Editorial comment

The debate between Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) and the Democrats about a word used, or not used, in a State Department e-mail about the Benghazi attacks seems pretty ridiculous. Boehner and many Republicans are adamant about getting the State Department to admit to having foreknowledge of the Benghazi attacks as terrorist-provoked, based on an e-mail. The fight is over whether or not the e-mail mentioned “Islamic terrorists” or “Islamic extremists.”

The debate seems irrelevant, given the fact that four Americans died in the attack. Policing words in an e-mail isn’t helpful. As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated in the first Benghazi hearing, “… the fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”

The focus on whether or not the State Department e-mail explicitly referenced Islamic terrorists appears to be another partisan political tool used to defame the Obama administration. It also seems highly conspiratorial, given the assumption that the administration “knew” about a terrorist plot before informing the public. For what purpose would this serve? No one seems to know.

It’s also a bit confusing why Boehner is bringing the issue up again when it was under scrutiny late last year. Recycling it doesn’t make it any more relevant.

Not only that, but Boehner was invited to a briefing on the e-mails two months ago, but skipped it. This entire issue could have been avoided if Boehner was more present in affairs regarding national security.

As it stands, the debate is nonsensical. Boehner is trying to uncover some juicy scandal at the State Department that doesn’t seem to even exist. There are greater issues at hand to debate.

This article was imported from The Falcon’s Records
If you find an error, mistake, or omission due to the import process, please contact us.
Original Metadata about the article can be found below

Title: Editorial comment | Author: Unknown | Section: Opinions | Published Date: 2013-05-15 | Internal ID: 8734