“Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”
If President Obama was looking to get Governor Romney rattled in last week’s debate, he certainly did. But Governor Romney certainly had a little help from his biggest enemy – himself. After having drunk the right-wing Kool-Aid that President Obama refused to call the attack in Libya “terrorism” for two weeks, he tried to serve some to the debate moderator. Being a good journalist, Crowley threw it back in his face – and thus was borne the moment of the night.
It is unquestionably clear that the President referred to the attack in Benghazi as an act of terror. FOX News and the far-right are attempting to say that does not necessarily mean he called it a “terrorist act” – the resulting semantic silliness is a good example of how you cannot find shades of grey in everything. Romney could have made a different critique. Instead, he honed in on a myth, largely-borne out of the right’s craving for superficial braggadocio during times of crisis – but borne also out of something more sinister: the attempted revival of the GOP’s 2004 playbook.
It is odd that we have to look at video from a month ago as though it were archival. But after the attack on our Libyan consulate, President Obama went to the Rose Garden and made clear the fundamentals of the situation as he understood them: A tragic attack had occurred, the purpose lined up with that of terrorism, and an investigation was going to be made. It may not have been of grandstanding in the vein of President Bush’s ground zero “bullhorn” speech, but the ongoing violence and an unfolding situation necessitated that sort of approach.
Contrast that to Governor Romney, whose immediate reaction was to call a press conference and, as usual, criticize the President for apologizing for America – referring to a press release that did not come from the White House but Cairo, that occurred before the Benghazi assault happened, and was an attempt to cool unrest outside the U.S. Embassy’s walls. Instead of being cautious and vague, Romney was wrong, and insistently so.
This looked bad, and was panned in the press, so a distraction was needed. Thus, the critique of the President’s perceived equivocation over the next two weeks.
While information was still sketchy and incoming, the press and Romney both pushed the Obama administration for answers. Was the video that had ignited the protests in Cairo responsible for the violence? That certainly seemed plausible – and it was the CIA’s conclusion on September 15th. Did that mean that when Susan Rice told the U.N. and the media that the attack had to do with the video that she was denying the President’s earlier statement? No. We now know that, according to the Los Angeles Times, intelligence suggests the attack was opportunistic and hastily-executed, rather than either a conspiracy or a rampage in reaction to the video.
This is not necessarily vindication for the President – after all, four Americans are dead, including a U.S. Ambassador. Questions need to be answered on the security gap, and how we are going to prevent attacks like this going forward. For Mitt Romney though, it is evidence his attempt to pin down the administration on terrorism denial was not only foolish, but in error.
Nevertheless, they probably will not try to correct themselves. Though it is in the trappings of something contemporary, this is the same old “pre-9/11 mindset” political gambit we have been used to for over eleven years now. Put bluntly, terrorism means different things to the right and left wings. To the right-wing, it is by definition something that comes out of the Muslim world, and entirely different than, say, the violence that comes from better-organized drug cartels across the border or the often-overlooked incidences of right-wing terror in the homeland. This is a war that has to be won through force of arms, unilateralism, and spreading democracy through the Middle East – by force if necessary.
Events since have largely discredited this view. But it worked in the past. And why not? September 11th felt like war in the classic sense. The United States has produced a great list of vanquished empires – having gone toe-to-toe (and won) against foes like the British, the Nazis, the Japanese, and the Soviets; it only made sense after 9/11 that if we were struck on such a massive (yet personal) scale, the perpetrators would have to be at the same standing as our enemies of the past. The fact that this new enemy hid not only in caves we could not find, but also among us, only served to bolster their stature.
In order to have such a stature, the enemy could not be a gang of criminals. It had to be something else. And so the Bush “you’re with us or you’re against us” mindset transformed an attack by a nineteen highly-motivated (and quite lucky) men into a climactic struggle against a massive civilizational conspiracy hating us for our freedom. The final stop on this crazy train – usually now frequented only by right-wing radio hosts and their listeners – made Democrats’ more nuanced approach seem to them not just bad policy but an accessory to terror.
It is important to remember a time when much more of the Republican Party brought this line of thinking to this disturbing conclusion. Though Romney is smart enough to know the political landscape has changed, the attack hearkens to the last vestiges of Bush rhetoric, where you’re-with-us-or-against us applies to domestic politics as well. Romney’s attack on the President’s equivocation and post-attack confusion has echoes of that old philosophy. It is hard to move on from the mindset that served Republican politics so well for so many elections.
The “pre-9/11 mindset attack” has since been converted into a line about “projecting strength”, but the thinking behind it is the same. Obama's attempt to bridge an understanding between the American people and the Arab Street is somehow “apologizing for America” – a sign of weakness. Public differences with the current government of Israel are framed as a “throw under the bus” – weakness. Cutting the bloated defense budget, staying out of Iran’s Green Revolution and acting multilaterally on Libya? Weaknesses all. There are reasonable critiques to be made, but through the neoconservative lens of toughness – often verbal – being the equivalent of strength, the critiques are an overplayed hand.
Of course, perception is often reality, especially in the low-information strata of society. While impressions and symbolism can be important in shaping the landscape as substantive policy decisions, when it comes to dealing with an investigation of an attack on a consulate, it is better to get the facts first.
What is lost in the arguments over who called Benghazi “terror” and when, is if that dispute is even worth having. Predator drones were hunting down those responsible from the outset. Libyan authorities quickly rounded up many of the perpetrators, and are still hunting the remainder. The FBI was on the ground as soon as the security situation made it possible. Investigation is still ongoing.
Would things have been substantively different had members of the President’s administration not made statements contrary to his? Doubtful. The only thing different would be that the President would not have opened himself up to a craven political attack from the Romney campaign.
Steve Keller is Chief Editor at the geostrategic consultancy firm, Wikistrat, and a freelance columnist. A graduate of Vassar College, he specializes in American politics and the history and legacy of imperialism. He is currently working on developing an international relations simulation game for the social media age.
Photo: The UpTake (cc).
a global affairs media network
Romney's Benghazi Attack Echoes "Pre-9/11" Mentality
October 22, 2012
“Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”
If President Obama was looking to get Governor Romney rattled in last week’s debate, he certainly did. But Governor Romney certainly had a little help from his biggest enemy – himself. After having drunk the right-wing Kool-Aid that President Obama refused to call the attack in Libya “terrorism” for two weeks, he tried to serve some to the debate moderator. Being a good journalist, Crowley threw it back in his face – and thus was borne the moment of the night.
It is unquestionably clear that the President referred to the attack in Benghazi as an act of terror. FOX News and the far-right are attempting to say that does not necessarily mean he called it a “terrorist act” – the resulting semantic silliness is a good example of how you cannot find shades of grey in everything. Romney could have made a different critique. Instead, he honed in on a myth, largely-borne out of the right’s craving for superficial braggadocio during times of crisis – but borne also out of something more sinister: the attempted revival of the GOP’s 2004 playbook.
It is odd that we have to look at video from a month ago as though it were archival. But after the attack on our Libyan consulate, President Obama went to the Rose Garden and made clear the fundamentals of the situation as he understood them: A tragic attack had occurred, the purpose lined up with that of terrorism, and an investigation was going to be made. It may not have been of grandstanding in the vein of President Bush’s ground zero “bullhorn” speech, but the ongoing violence and an unfolding situation necessitated that sort of approach.
Contrast that to Governor Romney, whose immediate reaction was to call a press conference and, as usual, criticize the President for apologizing for America – referring to a press release that did not come from the White House but Cairo, that occurred before the Benghazi assault happened, and was an attempt to cool unrest outside the U.S. Embassy’s walls. Instead of being cautious and vague, Romney was wrong, and insistently so.
This looked bad, and was panned in the press, so a distraction was needed. Thus, the critique of the President’s perceived equivocation over the next two weeks.
While information was still sketchy and incoming, the press and Romney both pushed the Obama administration for answers. Was the video that had ignited the protests in Cairo responsible for the violence? That certainly seemed plausible – and it was the CIA’s conclusion on September 15th. Did that mean that when Susan Rice told the U.N. and the media that the attack had to do with the video that she was denying the President’s earlier statement? No. We now know that, according to the Los Angeles Times, intelligence suggests the attack was opportunistic and hastily-executed, rather than either a conspiracy or a rampage in reaction to the video.
This is not necessarily vindication for the President – after all, four Americans are dead, including a U.S. Ambassador. Questions need to be answered on the security gap, and how we are going to prevent attacks like this going forward. For Mitt Romney though, it is evidence his attempt to pin down the administration on terrorism denial was not only foolish, but in error.
Nevertheless, they probably will not try to correct themselves. Though it is in the trappings of something contemporary, this is the same old “pre-9/11 mindset” political gambit we have been used to for over eleven years now. Put bluntly, terrorism means different things to the right and left wings. To the right-wing, it is by definition something that comes out of the Muslim world, and entirely different than, say, the violence that comes from better-organized drug cartels across the border or the often-overlooked incidences of right-wing terror in the homeland. This is a war that has to be won through force of arms, unilateralism, and spreading democracy through the Middle East – by force if necessary.
Events since have largely discredited this view. But it worked in the past. And why not? September 11th felt like war in the classic sense. The United States has produced a great list of vanquished empires – having gone toe-to-toe (and won) against foes like the British, the Nazis, the Japanese, and the Soviets; it only made sense after 9/11 that if we were struck on such a massive (yet personal) scale, the perpetrators would have to be at the same standing as our enemies of the past. The fact that this new enemy hid not only in caves we could not find, but also among us, only served to bolster their stature.
In order to have such a stature, the enemy could not be a gang of criminals. It had to be something else. And so the Bush “you’re with us or you’re against us” mindset transformed an attack by a nineteen highly-motivated (and quite lucky) men into a climactic struggle against a massive civilizational conspiracy hating us for our freedom. The final stop on this crazy train – usually now frequented only by right-wing radio hosts and their listeners – made Democrats’ more nuanced approach seem to them not just bad policy but an accessory to terror.
It is important to remember a time when much more of the Republican Party brought this line of thinking to this disturbing conclusion. Though Romney is smart enough to know the political landscape has changed, the attack hearkens to the last vestiges of Bush rhetoric, where you’re-with-us-or-against us applies to domestic politics as well. Romney’s attack on the President’s equivocation and post-attack confusion has echoes of that old philosophy. It is hard to move on from the mindset that served Republican politics so well for so many elections.
The “pre-9/11 mindset attack” has since been converted into a line about “projecting strength”, but the thinking behind it is the same. Obama's attempt to bridge an understanding between the American people and the Arab Street is somehow “apologizing for America” – a sign of weakness. Public differences with the current government of Israel are framed as a “throw under the bus” – weakness. Cutting the bloated defense budget, staying out of Iran’s Green Revolution and acting multilaterally on Libya? Weaknesses all. There are reasonable critiques to be made, but through the neoconservative lens of toughness – often verbal – being the equivalent of strength, the critiques are an overplayed hand.
Of course, perception is often reality, especially in the low-information strata of society. While impressions and symbolism can be important in shaping the landscape as substantive policy decisions, when it comes to dealing with an investigation of an attack on a consulate, it is better to get the facts first.
What is lost in the arguments over who called Benghazi “terror” and when, is if that dispute is even worth having. Predator drones were hunting down those responsible from the outset. Libyan authorities quickly rounded up many of the perpetrators, and are still hunting the remainder. The FBI was on the ground as soon as the security situation made it possible. Investigation is still ongoing.
Would things have been substantively different had members of the President’s administration not made statements contrary to his? Doubtful. The only thing different would be that the President would not have opened himself up to a craven political attack from the Romney campaign.
Steve Keller is Chief Editor at the geostrategic consultancy firm, Wikistrat, and a freelance columnist. A graduate of Vassar College, he specializes in American politics and the history and legacy of imperialism. He is currently working on developing an international relations simulation game for the social media age.
Photo: The UpTake (cc).
