![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Word Games, or A Lack of Logic
Oct. 19th, 2012 10:25 amVarious sources on the Right, including but by no means limited to Simberg's Flying Circus, seem to be obsessed with the idea that President Obama didn't label the attack on our consulate in Benghazi as "terror" and, well, that means Obama Should Just Resign In Disgrace, or something.
As near as I can figure it, the "logic" is:
1) Obama said that when we killed Bin Laden the threat of terror was over. (He didn't, actually.)
2) He did, actually, call the attack an act of terror the day after the attack.
3) One can't have "spontaneous" acts of terror - in other words, a bunch of guys can't pull their AKs out of the trunk of their cars and go shoot something up.
4) One can easily tell via security-camera video in real time whether the group attacking you had a plan or are just yahoos running around shooting people.
5) Consulates and embassies are forts, and should be able to withstand prolonged attacks by heavily-armed groups.
6) Chris Stevens, our ambassador, was somehow unable to evaluate the risk to his person involved in leaving the more-secure embassy to go to a consulate; thus he is completely blameless in this attack.
7) Presidents personally evaluate the security arrangements of every diplomatic outpost.
When you lay out this "logic" explicitly, it looks stupid and falls apart. But apparently Romney buys into most if not all of it, thus his failed and ham-fisted attempt to attack the President during this week's debate. Don't get me wrong - asking questions about security and who-knew-what-when are fair game. But the idea that this attack is anything other than yet another incident in a long war is ludicrous.
As near as I can figure it, the "logic" is:
1) Obama said that when we killed Bin Laden the threat of terror was over. (He didn't, actually.)
2) He did, actually, call the attack an act of terror the day after the attack.
3) One can't have "spontaneous" acts of terror - in other words, a bunch of guys can't pull their AKs out of the trunk of their cars and go shoot something up.
4) One can easily tell via security-camera video in real time whether the group attacking you had a plan or are just yahoos running around shooting people.
5) Consulates and embassies are forts, and should be able to withstand prolonged attacks by heavily-armed groups.
6) Chris Stevens, our ambassador, was somehow unable to evaluate the risk to his person involved in leaving the more-secure embassy to go to a consulate; thus he is completely blameless in this attack.
7) Presidents personally evaluate the security arrangements of every diplomatic outpost.
When you lay out this "logic" explicitly, it looks stupid and falls apart. But apparently Romney buys into most if not all of it, thus his failed and ham-fisted attempt to attack the President during this week's debate. Don't get me wrong - asking questions about security and who-knew-what-when are fair game. But the idea that this attack is anything other than yet another incident in a long war is ludicrous.
