Marc Thiessen makes the case:

Today marks exactly one month since terrorists attacked the U.S consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing our ambassador and three other American personnel. In the weeks since, Washington has been gripped by the unfolding scandals over the Obama administration’s failure to heed warnings of a growing terrorist danger in eastern Libya; its failure to provide additional security requested by U.S. personnel on the ground; and its failure to acknowledge that what happened in Libya was in fact a terrorist attack.

But all this has obscured the more serious scandal: the Obama administration’s utter failure to respond.

It took less than four weeks after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, for the Bush administration to gather intelligence, plan the full-scale invasion of Afghanistan and begin executing Operation Enduring Freedom. By October 7, 2001, multinational forces from the United States, Britain and Australia were on the ground, linking up with friendly Afghan forces, overthrowing the Taliban and driving al-Qaeda from the haven from which they had attacked our country.

By contrast, it is now Oct. 11 — four weeks after the attack of Sept. 11, 2012 — and the Obama administration has barely gotten a criminal investigation off the ground. The Post reported this week that while President Obama has vowed to “bring to justice” those responsible for the attacks, “nearly one month later, the White House has not spelled out how it plans to do so, even if it is able to identify and capture any suspects…. An unproductive, slow-moving investigation is complicating matters, with the FBI taking three weeks to reach the unsecured crime scene.”

Three weeks to reach the “crime scene”? Within days, CNN reporters were able to rummage through the rubble and recover the ambassador’s diary, and Post reporters were able to access and photograph the destroyed diplomatic compound. But the administration can’t get the FBI to the scene for three weeks? It should come as no surprise that the Obama administration is treating the attack as a crime — but it can’t even get the criminal investigation right.

This is not to suggest an invasion of Libya. But certainly by now we could have identified the groups responsible for the attack, targeted their compounds and retaliated in some fashion. Heck, the Libyan people have done more to retaliate than Obama has. The Associated Press reports that a few days after the attack, “Hundreds of protesters seized control of several militia headquarters … including the compound of one of Libya’s strongest armed Islamic extremist groups, evicting militiamen and setting fire to buildings as the attack that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans sparked a backlash against armed groups.”

What kind of signal does it send when a Libyan mob does more to avenge the killing of an American ambassador than the president of the United States?

[…]

In a speech this week, CBS News foreign correspondent Laura Logan ripped the Obama administration for its feckless response to the Libya attack, declaring it was time for the U.S. to “exact revenge and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on its own soil. That its ambassadors will not be murdered, and that the United States will not stand by and do nothing about it.”

She is absolutely right. Perhaps President Obama has some decisive action planned. Perhaps when the White House is done trying to cover up this terrorist attack, it will pivot to responding to this terrorist attack. That would be a welcome “October surprise” indeed.

But as of now, all the world sees is a president who is afraid to call an act of terror what it is, much less do something about it. This country has not looked weaker in the decade since Sept. 11, 2001. And as we learned on 9/11, weakness is provocative.

I agree completely with the sentiment. However, it’s my assertion that the real real Libya scandal is that an American citizen was singled out and scapegoated and now sits in jail — even though the federal government at its highest levels knew this man to be innocent of the charges they were leveling against him not just for national consumption but for international consumption, running ads in Pakistan apologizing for our First Amendment, not responding to a bounty put on the filmmaker’s head by a Pakistan government official, sending out conciliatory Tweets from embassy staff later defended by the Secretary of State  — who herself stood over the coffins of those who’d asked for added security, which she and the Administration had denied, and laid the blame for what was, graphically and utterly, a colossal performative repudiation of the entire foreign policy strategy of this dismal Administration, at the feet of a Youtube video clip and the American who, in producing it, had violated sharia blasphemy laws and was subsequently targeted for death by those we can’t call terrorists.  For fear of riling them up.

It is, in a word, staggering.  And in fact, if we knew where this amateur filmmaker was being held, and had we any sense of decency, we’d be protesting outside the facility demanding his release (forget the bullshit about probation violations), if not overrunning the public spaces inside the facility and staging a sit in of sorts.  You like Kent State, progressives?  Well, let Neal Young write a song about law enforcement officers shooting those protesting the false imprisonment of an international scapegoat whom the media helped finger and locate while at the same time it was colluding on how to sabotage Mitt Romney, one of the few Republicans who had the balls to speak out initially on the attacks (only to be tut-tutted by the likes of Peggy Noonan for his presumptuousness), in order to help the President in his reelection bid.

Because it would fucking awesome if the mythos of the sixties was finally revealed for what it very quickly morphed into once the radical leftists infiltrated the student movement:  the bullying tactics of would-be totalitarians pretending to fight a revolution for freedom.

We are well past the point of no return.  The contemporary left is not the opposition party in a constitutional republic. It is an organized group of well-funded transnational progressivists waging a coup.

And if saying so makes me a Visigoth, fine:  hide your wenches and mead, because the reckoning is nigh.