Benghazi matter. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a possible Republican presidential contender, wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Times restating his view that Obama should have fired Clinton.
Paul later said he thinks the Benghazi affair “precludes Hillary Clinton from ever holding office” again.
The conservative group American Crossroads released a 90-second video asking if Clinton was “part of a cover-up.” The video, like emails and letters from several other groups, asked for political donations.
Republican strategist Kyle Downey said Benghazi already exposes a trove of Democratic vulnerabilities, which might grow as inquiries continue. He said Republicans should use the findings to challenge the competence, truthfulness and judgment of Clinton, Obama and other administration officials. Republicans, Downey said, should let the politics play out in terms of which charges gain the most traction.
Some strategists say the Benghazi narrative may prove more valuable for congressional Republicans in next year’s elections than in 2016, which is far off. House Republicans, in particular, can seize on Benghazi to motivate their base and donors.
Democrats say Republicans are nakedly exploiting the Benghazi deaths, and voters won’t like it.
“Republicans are a desperate party right now, trying to do whatever they can to dirty up the president to make some gains in 2014, and to dirty up Secretary Clinton because they’re terrified she’ll walk into the White House,” said Democratic consultant Doug Thornell.
About the Author
