I’m glad to have read David Brook’s clear, point-by-point defense of someone in the Benghazi issue. I feel the constant charges and the digging for one more misrepresentation have one goal–to prove that Obama himself (or at least Clinton) was behind substantive changes to the released talking points. It doesn’t seem to matter who blocked or denied funding for more security, or what other choices led to American vulnerability in Benghazi. And it doesn’t seem to matter what understandable and acceptable motives might have led to changes to the points. The investigation seems more to find a word and an author of that word who can be attacked as cold, uncaring, and an enemy of the state. The investigators have an author or two in mind.
I hate war and its cost in human lives lost and ruined. I would welcome and support research that lessens any of that cost. The talking points investigation, though, seems niggling and ugly.
(This is a revised version of my comment on David Brook’s editorial, New York Times, May 14, 2013. This is reposted from rmkinder.com)