It’s been hard to sort out the claims and counter-claims being made about the attack in Benghazi and how the Obama Administration has responded. But here are some must-read backgrounders:
Kevin Drum, “The Benghazi Controversy Explained.”
Erich Lach, “How the Benghazi Attack Became a GOP Talking Point.”
I recommend reading both articles. Together, they provide a clear picture of what probably happened in Benghazi; what the Obama Administration said about it, and when; how the Right, and particularly Fox News, has fabricated information to blur the tragic event into a scandal to hurt the Obama Administration.
Kevin Drum’s summation:
Bottom line: There were conflicting reports on the ground, and that was reflected in conflicting and sometimes confused reports from the White House. I don’t think anyone would pretend that the Obama’s administration’s response to Benghazi was anywhere near ideal. Nevertheless, the fact is that their statements were usually properly cautious; the YouTube video really did play a role; the attack was opportunistic, not preplanned; and it doesn’t appear to have had any serious connection with al-Qaeda. It’s true that it took about ten days for all this to really shake out, but let’s be honest: ten days isn’t all that long to figure out what really happened during a violent and chaotic attack halfway around the world. I get that it’s a nice opportunity for Republicans to score some political points in the runup to an election, but really, there’s not much there there.
See also David Ignatius, “CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks.”
Related post: “Fox News cost Mitt the debate” by Jonathan Bernstein. Bernstein’s overall point is that Republicans have a “policy deficit” and must resort to running on scandals.
When Ronald Reagan took office, conservative think tanks were ready with a host of ideas for transforming what government did and the way it did it. As recently as the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush campaigned on, for example, No Child Left Behind and a faith-based initiative. Does Romney have anything similar he’s talking about during this campaign? Not that I’ve heard.
What he’s substituted for policy is scandal, on the one hand, and symbolism, on the other.
Republicans’ reliance on a scandal framework is most obvious in their attacks on Barack Obama. The stimulus is reduced in this point of view to “Solyndra.” Energy? One pipeline to Canada.
Most of the time, there’s almost no real attempt to construct an argument against actual policies, to treat government programs proposed by the president as policies that one might agree or disagree with. That’s not always true – a lot of the arguments against the Affordable Care Act, and some of the case against the stimulus, really were policy-based. But more often Republicans have tried to frame their attacks around scandal.
Even when Mitt says he has a plan, it’s a plan with no details. For example, the famous five-point economic plan isn’t a plan at all, but a list of five things that would be helpful to grow an economy, accompanied by only vague suggestions for arriving at those five things.
It’s not so much a plan as a gimmick intended to represent a plan. Sort of like the stacks of paper Republicans in Congress trotted out in 2010 to show that they had a health care plan. And do you remember George Bush’s “National Strategy for Victory” from 2005? Republicans don’t do plans; they do props.
“It’s not so much a plan as a gimmick intended to represent a plan. Sort of like the stacks of paper Republicans in Congress trotted out in 2010 to show that they had a health care plan. And do you remember George Bush’s “National Strategy for Victory†from 2005? Republicans don’t do plans; they do props.”
They still rely on the Senator McCarthy school of props:
“I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”
No one ever saw that list.
Mitt – “I have here in my hand a 5 point plan for America’s prosperity.”
Details have yet to be provided.
I wonder how Mitt will try to twist Benghazi now?
Oh yeah, this never would have happened under President Romney!
His steely gaze and firm resolve would have scared the people in Libya so much, they’d have been cowering at home, praying to Allah to save them.
Part of the reason the right is so focused on scandal is that their problem with the current administration is about the man in the Oval Office, not the policies. A white Republican who’d passed a bill like the health care law would command their undying loyalty, and the dreaded “mandate” would be considered a patriotic obligation, no more intrusive than having a photo ID. The modern GOP is all about who gets to wield the power, not really about anything else.
Is this polling for them?
Tom B — I have no idea. The polls seem to be all over the place right now.
I’m not sure that Benghazi will dominate the debate tomorrow. I expect Mitt pivot to Israel and try to portray the administration as siding with Muslims against the Jews, though Mitt won’t use those words.
If Obama can show that Romney’s policies and promises will make Netanyahu the de facto Commander in Chief with the power to unilaterally drag the US into a war against any and all Arab States, then the foolishness of Romeny’s position may be exposed. While the US must commit to defend Israel against aggression, if Israel want to pick a fight with Iran alone, they must be prepared to fight that war alone.
What I keep noticing is that Republicans don’t know the difference between goals and plans. But I guess that makes sense when your entire view of reality is based on magical thinking. You start to imagine that merely announcing a goal–curtail unfair trade practices!–is equivalent to having a plan. If merely announcing your goal turns out not to have the desired results, it’s not because you didn’t bother to come up with a plan. It’s because you weren’t virtuous enough, or you lacked resolve.
Part of the reason the right is so focused on scandal is that their problem with the current administration is about the man in the Oval Office
Amen, biggerbox.. I’d go a little further in saying the whole reason..They want to create an atmosphere of foriegn policy crisis and failure going into the third debate..anything to make Obama look bad.
Romney cares for 100% of the American people..Just because 47% of us are freeloading deadbeats who refuse to take personal responsiblity for our lives that doesn’t mean Romney doesn’t care for us..
Ho hum, another mass shooting – so far, only 7 injured.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/21/shooting-reported-at-wisconsin-spa/?hpt=hp_t1
Yawn…
I’ve heard a few shockers lately, speaking of creating scandals. Tucker Carlson, yes, brain-dead Tucker, recently compared Candy C. to John Wilkes Booth – both just all of a sudden popped up from being anonymous by-standers to she commented-he-shot- Lincoln.
And then there’s the Republican operative who called the cover-up of the attack on the Libyan embassy as a far larger and greater cover-up than Watergate ever was. He went on to say that in fact Romney was telling the truth and Obama was lying – when one takes all that has been said by the Obama administration since then.
I might add that Machiavelli did say that a lie told often enough will be believed if it is outrageous enough. Republicans regularly read (the Rand) and Machiavelli.
Must add that I’ve waited for Rethugs to accuse Iran of creating, funding, planning and carrying out the embassy attack. Probably would have but are having a hard time finding a Curveball II to verify their story. After all, didn’t we generally base our war on Iraq on the testimony of Curveball I?
“Must add that I’ve waited for Rethugs to accuse Iran of creating, funding, planning and carrying out the embassy attack.”
I wouldn’t be shocked if the Koch brothers funded the attack.
Boca Raton is Tel Aviv on the Atlantic; expect the debate to feature Israel and Obama’s lack of respect (ass kissing) for Bibi. The Romulan War Lord will hammer Obama on Israel / Iran / Libya. Here’s hoping Obama flips the Romulan over and stuffs it up his you know what.Perhaps this will prompt Tagg to rush the stage causing a secret service agent to reduce Tagg to a bloody puddle of snot.
I’m usually much sweeter than this, but I’m in pain and must get up at 4a.m. which makes me cranky. grrrrrrrr…………………….
What I keep noticing is that Republicans don’t know the difference between goals and plans. But I guess that makes sense when your entire view of reality is based on magical thinking. You start to imagine that merely announcing a goal–curtail unfair trade practices!–is equivalent to having a plan.
It’s also because Republicans value loyalty over competence. It’s not unlike the Mafia or any authoritarian organization. Once you’re part of The Family, it doesn’t really matter how badly you screw up, as long as you are loyal. This means loyalty goes up the command chain. Because someone is in position X above you, it means you have to be a loyal subordinate, not even questioning whether they know what they’re doing or not. There just is no way to evaluate competence in the authoritarian mindset.
There’s also the idea that authoritarian leaders have lots of help to work out the details. And so they’re very used to simply announcing goals and letting others carry it out. They don’t have a clue how to do things themselves, and they actually believe that simply saying something makes it happen.
The way most CEOs and corporate department heads operate, in my experience.
maha,
I can vouch for that!
In that whole Time Warner-AOL buy-out-combo mess, I heard more confidence fairy goals BS from more empty suite than I even did in politics.
Hell, THEY wanted it to work. YOU LITTLE PEONS MAKE IT SO!!!
Do see Doonesbury –