cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Advisor

Raimondo on the debate

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/10/16/debate-highlight-showdown-over-benghazi/  

snip-As to who won the second debate, the answer is clear enough: the President   came out looking presidential, while Romney, in his over-eagerness to score   points, and his deadly earnestness, came out looking like what he is – an over-ambitious   second-rater. The look on his face as the President was telling him off for   playing politics with Benghazi told the whole story of this election, and signaled   its probable outcome: Mitt looked like he’d been caught playing one of his college   pranks, as Obama squashed his smug grin into a grimace of real pain.

 snip-Since this presidential debate featured audience questions, and since Americans   couldn’t care less about foreign policy, we were lucky to get even a single question   on the subject. However, we got lucky when one fella got up and said he and   some of his co-workers were disturbed by the news that the American consulate   in Benghazi had been denied extra security prior to the attack which led to   the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens. Why, he wanted to know, did that happen?    The President refused to answer the question: not in so many words, but by   simply ignoring it. He used the opportunity to go on about the alleged success   of his foreign policy: "I said we would end the war in Iraq, and I did"   – forgetting the large number of "private contractors" still remaining,   not to mention an "embassy" bigger than the Vatican and better armed   than the Pentagon. He referred to his promise to scale down troops levels in   Afghanistan, "and that’s what I did." Oh yeah, and Osama bin Laden   is dead.        

     Well, yes, but what is the answer to the question – why was the Libyan consulate denied extra security?

  The President isn’t telling. Candy Crowley broached the subject again when   she asked if "the buck stops at the State Department." Hillary works   for me, was Obama’s reply: yet still no answer to the very simple query about   the decision to deny our Libyan diplomatic facilities extra security.

 

  Mitt Romney, for his part, was no help. Instead of pursuing this angle, he   went off on a tangent, repeating what we heard at the Biden-Ryan showdown: it   took the President 14 days to acknowledge it was a terrorist attack – not true,   as Candy helpfully confirmed. There was no demonstration protesting the "Innocence   of Muslims" video, averred Romney, it was "a terrorist attack."   Then we heard about Syria – 30,000 dead, said a mournful Mitt. Yes, but what   would he do about it? There was no hint of that in his answer, which drifted   off in to the stratosphere: the President’s foreign policy, we were told, is   "unraveling."

   Romney expected to score points on the Benghazi issue, but instead fell into a terminological quagmire, quibbling about what words the President used to describe the attack – and if you look at the transcript of Obama’s Rose Garden remarks, the President is correct that he described it as an "act of terror."       But so what? All violence is an "act of terror." The Benghazi assault,   our drone war, the invasion of Iraq – all acts of terror. This is very far from   confirming the right-wing Romneyite party line that Benghazi was a pre-planned   operation masterminded by al Qaeda to mark the September 11 anniversary.                 

 

   Obscuring the key role played by the "Innocence" video – because they really agree with its message, however inartfully expressed – Romney’s rightist base luxuriates in the notion that the President secretly sympathizes with the Islamists: and at the core of this is rumor that Obama is a secret Muslim (his middle name is a dead giveaway, don’tcha know).                       Romney never says any of this explicitly, but he has his trusty dog whistle and he used it during the debate when he brought up Obama’s alleged "apology tour."  He also mentioned the offensive video – without condemning it or even describing it – and once again implied that the President was playing politics with a national security issue of grave concern.                          

       This is when Obama took Romney over his knee and gave him a good hard spanking   – and one that was well-deserved. Turning to the GOP nominee with steel in his   eyes and iron in his voice, he rejected the notion that he or any member of   his administration would play politics with the lives of one of their own. To   issue a press release in the midst of a crisis such as that, when lives were   at stake and the fate of Ambassador Stevens was not yet known, was "offensive,"   said the President. But his eyes said: it was beneath contempt.

  This was the most dramatic moment of the debate, and it’s significant it was over this issue in particular, because the War Party has been riding this story like a hobbyhorse. Their big problem, however, is that their narrative isn’t in accord with the facts. As the New York Times reports:     "To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence."

  Read the entire article.