To Be Or Not To Be In Benghazi; That’s The Question

Benghazigate is a minor issue in the grand scheme of American politics. The Dems and Republicans are arguing not over principles but over procedural mishaps. In other words: What happened? How did it happen? Who covered it up? How do we go back to doing what we did before IT happened. (“IT” being the Sept. 11 attack on the American embassy that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.)

Viewed through the two-party prism, America wants to know how it can get diplomatic immunity from the dangers of occupation and interventionism. That’s all.

Likewise, the megalomaniacal media is not for peace; it’s for Barack Obama. They’ve depicted this war president as your good kind of killer; a thoughtful, great leader who agonizes over his kill lists with excruciating care.

Tomorrow’s final presidential debate at Boca Raton, Fla., will revolve around foreign policy. Unless Mitt Romney flip-flops to articulate a patriotic, non-interventionist policy; one that is antithetical to BHO’s—he’ll be playing second fiddle to Obama, as far as the American people are concerned (mainstream media already hates him).

It’s inevitable.

The other, more realistic strategy that might see Mitt Romney tied for the trophy is to go for the president’s jugular on Benghazigate. This might work for him.