The media pundits quickly hailed President Barack Obama the winner of the second presidential debate. The CNN and CBS snap polls of listeners appeared to have confirmed this view. Discouraged and demoralized by the Obama’s disastrous first debate, Democrats were barely able to contain their glee. The left-leading American Prospect magazine praised Obama’s performance as “relaxed, even jaunty, as he scored one point after another.” For Democratic consultant Robert Shrum, Obama’s debate “victory” meant that happy days were here again for Democrats through “probably … Election Day.” Democrats, relieved that Obama had lifted the sagging spirits of the Party base, were singing hosannas to the “comeback kid.”
Ironically, though, Obama’s best moment in the debate – his angry response to Romney’s accusation that the Obama administration had falsely attributed the violent attack on the American Consulate in Libya to a spontaneous protest prompted by an anti-Islamic YouTube video — may have indelibly damaged Obama’s credibility. His dishonest and misleading explanation of the events following the nearly unprecedented attack on American sovereign territory and the murder of the US Ambassador and three others means this issue will continue to dog the Obama re-election campaign.
Almost anyone familiar with the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2012 saw it as a terrorist act. Romney criticized Obama and his minions for insisting for nearly two weeks, contrary to compelling evidence, that the Benghazi attack was just a protest over a film gone bad. Obama indignantly huffed in response, “The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people … that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror [my emphasis] and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.” Believing Obama was now misrepresenting the facts, Romney then asked for the record whether the president was saying that he had in the Rose Garden called the U.S. Consulate attack “an act of terror.” Obama’s diffident response was, “Please proceed, governor.”
Romney, unfortunately was prevented from making his point. The moderator, Candy Crowley, interrupted the debate and his train of thought. Holding a transcript of Obama’s Rose Garden news conference, she insisted that the President “did call it an act of terror.” However, both Crowley and the President were wrong. White House transcripts of Obama’s Sept. 12 speech show that he actually said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” The reference to “acts of terror” was not about the Benghazi attack, but terrorism in general. Flummoxed by Crowley, Romney did not follow up with the obvious question that could have slammed the door shut on Obama’s re-election chances: “Why did UN Ambassador Susan Rice appear five days later on Sunday Talk shows calling the attack ‘a spontaneous reaction … prompted by the video’?”
Any “suggestion that anybody on my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor,” Obama indignantly scolded Romney, “is offensive.” Really? What is offensive, Romney should have replied, is that the Obama administration ignored Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ repeated requests for additional protection against a growing security threat from well-armed Islamic militants. The smoldering ruins of the Benghazi Consulate stand as a mute testimony to Obama’s failed Middle Eastern foreign policy.
Obama has consistently underplayed the significance of the greatest foreign policy disaster since the 1980 Iranian hostage crisis. He is deeply invested in the narrative that he killed Osama bin-Laden, al-Qaeda is on the run, and Libya is on the path to democracy. The illusion that his charisma and good-will is winning Muslim hearts and minds has blinded him to reality. Convinced that his Middle Eastern apology tours and strategy of “leading from behind” were working, his administration ignored Ambassador Stevens’ continual warnings about the growing danger in Libya.
Although Obama was able to sidestep the troubling questions about his handling of the Libyan debacle, this issue will not disappear. The Benghazi-gate will grow and fester until the American public receives clear and convincing answers.