Sooner or later, the press will have to cover this story. \u00a0If you ask them, they’ll say that either it’s not an important story, or that it’s too complex and fluid a story to be responsibly reported this close to an election. \u00a0The breathtaking hypocrisy of this position aside, they refuse (with certain noted exceptions, Kyle Clark<\/a>) to even ask the questions.<\/p>\n

If there’s no story there, if the administration really does have satisfactory answers to who knew what when, then the story will go away upon being reported on. \u00a0And even if the administration refuses to answer those question, stonewalls, or dissembles, that would be valuable information in and of itself.<\/p>\n

Benghazi is not just an election issue. \u00a0It’s certainly legitimate fodder for the campaign, as is just about anything that happens. \u00a0But it’s not Quemoy and Matsu, or Big Bird, Binders, and Bayonets, the kind of thing that gets remainderd after the election, because it’s a policy decision to be decided, or a triviality to be forgotten. \u00a0It will be remembered, and it will be investigated<\/a>. \u00a0It can cripple an administration, forcing it to spend time dealing with the investigation, and forcing out the president’s preferred advisers as they lose the confidence of Congress and the public. \u00a0And while real problems fester, the partisan nature of such an investigation will make it harder to cooperate on (assuming the Democrats are interested in such).<\/p>\n