The Obama-Romney Benghazi debate, 11 months later

Back during the 2nd Presidential debate of last Fall, Romney hit hard on Obama on the Administration's handling of security for the Benghazi, Libya attack. It is instructive to revisit the exchange 11 months later, because this was the one time when a large audience of voters was listening in on the details of the Benghazi affair.  Voters were supposed to evaluate the truthfulness of the two candidates, and cast an informed ballot picking the best man of the two.

Did voters get the information they were looking for? Let us revisit the exchange:

Moderator Candy Crowley: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

Candy Crowley is a respected journalist, but she flubbed the question by setting the wrong premise. We have since learned that there was no Embassy in Benghazi - and arguably not even a Consulate.

The US had never formally notified the Libyan Government that this was a Consulate. And according to a US Senate report, what we had was a 'Temporary Mission Facility' along with 'an Annex facility ... approximately a mile away used by another agency of the United States Government.'

The other agency was the CIA.

Back to the October Presidential debate. Did President Obama clear up the mistaken premise of the question?

There was no risk to the exposure of secrets here, since the facilities were closed and all people evacuated. Just perhaps the risk of exposing embarrassment - namely, the embarrassing and dangerous use of the State Department as cover for the CIA.

President Obama: Well, let me, first of all, talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren't just representatives of the United States; they're my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm's way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody's more concerned about their safety and security than I am.

So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn't happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I've said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.

Now, Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that's not how a commander in chief operates. You don't turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it's happening.

And people — not everybody agrees with some of the decisions I've made. But when it comes to our national security, I mean what I say. I said I'd end the war in Libya — in Iraq, and I did. I said that we'd go after al-Qaida and bin Laden. We have. I said we'd transition out of Afghanistan and start making sure that Afghans are responsible for their own security. That's what I'm doing.

And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there, because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say.

What the President omits to tell voters is that out of the 30 Americans evacuated at Benghazi, only seven had any connection to the State Department. This was revealed on Nov 2nd 2012 in the Wall St Journal front page. Suddenly the Presidential Debate exchange appears in a different light.

Moreover, two of the four person killed were CIA contractors (while being publicly identified as State Dept security contract security officers).

Also, CNN reports that of the dozens of people working for the CIA who were on the ground in the night and following morning of the attack, the CIA is now going at great lengths to keep them from talking not just to media outlets, but to Congress as well.

But back to the presidential debate - did Romney square with voters about the CIA involvement?

With all his security experts coaching him about Benghazi, Romney surely knew more than he was letting on - but he played it for political advantage, rather than keeping his audience informed. If in doubt, blame those terrorists - that always works, and it's just about the right intellectual level for the discussion when the two best men in the Country are addressing the American people.

Mr. Romney: Thank you, Candy, for your question. It's an important one. And — and I — I think the president just said correctly that — that the buck does stop at his desk, and — and he takes responsibility for — for that — for that — the failure in providing those security resources, and those terrible things may well happen from time to time.

I — I'm — I feel very deeply sympathetic for the families of those who lost loved ones. Today there's a memorial service for one of those that was lost in this tragedy. We — we think of their families and care for them deeply.

There were other issues associated with this — with this tragedy.

There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading or instead whether we just didn't know what happened, I think you have to ask yourself why didn't we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations went on TV to say that this was a demonstration.

How could have we not known?

But I find more troubling than this that on — on the day following the assassination of the United States ambassador — the first time that's happened since 1979 — when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didn't know what happened, that the president the day after that happened flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, another political event, I think these — these actions taken by a president and a leader have symbolic significance, and perhaps even material significance, in that you'd hoped that during that time we could call in the people who were actually eyewitnesses. We've read their accounts now about what happened. It was very clear this was not a demonstration. This was an attack by terrorists.

And this calls into question the president's whole policy in the Middle East. Look what's happening in Syria, in Egypt, now in Libya. Consider the distance between ourselves and Israel, where the president said that — that he was going to put daylight between us and Israel. We have Iran four years closer to a nuclear bomb. Syria — Syria's not just the tragedy of 30,000 civilians being killed by a military, but also a strategic — strategically significant player for America. The president's policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour and pursue a strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes.