From Beirut to Benghazi to Here

Thirty-three years ago next week, a suicide bomber blew up the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 254 American servicemen. It was, wrote Jane Mayer, “the single deadliest attack on American Marines since the Battle of Iwo Jima.” The bomber drove through a gate the U.S. military had ordered kept open, past sentries whose weapons had no ammunition. Needless to say, Congress held hearings, which culminated in a bipartisan report that made security recommendations, refrained from name-calling and didn’t suggest impeaching anyone. In the face of tragedy, both parties came together to try to ensure it didn’t happen again.

But it did happen again. In fact, it had happened before. In an 18-month period, Mayer reported, there were three other deadly attacks on American installations in Beirut, including the kidnapping, torture and murder of the CIA station chief.

After the fourth attack, President Reagan acknowledged that the building was vulnerable because the necessary repairs had fallen behind schedule. “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over,” he said, “knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.”

Imagine if Barack Obama had said that.

Compare that to the aftermath of the Benghazi tragedy: 33 hearings; 10 Congressional Committees; 13 published reports; no administrative wrongdoing uncovered.

Yet my Hillary-hating friends insist the investigation is incomplete. Actually, they’re so sure she’s guilty of something that they’ve bypassed the evidence-gathering part and summarily branded her a common criminal. Name-calling has replaced fact-finding. 

And that, in a nutshell, is the Republican nominee's platform.