It's Time For Romney to Give Benghazi a Rest (Please Change the Subject Alert)

Mother Jones ^ | 10/17/2012 | Kevin Drum

[mojito]

There's lots of chatter this morning about Mitt Romney's "Benghazi moment" last night, and Ed Kilgore wonders if Romney will keep up the inquisition next week. "Given the extremely narrow nature of Romney's foreign policy critique of Obama last night and throughout the campaign, you do have to wonder what the final debate next week will be like. Will Romney continue to conduct an inquisition of exactly what Obama said when on the Libya killings, treating the incident as a sort of domestic version of Fast & Furious, a key to the Vast Liberal Conspiracy?"

That's pretty much my question too. Adam Serwer has a good rundown of the bickering over whether Obama really referred to Benghazi as an act of terror in his Rose Garden speech the next day, or whether he was just generically referring to acts of terror, and anyway, even if he did, why did he then decline to do it again a few days later, etc. etc. That's all fine, I guess, just part of a tight campaign entering its closing days.

But what I really wonder is: how has this become a serious question anyway? Why does anyone care if it took two weeks to decide that Benghazi was an act of terror?

[blueunicorn6]

Why would Obama go to sleep and then fly to Las Vegas the next day? He’s a politician and he knew that wouldn’t look good. Was he that lazy and chicken? Well, maybe, but not likely. They didn’t go after him. Would you be able to sleep if lots of folks in your administration had just watched six hours of tragedy in Benghazi? I wouldn’t. So, what was he doing? Secret meeting to discuss the coverup? That’s my bet. And then sleep on the flight to Las Vegas.

[Travis McGee]

Yep. Then cut to him out on the links wearing his saddle shoes, saying, “No way, I’m on a hot streak, I ain’t coming in yet.”

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

I’ll second what spawn44 said. I think we are also owed answers about why the embassy compound was not immediately secured ...why news reporters were able to freely enter the Embassy, do enough snooping to locate the Ambassador’s personal journal, and remove it and Lord only knows what else, from the premises. This is criminal that our American Embassy was not sealed off. Who knows what is now in the hands of non-Americans and others who wish harm upon America.

[alrea]

Forward Mother Jones

[cardinal4]

Oh, I don’t know Kevin, mayhap the citizenry are a tad curious as to how the sodomizing and murder of a US Diplomat seemed to be just a bump in the road to the Hussein regime as opposed to an act of war? Perhaps some of the family members are curious as to why the knowingly false narrative of a spontaneous riot over a video persisted at the official level for so long?

[Pining_4_TX]

I care that no attempt was made to rescue those people. Why isn’t anyone asking about that?

[stephenjohnbanker]

Good question, and I have no answer for it.

[Ohioan]

It isn't about a "vast liberal conspiracy." It is about a President, indifferent to truth, indifferent to the interests of the American people, indifferent even to the lives of those who believe they are serving him.

I doubt that Romney will consider advice from Ma Jones, when he goes back to work on Obama, next Monday.

William Flax