The Dems are going to have to decide quickly what side they are on. As Wretchard says
It is in the long-term interest of the Democratic Party for their foreign policy in the Middle East to succeed, because even with the press on their side they cannot wholly escape the effects of failure. By contrast candidates have shorter cost/benefit horizons. They only need to survive long enough to get theirs. Once that is done their loyal serfs are left to make shift as best they can. Defending the leadership at the cost of courting a foreign policy disaster must mean that the Party will eventually hold the bag.
But anyone who thinks Hillary and Barack will reward them for their sacrifice should ask themselves how Chris Stevens fared when he pleaded for help. Can they expect better?
So the basic problem with defending Benghazi at all costs is that a political party has effectively painted itself into the corner of failure; maneuvered as it were by Darrel Issa into taking the wrong side, into reinforcing failure just to prove they can do it. They have to keep eating the broken glass if only to demonstrate that it is delicious.
Maybe they can do it. But a moment’s reflection will show it is a dumb thing to do. For there are two hearings on Benghazi; the first is taking place in Congress, which may or may not be successfully spun. But even if it could be, there’s a second hearing concurrently running in the halls of history which they have no prospect of winning. The demons that ate up Benghazi have joined into a mighty river of chaos that is washing away national boundaries in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and in the Kurdish regions. The Son of Benghazi is spreading chaos and destruction everywhere.
Cornered rats, the lot of them. Of course, I have my own opinion…