Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Why NOT politicize Benghazi?

We heard once again in last night's debate that the Romney campaign should not politicize the terrorist attack in Benghazi that was not a terrorist attack then, but which is now that we know more, even though we still don't have a complete enough investigation into what happened there to say exactly what it was even though that didn't stop us from saying that it was a protest over a movie.

Okay, well let's just say Romney is politicizing the issue. The first question then is how Mr. Romney is politicizing the issue any more than people in Obama's administration already politicized it when they portrayed it as some sort of popular protest over a movie in order to make it agree with the Obama political narrative about the improved U.S. relations in the Middle East.

The second question is what moral rule we are employing here to say that anyone shouldn't politicize it. Is the rule that we shouldn't politicize any incident in which Americans are being killed overseas? Where were the Democrats who are saying that now when George McGovern ran an entire campaign over the Vietman War, an incident in which many, many more people were dying than died in Benghazi.

In fact, where were these self-righteous Democrats when they themselves were criticizing George Bush over the Iraq War? Weren't people dying there?

The Democrats (and the Republicans, for that matter) politicize everything that it is to their advantage to politicize. So why not politicize this?

10 comments:

Andrew said...

Fine Martin, but your scales are off. The fact that so many people died in Vietnam and Iraq means it is more appropriate to make it a political issue, not less - as you imply in the form of your argument.

It's political: I agree. It's hard not to politicize a political activity. But the truth of your point means it deserves a better argument - less glib.

Art said...

Obama's administration already politicized it when they portrayed it as some sort of popular protest over a movie

Now you're writing copy for Romney, I see.

It took precious little time for the powers that be to suspect that the assault on the consulate was not part of the protests against the movie.

I say this - when one or more of the Romney clan put themselves directly in harm's way by serving on the embassy staff in, say, Libya or Egypt, then maybe Romney can say something about the violence that befell our diplomats in Libya and Egypt. Until then, this particular Republican chicken hawk coward should try to find something else to lie about.

Anonymous said...

There's a reason Michelle Obama broke debate rules by applauding when her husband was spinning Benghazi..she knows this can send them both back to Chicago. By the way, wasn't our "lead from behind" bombing of Libya illegal? If not, why did Democrats want articles of impeachment when Nixon bombed VC supply and troop movement lines in Cambodia?

Lee said...

It's simple, really.

When a Republican is president, dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

When a Democrat is president, you should keep quiet because shut up.

EX PORNOSTAR SIMONA PREMOLI. EX AMANTE LESBICA MARINA BERLUSCONI. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
EX PORNOSTAR SIMONA PREMOLI. EX AMANTE LESBICA MARINA BERLUSCONI. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
EX PORNOSTAR SIMONA PREMOLI. EX AMANTE LESBICA MARINA BERLUSCONI. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
EX PORNOSTAR SIMONA PREMOLI. EX AMANTE LESBICA MARINA BERLUSCONI. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
EX PORNOSTAR SIMONA PREMOLI. EX AMANTE LESBICA MARINA BERLUSCONI. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
EX PORNOSTAR SIMONA PREMOLI. EX AMANTE LESBICA MARINA BERLUSCONI. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.