“I don’t think anybody lied to anybody. And let’s find out exactly, together, what happened, because we need — we got (sic) a lot more important things to move on to and get done.” — John Kerry, April 17, 2013

IN TESTIMONY BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, Secretary of State Kerry, while dismissing the importance of the Benghazi attack, demonstrated a decided lack of knowledge that we have unfortunately come to expect from Washington leadership.

Meanwhile, amid the incompetence, any attempt to investigate the recent trilogy of scandals — including the unfolding IRS debacle and the spying on members of the press — has met with expected resistance. The administration and its apologists have engaged in time-honored scandal-management tactics: obfuscate, delay, deny and trivialize.

This reaction is diametrically opposed, however, to the positions of these same individuals, as well as the media, when the proverbial shoe was on the other foot, specifically in regards to Abu Ghraib.

Reflecting on Abu Ghraib, one can see that the scandal was blown out of proportion, sensationalized by the media and excessively politicized.

Yes, those involved deserved the punishment they received (14 soldiers were charged, 11 were convicted). But let’s be honest here: If the men mistreated at Abu Ghraib had not been not locked up, they would likely have been seeking to kill Americans. In terms of righteous indignation, the brutal murder of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, including Navy Seals who heroically did their duty to help as best they could, ranks significantly higher.

Yet the reaction to Abu Ghraib by the assorted Bush/Cheney hate mob rose to a level rarely seen before. It was ginned up by the New York Times, Dan Rather, Rep. Henry Waxman and too many others to name.

Let’s back up a bit to the time frame we are discussing:

In mid-January of 2004, U.S. Central Command issued statements to the media regarding abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. In February it was reported that 17 soldiers had been suspended and in March the first charges were filed. Internal actions were already under way to uncover the extent of the abuse and punish those involved.

The first significant media attention came in late April when Dan Rather began to report on “60 Minutes II” on the now 12-week-old story. Immediately after his report, the major news media went into full dudgeon, led by the venerable Times. Beginning April 29, 2004, a story on Abu Ghraib was featured on the front page of the Times for 32 consecutive days. After a respite of one day, the onslaught continued for more than a week.

In Washington, the usual suspects quickly jumped onto the now-overflowing bandwagon. In early June Waxman, at the time the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform, sent notification to President Bush of his intent to investigate not just Abu Ghraib, but well beyond.

Waxman’s letter, signed by seven other committee members of both parties, listed 35 requests of various types. Items 34 and 35 requested a list of all completed and ongoing investigations by the “Defense Department, State Department, Justice Department, CIA or their Inspectors General into the abuse or killing of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.”

The net was now cast wide, fueled by the desire to both punish the guilty and embarrass the hated team of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld.

In August, the Schlesinger Report was released, implicating policies established by higher command as potentially responsible for the prisoner abuse. This was Sen. John Kerry’s cue to reiterate previous calls for the “head” of Don Rumsfeld: “It’s not just the little person at the bottom who ought to pay the price of responsibility … Secretary Rumsfeld set the climate in which these kinds of abuses were able to take place.”

None of the above is intended to excuse or justify the actions taken at Abu Ghraib. The intent is to emphasize the over-reaction and politicization of Abu Ghraib compared to the current under-reaction to Benghazi.

One needs to recognize that Abu Ghraib was primarily about soldiers of low rank committing low-ranking acts. Benghazi, on the other hand, represents a scandal where those at the highest ranks made multiple questionable decisions, including a refusal to aid Americans under attack.

It should be mentioned that those who fought back in Benghazi did an admirable job, not only in rescuing more than 30 State Department and CIA employees but doing so in the dark of night during a more-than-seven-hour siege, and managing to kill about 100 of the well-organized terrorists against whom they were arrayed.

Could a counterassault or air support have reached the area in time? Many argued at the time that they could, others disagreed, including the president, who went to bed that night without giving the order — though later, in October, he claimed he did.

In a National Review article titled “Obama Emerges from the Fog of War,” author Bing West clarifies that the real fog is in the obfuscation that followed Benghazi, as Obama changed the narrative:

“The minute I found out what was happening . . . I gave the directive, to make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do.”

But we have yet to see evidence of the existence of any such directive.

In June 2005, 18 months after Abu Ghraib was brought to light, Rep. Waxman issued a statement regarding HR 3003, a resolution for the establishment of an independent investigator.

“We won’t know what’s true and what’s not true unless we investigate,” he said. “And when we refuse to conduct thorough, independent investigations, the rest of the world thinks we have something to hide.”

Waxman’s words are equally applicable to Benghazi, which deserves investigation beyond the whitewash of the Pickering Report released late in 2012 — a report that was limited in scope and that failed to follow up with many key personnel, whose interviews were neither recorded nor transcribed.

“We relied on notes,” Thomas Pickering said.

What is especially vexing regarding the reactions to the two incidents is that the polarization of the nation is now so deep that rational discussion is no longer possible. Answers are sought to legitimate questions, but those that ask questions are targeted as the “enemy.”

Abu Ghraib allowed the negative emotions of the Bush haters, still seething from the 2000 election and their opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to focus that negativity and hate onto a singular subject.

That same high level of energy is now focused on defending the man they adore, and whom the opposition endures.

Perhaps the lasting legacy of the current administration will be the fact that he entered office as a healer, but instead deepened the divide.

It will be to the nation’s great misfortune if this divide continues to deepen.

Dennis Lund graduated from California State University-Long Beach with a degree in mechanical engineering in 1981 and has resided in Benicia since 1992.