I don't know how many times I've had to refute progressives on Twitter, trying to turn the tables on conservative criticisms on Obama and Hillary Clinton with respect to the terrorist attack on the US mission in Benghazi, probably at least a half dozen times. More recently there's been an attempt to compare the Jan. 6 "deadly" riot to Benghazi. This goes beyond apples and oranges.
Let me note first as a libertarian, I opposed the violence and property damage on Jan. 6. I've made it clear I hold Trump (as well as his criminal minions) responsible for these tragic events; I have supported the impeachment and conviction, again.
But let's be clear. There were so many things wrong with Obama's Libya intervention, which did not involve a military threat to the US. But Obama and Clinton sought, for political reasons, to establish and make permanent an embassy and diplomatic missions.consulates throughout Libya, even though the country itself was not in a stable state in the aftermath of Gaddafi. The British had also had opened a mission in weakly controlled Benghazi. The British decided the mission wasn't safe and eventually evacuated their personnel. But Clinton, for unclear reasons, stayed the course and largely ignored pleas from mission/embassy personnel for more protection; she would later argue that she never personally saw the requests but she reportedly wanted to make the mission permanent in a symbolic move to support democratic ambitions of the Libyan people. In the infamous 9/11/12 attacks Ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 others died in separate attacks by Islamic militants on the diplomatic compound and a CIA annex nearby. One of the reasons I wanted to focus on this is because of a false notion, initially propagated by the Obama Administration that the attacks were conducted by rioters/protesters at the mission (presumably in response to an anti-Muslim video). Whereas it's possible that rioters may have exploited the opportunity of and chaos during the militant attacks, later investigators showed the fatal attacks were premeditated by militant forces, clearly choosing the date (9/11) for symbolic purposes.
The riots on Jan. 6 were different. The attacks on the Capitol did not involve mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, automatic weapons, etc. There is some evidence that the federal government had expected a security threat (e.g., some threats posted on Parler) more than protesters picketing, and the POTUS had a representative on the board to which the Capitol police report. There are reports that the Capitol police had turned down pre-event offers for supplemental assistance from the FBI and National Guard.
Furthermore, of the reported deaths, one was a Trumpkin going through a shattered window, shot by the Capitol police, 3 were medical emergencies (e.g., heart attack and being trampled upon in the chaos of the surge), and a policeman died of injuries suffered in resisting surging protesters (although not by blunt force trauma, e.g., fire extinguisher as earlier reported). (Several other police also suffered minor injuries while confronting surging protesters, and two reportedly committed suicide in the aftermath.) There were also reports of planted pipebombs at partisan headquarters, a truck found on the grounds with weapons.
To be sure, what happened on Jan. 6 was tragic and worse, preventable. But it almost seems like mainstream media like CNN are being paid to repeat a "deadly riot" but much of it was a case of overwhelmed Capitol police.
I did have a sense of déjà vu in at least two senses, one of which I hinted about above. Of course, there were errors in judgment by Capitol police leadership which thought they could handle a large group of peaceful protesters and turned down augmentation by federal or National Guard forces. Clearly, there had to be accountability for failed leadership.
The first is the report that Senate and/or House leadership rebuffed Capitol police requests for augmentation. This smacks of the nature of the State Department stonewalling security upgrades at diplomatic facilities in Libya. If you weren't prepared to augment security, why didn't you withdraw like the British? Congressional leadership knew that Trump was planning a rally on the day of Biden's electoral vote ratification and Trump had been fighting this tooth and nail. The idea that impassioned Trumpkins would seek to "stop the steal" and confront legislators seems obvious, and I'm sure they were getting briefed by the FBI, etc., on security risks. As I tweeted last night, Speaker Pelosi needs to take responsibility for not ensuring enough security for the Jan. 6 event. Trying to scapegoat her staff like Clinton did is not acceptable.
Second, the failure of the federal response to the riot also seems eerily similar to the Katrina standoff between Blanco/Nagin and President Bush. If you recall, Bush pushed for federal government intervention before the hurricane and got rebuffed by the governor and/or New Orleans mayor. You just know that Bush was going to get the heat from a government failure (and he did). But Bush, a former governor, wanted to respect state rights in principle and didn't intervene.
Now, of course, I firmly believe that Trump violated his Presidential oath on Jan. 6. He put his own parochial interests above the national interest, reportedly pressuring Pence to reject electoral slates confirming Biden's victory. He sent out an inflammatory tweet on Pence's "disloyalty" during the riot tenure, probably contributing to reported chants of "Hang Pence". He reportedly fought tooth and nail requests to call off his mob (although his lawyers tried to argue that events were premediated, without Trump's explicit approval) and/or to provide security reinforcements. As for his political gimmick of supporting law and order, he did next to nothing over federal police officers being killed or injured by his supporters.
I'm sure Trump was briefed on the security risks posed by his mob. Yes, he was aggressive over protecting federal monuments, even offering cities federal security forces to augment against protesters and/or rioters, but he had no issue against a mob trying to shut down a Congressional vote that Trump knew he would lose. He took no action to call off the rally; he explicitly encouraged them to go to the Capitol, even suggesting he would join them. He took no action to enhance Capitol security in advance, and even after mob invasion of the Capitol, he was more concerned over the angst of his minions' disappointment over a "stolen election" than in calling off the attack. It's hard to conceive of another obvious example of dereliction of duty and personal corruption.
