Benghazi and the Obama Administration

The Benghazi security scandal has become a major problem for the Obama Administration. Not just in a political sense, but also in terms of honesty. After the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans, the Administration was quick to suggest that the assault had simply been a mob reaction to the 'Innocence of Muslims' youtube video. Incidentally - the fact that the 'Innocence of Muslims' is still on youtube and yet the protests have now halted, provides strong evidence to support the suggestion that the video was not the underlying factor in the protesters motivation.

In reference to Benghazi, the problem with the Obama Administration is clear. In the aftermath of the attack, Administration officials ran to affirm that the attack was not a terrorist attack. Susan Rice, Obama's UN Ambassador, was the most senior official to do so. Even after intelligence sources were pointing to an prior organized attack, Rice persisted in arguing that the intelligence she had seen suggested that a random mob was responsible. There is a serious problem inherent in accepting the full veracity of this proposition.

As former CIA Director, Michael Hayden, explains, faced with a full scale armed attack on a high threat environment US diplomatic facility on 9/11, it is almost inconceivable to believe that the intelligence community would have been comfortable with the easy labeling of the act as video rather than terrorist connected. As Haden notes, the Obama Administration had an obvious political interest in purveying confidence of mob rather than terrorist responsibility. 

As anyone with knowledge of the intelligence process understands, intelligence assessments are predicated on the 'intelligence cycle'. This cycle relies upon a comprehensive process of collection, evaluation, analysis and application. In essence, intelligence officers seek to maximize their range of sources and conduct a varied, intensive analysis of any material available. In this sense, it seems almost certain that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence briefers would have disclosed to their consumers (senior Administration officials) at least the possibility that the Benghazi attack was far more than a mob action. Indeed, the fact that we now know the attack was terrorist related, provides strong circumstantial evidence that any original intelligence briefings which suggested a possible mob reaction as responsible, would have been graded as 'low confidence' assessments. 

I would submit that it is evident that Obama Administration officials mischaracterized the original intelligence.

        
      Sadly the story doesn't end here. In the Debate earlier this week, Vice President Biden stated that the Administration had not been made aware of cable requests from Libya for greater security. Security requests that were turned down. It is true that the President and Vice-President may not have been aware of these concerns. However, if there was any doubt about authorizing more security, the requests should have been pushed up the chain of authority. Again in the least worst scenario, the Administration was incompetent.

The reason that the Benghazi attack is so important is obvious and profound. Americans serving their country requested more security and didn't get it. And then they were killed. From the first days following the attack, the Obama Administration has reacted with false certainty, confusion and attempts at distraction (Biden changing Benghazi topic to Iraq during VP debate). The questions that need to be answered are clear. What did senior Administration officials (including the President/Vice President) know? When did they know? Was/is there a deliberate attempt to hide the full truth as it became/becomes clear? 

We know that the President has a flexible attention to his intelligence briefings, he didn't attend a single one in the week before the attack. Thus, the simple question remains- has the Administration behaved with incompetence or deception? The American people deserve honest answers.

Post VP Debate analysis

Last night's debate went broadly as I had expected. The Vice President was far more aggressive than Ryan, frequently launching emotionally laden attacks on the Romney-Ryan platform. Biden also sought to clearly assert himself as the spokesman for Mr. 'Average Joe'. In contrast, Ryan tried to keep  his statements to policy details while attacking the Obama-Biden record.

A few things stood out for me.

1) Biden's innate grinning was relentless and made him look ridiculous while Ryan was speaking. Biden came across rude and arrogant - just look at the focus group data.

2) Biden was unable to articulate an Obama-Biden plan for deficit/debt reduction. There's a simple reason why, their plan doesn't exist. This failure formed part of a trend in which Biden sought to demagogue against Ryan instead of articulating counter proposals. The absurdity of Obama's 'change' narrative was on full display last night. In four short years, we have traveled from the pursuit of 'a new tone in Washington', to a celebration of unrepentant partisanship.

3) Obama-Biden's policy on Afghanistan is nuts. Biden aka 'the GRINch' resorted to constant repetitions of the Obama Administration's fundamental withdrawal timeline. Where Ryan talked about paying attention to ground conditions and military advice, for Biden it was clear that domestic politics came first. For me, Afghanistan represents the most stunning example of this President's hypocrisy. 2008 Obama claimed that 'he would win the right war, the war that 'Bush neglected', instead, success in Afghanistan has been subordinated to pleasing the Democratic base. There can be few strategic errors as profound as that of announcing a timeline for withdrawal to your enemy.

4) Ryan's answer to the abortion question gave a clear indication of the difficulty that Republicans have on this issue. On the one hand, Romney-Ryan understand that they must attract more female voters to the party. On the other, the candidates also understand that social conservatives are a highly reliable voting block that are concerned about a few key issues - abortion being one such issue. Ultimately, I do not believe that Romney-Ryan would have any interest in overturning Roe v Wade. They understand that most Americans (especially women) do not want the government engaged on such a controversial issue. I also think that many people misinterpret where the Supreme Court stands on abortion (Biden played to this misunderstanding). Yes, Justices like Scalia might oppose Roe v Wade, but they oppose it because they do not believe that there is a constitutional right to abortion. Scalia has stated explicitly that he believes abortion law is an issue for legislatures rather than for the courts. If Congress wants to legalize abortion - fine. If they want to restrict abortion - fine. Personally, I tend to take a more UK style approach to abortion - that the law should be rooted in science and the capacity for functioning life, rather than in culture battles over Privacy vs God. We should be focused on the economy and foreign policy.

5) From my perspective, Ryan was very strong on the economy. He quoted facts and suggested reforms. Biden applied scare tactics. I also find it interesting that Obama-Biden attack Romney-Ryan for not giving itemized details on their tax plan. Obama-Biden's tax plan is a complete joke. Obama-Biden's sums don't add up and their tax proposals would reinforce the worst elements of our complex, loophole laden tax code.

Vice Presidential Debate

Apologies for my absence from the blog over the past few days - I have been busy with some other work.

Tonight will see the first and only 2012 Vice-Presidential debate. The meeting between Biden and Ryan should bring some compelling insights concerning the state of the campaign and the divergent benefits (and costs) that Biden and Ryan bring to their respective running mates.

There will be a number of dyanmics at play tonight.

1) In the aftermath of the President's debate performance last week, the Obama campaign will be looking to Biden to make a strong showing. The Obama campaign team understand that if Ryan wins convincingly against Biden, the political consequences will likely be profound. Having Romney and Ryan comfortably win the first two debates would most certainly fuel further negative media attention on the incumbent ticket. In addition, a clear Ryan win would move more independents into the Republican bracket. Both these outcomes would dramatically increase pressure on Obama's re-election prospects.

2) There will be an interesting 'contest of style' tonight. In a similar manner to the first Presidential debate in which Romney tried to claim the mantle of a less-populist, more-CEO style leader, Ryan will seek to assert that narrative even further. Ryan will be focused on appearing as a determined, passionate policy wonk. The Romney campaign are wagering (I believe correctly) that because of the economy, voters are far more interested in politicians who offer policy solutions, rather than warm populism. In contrast to Ryan, Biden will want to come across as a literal 'average joe'. Biden's greatest political talent is his ability to appeal to the instinctive emotions of voters. Biden will want to make people feel good about him and by association, also feel good about the President. The Obama campaign remain convinced that increased enthusiasm from their base will go along way to helping them achieve re-election. It will be interesting to see how these two styles interact.

3) The policy debate tonight will probably center on three issues - Medicare, tax reform and the Benghazi intelligence scandal (that Obama's foreign policy is weak and struggles with the truth). Biden will attempt to launch an emotionally charged attack on the Romney-Ryan medicare and tax reform proposals. Expect Biden to bring out lines like this one (I have made this up) - 'In the midst of an economy in which middle class families across America are suffering, Romney and Ryan want to cut taxes on millionaires and turn medicare into a voucher system where seniors have to fight for the medical care they are owed.' In contrast, Ryan will attempt to counter Biden with the logical argument that Medicare is going bankrupt and that America's national leadership owe voters serious solutions rather than populist games. Expect Ryan to blow holes in the absurd Obama-Biden argument that the rich can pay down the national debt. Ryan will also make the case that tax reform is crucial to American economic growth and effective revenue generation. I expect these policy debates will become heated. 

What do I think will happen? While I don't expect a win on the scale of Romney's last week, I do feel that Ryan will win tonight's debate. With the exception of foreign policy, I don't believe that Biden has the policy-wonk strength to seriously debate Ryan on the issues. Ryan's passion for the Romney-Ryan proposals and crucially, Ryan's ability to articulate the seriousness of the issues at stake will be clear to voters. I believe that Biden will struggle to defend an Administration lacking in serious policy solutions for the great challenges of our time.