that what happened at Benghazi was a tragedy, that resulted from the instability that many wanted to not believe. Part of the problem is that it was the result of the US intervening way beyond the initial call to help stop a genocide.
However, if anything, the Republicans were more gung ho about entering the conflict than the Democrats - so other than Rand Paul, this is unlikely something that HRC will be called on. The same goes for Syria. I suspect that the strategy of arguing in her book and in interviews last year that she wanted to more aggressively help the Syrian rebels is that it puts her position near that of McCain/Graham et al. This gives the Republicans little room to attack her on. Additionally, it means she did not support the actual policy and she can say aiding the rebels would have prevented ISIS.
Given the Republican position on Benghazi, it is hard to imagine that she will be challenged on whether we should have intervened. As to the questions of whether decisions were made on the safety of the consulate, these questions are likely not to play well.
But, in addition, to was the Libya policy wrong, there are two other issues.
1) One is whether the Obama administration was concerned with how this could affect the election and did that affect what they said. Here, this issue is 4 years old and I think most people understand and believe that ANYTHING said in September/October of a Presidential year will be parsed for political consequences.
In reality, this is the Republicans whining that this SHOULD have harmed the Obama campaign more than it did. (I personally think that Romney reaction within hours of the news - where he was the FIRST to conflate a statement mentioning the film made by the Cairo embassy BEFORE the attack with the attack - it possibly why it had little impact. He was disgusting and I think people reacted by feeling this was an unseemly reaction.)
It is also a pretty convoluted argument. The Obama administration did not hide the reality that the ambassador was killed. Even if a film were partly (or completely) to blame, the action STILL shows that terrorism existed there. The argument that a film caused it does not help a campaign argument. This all related back to the silly Republican tactic that the words "Islamic terrorism" were not said - and any others words "act of terror" don't count. I suspect that few people - not already in the far right - got that strange argument.
It is hard to believe that what did not resonate 2 months after it happened, will resonate 4 years later.
2) Can the Republicans make this a "cover up" story? The answer here is what exactly was covered up. We knew day one that terrorists killed 4 Americans including the ambassador. To me, the answer is of course not. However, I do think the committee's charges may morph if they find anything in any emails provided. (One variant of this, which does scare me is that I would not be surprised if there is a covert effort to get some right leaning businessmen or foreign leaders to look through THEIR email for anything - that was State Department related but not flattering. Then if even one of those emails is NOT included, they will claim that she did NOT hand over all relevant emails. Obviously if they tried this, it could backfire on them.)
In summary, I don't think there is any likelihood that the foreign policy decisions in Libya or the 2012 comments of Rice/ HRC/ Rhodes etc will create any problems. This may be a case that - like Ken Starr, who was supposed to look at Whitewater and ended up with Monica, Republicans are hoping to use their subpoena power on Benghazi to find something that sticks. At this point they already did get a lot of attention on the email story -- that without Benghazi might have never been known.
= new reply since forum marked as read
