Election 2012

Benghazi Reaction vs. 9/11 Reaction

I've had this ongoing theory that if Al Gore had been president during 9/11, the Republicans would've tried to impeach him for it. Instead, Bush was president and the entire nation rallied around him in the wake of the largest terrorist attack on American soil. Incidentally, the next day, Bush referred to 9/11 as "acts of terror." Not making that up.

If the Bush administration had taken reports of Bin Laden's intentions more seriously, perhaps the 9/11 attacks could've been prevented. But they weren't. And no one played politics with the attack -- at least until Bush himself repeatedly used the attacks to gin up support for Iraq and when his team used 9/11 imagery in a 2004 campaign ad.

But, conversely, when terrorists hit the consulate in Benghazi, Romney and the Republicans couldn't even exercise the decency or discipline to wait until the disaster was over before they politicized it by attacking the president. Imagine if the Democrats had reacted the same way during 9/11. They would've been tarred and feathered and driven out of Washington on a rail. Yet the Republicans do it with impunity.

This says a lot about how Republicans too often comport themselves in the wake of a disaster -- these self-proclaimed "patriots" are merely fair-weather patriots, only willing to lend their unified support when the president is from their own party. Even though 3,000 Americans were killed in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia on Bush's watch, I wouldn't be shocked if the Republicans, given the chance, tried to impeach Obama for the Benghazi attack. Utterly disgraceful.

  • Victor_the_Crab

    There’s another word to describe these self-proclaimed patriotic Republicans.


  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Norris/1597765442 Michael Norris

    I sometimes wonder about that too. But it won’t happen. After this election, the Republicans are going to have to regroup. They are going to have to listen to the more intelligent and reasonable members of their party to answer the question, “What the fuck is wrong with us?”

    The other side of the equation is that there are people in this country who will burn it to the ground if the Republicans try to take over the country by taking out the president. As mad and crazy as I would be over that–I might light the first torch.

    • Victor_the_Crab

      First, they have to find some intelligent and reasonable Republicans that they haven’t already driven out.

    • Treading_Water

      If they win this election, it will be because their far right extremist viewpoint worked, just like in 2010, and they will be emboldened to take it even further. If they lose, it will be because they were sabotaged by a RINO Romney campaign, and they will go even further to the right. Any other reaction will be tacit admission that their far right wing worldview is wrong, and they will NEVER admit that.

  • Brutlyhonest

    Not only would they have impeached a President Gore, they would have charged as many members of the administration as they could possibly link to the attacks with treason – and probably would have achieved convictions.

    Sort of ironic, to me, that a guy like mike hayden might have been included in the round up (Director, NSA at the time), and now he’s taking every opportunity to undermine the President while proving his wingnut chops.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

    “Even though 3,000 Americans were killed in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia on Bush’s watch”

    On Obama’s watch, there have been exactly ZERO successful attacks on American soil, and only ONE on foreign soil, with 4 casualties.

    I’d say that indicates a successful anti-terror policy that Republicans would be crowing about at the top of their fucking lungs if it were their own record.

    • D_C_Wilson

      Yes, but the republican talking point is that there were no successful terrorist attacks during the Bush administration, the anthrax scare and DC sniper attacks never happened and 9/11 doesn’t count because mumble, mumble.

  • Ned F

    I don’t know where the myth came from that Republicans are the party of strong national security and foreign relations, as all I can see is, it doesn’t come from success, they simply talk with more belligerence and bluster. Both Reagan and Nixon fostered cooperation with Russia and China, that if was pursued by a Democrat, would be blasted as treasonous.
    Desperate to find anything to discredit this administration’s foreign policy and military success and to prove the myth of incompetence, they couldn’t help themselves from throwing up on their shoes at the first whiff of disaster.

    • Brutlyhonest

      “I don’t know where the myth came from that Republicans are the party of strong national security and foreign relations …”

      That was one of the threads in their brilliantly executed, devious perception management campaign. By always pushing for more defense spending (more accurately described as welfare for the defense industry), they’ve “proved” it. Funny (not haha) that they are afraid of almost everything; what they aren’t afraid of, they whine about.

      Pro-defense industry is not the same as pro-military.

      • jeanne marie

        “Pro-defense industry is not the same as pro-military.” Exactly.

    • D_C_Wilson

      They built their reputation for being strong on defense and foreign policy by constantly saying that they were strong on defense and foreign policy.

      At one point they did have republicans who were capable diplomats. Bush Senior was a major foreign policy wonk. But after decades of pandering to their xenophobic wing, they’ve become the party of Frank Burns.