Opinion

Nicholas Wapshott

It’s not Watergate, it’s Whitewater

Nicholas Wapshott
May 21, 2013 16:31 UTC

The trifecta of scandals — Benghazi, the IRS and snooping on journalists — that has broken upon the heads of the Obama administration is as bad as Watergate. No it isn’t, says Bob Woodward, whose reputation was made by doggedly pursuing the source of a burglary of the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate Hotel. No it isn’t, says Carl Bernstein, who shares the bragging rights for toppling President Richard Nixon. Oh yes it is, says Peggy Noonan, the Republicans’ mother superior, writing, “We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate.”

Really? How about the Iran-Contra scandal in 1986 that besmirched the honesty of President Ronald Reagan, for whom Noonan used to write speeches? Perhaps she penned Reagan’s first denial, “We did not — repeat — did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we,” or maybe his amnesiac mea culpa four months later, “I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.” Strange the tricks age plays on the memory. And I am not talking about Reagan.

If you were a precocious five-year-old at the time, you would have to be 32 to recall the Iran-Contra scandal, in which, with or without Reagan’s say-so, administration officials, in defiance of Congress’s clearly stated wishes, secretly sold weapons to America’s perennial enemy, the terrorist state of Iran, then passed the proceeds to Nicaraguan insurgents. Even if you were the smartest kid you would have to be over 41 to remember Watergate and, in President Gerald Ford’s words, the “long national nightmare” that led to Nixon’s resignation ahead of certain impeachment.

Unless investigations prove that President Barack Obama’s actions or inactions led to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi, or that he directed the Justice Department to subpoena the phone records of 20 AP reporters or that he directed the IRS to investigate Tea Party groups, the current scandals are not Watergate, or even Iran-Contra.

That is not to say that the three events currently under scrutiny are not troubling. Four Americans were killed in the fog of war surrounding Benghazi, and if such pointless deaths are to be prevented in the future we need to know exactly what happened. Determining who won the talking-points battle between the CIA and State is not that investigation.

Benghazi and the Republican abandonment of the center

Nicholas Wapshott
May 10, 2013 16:24 UTC

In World War Two, the Libyan port of Benghazi was hard fought over, changing hands five times between Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Korps and the Allied forces. Seventy years on, the city has again become the focus of a fierce battle, this time between Republicans and Democrats over the terrorist attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on Sept. 11, 2012.

This week’s House committee resumed the fight, with GOP members eager to show the Obama administration at fault. Because Hillary Clinton has already emerged as the 2016 Democratic frontrunner, determining what exactly happened in Benghazi that day has become the first scuffle in the next presidential election.

In the weeks running up to President Barack Obama’s reelection, conservative commentators thought that in the Benghazi deaths they had found an explosive issue that would shock the nation. Despite their best efforts, which elicited an admission of responsibility from the secretary of state, the Benghazi campaign did not move the pollsters’ needle. The campaign to implicate the president andClinton was long on innuendo and short on facts. There was no smoking gun. As a result, voters did not grasp what they were being urged to be indignant about.

The Benghazi booby trap

Nicholas Wapshott
Oct 30, 2012 13:50 UTC

The murder by Islamist terrorists of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Libya on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks has become one of the most contentious issues in the election. The administration has been flailing around, unsure of its facts, offering statements that turned out to be misleading. Republicans, led by Senator John McCain, have jumped on the errors by the State Department and the CIA that contributed to the confusion over our understanding of the slaughter in Benghazi, and backed an unrelenting press campaign attempting to show Barack Obama as either incompetent, a liar, or both.

Yet, despite six weeks of heavy pounding on Obama’s approach to terrorism and national security, an issue that in the past has occupied Americans as a top priority, the president’s reputation remains largely unscathed and, according to polls, voters still consider him more suited than Mitt Romney to run America’s foreign and security policies. Why has such a virulent campaign to discredit Obama’s record as commander-in-chief so conspicuously failed?

When John McCain first commented on the death of his friend Ambassador Stevens, he was careful with his words. After a wild accusation by Mitt Romney condemning the U.S. embassy in Cairo for blaming anti-western mob violence across the Arab world on a video that made fun of the prophet Mohammad, the senator from Arizona was reluctant to apportion blame for the American deaths. Asked on Sept. 13 about the administration’s response to the killings, he said: “I think it was fine. By the way, Secretary of State Clinton gave a marvelous statement today.” By last weekend, however, he was accusing the administration of “either cover-up or gross — the worst kind of incompetence, which doesn’t qualify the president as commander in chief.”

  •