by liberal japonicus
With the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three U.S. government employees in Benghazi, this interview (video below the fold) with Michael Lewis, based on his Vanity Fair article, seems to display a disturbing synchronicity.
For those of you who don't want to click on video links, an excerpt from the transcript
he solved the problem. he went outside of the process to solve the problem. the process wanted him to do nothing. didn't want us in there. and he solved the problem in such a way that it was not construed as an american act. our lust for libyan oil. it just was a humanitarian intervention and it worked. what's interesting about this at the end, it's one of his triumphs what he did in libya. as a result, you don't hear a lot about it because nobody has an interest in talking about what he's done well. even he says now, you know, that decision looks like a no brainer, but it was a 51-49 decision. and every decision that comes across my desk is like that. even now i can see how it could have been a mistake to go in. it was not easy to make that decision. in hindsight, everybody says it was obvious. the reason i'm grateful that this is out right now is i feel like it's critically important for us to not have a partisan fight over foreign policy. i think the republicans are dysfunctional on this issue. they are deciding not to update the bush era. their policies are a flight list bird with an injury. it it would never happen. because wrooer not having that fight. this is a great window into it and it makes me wonder if republicans were contesting it, if we were having national debates. it would be much more like the decisions around domestic policy. we're not going to have the debate.
I say disturbing, because Romney, either thru ignorance or calculation, has taken the tack that the Obama response to what happened represents the wrong response. As Lewis notes, if it becomes a decision like one around domestic policy, we're screwed.