Wiston Papers

The Triple Threat to President Obama.  How serious?

Political controversy seems to erupt in Washington in summer.  Every year journalists find some story to run with when the town would otherwise be silent.

This summer of discontent has brought us a “perfect storm.” An unusual confluence of three simultaneous crises has Republicans, Democrats, and the news media all pointing fingers.

Republicans continue to accuse the Obama administration of dereliction of duty before the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Lybia last year then lying about its causes afterward.  Four Americans died that day.

Both political parties are angry that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) singled out conservative political groups for extra scrutiny and that the White House either was complicit at worst or at least asleep at the wheel.

And news organizations are outraged that the  Justice Department used secret subpoenas to seize telephone records between Associated Press (AP) reporters and their sources about a thwarted terrorist plot.

Some pundits are already speculating that President Obama is a lame duck because of these scandals—that his presidency is irrevocably doomed barely four months into his second four-year term. The latter claim is nonsense, of course.  Let’s  take a closer look at this  Triple Threat—terrorism, targeting and tampering.

TERRORISM:  

The facts surrounding the attack on the Benghazi consulate are clear.  At least one American diplomat in Libya feared possible violence there last year following the release of a film in the U.S. that mocked Muhammad the Profit.  No extra security was sent and angry Muslims stormed the consulate as well as the American embassy in Cairo on September 11.

The State Department described the Benghazi attack as a “spontaneous protest.”  That was the official line that State, the White House and CIA all promoted and United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice was asked to carry their water to the Sunday morning television talk shows.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was conveniently absent as the administration hung out Ms. Rice to dry and sabotaged her diplomatic career.

We now know that the protests were, in fact, a carefully orchestrated terrorist attack against an inadequately defended diplomatic mission.

TARGETING:  

We learned earlier this month that the IRS office in Cincinnati singled out conservative political organizations for extra review during last fall’s presidential campaign.  President Obama has labeled the actions as outrageous, promised accountability, and the interim IRS chief will resign in June.

As usual, Congressional hearings quickly were convened, the expected partisan grandstanding occurred, and those who should have been in charge denied responsibility.  Some have compared this scandal to the Nixon Watergate and wonder about the degree of White House involvement.

TAMPERING:

The  Justice Department originally asked AP not to publish a story about a thwarted terrorist plot that the wire service had confirmed.  In the interest of national security, AP complied with the request until notified by the government that the threat had passed.  The wire service then published the news but later discovered the government seizure of its reporters’ phone calls.

Justice officials defended their telephone surveillance of AP by alleging that the conversations put the nation at risk.  Journalists argued that the government violated the First Amendment and demanded passage of a media shield law to prevent future occurrences.

Some perspective is required on this Triple Threat.

First, there are nearly 300 American embassies and consulates throughout the world.  In an increasingly dangerous international environment, the State Department receives diplomatic communiqués everyday expressing security concerns.  How many of these do you take seriously and how do you decide which request deserves increased protection from a finite number of military security forces?  Under such circumstances some mistakes are inevitable and in this case tragic.

Yes, Ambassador Rice lied to the press because the White House and State Department screwed up.  But that is the extent of the crisis.  Prolonged partisan bickering serves no good purpose.

Second, did the White House order the IRS to lean on Tea Party and other conservative political organizations?  Several congressional hearings are trying to determine that.  Previous administrations stretching back decades have employed executive branch agencies to perpetrate political dirty tricks.  Whether President Obama was involved or gave direct orders seems unlikely.   This is not Watergate.

What is indisputable, however, is that some over-zealous civil servants certainly acted unethically and perhaps illegally.  The question is why?  The ongoing inquiries are warranted.

Third, the prospect of government spying on American citizens including journalists is chilling.  Despite often irritating reporting practices by some news organizations, the U.S. press enjoys First Amendment protection and the Justice Department’s secret subpoenas of AP phone records are clearly unconstitutional.  

But news organization kneejerk demands for a national shield law are a mistake.   Any Congressional law will reflect competing voices—some of which will not be in the best interests of the press.  Two clichés are appropriate here: “The devil is in the details” and “be careful what you wish for.”

Steve Coon

May 23, 2013