Who Made Benghazi ‘Political’?

[DonViejo]

Michael Tomasky

Today’s Republicans are shocked, shocked that the Obama administration might have tried to politicize the attack. Funny, everyone seems to have forgotten what really happened in 2012.

If you’re outside that furious little circle of humans who believe Benghazi Is Worse Than Watergate, you may not fully understand why that circle is so furious. I didn’t for a long time, but I think I’ve cracked it. See, it’s not just that allegedly awful decisions were made on the ground. And it’s not even just that the administration supposedly lied in the aftermath to cover up its incompetence. No, the anger has a political end point, which is that this supposed cover-up sealed Barack Obama’s reelection over Mitt Romney and kept the rightful occupant from moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Summaries of the events on the right almost never fail to include language like this from a recent Wall Street Journal editorial: “The reasons Benghazi is important do not have to be rehearsed here. An American outpost, virtually undefended, was attacked by armed and organized al Qaeda-associated militants on the anniversary of 9/11 and four were left dead, including the U.S. ambassador. It happened eight weeks before the 2012 presidential election. From day one White House management and leadership focused on spin and an apparent fiction. Did they deliberately mislead and misdirect? Why was there no military response? Who is responsible?”

These questions are worth exploring. (Even I agree with that—and they have been, eight times by eight separate bodies.) But they have no real political punch without that one sentence in the middle there. Conservatives seem absolutely convinced that if not for the Obama “cover-up” on Benghazi, Romney would have won the election.

There’s one problem with that view: It’s ridiculous. Totally ahistorical. In fact, if you look back closely at how things unfolded in September and October 2012—and everyone seems to have forgotten—it was Romney, not Obama, who bungled Benghazi. It was clear at the time to a broad range of observers, not just liberals, that Romney really screwed the pooch on Benghazi, both when it first happened and then later in a debate.

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/13/who-made-benghazi-political.html

[2naSalit]

1. "...everyone seems to have forgotten what really happened in 2012. "

Yup, THAT IS the problem. Short attention-span public is what they rely on. If one can't remember then looking to someone who sounds like they speak with knowledge and authority is more likely - some believe - to be the go-to authority for some kind of recall ability. And the malevolent mouth-pieces are eager to spew from that pedestal made of cards and hot air.

[Nay]

2. I suspect that Romney's '47% of people are takers' video that surfaced

thanks to that waiter and Jimmy Carter's grandson also turned off lots of voters. In fact, I think that video sealed his fate. It was a lucky, lucky, lucky turn of events. I honestly think he would have won if not for that video.

[DCBob]

3. They also forget that we still don't know for sure the attack wasnt in response to the video.

How does anyone know what was in the minds of these lunatics? No one has been arrested and interogated. This outrage is over RW imagined facts.

[CBHagman]

6. The GOP (and media sycophants) went right to work on that one.

Anyone with access to radio, TV, print, and/or the Internet received a steady stream of reports of protests against that video. In fact, with the possible exception of Antarctica, there were protests on all continents, and they continued for days, according to reports.

But very early on the Republicans and some in the news media did a collective eye roll and declared that of course it wasn't the video, and the repeated that until it permeated.

There's more, too. That so-called fact checker at The Washington Post, Glenn Kessler, still has his undershorts in a bunch because Obama used the word "terror" and not "terrorism" in his public response on the issue.

Of course it's interesting to contemplate that U.S. personnel have many times been in danger and too often paid the highest price, all without the GOP publicly shedding tears or displaying righteous anger. Are those people somehow less American, and less dead?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. I don't think that Benghazi made a difference

It became a new chew toy for the right to be sure but I doubt that it factored into many people's decision making, maybe b/c most people saw it for it was- and not for what it wasn't?

[karynnj]

5. Romney was also the first to conflate the Benghazi attack and the movie

Hours after the attack, he blasted Obama/Clinton et al because the Cairo embassy had posted that the movie was NOT something the US government agreed with. That post was an effort to tamp down the anger in Cairo. Romney said it was inappropriate - because Benghazi -- even though it was written and distributed BEFORE the attack.

[quadrature]

7. is it typical for a protest to start by blocking streets?

just curious.