Congressional hearings are underway into the storming of the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the killing of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The hearings are interesting — both for what they are telling us about what happened in Libya and within the U.S. government itself as the attacks unfolded, but also for what they are telling us about the twisted, hyper-partisan world of Washington, D.C.
During yesterday’s testimony, which the New York Times described as “riveting,” a veteran U.S. diplomat named Gregory Hicks gave a detailed account of the night of the attack. Hicks, a 22-year Foreign Service veteran, became the head State Department official in Libya after Ambassador Stevens was killed. He testified about how a Special Operations team wanted to fly to Benghazi to help but was overruled by officials in Washington, who concluded it could not arrive in time to help. Hicks also described being “stunned” and “embarrassed” when Administration officials, including UN Ambassador Susan Rice, initially portrayed the attack as a response to a YouTube video and how such comments angered the president of the Libyan National Assembly, who had called the attack a preplanned terrorist act. Hicks testified that the Libyan government’s feeling of being undercut may have delayed their cooperation with Americans investigating the incident. Furthermore, he said that when he raised questions about Rice’s comments, he was effectively demoted and led to understand that he should stop asking questions.
The testimony of Hicks and two other officials, Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom, indicate that there is still information to be uncovered and lessons to be learned about Benghazi. When four Americans, including an ambassador, are killed, their deaths deserve a detailed inquiry and a careful evaluation, at the congressional level. Such an evaluation should determine whether changes in law, security arrangements, staffing, or emergency response procedures are needed to prevent such an incident from ever happening again.
Unfortunately, in our modern government, things are never quite that simple. The Times story linked above reflects that unfortunate fact, because much of the article is devoted to the “politics” of what should ideally be an apolitical, objective fact-finding exercise. It’s ludicrous, and disheartening, and it is happening on both sides of the aisle. Republicans should stop portraying every incident as “another Watergate”; it just allows their opponents to dismiss hearings such as yesterday’s as a politically motivated witch hunt. And Democrats should stop trying to downplay the significance of Benghazi and resist every inquiry about why four Americans died. That much, at least, is owed to the memories of those four Americans — and to the many other Americans who serve their country in diplomatic posts in dangerous parts of the world.
I’d venture a few predictions about how this story will play out. First, the McConnell campaign’s reaction has just focused attention on the story and will boost the sales of Mother Jones magazine far beyond what would otherwise have occurred. (Incidentally, the Mother Jones story and the quotes from the tape recording seem like pretty thin gruel. I don’t think anyone will be shocked that U.S. Senators and their staffs spend time researching opponents and discussing how to best portray them as idiots, demons, or out-of-touch plutocrats. If the McConnell campaign hadn’t gone ballistic, the story probably wouldn’t have made a blip on the nightly news.)
In an odd way, the opportunity to talk about guns must be a kind of welcome relief for our politicians, because the gun control debate lets each party retreat to safe, time-honored positions that appeal to their bases. Democrats understand that most of their voters will support attempts to license gun owners, register all weapons, and restrict or even ban ownership of “assault weapons” or other firearms. Republicans, on the other hand, know that their supporters will cheer vigorous defenses of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and stalwart opposition to overly zealous attempts to regulate gun ownership.
This time, the deadlines are in March and April, and one of the key issues is the debt limit. The debt limit now stands at $16.4 trillion — that $16,400,000,000,000 — but that staggering sum is not enough for our debt-ridden, spending-obsessed, deficit spending-addicted country. At a press conference yesterday, 
The deal was brokered by negotiations between Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Republicans. We should all take comfort that such intellectual titans were doing the heavy lifting on this crucial matter! Aren’t you relieved that brainy, detail-oriented statesmen like Biden and Senate leaders scrupulously evaluated the wording of the new taxes and their potential economic impact and the loopholes that inevitably must have been part of the deal? There is every reason to be confident that this carefully considered legislation will not produce any unintended consequences. After all, the Senate proudly calls itself “The World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.” I bet they deliberated on this bill for a few minutes, and maybe even longer! Oh, and Harry Reid is in favor of it. What more do we need to know?
I say a pox on all their houses. By that I mean the White House and both Houses of Congress; I mean the President and Congress, Republican and Democrat, “progressives,” liberals, conservatives, and “tea partiers.” Congratulations to you all! You’ve maneuvered us into a situation where tax increases and spending limits that were consciously designed to be so foolish and draconian that they would force a compromise look like they might actually take effect unless a lame duck Congress and a disengaged President strike some poorly thought out, last-minute deal that the American public has no opportunity to consider or voice an opinion on — just like the deal that got us into this stupid “fiscal cliff” predicament in the first place. Your little plan about a “supercommittee” to reach a grand compromise failed, you frittered away the intervening months raising money from your pet interest groups and electioneering without doing anything to make meaningful progress on the tax policy changes and spending reductions that every conscious American knows must occur to avoid enormous impending debt problems, and now you are frantically trying to avoid the imminent, painful consequences of your years of stupid politicking, indolence, and irresponsibility.
What’s sad about this is that the President and the Republican and Democratic leadership probably all think they’ve got the other guys just where they want them; they likely think the opposing side is bound to knuckle under today and give them a huge, last-minute victory. Here’s some news for you all: we shouldn’t be governing through a process that sees us lurching endlessly from crisis to crisis. Your failures to do things like propose, debate, and pass meaningful budgets, hold hearings on spending, tax and budget proposals that allow citizens to comment and thoughtful changes to be evaluated, and engage in the standard activities of government as our Constitution contemplates reflects badly on you all. Even if an eleventh-hour deal is reached and everyone declares they won, you’ve achieved no victory. The American people have come to realize that, unfortunately, we have no real political leaders — just political hacks, buck-passers, and pipsqueaks who don’t have the sense or courage to put the interests of the country ahead of their personal political interests and the narrow perspectives of the pressure groups that contribute to their campaigns.
Democrats kept control of the U.S. Senate, while Republicans kept control of the House of Representatives. In short, the United States is in for more divided government. After two consecutive “wave” elections, the message of this election seems to be to maintain the status quo.
There is nothing original in saying this, but I must say it nonetheless: I am sick, to the point of a primal scream, of this presidential contest, and of our political landscape in general. I have reached the point where I can barely stand to watch television. MSNBC or Fox — really, what’s the difference anymore? Their viewpoints, sure. But their rigid dogmas and rabid discourse? It’s just different sides of the same coin. I enjoyed every minute of watching the debates (as flawed as they are, the pureist thing yet in this election), but had to tune out as soon as the debates ended and segued into the talking heads and spin room.
As I was writing this, I happened upon an interesting article addressing this same notion. (In the spirit of keeping it non-partisan, I won’t credit the publication.) It more artfully captures what I find so disappointing and divisive in today’s political environment. Allow me to quote just a few passages….
Unfortunately, the economy only created 114,000 new jobs last month, which is just about that number of new workers who enter the job market every month. Although the reported jobs creation number was small, the unemployment rate dropped sharply — from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent — because the number of people who said they were employed rose by 873,000.
As the story from The Hill linked above shows, the Obama Administration’s story about the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi remains vague and unfocused; 
The President’s speech reminded me of President Clinton’s speech the night before in that it was heavy on brief references to a host of issues and policy concerns. The President mentioned a number of matters — job training, renewable energy, investment in education, climate change, women’s health, oil and gas exploration, and countless others — and then moved on quickly. The speech included lots of round-number goals (“100,000 math and science teachers” or “a million new manufacturing jobs”) and future dates (“over the next decade”). It was as if the President wanted to touch every conceivable base. It certainly seemed that he did so, but talking, however briefly, about disparate issues makes it more difficult to knit together and present broad, unifying themes.
The President sought to address the charge that he views more government as the solution to every problem. Not all of our problems can be solved by government programs, he said — but our problems can be solved. Thereafter, however, every proposal and solution he offered seemed to involve some form of government program, benefit, or subsidy. He talked about “nation-building here at home” through construction of roads and bridges, which sounded like a pitch for another “stimulus” effort. It’s tough for President Obama to argue that he isn’t for bigger government, because he obviously believes that, as he says,”government has a role.” That belief makes it difficult to convince him that some government programs don’t work and that government spending often is wasteful. Last night, at least, there was no talk of eliminating any specific programs or spending as part of a plan to balance our budget.
The sad fact is, there just aren’t many good speakers or speechwriters in either party. Most of the speeches are hopelessly generic. Everyone seems to talk about their families coming from nothing and their parents sacrificing. Everyone relates some interaction with a generic American citizen — “in east Bejeebus, I met an ex-autoworker named Mel . . . .” — to illustrate some tired point. Everyone tries to get the audience repeat some limp catch phrase, time and time again, until the viewer is ready to hurl a Coke can through the TV screen. Except for Clint Eastwood, there’s not much originality out there.
I knew of Duckworth because Richard has done campaign work for her in the past, but tonight is the first time I’ve seen her speak. What an impressive person she is! It must be hard enough to walk out in front of a big crowd on national TV, but doing it while wearing a skirt that exposes your two artificial legs, as Duckworth did, would be incredibly difficult — yet she did it with grace, and good cheer. She 
