Question of the Day

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on October 3, 2012

I recognize that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi is being investigated, but I have trouble understanding why the White House can’t answer a simple query: Did the consulate request additional security prior to the attack on it–the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stephens?

Seems to me that this is a question that can be answered with a simple “yes,” or “no.” When the answer instead is “no comment,” then something certainly smells fishy.

If there aren’t additional questions regarding this issue during the foreign policy debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama–and if the president is not pressed to give specific answers to those questions during that debate–we will know that journalism is dead.

  • Aristotle120

    See The Diplomad 2.0 on this issue at

  • David Govett

    Any politician could deflect the question, or turn it against the asker.

  • Yossi Rosenboim

    “we will know that journalism is dead.” .. haha, no need to wait for tonight. Here’s my answer: journalism is dead. period. live with it.

  • alanhenderson

    “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed
    to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S.
    mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in
    Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by
    officials in Washington.”

    I wonder why.

  • ChuckO

    The White House knew the threat of terrorism on 9/11/12 was high, but they were unprepared to deal with it. So they had the Cairo consulate issue a pre-emptive apology for a video that no almost no one had seen, so when the s**t hit the fan, they had a handy excuse for the predictable “unrest” and the bloody aftermath. It was a spontaneous response to that video, you see, not pre-planned terrorism which the White House was too lazy to adequately prepare for.

    • mikegiles

      The liberal meme for at least the last decade has been that there is no real world wide terror threat, only a “small” operation run by one man, Osama bin Laden. It was simply a mistake on Bush’s part to declare a “War on Terror” and to invade Iraq, while providing help to nations fighting their Islamists. They’ve been saying, Bush took his eye off the ball, and this entire terrorism problem could have been handled by cutting the head off the snake – Osama – and putting no “boots on the ground” anywhere. With the death of Osama – due to “brilliant” decision making; on the part of President Obama – the threat of terrorism had “ended”. And thus there was no reason to provide protection, as 9/11 no longer had any meaning. To provide protection would have meant the assumptions to this point had been incorrect – and you could wait a long, long time if you’re expecting anyone on the left to admit to error.

  • John Russell

    But we already know journalism is dead. It’s death throes coincided with the Obama campaign for president and ended with a phlegmy gurgle when it couldn’t muster even the appearance of indignation when an embezzler and tax evader was installed as Treasury Secretary. Since then it has proceeded to rot a little more with every broken law, every executive order mandating actions which Congress considered and rejected, each directive telling some agency not to enforce some law, all of which were either unmentioned or were justified as being responses to something W did until it finally putrefied into a smelly, viscous goo when it colluded in the branding of every criticism of Obama as racist.

    • herbork

      God bless your astringent clarity, brother John!

  • Rich Vail

    You can pretty much guarantee no difficult questions will ba asked of Obama.

    • Gringao

      Are you trying to say that “Just how awesome and dreamy are you, Mr. President?” isn’t the sort of hard-hitting jouranlism you’re looking for?

      • Rich Vail

        Yep! That’s exactly what I’m saying. When hard hitting journalism is relegated to Univision…

  • Rich Vail

    ThThe legacy media are merely Democraticoperatives w/a bylline now…

  • Mark Robbins

    The problems we have are not that journalism is dead. The problem we have is that NO PERSON with the power to demand the answers cares to ask. Shouldn’t that be a question that someone wanting to be President should ask? A sitting senator? A congressional committee chair? And shrill. They’re all just hiding behind media lapdogs.

    • Don Lovell

      You contradict yourself. It is the purpose to ask the difficult questions that is what journalism is suppose to do. It is dead and has been for a long time.

  • Joan Of Argghh!

    I recognize that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi is NOTbeing investigated,

  • superduckz

    Allow me to save you the bother. Journalism is in fact dead.

  • Tom Maguire

    “Seems to me that this is a question that can be answered with a simple “yes,” or “no.””

    Please – the objective of any well-functioning bureaucracy is to diffuse responsibility.

    So, did they “ask” for more security in the sense of sending off a cable asking for more security?

    Or did they “ask” in the sense of submitting the request in triplicate, scheduling meetings with the seventeen relevant committees, getting approval, and then submitting for approval their budgets and action plans for the next five years?

    You may *think* this was an easy question…

Previous post:

Next post: