Our view

Grandstanding has no serious purpose in the Benghazi investigation, other than those purely political.

Oh, we know how advocates on either side will respond. It’s a predictable circus act, sadly played around an attack on a U.S. consulate, the deaths of three Americans and the mismanagement of facts afterward.

Clearly military, intelligence and government officials misread the situation before and during the attack. Clearly they had no proactive preparations to act in case of an assault in what is a volatile part of the world.

But Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), charged with leading the attempt to discredit Hillary Rodham Clinton in advance of the 2016 elections—for this is no longer an effort to expose President Barack Obama’s shortcomings—promised “damaging” revelations from his star witness, Gregory Hicks.

On the night of the attacks, which later U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice falsely claimed to be spurred by an anti-Islamic YouTube release, Hicks was posted 600 miles from the action. He told of a frantic, truncated phone call in which Ambassador Chris Stevens said the facility was “under attack.” His was the sincere voice of a committed American diplomat sickened by what transpired, then and after.

But he did not present “damaging” information regarding Clinton’s role. He did, however, confirm that her name was attached to cables sent from the State Department, whether or not she had a role in crafting their message. Hicks also related speaking to the Secretary in the early morning hours following the attack, and that she supported his comments. And at least two emails from the State Department on that very day, Sept. 11, characterized the incident as an “attack.”

As for the repeated claim that the administration continued to blame the YouTube video, the true question revolves around why Ambassador Rice tied the video to the attacks, as that particular reference did not appear in talking points issued to her by the administration. Most had by then concluded that it had been an organized assault.

Speaking on Sept. 14, a few days after the attack, Clinton said “We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video.”

She did not connect the two.

There is blame to go around, certainly. Why was Hick’s testimony not heard before, for example? But harping about the refusal to launch fighter jets or the order to stand down a four-man team hundreds of miles away seems misguided.

Simply put, the U.S. cannot scramble fighters over another nation’s airspace without permission. And a flight not allowed to fire due to the presence of civilians does not amount to a display of military might. Rather, it proves to those who despise this great nation our inability to respond, further emboldening their actions.

Dropping four men into a firestorm without first ascertaining the true situation (including numbers and firepower)? That just adds to the death toll. In foreign policy as in politics, the answers are always clear in on particular hindsight or another.

Issa promised to undermine the administration. He gave us, instead, a riveting and tragic account of reality from a distance.

This is theater. What the nation requires is rigorous investigation into faults, flaws and misstatements, stripped of political purpose.