Quote:
Regarding benGazi, no, it wouldn't make the president look ba, except perhaps on Fox News, which is about as meaningless as it can get in terms of criticizing teh president. Nobody who had a favorable opinon of him would have been swayed by teh fact that a terrorist organization attacked teh embassy instead of an enraged mob. if anything the president looks better with a terrorist organization because that means that under his leadership we have a few enemies in the area instead of large mobs of enemies in the area. |
I know they're different situations but you're right in principle. And Obama found that someone to blame when he went to the UN and blamed a video and mob violence despite us now knowing they were aware within two hours that terrorist groups have claimed credit. Of course Obama could have been out golfing or at a fundraiser at that time but the White House itself was aware of it despite what they later claimed in press briefings, TV interviews, UN, etc in the weeks following the attack. The emphasis for nearly a month after on the video and the protest slowed down investigations into why the Consulate was under attack for 8-10 hours and we didn't do anything except watch a live feed from a drone when we had forces that could have gotten there within 8 hours.
I think quite a few people have their ideological blinders on to believe the President whether it's Nixon saying "I am not a crook!", or Bush's "Read my lips, no new taxes!", Clinton's "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." or Obama's "The suggestion that anyone on my team would play politics is offensive."