Romney's Ghoulish Opportunism Over Benghazi Deaths Backfiring

[bigtree]

from Josh Marshall at TPM: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/10/more_problems_for_romney.php?ref=fpblg


_____ One reason the Benghazi controversy has always seemed so bogus to me is that I’ve never bought the core premise, which is that the administration had any clear political reason or advantage to gain by claiming the attack was tied to the video as opposed to a pre-planned assault. (Here’s our look at how Benghazi evolved into a GOP talking point.) In addition to a great number of hacks peddling this idea, some people I respect a great deal seem to credit the idea too. But again, it doesn’t add up to me.

However that may be, the factual premise itself now seems to be coming apart. In this morning’s Washington Post, David Ignatius comes forward with new evidence suggesting that Susan Rice’s now notorious claims about the centrality of the video were pretty much verbatim from CIA talking points prepared that day for administration officials . . . more


As I mentioned after the debate last week, Romney totally got hoisted on his own petard by the ridiculous hyperfocus on the word “terror”. But really the whole focus on this word only makes sense in a hyper-ideological mindset in which using the ‘terror’ buzzword signifies you fully understand some global war on Islamofascism which Romney’s advisors are trying to bring back from the middle years of the Bush era.

My global take remains the same: only in the final weeks or a presidential campaign, with one candidate desperate for a America under siege Carteresque tableau to play against, would this ever remotely have been treated like a scandal. A bunch of reporters basically got played and punk’d.


read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/10/more_problems_for_romney.php?ref=fpblg

[DearAbby]

1. Question is:

Do they care? They live in their own private Idaho. Own bubble. They created an EVIL OBAMA to run against. (ie: empty chair) They have their own facts, and as the article above proves, they have their own language. Their own perception of reality. To them EVIL OBAMA has evil motives to lie to the country and the world, what happened in Libya.

Some reason EVIL OBAMA believes, deaths over a filthy video is far more beneficial, then an Attack by Terrorists (Obama's buddies) - some reason Obama and the Terrorists screwed up? ....Oh god, I am getting a headache.

[BlueStreak]

9. Idaho isn't enough to get elected

Yes, that is where Faux "news" is, but Romney makes a big mistake following their lead, because on their best day ever, Faux speaks to no more than 2% of the population.

I think Josh is correct in his analysis. I have wondered the same thing. Why are these people obsessing over exactly what hour Obama said the word "terror"? What difference could it possibly make? What is important is whether we are taking appropriate steps to secure our embassies and taking actions that are likely to reduce these attacks in the future. But the debate never got to those questions. it was all about semantics.

And Josh's explanation is the only one I have heard that makes sense. They are obsessing about the single word because it is a dog whistle for "Islamo-fascism", "Sharia law" and all that other garbage our own Taliban obsess about. They have carried Romney off to a very bad place, and it will be hard for him to fix this buy Monday's debate.

The fundamental problem they have is that Americans are damn sick of starting wars, and especially paying for wars, both in terms of money and in terms of our standing on the world stage. But to the right-wingers, every issue leads right to another war. A war in Syria. A war in Benghazi. A war in Iran. This is Romney's burden for the Monday debate, and Obama's challenge is to make that war obsession perfectly clear to the American public.

[StrictlyRockers]

10. I really think that you hit the nail on the head here.

"...Obama's challenge is to make that war obsession perfectly clear to the American public."

[porphyrian]

2. As it should. n/t

[brewens]

3. The goal is to hang a terrorist attack on Obama. A terrorist attack on his watch. Of course

nothing can compare with the previous administration dropping the ball on the 9/11 attack but they will try. You also can't point out that it was only a few deaths compared to the 9/11 massacre. They would only cry louder about discounting the Benghazi deaths.

The administration acknowledged it was an organized assault pretty much from the beginning, they just didn't call it a terrorist attack repeatedly. Obama did refer to "act of terror" though. That kind of attack isn't always immediately declared a "terrorist attack". It may or may not have been carried out by a known terrorist group. It could be elements of the Libyan army as far as I know. More of a guerrilla operation. We didn't always refer to the Viet Cong as terrorists.

[SmileyRose]

4. It IS a terrorist attack on his watch at least to the general American public

Everyone I talk to regardless of political views accepts that the terrorist groups used the video as an excuse to attack on 9/11 and most assume elements of the Libyan government participated in the attack. I don't know anyone, even the Obama haters at work, who specifically BLAME President Obama. But make no mistake about it, they do view this as a terrorist attack on his watch.

Edit to add that I hear a general frustration about the middle east and most I talk to just want us to stop meddling all together but realize we can't do that until America's oil stays in America.

[brewens]

6. I think we missed the boat on our oil staying in our market to any advantage. Had we proceeded

with every alternative energy and conservation possibility since the late 70's, maybe we'd be in position to be needing to import very little. Solar, wind, insulating everything in sight, making full use of rail for freight and people transport. Just think about how much oil we never really had to import all along. The cost has been astronomical.

As it stands, we can't very well take our oil off the world market and expect it to save us any money. That would only cause the price of what we do have to import to rise.

[julian09]

7. It wasn't an attack on US , like the one they just thwarted on the Fed Reserve building in NY,

If it were the case, he would be blamed for every attack in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan.
We will always export oil, beef, grain to create demand and exploit higher prices and speculation.

[ewagner]

5. tend to agree with you...

if you read the CIA report that's referenced...the attack was poorly planned and opportunistic...the video would be the cause for the demonstration which, in turn, would be the cover for the attack...which apparently had only been planned since that morning...it was an "act of terror"...spawned by the stupid video...and used opportunistically by terrorists...Obama was cautious in his description because this was really more complicated than Rmoney or the right-wing are capable of understanding.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

8. I just wonder how much worse Romney would have to be for people to refuse to vote for him

He's an ex corporate raider who's fired hundreds and raked the cream off companies in this time where Wall Street nearly destroyed the country. Romney has no idea on how to handle any issue of foreign policy, beats the war drum when Americans are tired of war, and has insulted every foreign country he can when given the chance. On both domestic and foreign affairs, he's the Chimp on steroids at a time when Bush's popularity is lower than that of shit. And in this latest "scandal", he winds up with egg all over his face.

[Uncle Joe]

11. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, bigtree.