And he can do simply by insisting officials on his time do what he promised, on his first full day in office, he would do: by being transparent, by answering the various questions congressional leaders, reporters and pundits have been asking.
As you may know, yesterday, in his joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron, President Obama “dismissed criticism over the White House’s handling of the attack in Benghazi, calling the focus on the issue a ‘sideshow,’ and said any suggestion that the administration is engaging in a cover-up ‘defies logic.’”
There is only one way for the president to show that he’s not covering anything up and that’s to uncover the information about which his critics (and even some of his allies) have questions.
Such questions include:
- Who decided not to provide additional security for our mission in Benghazi despite repeated requests from those on the ground there? Why?
- Who in the White House and State Department was involved in revising the Benghazi talking points and scrubbing them of terror references? Was the Secretary of State aware of these revisions? Was the president?
- Why did the president and Secretary of State rely on these talking points in various public appearances in the weeks following the attack even when there was clear evidence that the protests were neither spontaneous nor were they caused by the video in question?
Perhaps, people might be less cynical about government today if, instead of lashing out at Republicans, President Obama insisted that his appointees answer their questions.
In his press conference on Friday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney compared the Obama’s team work to that of that of the immediate past President of the United States, saying that their release of relevant e-mails was “especially unusual with regard to our predecessor“.
If that predecessor, a Mr. George W. Bush, failed to provide information, did he — or his appointees — lash out at Democrats who criticized them for that failure?