[PaleoBob]

On Oct 9, 2001, about one month after the horrible terrorist attacks in NYC, the Pentagon and Pa., George W. Bush’s approval rating hit its high-water mark, a mind-blowing 92 percent.

One of the reasons for this is that Bush cut out all political personnel from anything related to 9/11. Bush, for all his flaws, had NO political strategy regarding 9/11. NONE. He would not even let Karl Rove into the room when 9/11 was being addressed by him and his national security team.

And THAT is how you end up with a 92 percent approval rating in the immediate aftermath of what was otherwise a complete national security failure. You play it straight with the American people, roll up your sleeves and get busy fixing what you admit was very broken.

Obama could have easily won next month’s election in the aftermath of the 9/11/2012 attack in Libya. He could have won 60-40, if not better, by merely galvanizing the attention of the American people on what was really an attack on all of us.

But in the immediate aftermath of Benghazi Obama sent out Stephanie Cutter and other hacks to attack Mitt Romney for his comments regarding the Cairo emabssy’s absurd apology to Muslims (as if Romney had caused Benghazi to be attacked) and then began a pathological series of awkward deceptions and lies regarding the death of 4 Americans at the hands of al Qaeda.

And ever since, Obama’s approval rating has been sinking like a boulder in a tranquil sea.

If Libya sinks his candidacy as it has his approval rating, it will be in part because the lamestream media led him into certainty that he could blame Romney and skate away from any responsibility. For three days following 9/11/2012 the “big story” was that Romney had “politicized” the violence in the middle east.

But nobody ever bought this. Romney isn’t the commander-in-chief. Eventually, the people simply wanted the straight-up truth about what happened to our ambassador and his team. Every person voting this year was alive on 9/11/2001, alive during the weeks and months afterward, and there is a simple standard we expect our president to meet.

Tell us the truth. Tell us what we need to do.

But Obama has completely ignored that standard and chosen instead to continue lying about Benghazi—at the UN, in debates, on talk shows...

No matter how the election goes, somewhere along the line we’ll hear again about what a “great politician” Obama is. Are you kidding me? Even a “simpleton” like George W. Bush could have turned Benghazi into four more years.

[TomGuy]

I posted this concept in another thread this week, considering the convoluted and obfuscated responses Team Obama have made regarding Benghazi:

Imagine if the Obama Admin had attacks the size of the 9-11-2001 attacks. They would be rolled up on the floor in fetal positions, sucking their thumbs, and hoping it would just all go away.

[maica]

Excellent points. The contrast between presidents’ reactions is stark.

[Son House]

Oh worse yet, the Democrat supporters at an event, who you would think would be informed voters, don’t even know the Benghazi murder of Americans happened;

Shocking Number Of Obama Supporters Clueless About Benghazi
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2012/10/19/shocking-number-of-obama-supports-clueless-about-benghazi/

“Revealing Politics went to an Obama event at Ohio University on Oct. 17 and asked a number of the president’s supporters about the Benghazi attack. The conservative site says “most of the event attendees” had never heard of the terrorist act.

“So, what do you guys think about the situation in Benghazi?” an interviewer with Revealing Politics asks two girls.

“I have no idea,” one of them replies,

One man said he thinks “the Republicans” were responsible for the attack while an alarming number of others could not identify Ambassador Stevens or recall a terrorist attack occurring in Benghazi.”

[milagro]

I believe this whole Benghazi-gate was an answer to prayer: what the Evil one meant for, well--EVIL--God has turned to good by exposing what "children" of "the father of lies" have so desperately struggled to keep covered up.

And, if it is true that the CIA has as its motto, "The truth will set you free", don't tell me that God doesn't have a wonderful, and in this case very wry, sense of humor!

[mtnwmn]

“He could have won 60-40, if not better, by merely galvanizing the attention of the American people on what was really an attack on all of us.”

I'm not so sure I agree with this.....there are too many people like me who would vote for dog catcher rather than Obama. He “killed” Osama and the polls were still against him. The attack should not have happened with and, especially without resources to counter it.

[rodguy911]

There is a reason zero does not want to talk about Libya and Bengazhi in particular.

The state dept. denied Stevens' security request over and over. Finally telling him not to ask anymore and then took away what little security he had. Opting instead for locals to do the job who were instantly infiltrated with terror types. None of that polls particularly well.

Even worse, when the shitte hit the fan and the whacky imams stirred up the terror types on Friday and then the well organized attack began that night things only got worse for the administration.

The fight lasted eight hours. Last night on Judge Jeanines show on FNC LT. Col. Anthony Shaffer stated that there were ships in the area that could have given help to the 4 under assault within a half hour if they had been asked. Evidently they weren't. That ain't gonna poll too well either!!

So there is a lot to lose from Benghazi and thats before we talk about how Stevens was involved in arms for Libya and then possibly Syria. Its a hornets nest. A cluster that they want no part of. So they will lie their way out any which way axelrod can invent.