Bill Kristol
Why Romney stopped criticizing Obama on Benghazi
The Romney campaign believed that to address Benghazi at the end of the race, after a couple of weeks of silence, would have been taken by the media—and perhaps by some voters—as desperate. They may have been right. In any case, now, on Saturday afternoon, it probably really is too late…
So Romney will stick with his game plan, and we’ll continue to do what we can to highlight what we believe to be a genuine outrage. When Romney prevails Tuesday, the campaign can claim it was right all along not to let Benghazi distract from its core economic message. The rest of us can claim that our independent efforts to spotlight Benghazi may have made the difference. Vindication all around! Everyone wins!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Clearly a paragraph that starts with the 9/11 attacks and then ends with Benghazi.
When he later refers to acts of terror, it’s clear he is just talking about 9/11, otherwise Benghazi would have been in mentioned in the paragraph above.
Impeach Obama!
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 9:20 AM
Even Obama gets a nice long vacation to Hawaii!
:p
Count to 10 on November 4, 2012 at 9:23 AM
The person who is playing Jedi mind tricks is you. You are playing them on yourself.
In the first part of the Rose Garden speech, he uses the word “attack,” “attacking,” “(senseless) violence,” “brutal act,” and other terms, without using the word “terrorist.”
Thus, he was very careful to avoid using the word “terrorist” in describing what happened in Benghazi.
Dextrous on November 4, 2012 at 9:28 AM
Oh, I am totally with you dude.
Maybe my comments aren’t coming across clearly, but I agree. When you mention 9/11, and then talk about Benghazi, and then say “acts of terror” – clearly not related. At all.
I get your point about calling the Benghazi attacks “attacks”, instead of “terrorist attacks”, he’s just not being clear, is he! We are given the totally wrong impression!
See, he does it properly in the paragraph where he mentions 9/11, and he clearly labels it the “9/11 attacks” so it’s completely clear that terrorists are involved.
Benghazi “attacks” just isn’t acceptable. He needs to be impeached over it!
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 9:35 AM
Further proof that he was just talking about 9/11 just by itself.
9/11 was an acts of terror. Benghazi was just terrorist attacks.
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 9:40 AM
You may think that you are being funny, but here you have identified the point at issue. The choice of what words to include or not include determines the message that is made.
Up until the Benghazi attack, we could say that American had never been the victim of a terrorist attack since 9/11. Now, due to incompetence, we can no longer say that. The blame lies with the current administration.
I rest my case and won’t engage this troll any further.
Dextrous on November 4, 2012 at 9:45 AM
17/55
farsighted on November 4, 2012 at 9:45 AM
Shut up I got one hooked. You’ll ruin it.
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 9:47 AM
Oh, I know, Al Qaeda just ceased to exist that whole time, didn’t they!
I mean, thank God none of our soldiers were over in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting terrorists all that time. Some of them may have been killed by suicide bombers at embassies and consulate buildng.
And you’re right, the Fort Hood shooting really was just workplace violence.
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 9:52 AM
March 2, 2006, a suicide car bomb does not blow up outside the Marriott Hotel in Karachi. American diplomat David Foy is not killed in the blast.
If that happened that would have been terrorism, and President Bush would have nuked Pakistan.
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 10:06 AM
There is no doubt that incident was terrorism. Did Bush deny that it was not terrorism? There was no coverup. There has been an obvious coverup in what Obama and others did in the tragic Benghazi terror attack. Why the coverup? Because he allowed these people to be killed. Anyone who denies this is in denial.
SC.Charlie on November 4, 2012 at 10:56 AM
I hope there is no need to impeach Obama, since I pray to God that Romney wins the election.
SC.Charlie on November 4, 2012 at 11:02 AM
First (to paraphrase), never interrupt your enemy when he’s shooting himself.
Second, once Romney is elected, he can release all the newly top secret stuff to expose this, then can take corrective action at our other embassies.
Mommynator on November 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Don’t be silly, as Dextrous said, no Americans have died from a terrorist attack since 9/11, all thanks to President George Bush. Now Obama has screwed it up! Impeach!
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 11:58 AM
Could you imagine what false narratives the Obama administration would put out if Pat Tillman had been killed under his watch? He’d probably make up some pack of lies about Pat single handedly killing scores of terrorist when in reality Obama’s personal incompetence resulted in poor Pat being killed by friendly fire.
Or Jessica Lynch. Obama would probably make up some crap about her going all commando on the Iraqis and then’d have the unmitigated gall to stage a fake search and rescue mission.
We need a Republican back in the White House so these things don’t happen!
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2