Posted on 10/21/2012 5:43:58 PM PDT by PAR
When Schieffer asks the question (regardless how he puts it or how he might try to frame it in order to help Obama), I think he should start out by saying the following:
Romney could play it safe, soft pedal the issue, and not hold Obama accountable. I don’t believe this course of action makes sense under any scenario, but it could be argued that if he had a commanding lead in the battleground states that a relatively conservative approach might be preferable. It goes without saying that he does not have a commanding lead in all of the battleground states. The second choice is to aggressively hold Obama accountable for both the lack of security in Benghazi and the resulting cover-up. The question is how to go about successfully accomplishing the latter choice without coming across as boorish or overly aggressive and off-putting.
When Schieffer asks the question (regardless how he puts it or how he might try to frame it in order to help Obama), I think he should start out by saying the following:
“Well, Bob, as you are aware, what happened at Benghazi continues to receive a lot of attention in the media well over a month after the incident not only because this was the first time since 1979 that one of our Ambassadors was murdered but also because the Administration’s account of what happened has been subject to continued modification, leading many Americans and many in the news media to believe that a cover-up has taken place. (now cite several media sources, preferably progressive media outlets that have discussed the possibility of a cover-up).”
“In order to understand why some are alleging a cover-up, let’s briefly review the facts so we can better understand how we got to where we are today.”
1) (Cite the several security breaches (and their dates) that occurred in the last 12 months.)
2) (Cite the various people/times that additional security was requested, but denied – always say that “the administration” refused or removed “necessary” security)
3) “On 9/11, I REPEAT, ON 9/11 a terrorist attack took place on our Benhazi facility that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans, including our Libyan Ambassador, Chris Stevens.
4) “On 9/12 and even before then, the CIA and other sources within the State Department made the administration aware that the attack was not related to any demonstration (there was no demonstration) and that attack was a terrorist attack”
5) On 9/12, President Obama gave a speech where he decried a youtube video, made a comment about 9/11/01, and made a generic comment that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”. Note that, contrary to the President’s contention in the last debate, he did NOT, during this speech specifically label the Benghazi attack a “terror attack”
6) The American people were led to believe by the President’s spokesperson Jay Carney, Susan Rice, the President himself and other surrogates that the attack resulted from a spontaneous demonstration stemming from a youtube video. The President himself was asked several times – on the View and on David Letterman whether the attack was a terror attack. He refused to say that it was. Also, he mentioned the youtube video multiple times when he addressed the U.N.
7) It was only after x days and after incontrovertible testimony from x,y, and z that the administration was forced to admit that the attack was in fact a terrorist attack.
Given these facts, here is the question American people should demand and answer to: Did President Obama call it an act of terror in the last debate and then mislead the country for two weeks by claiming that it was a spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim movie? Or did he not call it terror on Sept. 12 and lie to the voters during the second debate when he claimed that he did refer to the attack as a terror attack in his Sept. 12 speech?
Any way you look at it, it appears the President has been dishonest. The question is why? What would the motivation be to deceive the American people regarding the true nature of the attack on Benghazi on 9/11/2012? There are two reasons:
1) First, the Ambassador and several others had indicated multiple times that additional security was needed and there was ample evidence in the form of several security breaches to back up their request. The administration refused these requests for additional security and now 4 Americans are dead as a result. We have 4 Americans dead because this administration refused the security necessary to insure their safety
2) A successful terror attack immediately on the heels of the democratic convention undermines the President’s claims regarding his “successful” foreign policy initiatives, particularly as it relates to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.”
As I have said before, Romney needs to make sure that he gets the last word in on this issue. He should be able to do this – he has the facts on his side. If necessary in order to not appear overly pushy or aggressive, he should say “Bob, that is a very important question and I will get to it shortly, but because the nature of the Libya issue is so vitally important for Americans to fully understand, I must respond….” Then he MUST point out how Obama has not addressed the specific issues he has raised and he must say “The American people have to decide for themselves why their President won’t give them a straight answer to a straight question”.
It’s a matter of gross negligence. Negligence kills.
How about - - Now, Mr. President, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted at the end of our last debate, you’ve now stated - twice - that on the day after the Libya attack which killed four Americans including our Libyan ambassador you called it a terrorist act, a fact since confirmed by the CIA and State Department. Can you explain then to the American people, indeed the people of the world, why you went before the United Nations two weeks later and six times told us that this outrage was actually caused by some obscure videotape which apparently very few had even seen?
Obama has been employing an “I said this. No, I said that. We knew this. No, we knew that” strategy to purposefully confuse the voter. His media buddies are in on it. I have faith that Romney will be prepared to succinctly and plainspokenly destroy this odious, demagoguing, embarrassment of a president.
This is way too long. Better to let this kind of detail play out in the public square.
That’s not to say Benghazi does not deserve attention at the debate, just not the kind of comprehensive attention you propose. Something pithier and directly accusatory of administration incompetence. I’d focus on the withdrawal of the security attachment in the days leading up to the attack, despite pleas that the security not be withdrawn.
He needs to clearly state:
Americans, do you feel safer today than 4 years ago?
>> I’d focus on the withdrawal of the security attachment in the days leading up to the attack,
Agreed; hence, my short comment regarding negligence.
>> This is way too long. Better to let this kind of detail play out in the public square.
I suppose you meant to address PAR.
great points.
He will tap it to see if Obama bites.
If Obama doesn't bite...Romney will move on.
Successful bidness is based on Sun Tzu's Art of War.
It is logical...not emotional.
Obama on the other hand...is all emotion. Narcissism is based on emotion...and Obama is a pathological narcissist. He will bite the bait...and he will lose.
His mental illness is not an asset...it is a handicap.
“It wasn’t a lack of intelligence it was a lack of common sense”....thats all he has to say, repeat as necessary.
Same can be said of Egypt...allowing free elections to moslums without thinking they would turn out like they did next door in Gaza or Lebanon.
He should say he will not deceive the American people like was done in Benghazi. To blame a military attack on a video was the height of arrogance.
Pray for America
If Zero answers first, which would be the correct order, Romney needs to First ask Zero if that is his “Optimal” answer then proceed as above.
Mitt needs to ask the follow up question:Why do you call the Ft Hood shooting
"workplace violence" and not TERRORISM" ??
We need a LEADER who is not afraid to say ‘terrorist attack’. We need a LEADER who doesn’t play word games like “The future does not belong to those who insult Islam”. Further, we need a LEADER WHO WOULD NEVER SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT! We need a LEADER who RETAINS NOT REMOVES all references to Islam from counter-terrorism manuals. We need a LEADER who realizes that the only way to FIGHT the war on terror is to ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS ONE and CLEARLY IDENTIFY WHO THE ENEMY IS (LIKE BUSH DID). We need a LEADER who understands that the ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ is a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION and that Egypt and Libya are WORSE OFF than before. We need a LEADER who DOESN’T wage wars without consent from Congress. We need a LEADER who promotes PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH, not the failed ideology of PEACE THROUGH SURRENDER like 0bama did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The phrase “bump in the road” needs to be worked into the discussion, too.
what about the fact that to this day, the FT HOOD shooting has been labeled a “workplace act of violence” rather than terror, even though the accused has stated it was an act of Jihad.
Well said. Also include the billions in aid to Countries that harbor and support terror.
I actually watched Lindsey Graham on Fox News Sunday with Wallace.
I’ll tell you what, I’m not a big LG fan, but he laid out the details of Libya into a scathing story. I thought, ‘damn, if Romney does something like that it’s over for O’.
Americans won’t tolerate a loser.....(a little George Patton lingo).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.