The events in Benghazi, Libya, are perhaps more troubling, in that it seems that it was an ineffective response by the U.S. military and a lack of resources offered by the State Department that led to American Deaths – rather than a YouTube video, which State and Administration spokespersons initially blamed for causing a demonstration, which apparently never really happened. In response to the September 11, 2012 violence against the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and the brutal murder of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, both Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama chastised any attacks on others' religions or religious beliefs, referring to the film Innocence of Muslims, which had sparked the protests in Cairo; and which State Department officials said was also the cause of a spontaneous demonstration against its facility in Benghazi, which erupted into the fatal attack on the embassy and its annex (Scarborough). None of the communications from personnel involved in the attack, nor did interviews with Libyan witnesses, ever acknowledged that a demonstration of any kind had occurred (Scarborough). Indeed, the State Department later acknowledged that the attacks were apparently pre-planned, and a senior official added that it was never the department's conclusion that the incidents were based on the film. More concerning, however, is that the President and Secretary of State's qualified condemnations of brutal violence that claimed the lives of US citizens—which effectively discourages speech critical of Islamism—undermines the value of, and publicly discredits, the constitutionally protected right to speak openly about religion, a right that exists even when the speech is tantamount to "hate speech" or is otherwise offensive. Indeed, in an opinion written by Justice William Douglas, the US Supreme Court has firmly established that:
[A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. (Terminiello v. Chicago 4).
In an apparent departure with the classic notions of free speech and its adjunct, freedom of the press, espoused by United States constitutional law, the Obama administration caused further furor when it was made public that the phones and email communications of several journalists had been tapped and monitored by the Department of Justice. In attempt to trace back press leaks in the administration, journalists from Fox News and the Associated Press were subjected to surveillance in an attempt to determine who their sources were. More than anything else, it is this A.P. scandal that resulted in the comparisons to Watergate.
As yet, however, no proof has been offered that Obama directed any of the alleged wrongdoing — nor even that any such orders emerged from with the senior circles of the White House. Indeed, at this point, nothing beyond poor decision making and bumbling attempts to hide mistakes from the press are implicated in the scandals of the Obama administration. This, ultimately, is why the public is hearing so much about them: the press does not like to be stifled.
Watergate was a scandal born in the media. It has been the media, which has driven much of the frenzy surrounding presidential scandals from the last decade. The Obama poked a hornets' nest when it tried to stifle free speech with the Benghazi mess and then tapped reporter phones. Fortunately for President Obama, in this age of the 24-hour (or less) news cycle, the media dog's teeth are a lot less sharp than they used to be. Like all the other two-term presidents since Watergate, he will likely get bumped and bruised pretty badly by the media, but will serve out his term and write a best-selling memoir.
Works Cited
Cline, Seth. "Press Past: The Parallel Scandals of May 17." U.S. News & World Report. May 17, 2013. Web. <http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/press-past/2013/05/17/the-irs-benghazi-and-ap-scandals-arent-the-only-reason-watergate-is-in-the-news>
Clymer, Adam. "Watergate Legacy: More Than a Tired Suffix". The New York Times. Jun. 17, 2002. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/17/us/watergate-legacy-more-than-a-tired-suffix.html>
Mirkinson, Jack. "Bob Woodward: Obama Scandals Are Not Watergate, But Benghazi Kind of Is". The Huffington Post. Web. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/bob-woodward-benghazi-watergate_n_3292164.html>
Scarborough, Rowan. "Benghazi: The anatomy of a scandal; how the story of a U.S. tragedy unfolded — and then fell apart". The Washington Times. May 16, 2013. Web. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/16/benghazi-the-anatomy-of-a-scandal/>
Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 1949.
United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
2
