Sunday, February 14, 2016

The scandal about the scandal

The column I wrote for last Thursday, entitled The Real Benghazi Scandal, has run in newspapers around the country and unleashed a storm of email, much of it angry, even venemous.

The scandal about the scandal


The column I wrote for last Thursday, entitled The Real Benghazi Scandal, has run in newspapers around the country and unleashed a storm of email, much of it angry, even venemous.

My point: that hearings on Benghazi held by Cong. Darrel Issa (R.CA), and other efforts to brand Benghazi as Watergate II, ignore the real issues raised by the tragedy in favor of promoting conspiracy theories about administration “lies” and “cover-ups.” Such charges, as I laid out, are not based on facts.

Clearly State Dept. security officials made serious errors (some heads have rolled), and the Pentagon must review the issue of military readiness, or willingness – to protect diplomats. Instead, the scandal-mongers are focused on bureaucratic “talking points” that had nothing to do with the inadequate security in Benghazi, the failed rescue, or improving security in the future.

This blog is not meant to rehash my column, which you can find here, but to comment on the lock-step, almost verbatim language of the emails I received, many of them using words not fit for a family newspaper. It seemed as if many of the writers had listened to the same talk show, from which they gleaned false or misleading information about Benghazi and a totally distorted picture of how government works.

Readers are perfectly entitled to their opinions, including those that differ sharply from mine. But the vehemence of this email – the readiness to believe the canard that President Obama deliberately sacrificed diplomats’ lives for political reasons - signaled a hostility, almost hatred, towards the president that is extremely disturbing, all the more so as it is clearly being stirred up by some media outlets.

None of this will help protect diplomats better in the future. But it does signify, as if we needed more evidence, how terribly polarized this country has become.

Inquirer Opinion Columnist
We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy: comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog

Trudy Rubin’s Worldview column runs on Thursdays and Sundays. Over the past decade she has made multiple trips to Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Turkey, Israel and the West Bank and also written from Syria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, South Korea and China. She is the author of Willful Blindness: the Bush Administration and Iraq, a book of her columns from 2002-2004. In 2001 she was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in commentary and in 2008 she was awarded the Edward Weintal prize for international reporting. In 2010 she won the Arthur Ross award for international commentary from the Academy of American Diplomacy.

Reach Trudy at

Trudy Rubin Inquirer Opinion Columnist
Also on
letter icon Newsletter