Obama winning Benghazi PR battle

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AK Forty Seven, Nov 26, 2012.

  1. http://news.yahoo.com/obama-may-chance-end-benghazi-pr-disaster-082741024--politics.html


    Obama may get chance to end Benghazi PR disaster




    WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House could finally have its chance to close the books on its Benghazi public relations disaster, as key Republicans signal they might not stand in the way of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to become the next secretary of state.

    "I think she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told "Fox News Sunday." ''But she's not the problem. The problem is the president of the United States," who, McCain said, misled the public on terrorist involvement.

    Rice is widely seen as President Barack Obama's top pick to replace Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton as the nation's top diplomat. But Rice's reputation took a serious hit this fall when she relied on unclassified talking points provided by the intelligence community that portrayed the attack in Benghazi, Libya, as a spontaneous assault by a mob angered by an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube.

    Intelligence officials quickly amended their assessment to conclude the attack hadn't been related to other film protests across the Middle East. But that revised narrative was slow to reach the public, prompting Republicans to allege a White House cover-up ahead of the Nov. 6 election.

    The attack killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, a State Department computer specialist and two former Navy SEALs who were working as contract security guards.

    McCain's remarks were in contrast to his previous stance that Rice wasn't qualified to replace Clinton, who is expected to step down soon, and that he would do "whatever is necessary" to block Rice's possible nomination.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham, McCain's close friend and colleague on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told ABC's "This Week" he still suspects the White House intentionally glossed over obvious terrorist links in the attack to keep voters from questioning Obama's handling of national security.

    But instead of repeating his prior assertion that he was "dead set" against a Rice promotion, Graham suggested he looked forward to hearing her out. If Rice were nominated, "there will be a lot of questions asked of her about this event and others," said Graham, R-S.C.

    The subtle shift in GOP tenor on Rice could be the result of internal grumblings on how far to take party opposition. Democrats picked up extra Senate seats in the election to maintain their narrow majority, making it that much harder for the remaining 45 Republicans to block the president's nominees.

    One senior GOP Senate aide said Sunday that Republicans hadn't united against Rice and were not convinced she was worth going after. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the aide was not authorized to speak publicly on internal GOP deliberations.
     
  2. Dr Susan Rice would be a wonderful choice for SOS imo
     
  3. There's nothing for her to explain. The administration told her to go out and tell a lie to the nation, and she did it without question. If one wanted to rule through lies and deception, she would be a perfect fit. Republicans, cowards and liars themselves, will continue to feign "outrage" a little while longer, and then drop it as they know they're a bunch of fuck ups too.
    Meanwhile, 4 brave men are dead, and our security is no better than it was before.
     
  4. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    What he said.
     
  5. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    What is just as asinine is AK47 touting this as a win and success, when he ignores the tragedy that occurred because of his idol's coverup in the first place.
     
  6. Letting this slide is re-writing the play book of what is acceptable.

    If this is a victory for rice, she should be ashamed, she was either duped or go along to get along.

    Our culture is whack.
     
  7. She told the people what The CIA told her.Next to that tragedy of losing 4 more Americans is the tragedy of republicans trying to use their deaths for political gain
     
  8. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Or the Democrats ignoring the 4 deaths for political gain. Six of one, half dozen of another.
     

  9. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1131090/-Open-thread-for-night-owls-The-Romney-smirk




    [​IMG]



    It was the smirk that did it.



    We are used to the politicization of tragedies. It is unseemly, and it is often condemned, but it is also commonplace enough, so when Mitt Romney launched into a political attack against the president almost concurrent to the actual violence it was perhaps vile in timing, but otherwise not all that surprising. Likewise, Mitt Romney's bizarre assertion that the Obama administration "sympathized" with the attackers, based apparently on statements condemning religious intolerance issued from the U.S. diplomats in the middle of those attacks, is also not particularly out of character for him; he has premised his entire foreign policy on the notion that Obama engaged in an entirely fictional "apology tour", while his surrogates wonder aloud if the president is American enough—or "Anglo-Saxon" enough—to truly be devoted to American interests. (I mean that, by the way: if Mitt Romney has any actual foreign policy idea other than the declaration that Obama is too nice to other countries, and we need to be meaner to them, whether "them" refers to Russia, China, or anywhere else, I have yet to hear him competently elucidate it.)

    So yes, Mr. Romney is a political panderer, an avid devotee of attack politics, and a fantastical liar. These are all known qualities. It was the smirk, though, that turned things. The smirk before, during and after discussing an attack in which American diplomats were killed, a rancid little twitch of a smirk that flickered in and out as he talked about murders, or rather not about murders, but how they would affect him, personally, and his own ambitions. The smirk seemed to make the inner thoughts of the man quite clear: Today was going to be a good day for Mitt Romney. The murder of diplomats was not quite enough to prevent him from condemning the statements of their fellow diplomats before and during the attacks upon them; an attack on an American compound overseas was not in and of itself seen as reason to at least delay verbal abuse of those diplomats for even a scant day, if there was opportunity to be had in not doing so.

    One does not smirk when discussing a horrific act. No matter how much you feel the act may benefit you personally, presuming you are the sort of monster that thinks such things, one does not smirk when discussing acts of murder and violence. Even if you have the emotional capacity of a gnat, even if your own ambitions are so great that you cannot help it, one does not smirk. Not, at the very least, when the event is fresh, and the repercussions of the act still unknown, and the possibility of further violence still unclear. Even if you are indeed an outright monster, there ought to be no inner glee visible on your face as you stand before the nation to discuss how a set of still-fresh murders proves your own worth. That was the part where Mr. Romney turned from being a deplorable politician to being a repulsive human being. It is not worth condemning him, or demanding apologies from him, or even making fun of him; that one damn smirk told too long a story. Here is someone whose ambition outshines their empathy. Here is a person who, in times of stress, is first to probe whether it is exploitable to his advantage. Here is a person who focuses on such things to such a degree that he cannot even fully pretend to hide it.


    I often considered Mitt Romney awkward. I seldom, though, ascribed it to outright malevolence. His gentle insults of the commoner classes he interacts with on the campaign trail were lighthearted enough, though certainly most of them had a healthy dose of mean as their seed. I considered him a hollow man, mostly, an empty fake, a man obsessed with personal ambitions, a man who could offer no clear vision for the country other than that he and his economic class ought to be given more of it. That damned smirk, though. That smirk spoke to a political heart no bigger than a cinder. That was a malevolent smirk. That was the smirk of a true son of a bitch, a crooked man, a man that even a political crook like Richard Nixon would find it hard to find common cause with.

    This is not a man who will ever "rise above it all". He will always remain the all that other, better people have to rise above. This is not a man who has any thoughts of how to lead America via his own strength; his only proven strength is in the condemnations of others. When he ignored United States troops at war in his acceptance speech, it was cold enough; to explain later that it was obviously because they were not as important as his other thin points was much worse; to even have Americans overseas attacked, and to have that still not apparently leave a mark, is a shocking thing even in politics. Even our worst flag-waving bastards learn to hide their sociopathies better, when seeking office. Most of them, anyway.

    He is a frequent and unrepentant liar. That should have already caused the nation and press and yes, even better heads in his own party to scorn him, though for some miserable reason it apparently does not. He is apparently devoid of both empathy and common sense; also not good traits for a supposed leader. But that damn smirk. There is no circumstance in which I want to wake up in the morning to a national tragedy only to watch the leader of the nation smirk about it, apparently imagining in his head how he can best gain advantage from it. Goddamn it, no. That is too much and then some. That is disqualifying.

    Over the decades we have survived the leadership of stupid men, and of criminal men. We have survived carpet-bombings of substanceless rhetoric, we have inched our way forward through blizzards of of lies, we have pretended to be outraged about sex and pretended to not be outraged at misinformation; we are a hardy lot, apparently. I would hope, though, that we are still not so desperate as to look for leadership from someone who cannot even let a man's blood dry before scrawling his own name in it.

    I could stomach Mitt as vapid charlatan. As a smirking, malevolent, outright bastard of a man, though, I am pleased to say that I am still a decent enough person to feel no sympathy for that. No, Richard Milhous Gantry here has got to go.
     
  10. The political gain was in the telling of the lie about this incident while trying to connect it to the video in any way, shape, or form when they knew from the get go that it was a terrorist attack. The political gain was not wanting this to be a media topic a few weeks prior to an election. The political gain was winning the WH because Team Romney had neither the balls or the brains to bring this issue front and center.
     
    #10     Nov 26, 2012