It’s not a bad idea, though the Washington Post Editorial Board presents it as an alternative to Benghazi. Really Benghazi should be a subset of the overall investigation of the Libyan disaster that began with Obama’s illegal war.
Obama lied to Congress, to the UN and to the American people. As a result Al Qaeda has taken over chunks of Libya and Islamist militias and the Muslim Brotherhood have taken over much of the rest.
Republicans have a potentially strong case to make against the Obama administration’s handling of Libya, as the latest political developments there underline…
From the safety of Europe, Mr. Zeidan conceded what was obvious all along: Libya’s post-Gaddafi government has no army and no way of establishing its authority over the hundreds of militias that sprang up in the vacuum that followed the revolution. Libya has fragmented into fiefdoms, its oil industry is virtually paralyzed, massive traffic in illegal weapons is supplying militants around the region and extremist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia, which participated in the Sept. 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, are unchecked.
The Obama administration and its NATO allies bear responsibility for this mess because, having intervened to help rebels overthrow Gaddafi, they then swiftly exited without making a serious effort to help Libyans establish security and build a new political order. Congress might usefully probe why the administration allowed a country in which it initiated military operations to slide into chaos.
The Washington Post then begins covering up Benghazi and minimizing it.
“Republicans may calculate that scandal-mongering about a Benghazi cover-up may rally the base before the fall’s elections. What it’s not likely to do is hold the Obama administration accountable for its actual failings in Libya.”
Since there were no casualties in the actual war and the media refused to report on everything wrong with the conflict, the public isn’t likely to care about an overall investigation.
The Washington Post has hardly been out front beating the drums about it either. It just now announces that the plan to, illegally, implement regime change was a bad idea. But where was it before?
The editorial still fails to address other core issues with the Libyan War, namely that it was illegal and that the rebels we were backing were linked to Al Qaeda. If the Washington Post wants to be honest, it needs to begin there.