FILE - This Sept. 12, 2012 file photo shows a man walking through a room in the gutted U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, after an attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Leaders of a House committee said Tuesday that U.S. diplomats in Libya made repeated requests for increased security for the consulate in Benghazi and were turned down by officials in Washington. In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chairman Darrell Issa and Rep. Jason Chaffetz said their information came from "individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya." (AP Photo/Ibrahim Alaguri, File)
Ibrahim Alaguri, ASSOCIATED PRESS
Our take: Recently, there has been discussion about the way the White House reacted to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in Benghazi including in the presidential debate last night. Some of these commentaries add little substance to the discussion. However, in his column for the New York Times, Ross Douthat moves beyond trite comments and adds some real rigor to the Libya discussion.
Twenty-four hours after the American compound in Benghazi was attacked and our ambassador murdered, the tragedy seemed more likely to help President Obamas re-election campaign than to damage it.
The White House already enjoyed more public credibility on foreign policy than on almost any other issue. When Mitt Romney reacted to the attack with a partisan broadside, portraying a news release sent out by the Cairo embassy before any violence began as a White House apology to the attackers, the presidents path forward seemed clear. He would be disciplined and careful, show anger and steel but also coolness under pressure, and let the rally-round-the-flag effect do its natural work.
What happened instead was very strange. Having first repudiated the embassys apology to Muslims offended by a movie impugning their prophet, the Obama administration decided to embrace that apologys premise, and insist that the movie was the crucial ingredient in the Sept. 11 anniversary violence.
Read more about The Mystery of Benghazi on New York Times.
- In our opinion: Frances B. Monson's...
- Dan Liljenquist: Chaffetz's search for truth...
- Letter: The real death panel: Republican...
- Matthew Sanders: Imploding trust in America's...
- Letters: Deception and government
- John Florez: Involve the poor in solving poverty
- Letters: IRS unpaid furloughs will 'severely...
- The winners and the losers: Venezuela,...



The republican response to Benghazi disaster is tantamount to a bunch of guys who after seeing a man hit and run over, stand around and argue about whether it was a ford or Chevrolet.
Could some straight thinking person please tell me just More..
The mystery is how much political hay the republicans think they can make of this. Oh, and thanks to Candy Crowley.
What mystery is there?
There's no conspiracy.
Our embassy was attacked.
It's amazing to me how repubs have jumped all over this to make a political attack on Obama. Give it up folks and focus on your own More..