A tale of two terrorist attacks

[ProSense]

A tale of two terrorist attacks

By Steve Benen

A terrorist attack on a U.S. outpost in the Middle East. Americans killed. Congressional hearings. Evidence that the administration failed to take security as seriously as it should have.

It was over 30 years ago that a terrorist attack on a U.S. Marine compound in Beirut killed 241 American servicemen, which came just six months after militants had bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people, including 17 Americans. Jane Mayer, who covered the attack in Lebanon at the time, reflects today on the domestic political environment – and how much it’s changed.

There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials’ feet. But unlike today’s Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation – but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding “very serious errors in judgment” by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.

In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report’s findings, by the way, were bipartisan. (The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)

Six months after the terrorist attack, militants struck American officials in Beirut again, killing the CIA’s station chief. This happened during an election year, but I can find no evidence of any federal politician using this in television attack ads.

And six months after that, terrorists bombed a U.S. government outpost in Beirut once more – in the middle of Reagan’s re-election campaign. The then-president conceded at the time that repairs at the U.S. embassy annex were behind schedule, telling the public, “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.”

Again, no hearings. No attack ads. No select committee. No subpoenas. No organized conspiracy theories pushed by members of Congress or their media allies. No talk about impeaching the president.

I’m trying to imagine what would happen if, in today’s climate, terrorists struck repeatedly at U.S. installations in a Middle Eastern country, killing hundreds of Americans.

- more -

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/tale-two-terrorist-attacks

[PubsFU]

1. Big difference Reagan was White, Obama is Black, different standards for a Black POTUS

Just like in life, Whites get away with more then blacks.

Sucks but it is a fact of life.

[tblue37]

2. Also, Dems are not as vicious or as cynical about playing politics with

foreign policy or people's deaths.

[PubsFU]

3. No Dems just ignore it and hope it goes away...Look Forward and all that rot

[ProSense]

4. "Ignore" what? Terrorist attacks?

Welcome to DU.

[liberal N proud]

5. That has long frustrated me with the Democrats

They have always moved away from attacks either by or against the pukes.