No, seriously, that's the entire article.
We've both had the honor to work in the White House. We've seen presidents, vice presidents, chiefs of staff and national security advisers during moments of international crisis. We know that in these moments human beings make mistakes. There are failures of communication and errors of judgment. Perfection certainly isn't the standard to which policy makers should be held.
But there are standards. If Americans are under attack, presidential attention must be paid. Due diligence must be demonstrated. A president must take care that his administration does everything it can do. On Sept. 11, 2012, as Americans were under attack in Benghazi, Libya, President Obama failed in his basic responsibility as president and commander in chief. In a crisis, the president went AWOL.
Apparently the article then goes on at some length saying that this is the greatest failure in presidential history, entirely unlike Bush eleven years before on that date, brazenly calling it a "deception" and wanting to know if the President even cares.
All of this would be terribly important if Kristol wasn't one of the key media figures in leading us into a decade long war of choice based on complete lies. He's about as qualified morally to call President Obama out here as Genghis Khan is to comment on pacifism.
The right at this point has nothing else but Benghazi. It's a desperate attempt over the last five months now to try to create a "administration-ending scandal" over what was an attack on a us consulate, when under the previous President, our embassies and consulates were hit eleven times. Not a word about Dubya being AWOL there.
It only applies to Obama, you see. Funny how that happens to work out.