Comment & Blogs
-
David M
-
Joesem
-
Blc77ster
-
http://fathershelton.blogspot.com/ Father Shelton
-
Macca
-
AnthonyPatrick
-
pooka
-
AnthonyPatrick
-
Dfaithfulavenger2
-
cephas2
-
nytor
-
South Saxon
-
RuariJM
-
RuariJM
-
Jmitchrobey
-
daclamat
-
Mike
-
chasjay
-
Annie
-
Deodatus
-
Ancanuck
-
Alan
-
Sweetjae
-
Sweetjae
-
Deodatus
-
Shirley Lemelle
-
Parepidemos
-
Parepidemos
-
JonathanBurdon
-
JonathanBurdon
-
Kevin
-
http://profiles.google.com/liamronan49 Liam Ronan
-
Jcstubbs
-
Sweetjae
-
Katie
-
Katie
-
Katie
-
Katie
-
Kasia
-
Kasia
-
Kasia
-
Kasia
-
Kasia
-
Kasia
-
Kasia
-
Patrice
-
Amy Mitchell
-
Max’sKnight
-
JabbaPapa
-
JabbaPapa







Obama’s re-election is a tragedy, for the US and the world. Now his second term will be overshadowed, as the Benghazigate cover-up unravels
The tragedy is not just that Obama has been a bad president; it’s that Romney would have been a good one
By William Oddie on Wednesday, 7 November 2012
In This Article
Barack Obama, Benghazigate, Chris Stevens, Mitt Romney, US electionShare
About the author
William Oddie
Dr William Oddie is a leading English Catholic writer and broadcaster. He edited The Catholic Herald from 1998 to 2004 and is the author of The Roman Option and Chesterton and the Romance of Orthodoxy.
Contact the author
Related Posts
The Obamas and Bidens celebrate. Perhaps, though, not for long (Photo: PA)
As I write, the counting is still not complete in the American presidential elections. Under the (to an outsider) bizarre American electoral college system, the result is now a landslide, despite the fact that each candidate has an almost identical number of votes, both having gained around 49%. The graceful concession speech has been delivered, and Obama has been re-elected. I couldn’t face watching his victory speech, so I have turned off the box; now, I sit here, grimly tapping away.
I cannot help regarding this result as a tragedy, for America and for the world. Firstly, because Obama has been a dreadful president; second, because I get the strong impression that Romney would have been a good one, despite the fact that, though his campaign had a late surge, it didn’t quite have the cutting edge it should have had. But a good campaign doesn’t necessarily produce a successful presidency, as Obama’s first four years have amply demonstrated. Obama was the better campaigner, this time too, it seems: he had a better “ground game”, the pundits seem to think, and he spent hundreds of millions on negative advertising which in key industrial states like Ohio blackened Romney’s character as a ruthless and uncaring capitalist who cared nothing for the working class, and who had, for instance, opposed state support for a managed bankruptcy of the automobile industry which would have had the same effect as what actually happened: in fact Romney called for just such a state-supported bail-out: the Obama campaign simply lied, over this and much else.
The other reason Romney lost was that he took the stragic decision, in order to mount a positive and optimistic campaign, not to make the Benghazigate cover-up an election issue; and that Obama’s steadfast refusal to respond to the growing evidence of this mounting scandal was supported by the equally scandalous failure of most of the American media to report it.
But not everyone failed to report it: enough was in the public domain for Romney, if he had kept his nerve, to have mounted an indictment powerful enough to make Obama unelectable, as unelectable as Nixon would have been if the Watergate cover-up had emerged in time (in other words actually during his re-election campaign rather than some time later). The Fox News correspondent, Catherine Herridge, brilliantly reported the whole affair: but since Fox News was clearly on Romney’s side, its reporting was largely ignored. But Reuters, CNN, CBS and others nevertheless retailed most of it: the facts were out if you knew where to look.
The general lines of the scandal are clear enough. Firstly, there was the fact that intelligence immediately indicated that the US consulate in Benghazi was destroyed in a planned terrorist attack, not as the result of a “spontaneous” protest triggered by a YouTube video. This, however, is what the Obama administration, including President Obama, repeated obsessively for weeks, knowing it to be untrue.
The greatest scandal, however, is that the murdered American ambassador Stevens, who had repeatedly asked for more security — a request which was repeatedly refused because it was “unnecessary” (after all, hadn’t the President killed Osama bin Laden with his own bare hands, thus defeating al-Qaeda and all other terrorism?) — had made it quite clear that terrorism was still a major threat in Libya, however politically inconvenient this might be, and that he was himself in danger. Knowing this, the administration did nothing to protect him.
Catherine Herridge established this beyond any doubt, in what will become recognised, in the history of this affair, as her famous “smoking gun” revelation, which established the State department’s (and therefore Obama’s) involvement in the scandal and in its cover-up beyond any doubt.
Here it is (October 31), as it was revealed on Fox News:
Knowing all this, Governor Romney made the decision not to mount an indictment of the President as part of his campaign. That may arguably have been wise, in view of the way the media would have gone for him in defence of the President. It might have been risky. On the other hand, what he did wasn’t successful either.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and no doubt there will be many now to say the same thing; personally, I had hoped all along that Romney himself would accuse the Obama administration of the scandalous cover-up and the equally scandalous refusal to provide Ambassador Stevens with more security, scandals which with congressional attention already on them will now begin to unravel too late, and which will, I suspect, come more and more to dominate Obama’s second term. We shall see what we shall see.