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: 1 2 Next »
If we had a media that actually did its damn job, we wouldn’t even be asking the question as to why, how, or what Romney said about Benghazi. Why should he have to do it? Why can’t the NYT, or NBC, or the WaPo criticize Obama about it? Oh wait….I think I know the answer to that on.e
ted c on November 4, 2012 at 8:03 AM
Yup.
For Mitt to bring up the subject, it would only remind folks of how badly that topic went for him during the debate.
itsnotaboutme on November 4, 2012 at 8:03 AM
Actually, the WaPoo did slam Obama over the mishandling & cover-up.
But they endorsed Obama anyway.
*facepalm*
itsnotaboutme on November 4, 2012 at 8:05 AM
Romney stopped talking about Benghazi once he realized the lengths the media would go to protecting Dear Leader. Including interrupting him during(!) a debate.
happytobehere on November 4, 2012 at 8:14 AM
Fox News reported yesterday that the terrorists were gathering outside the consulate compound for up to three hours before the attack! The security chief was distraught about it and contacted the CIA annex at least an hour before the attack to let them know the situation was getting worse, as some people in the crowd had weapons.
Why didn’t Susan Rice tell us that there was a crowd gathering outside the consulate up to three hours before the attack, and that some of them brought weapons with them?
We need to get to the bottom of this!
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 8:14 AM
For the most part the Romney campaign has done a masterful job. I blame what used to be our national media but now is our puppet propaganda machine for the allowing of this cover-up.
HoustonRight on November 4, 2012 at 8:15 AM
Fox News told us that the Obama administration told the CIA and the military to stand down, multiple times, and stood there watching everyone die in real time. Unbelievable!
Thank God for heroes like Glenn Doherty who presumably and courageously caught a passenger flight from Tripoli to Benghazi and then had to catch a cab to the CIA annex where he was later killed by a mortar attack.
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 8:18 AM
I figure we’ll hear more about Benghazi in the lamestream media once the election is over, either way Tuesday goes. They’ll either get an attack of conscience should 0bama win, or once Romney wins figure there’s no more point in covering it up any more.
Sekhmet on November 4, 2012 at 8:20 AM
Another major “but if Bush was President” moment. The media would be still going nuts 7 weeks later.
CW on November 4, 2012 at 8:20 AM
The media would have twisted Romney’s words like they did when he criticized the anti-free speech statement of the American Embassy in Egypt. OTOH, the media can twist the Obama economy ’til the cows come home, the electorate isn’t buying the spin.
Basilsbest on November 4, 2012 at 8:21 AM
Yup.
Yup.
itsnotaboutme on November 4, 2012 at 8:22 AM
Romney realizes this story is still breaking, with new details almost every day.
Better for the surrogates to speak out until after the election.
Mitsouko on November 4, 2012 at 8:22 AM
Romney had to hold back because the story kept changing, and the various groups in the federal government are all going to protect their own.
No matter what he would say, there would be someone popping up to disprove it or contradict it within 24 hours.
Just look at the sleazy way one guy turned the “revenge” line around, saying that the term originated with the Romney campaign. Then multiply that kind of behavior by 100, coming from people in the state department, the CIA, and the department of defense.
Dextrous on November 4, 2012 at 8:23 AM
Obozo wanted that fight; it was clearly a ‘tar-baby’ that the media was prepared to bury Romney with… and protect Obozo from any fallout.
And for the most part, the LSM has kept the issue away from the ‘American Idol’ voters… the utterly disengaged citizens.
(Forget about the O-bots… they live in Unicorn Land.)
Not that it’s gonna matter… the Libyan mess is filtering out to the ‘engaged’ voters, and further motivating the R & R base.
I regard it as a FAIL for Obozo in that sense.
CPT. Charles on November 4, 2012 at 8:24 AM
Yup, did you hear how Fox News told us about the crowd gathering outside the consulate for up to three hours before the attack?
That means they must have faked those videos that showed empty streets before the attack!
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM
This. Romney wasn’t going to waste valuable contact time with the voters on an issue about which they knew little.
And he likely thought that if he won, State, the CIA and Defense would be leaking like sieves in an effort to point fingers elsewhere, i.e., at the outgoing admnistration.
Once he took over, and the GOP took the Senate, too, they’d have access to everything (except for some wiped computers), and could paint such a picture of Obama & Hillary that there would be little attention at whatever excuse the Dems had for losing this time (like SCOTUS in 2000, exit polls and Diebold in Ohio in 2004, racism and Sandy in 2012…).
Wethal on November 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM
Yes. There are multiple groups pointing the finger at each other and people within the groups spreading disinformation.
The only way this will ever come clear is with a full blown congressional investigation. All these aholes need to be put on the stand.
CorporatePiggy on November 4, 2012 at 8:28 AM
Romney got elected as a Republican in MA. He knows how to deal with hostile liberal media. If they are going to play the “lets see what the investigation reveals” game all of the sudden, he knows they will do anything and everything to attack whatever Romney says.
Mord on November 4, 2012 at 8:30 AM
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
MikeA on November 4, 2012 at 8:30 AM
Because it was a trap.
The two times Romney criticized Obama on Benghazi the MSM went into full attack mode for days, defending Obama by attacking Romney. It became all about Romney and not about Benghazi or Obama, and it gave the MSM an excuse to talk about anything but the economy, unemployment, the debt, the deficit, and Obama’s dismal economic record. Crowley was even willing to risk destroying her reputation to defend the honor of her Dear Leader.
The MSM did it twice and was not only prepared to do it a third time down the home stretch, it was drooling in anticipation of drowning out FOXnews’ reporting on the issue.
farsighted on November 4, 2012 at 8:31 AM
The plot keeps getting thicker and thicker!
First Susan Rice lies by saying that there was a crowd outside the consulate building before the attack. Then the State Department faked those videos so it looked like the streets were empty!
Lucky for Fox News now we know that there was a crowd gathering outside the consulate up to three hours before the attack, completely contradicting what Susan Rice said when she said that there was a crowd gathering outside the consulate building prior to the attack!
We must impeach!
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 8:32 AM
Exactly.
farsighted on November 4, 2012 at 8:37 AM
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 8:32 AM
Shorter bileduct:
The administration is contradicting itself on a matter in which Americans died. It’s all Fox News’ fault!
sadarj on November 4, 2012 at 8:38 AM
Most people have not a clue what or where Benghazi is.
Not only should Obama resign over Benghazi, but also a few others in the Obama administration…plus a few editors and publishers for helping the cover up.
I do hope the Tuesday election solves Obama’s resignation problems…
albill on November 4, 2012 at 8:38 AM
I’m sure you will provide us with the timeline of events to clarify everything.
Dextrous on November 4, 2012 at 8:39 AM
I cannot believe that Obama is witholding information, it’s criminal!
He should have told us all the night of 9/11 that the consulate and annex were actually a CIA operation and he should given us the full names of everyone who worked there so we can verify this information for ourselves.
Obama can’t be trusted with this information, it needs to be in the public domain.
We need to know what was happening in those CIA buildings, NOW!
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 8:39 AM
Bill Kristol: “Ooo, Ooo, over here! Look at me1 Look at me!”
Knott Buyinit on November 4, 2012 at 8:41 AM
For example, you can tell us about the role of the Youtube video about Mohammed, which was at the core of this whole thing.
Dextrous on November 4, 2012 at 8:42 AM
Check out the reporting from Fox News yesterday, they are the ones with all the facts.
The attackers were gathering outside the consulate building up to three hours before the attack. The Blue Mountain Security chief was “distraught” and alerted the CIA Annex about them at least an hour before the attack.
So, Susan lied about that crowd outside the consulate, Fox News sources tell us instead that it was actually a crowd outside the consulate, now a crowd outside the consulate.
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 8:42 AM
now=not
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 8:42 AM
He stopped criticizing because
1. He wasn’t on comfortable terrain
2. He doesn’t have all the info
If it turns out to be a Petraeus blunder, or the media leaks that narrative, WTH does he say then?
budfox on November 4, 2012 at 8:42 AM
Frantic hysterical troll alert.
farsighted on November 4, 2012 at 8:43 AM
Well, Ahmed Abu Khattala, who Fox News identified as the ringleader of the attack, he said it was caused by the video.
So it’s pretty clear that it’s not about the video.
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 8:44 AM
It’s the economy, stupid.
Odysseus on November 4, 2012 at 8:45 AM
Among the many good comments on the thread, yours is the best.
I wish Romney had gone after Obama hammer and tong, but I understand why he didn’t.
Let’s pray R2 win.
BuckeyeSam on November 4, 2012 at 8:46 AM
Dude, the administration faked the videos that showed the streets to be clear instead of showing the crowd that was gathering outside like Fox News told us!
Fox News are awesome! Impeach Obama!
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 8:47 AM
Pretty much. Look at what the media did when he released that statement and then did the press confernce concerning the preemptive apology from Egypt. They trashed him for a week(and were even caught on a live mic conspiring him to do so).
Then he waits til the 2nd debate to wade into the Benghazi mess and immediately is filibustered by Candy Crowley who had to admit less than an hour later on live TV that everything she’d said in defense of Obama was bullcrap.
If you go back and watch Romney’s reaction during that exchange, he was stunned. Not because he thought he’d gotten it wrong. He’s a smart enough guy to have read that transcript(or had someone read it for him) and known what Dear Leader did and didn’t say. What freaked him out was how brazenly Obama could lie on national TV in front of 65 million people and how far the drive-by media would go to defend those lies(even after they concede that they were lies).
Doughboy on November 4, 2012 at 8:56 AM
Spontaneous protesters.
farsighted on November 4, 2012 at 8:58 AM
Yeah, Romney was right. Obama didn’t say “act of terror”, he said “acts of terror”. There is a MASSIVE DIFFERENCE. Candy ran cover for Obama! OBAMA LIED!
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 8:58 AM
Spontaneous protesters.
farsighted on November 4, 2012 at 8:59 AM
You’re missing the point, the videos showed the streets were clear, remember?! The administration faked those videos to give the impression there was no crowd!
Now we know there was a crowd all along! For three hours prior to the attack!
Impeach Obama!
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 9:00 AM
Spontaneous protesters.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/03/exclusive-security-officials-on-ground-in-libya-challenge-cia-account/?test=latestnews
farsighted on November 4, 2012 at 9:01 AM
We need to know who faked the videos!
The crowd gathering outside the consulate blows Susan Rice’s statements out of the water!
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 9:03 AM
Trolling, trolling, trolling…
farsighted on November 4, 2012 at 9:05 AM
You gotta find a more productive way to spend your time.
I think we should find out if the Obama administration has bothered to reimburse Glenn Doherty’s plane ticket from Tripli to Benghazi, and the cab fare to the CIA Annex.
His family shouldn’t have to cover those costs, just because he had to make his own way there after the CIA were told to stand down and Obama did nothing.
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM
For the record, here is the section of Obama’s Rose Garden speech which contains the phrase “acts of terror.” It clearly is not referring to events in Libya. It is also clear that Candy Crowly intentionally distorted the facts to help Obama.
Dextrous on November 4, 2012 at 9:10 AM
“One way or the other, Obama will pay.”
Benghazi: The Democratic Party Will Be Lucky if Obama Loses
mrt721 on November 4, 2012 at 9:11 AM
Yup. “Get the transcript,” Candy.
Fallon on November 4, 2012 at 9:12 AM
Yeah, it’s almost as those he is trying to play a Jedi mind trick on everyone.
I mean, he goes out to the Rose Garden to give a speech about the Benghazi attacks and then for no reason he talks about 9/11, and then goes back to Benghazi again! I mean, they are not related at all, are they. One was a terrorist attack, and the other was a terrorist attack. There’s a clear difference!
It’s like he planned it ahead of time, you know, to say “acts of terror” in a speech about Benghazi just to fool us into thinking Benghazi wasn’t a terrorist act!
bileduct on November 4, 2012 at 9:15 AM
None of our political leaders gives a sh*t about the men and women they send out into the field to be bullet catchers.
And I don’t think Willard will be any different when he’s POTUS. Certainly, his entire family has shirked uniform service to THIS country for hundreds of years. There’s no ground here to think Willard will be any great CINC in his own right.
HondaV65 on November 4, 2012 at 9:18 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »