White House photo
President Obama with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the morning of Sept. 12, 2012.
Reflecting on this week's debate, the argument over President Obama's response to the attack in Benghazi continues to be a stand-out moment. Mitt Romney thought he'd caught the president in an important misstep -- Obama said he'd called the attack an "act of terror" the day after the violence -- but the moment quickly collapsed when even the moderator conceded the president was correct.
Yesterday, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) tried a new line of attack: sure, Obama called the attack an act of terror while speaking in the Rose Garden the morning of Sept. 12, but he didn't use the phrase quickly enough in the speech.
"I'm going to use my words very carefully. I think the president's conduct and his behavior on this issue has been shameful. And, first of all, as far as it being an act of terror, the president was almost four minutes into his statement on September 12th before he mentioned an act of terror.... It wasn't until he was well into the remarks."
Oh for crying out loud.
Follow this circuitous line of criticism:
First Republicans said Obama didn't call the attack an act of terror until two weeks later. Then they said Obama may have used the phrase the day after the attack, but he didn't really mean it. Now the complaint has been reduced to King whining that the line should have been higher up in the speech?
In other words, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared together to address the crisis at 10:43 a.m., the morning after the attack. The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee complained, on national television, that the president referred to the violence as an act of terror at 10:47 a.m., instead of 10:44 a.m.
This is what it's come to. Republicans were almost giddy with the prospect of complaining that Obama waited "almost two weeks," which has now been downgraded to "almost four minutes." No wonder Romney no longer seems eager to talk about the issue.
Leave a Comment:
The idea that you can run a party on the premise that your fellow countrymen are pusillanimous freaks sure does have its thin spots .
Oh brother, this is boggling.
People, Whatever Obama said in the Rose Garden, he sent Susan Rice out on the Sunday show circuit to blame everything on a film. This went on for weeks, even after leaks about what really happened. It was lying right, left, and center. There is no escape from this.
Whatever Rep King's opinion might be, the reality that it was all a calculated cover-up to salvage political talking points, is undeniable. This coverup involved the very highest offices in the land. On VIDEO.
And we're not even talking about the idiocy of deserting his personal representative. Stevens was abandoned in the name of "foreign policy".
On top of all that is the callow attempt to blame all this on some obscure film maker... combining appeasement to Islam and a direct assault on the first amendment all in one fell swoop.
Deal with it people, this one is an Obama expose' par excellence.
1: "leaks about what really happened" isn't the same as "confirmed facts about what really happened."
2: Because it was happening at the same time unrest about the film was resulting in demonstrations elsewhere in the world, it wasn't that big a leap of logic to think it may be even tangentially related until facts bore out otherwise...
3: We live in a 86,400-seconds-a-day news cycle where, when things happen, we want to know WHY, and we want to know NOW. So guess what, sometimes snap judgments are going to be wrong.
4: I'm one of those snippy a-holes who believes "spontaneous riots" pretty much never happen, and as a result, they are acts of terror. So even if the Benghazi attack HAD been fueled by rage for this film, it would have still been an act of terror, using violence & assassination in an attempt, however misguided or disorganized, to affect change.
5: There is no proof that it was a cover-up to salvage political talking points, despite right-wing insistence to the contrary. They WANT there to be a cover-up, doesn't mean their is one.
6: And then there's this. Keep on fapping, cowboy.
shooter242
June 11, 2012 at 6:54 am
I’d like to encourage more trollery on left wing sites. Specifically pushback on common memes such as identified by Jonah Goldberg as unchallenged cliches. It can actually work, and it can actually change the course of debate.
For instance, I always challenge “the rich take too much of the pie” meme. There is no pie, no one decides who gets what, and the “pie” is a measure of contributions to a total. Ergo the rich don’t take they contribute. It’s been gratifyingly effective.
Try it you’ll like it. Don’t curse and keep the personal insults to a bare minimum, don’t allow moving goal posts or distractions. Ignore trollish responders, and be four times more civil. They hate that.
http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/
IMHO, its less that than them trying so hard to find a scandal that they look extra petulant as they try to stretch these issues beyond recognition. Take Shooter's comment as the relevant example.
After 8 years of trying to stretch Bush's fumbles into shining examples of leadership, and failing to convince anyone, you would think they would reassess. But then repugnicons don't reassess do they.
You know what Shooter, I've tried to respect you as a basic human being, despite you being a troll. But suggesting that the President, or ANY President, deliberately left an Ambassador out to his own fate to die. Makes you one complete and utter @sshole, and knowing I took an Oath to protect this country. So you can have the right to say it, f*cking disgusts me.
And I'm not saying that because I voted for The President, twice. I don't think he handled Libya in the right way. But I'm also smart enough to know that a whole host of other things contributed to what happened there as well. But to suggest, jokingly or not, that the President didn't care if Stevens or anyone else died. Completely removes you from the human species, even as a troll.
The phrase "human being" is, by rights, merely a genetic indicator, and does not necessarily mean "good person", any more than the terms "American" and "Christian" necessarily mean "good person". So, The Blank's status as a "human being" does not entitle him to any respect just because of that.
With all do respect ,as if they did not know about the consequence they`er getting into..
Got trolls? Click the exclamation point at the bottom right of their message and select, "Ignore This Author". Walla!
Keep in mind, folks, the entity that calls itself Shooter242 is just a troll who doesn't believe what it posts.
Also keep in mind, that kind of ranting over such a minor quibble is indicative that said entity sees the writing on the wall. Its candidate is sliding to defeat, and it's getting desperate.
Calvin - I take your point, and largely agree - the accusation is disgusting. But, in an era when a Presidential Administration, for reasons of disgustingly partisan expediency and vindictiveness, already exposed a CIA agent's identity to the world, the notion is not as completely ridiculous as it ought to be.
Still, I would consider the current accusation to be another entry on the ever-growing list of examples of Rape-Public-CON "projection". "Well, it's what we would do in that position, so of course we assume that's what you must have done."
I'd like to thank FRP for leading me to learn a new word today:
pusillanimous http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=pusillanimous+dictionary&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Thanks :) And thanks to Calvin Lundy, I feel the very same way about this. I also voted for the President twice.
Yeah, and just imagine how the GOP would have reacted if Obama had not first mentioned the loss of the ambassador and the others and expressed the country's sympathy and grief over their deaths. NO president would have skipped over that and gone straight to the issue of terrorism.
WTF?
I don't understand the absurdity!? The situation was unfolding. The wingnuts want Obama to run his mouth without ALL the facts so he looks like an imbecile ...like Romney?
WAR and MONEY, it's all they think about.
FOUR minutes?
My calculator tells me that it took Rep. King more than 43,200 minutes to respond to the September 12 remarks in the Rose Garden.
Four minutes ...wasn't that about the same length of time ol' W continued reading My Pet Goat
Please. Four years later you're still talking about President Bush.
Unless you have a time machine, that still happened.
You forget Blankman disregards FACTS that are inconvenient to his indoctrination!
The Blank always asks himself "WWARD?" That stands for "What would Ayn Rand do?"
Aw, Sh**ter still can't come up with a defense of King OR Bush. The little stupid one is so cute.
Shooter doesn't want to come up with a defense of anyone. He only wants to make you mad. It's the only way he can pleasure himself. So keep it on topic, Republicans have no gone from insisting Obama didn't refer to the attack as an act of terror, to insisting he didn't do it fast enough by a factor of weeks, to he didn't do it fast enough by a factor of four minutes. Straws, meet Clutch. Shake. Good dogs.
shooter242 June 11, 2012 at 6:54 am
I’d like to encourage more trollery on left wing sites. Specifically pushback on common memes such as identified by Jonah Goldberg as unchallenged cliches. It can actually work, and it can actually change the course of debate.
For instance, I always challenge “the rich take too much of the pie” meme. There is no pie, no one decides who gets what, and the “pie” is a measure of contributions to a total. Ergo the rich don’t take they contribute. It’s been gratifyingly effective.
Try it you’ll like it. Don’t curse and keep the personal insults to a bare minimum, don’t allow moving goal posts or distractions. Ignore trollish responders, and be four times more civil. They hate that.
http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/
The GOP are in a league of their own and it's unfortunate for us that we have to push back and analyze how crazy and defended they are.
So the Republicans want to complain about the structure of a speech that was drafted that very morning? C'MON MAN!
In all fairness, Rachel and Team, YOU called it correctly the night of September 12 (or was it the 13th?), based on eyewitness accounts and reports you had received, but the administration's spokespeople were still bruiting about that canard about demonstrations gone awry for nearly two weeks. The President's remarks in the Rose Garden about acts of terror were meant generally, as the transcript makes clear. Now perhaps this was out of bureaucratic caution to make sure the admin. had the facts straight before making a definite pronouncement, but they could have at least posited the possibility in their remarks during those two weeks a bit more often than they did.
As my old contracts professor would say when one of his students made a similarly irrelevant remark. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
This is a tempest in the tiniest of tea pots. Neither of us know what was going on in the background of this case. Neither does John Bolton or Dan Senor. We do know however that John and Dan are itchen for a fight to send more of our brave young people to their deaths and Mitt doesn't have the balls to tell the to shut their pie holes.
The POTUS is the one who made the statement and so is the one to determine what he was referring to. Everything else is just whining.
I'm really beginning to imagine the entire GOP as Rip Taylor, tossing confetti ever-damn-way and hoping some sticks. "This is it, folks! I don't dance!"
What has become of those among us who can't see straight, can't hear correctly, can't feel good, can't smell the roses, and can't project any other behavior than that of being tasteless?
WTF People of the Unhinged Right - I live in a world you know not of!
One where I am responsible for my success and failure, make no excuses for my wins and loses, accept that my fellow Americans don't have to be like me, realize it IS the content of one's character that matters in a democracy, work for the common good, commit to the truth, and only hate the haters!
Well, FOX & Friends, and all your like minded brethren, you're becoming the haters (in kind of a cry baby way)! -Kevo
What King has in common with Romney is the assumption that foreign policy is all about bluster and sounding tough. The idea that words have real-world consequences seems never to have occurred to them.
Yes, but "nuance" is so French sounding!
Romney was once pronounced dead, (in France: see Hoo Doo), and speaks French. "Mitt" even sounds French.
No matter how lame, untrue, and pathetic the talking point, there's always, always a conservative talking head willing to address and readdress it.
Maddow,
Let us entertain that Obama "act of terror" statement referred to the Libya attack. The question is why over the next 2 weeks did he send Rice on 5 news stations to confirm that the attacks were related to a video not terrorism. Why did Obama go on The View and David Letterman and say it was related to a video not terrorism. Why did Obama speak at the UN and 6 times in his speech referred to a video not terrorism as the cause of the attack. Why did Carney repeat over and over again that is was related to a video not terrorism. Why did Hilary Clinton in front of these brave dead Americans say it was a video not terrorism.
Only 2 possible scenarios. 1)The President acknowledged that it was terrorism on 09/12, and spent the next 2 weeks to mislead the American people by his administration and himself or 2) Obama's "act of terror" line on 09/12 did not refer to the Libya attack and tried to bury the notion that terrorism could happen on his watch.
So I could care less that he mentioned this 1, 2, 4, or 60 minutes into the speech. the question is if he meant it was terrorism his 09/12 speech, then why all the misdirection from the administration over 2 weeks.
President said it was because of a video. Then he said they were not sure yet and still investigating. Then back to it was the video. Then it was terrorism. Biden said they were not told what it was from Intel. State dept blames WH. WH blames Intel. Intel blames State dept. State Dept. officials confirm during hearings that they knew in real time what was going on and what happened. Does anyone attends security briefings?
This administration is trying to bury this debacle from the public or this administration is incompetent. Either way what they did or currently doing is disgraceful.
Amen
Well that's the point though isn't it. The republican's buried themselves in the wrong talking point. They could have legitimately argued that he should have officially called it an act of terrorism sooner. The point is though that Mitt Romney wanted to go for the kill and missed because like it or not he did reference terrorism in the speech on Bengazi and (read my post below) he was including Lybia in the general discussion of terrorism.
We can debate what he knew and when he knew it and the logic of not calling it terrorism for a couple weeks. However, the point is that the Republican's bet the farm on "HE NEVER SAID TERRORISM" which is factually incorrect. Romney could have said "you didn't consistently refer to it as an act of terrorism" but instead he went for the roundhouse and that was a mistake.
Well, I will agree that Romney may have missed a chance on the Libya issue. but I don't think they bet the farm on this. remember they have one more debate and its on foreign policy and i think the door is wide open on this Libya tragedy.
I really don't think he should go after Libya again. Obama did a masterful job of making him look foolish for politicizing the tragedy. And here, you just said the door is open on the "tragedy." I think that is very bad politics. Say what you will about the left but we didn't politicize 9/11 in the elections. The 9/11 report and subsequent information about what Bush knew and did not know at the time is pretty damning but that tragedy has been left alone. Libya was a tragedy and I think trying to score political points on it is a bad idea.
He bet the farm in terms of this issue. I don't share that he went for the kill, instead I would just offer that worrying about whether the POTUS mentioned terrorism the right way or early enough, they could have offered thoughtful criticism. But then we haven't really seen much in terms of thoughtful criticism from the right for some time now.
What I find interesting on the debate relating to this is that the moderator seemed to have the transcripts of the Rose Garden speech literally a couple of seconds after the President asked her to look at the transcript. I mean to me, it looked like she was prepared to confirm that point as Romney was bringing it up. And I did find it puzzling after this was brought up at the debate since the administration - through spokespeople and the President himself still brought up the video for a week or two afterwards.
Lol! "Conspiracy! Conspiracy!"
OK. Here's a suggestion for the conspiracy-minded amongst us. Let's assume for a moment that there was misdirection (I'm not saying there actually was, just exploring the hypothetical). The question then becomes why?
The conspiracy-minded seem to be arguing that this was an attempt to evade "responsibility" for a lapse in security. But this argument is weak, to put it kindly. The news of the attack was widely reported, so the public (indeed, the entire world) was obviously aware that security had lapsed. Quibbling over the motivation of the attackers doesn't really seem to address the issue of "responsibility" in any meaningfully substantive sense.
Here's one possible alternative explanation. Our intelligence agencies (and, apparently, Libyan investigators as well) have been hunting for the specific perpetrators of the violence. Perhaps the stories suggesting that we attributed the incidence to a spontaneous mob inflamed by that stupid film trailer were intended as disinformation to lull those truly responsible into dangerous complacency.
Whaddayaknow? On 9/22/2012, Libyan "protesters" overran three extremist militia compounds in Benghazi.
Do I know that this explanation is true? No. Nor do I have a "need to know", but I certainly consider it at least as likely as (indeed, more plausible by far than) the accusations of a "cover-up".
Hold on, Jim. There's at least one more possible scenario you didn't include: that the automatic assumption was "terrorist attack," that new intel changed their response to it, and then that more new intel suggested they were right the first time. Doesn't that sound more reasonable than Option 1 ("CONSPIRACY!!!!!") or Option 2 ("I know my speech drew obvious and undeniable comparisons between 9/11 and the embassy attack, culminating with calling them both 'acts of terror,' and any reasonable person listening to that speech would agree that I did so, but I didn't actually mean that.")
Hanlon's razor, man.
Himself having supported terrorism in Ireland, Representative King's real complaint is that terrorism seems to have lost its prominence in today's society.
What is this I don't even...
they don't have anything, and the President delivered the smackdown at the second debate.
this is who they are.
See my post above (#11.6)
Why should anyone read your asinine attempt to gin up a conspiracy theory, Skippywippy?
No conspiracy, just politics ....especially right before an election.
Yeah, right...troll on!
Here's what I'd like to add. I think that President Obama was talking "generally" about terrorism when he referenced "acts of terror" in his speech. The question though that I have for the right is why would Obama discuss terrorism in a speech if he wasn't saying that Lybia was one of those "general" acts of terror to which he was referring.
I used this example last night: referring to the Aurora shooting. Obama talked about the shooting and generally about gun violence in America over the course of those events. The rights argument about Lybia is the equivalent of saying "well Obama only discussed gun violence in general he didn't actually say that Aurora was a shooting." the obvious response is "of course he did, he's including Aurora in the general discussion about gun violence."
This is identical to Lybia, why would Obama give a speech about Lybia where he plans to say it was purely a political demonstration that has nothing to do with terrorism and then (in a 4 minute speech) decide to toss 9/11 and terrorism in the speech unless he was saying that Lybia was one of those acts of terrorism to which he was referring. To argue that he just decided to sprinkle in terrorism in to the speech even though he did not think that Lybia was in any way related to terrorism is amazing.
"To argue that he just decided to sprinkle in terrorism in to the speech even though he did not think that Lybia was in any way related to terrorism is amazing."
It is also aggressively malicious.
I guess some Republican men can't fathom things going longer than four minutes...
Peter King is Long Island's version of Darrell Issa. Their only skill is grandstanding. Pay no attention to the loudmouths pounding their gavels.
Basic Law 101: Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.
Romney is not a lawyer. Nor, if you ask Mass. residents, an effective politician or job creator. What he is , is a fast talking pitch man, a snake oil salesman who will say whatever he thinks will close the deal for his owners, currently a group of people actively trying to steal your voting rights. The entire tempest in a teapot in re the fatalities in Libya is a smoke screen. Any time and energy spent arguing about it helps to keep the old man behind the curtain from being noticed.
If you believe in representative government, how can you possibly vote for any currentRepublican?
If you are a member of the Republican party who believes in representative government (you sure are being quiet about it) you should be leading the defense of THE basic right of our country.
aw, more lies and excuses from Rep. King and our faithful willfully ignorant conservatives here on this blog.
Poor things, can't actually give evidence of their hysterical claims and then they whine when they are shown for the liars they are. It's as if they can't quite understand that the people who enjoy the work of Ms. Maddow and her staff like it for a reason: that they get the facts. With these trolls' delusion that they don't have to provide facts, they sure are shrieking uselessly at a crowd who thinks that they are simply silly. Sorry, dears, your lies don't work on people who actually pay attention. Keep ranting through, it allows people know just how ridiculous you are.
Mitt had intelligence briefings so technically knew much of what the president knew. If Mitt had any sense he would realize we do not announce all we know even to Americans. Romney has shown his personal goals will always outweigh what is good for the majority.
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...
The "Boston Teaparty" was an act committed by people who felt that taxation without representation was fundamentally wrong.
Today, people calling themselves the "Teaparty" are,ironically, making a concerted effort to disenfranchise millions of American citizens. Their efforts are being funded and orchestrated by people with vast fortunes who feel they are entitled by Divine Right to rule over lesser creatures.
Sen. McCain; why would the countries in the middle east, or anywhere, listen to a president encouraging them to adopt a representative style of government after seeing him tacitly if not actively supporting attempts to deny his own citizens the right to vote?
Anyone named Bush or Akin; how are you going to convince the Taliban that a theocracy is inherently self destructive when you support efforts to deny women the right to make choices about their own health? Do you really think it is ok to shoot fourteen year-olds in the head because their world view is different than yours?
Undecideds? How can any American be undecided?
RNOHB - you make some great points; well said!
However, the bitter irony may be even greater than you realize. Often overlooked in the simplistic overviews of the Boston Teaparty as taught in most American history courses (certainly, at least, through high school) is that their protest was NOT simply against "taxation without representation".
The reason their lack of "representation" was so irksome was that the East India Company, one of the world's first major corporations, whose stock was owned in significant part by the British aristocracy and which had a considerably powerful lobby in Parliament (thus they were "represented") enjoyed a massive tax advantage over the comparatively powerless Colonial merchants.
So, lost in the focus on the famous rallying cry, "no taxation without representation!" is the understanding that this was also history's first serious protest against a corporate tax break.
Thom Hartmann wrote (yet another) terrific and thoughtful book, this one on the subject of corporate influence: Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became "People" - And How You Can Fight Back. His chapter from that book on the subject of the Boston Tea Party is particularly fascinating, and available as a free excerpt here. It's well worth reading in full (as is the entire book), but here are a couple of "excerpts from the excerpt" to whet your appetite:
Enough for now. One final apt quotation, from a different source:
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
- George Santayana (1905)
Anyone who voted for and supported George W. Bush after his administration's stonewalling on 9/11, and after he took the country into war with Iraq on false pretences - yes, false - doesn't have a leg to stand on to snipe about Libya. This is all nothing but a bunch of smoke-and-mirrors to distract from the fact that the Romney campaign and the RNC chairman disgraced themselves by politicizing the tragedy. That there is not a single prominent Republican who is outraged by Romney suggesting that our embassy personnel was somehow anti-American while they were they still facing dangerous circumstances, and that there is not a single GOP leader who rebuked Reince Priebus, the Chair of the RNC, for his shameless, conspiracy-minded tweet, even as these events unflolded, tells me the GOP truly considers themselves to be a party that is at war with their fellow Americans. The state of the Republican Party is a disgrace from A-Z. Where are honorable Republican leaders? Are there ANY left?
My friend, Vivianne Falcone, is running against Peter King a the grassroots Democratic candidate NY 2 District. She is tired of King raising his media profile with these non-issues while his constituents continue to suffer economically. He has, time and again, proven he cares little for constituents unless they can raise his profile. I believe my friend is right when she says he practices the politics of fear.
Thank you for the reminder. I will send her a donation!
Peter King, who funded the IRA, is the Republican's expert on acts of terror?
Intelligence is saying that there were a couple of runs with explosives at Benghazi as much as 3 months prior to the murder or our diplomats. The administration knew that terrorists were testing the compound. He did nothing to beef up security and protect our people. What was the reason for repeatedly telling everyone, on every TV appearance that he made that the killings were due to the video and were absolutely spontaneous? Why did he continue to attend all of the fund raisers and campaign events? Election have anything to do with it? It might indicate his policies weren't what they needed to be on foreign affairs. His one little blurb about terrorism in the Rose Garden is significantly overshadowed by what was said by every part of his administration and by what HE said at the UN. And for 20 some days. It was obvious that he was not talking about Libya in the Rose Garden, or he would have continued to follow that up constantly with the same kind of comments, and he did not. He was saved by Candy in the debate. She quickly sided with him and ushered the debate on to a new topic.
What a nicely-done Gish Gallop of Fox News talking points there. I'm sick of the hate-on for this President whose policies have benefited even those who daily rail against him with their litany of the latest conservative media low-information nonsense/lies.
June,
The President himself brought up the crappy video days after the attack and the Rose Garden statement. Others in the administration too for a week or two. That is what is puzzing in this. If his statement at the Rose Garden was confirming that it was an act of terror, then why did he go on the View and make comments at the UN blaming the video later?
I think the post from Jim from USoA (#11) says it better.
Skip, so what is the end-goal of this right-wing talking point? Why is it like talking to a wall to put across the point that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence was still being gathered, analyzed and then released to the public? There is no outrage on the right that the disgraceful Darrell Issa by jumping on the "let's-politicize-it" bandwagon, actually alerted the public to classified national security information. There is no outrage on the right about Romney's own despicable timing around these attacks. All there is the usual conspiracy nonsense that doesn't take into account that in the immediate aftermath of any kind of event like this, there is going to be conflicting information. The only motivation for the right's meme on this is that they want to be able to claim a terrorist attack happened on Obama's watch. If Obama was a Republican, they'd be making him into a hero for it, as they did with 9/11. Yes, I am a bit irritated today with all of this nonsense.
June,
IMO both sides were politicizing the event. That is why the administration may have said it was an act of terror in the Rose Garden, but continued with the video protest theme weeks after to diffuse the point that a terrorist attack occured on Obama's watch. And of course the Republican's politicized it for the same reason - to show how the President had a security lapse. So one side is trying to exploit the tragedy and the other is trying to minimize it - and both for their political lives.
Skip, When Pres Obama referred to the event the next morning as "acts of terror," it was quite clear to me that the administration, based on their information, was already leaning towards interpreting the event as such, even as further reports were coming in. That you used the "both-sides-do-it" in this case makes me wonder if you actually realize what "politicize" means. Romney laid it out in his 47% video, in his response to a donor's question on how he could duplicate something like the Iran hostage crisis to help his presidential campaign -- Romney: "....if something of that nature presents itself, I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity." That's politicizing.
Yes you are correct, but trying to minimize an event that may make your administration look bad is also politicizing. And in my opinion that is what I think the administration was trying to do with the video tie-in. I think they know that is wasn't because of the video, but they want to keep that story in the public to keep some people's opinion on their foreign policy/security favorable. Obviously we have different opinions and that is fine.
Your entire first sentence is a putting-forth of opinion as fact. That sums up this whole ridiculous meme for me.
http://www.juancole.com/2012/10/a-letter-from-benghazi-on-crappy-republican-talking-points.html
OK Fr33...so a "resident from Benghazi's" opinion settles it. Got it.
Hey, Skippywippy, O paragon of objectivity...do tell us where we can find some of your postings on conservative sites, telling the regulars there all about how conservatives are just as bad as non-conservatives, because...well..."both sides", ya know.