I posted the following comment on my Facebook page. It’s generated an interesting discussion among my friends, including my wonderful former student, and Notre Dame Law School grad, Michael Fragoso (who does not quite see eye to eye with me on this one):
Conservative Friends: I know that both sides in politics take people’s remarks out of context whenever doing so provides a way of making opponents look bad. Liberals do it to conservatives; conservatives do it to liberals. Democrats do it to Republicans and Republicans do it to Democrats. Republicans do it to Republicans, and Democrats do it to Democrats, in primary elections. But that doesn’t make it right. The public good is not served by it, and often it is disserved. At the risk of coming off as prissy and perhaps something of a scold to boot, may I respectfully request that we not seize upon President Obama’s remark about losing four men in Libya being “not optimal”? In context, the remark was not disrespectful, callous, or otherwise untoward. Honestly, it is not fair to use it to depict the President as making light of the killing of our Ambassador and those who were murdered with him. My Facebook friends know I have been very tough on the President for his handling of the Libyan affair (and for many other things). I am working hard, as I know many of you are, to defeat him. I have been extremely critical of what I believe was a grotesque lie told by the President in the most recent debate, suggesting that from the start he had identified the Libyan attack as a premeditated act by terrorists, and not merely a spontaneous attack by a mob that had been enflamed by an offensive anti-Islamic film. I believe he will pay a heavy political price for that lie. And he should. But let’s criticize the President, and our political opponents generally, for what they deserve criticism for. Let’s not criticize them unfairly. Let’s be citizens, not partisans.
October 19th, 2012 | 2:42 pm
I see nothing inchorent or inconsistent in Prof. George’s understanding here. One characterisitic of the president is a tone and manner that seem incapable of expressing empathy or much else but advocacy and sarcasm. Another is a vocabularly and way of expressing himself that is not particularly imaginative, discriminating, or, again, empathic. Perhaps the brutal Peoples Republic of China’s Communist Party was not entirely absurd to relocate intellectuals and products of elite institutions off to wheat fields and oil rigs. The president is desperate need of a change of company. No matter who wins on Nov. 6th, he won’t have it.
October 19th, 2012 | 3:27 pm
I would find it easier to follow the noble path of placing citizenship before partisanship had the same standard been applied to President George W. Bush, who was accused by Paul Krugman of “cashing in on the horror of 9/11″ or routinely referred to as a “fascist” and a warmonger by countless liberals. But I’ll give it a try….
October 19th, 2012 | 5:09 pm
This may be good advice, but Robert George is hardly the one to give it, unless his message is, “Do as I say, not what I do.” He has numerous times accused Obama of supporting infanticide. Even in this message urging everyone to be fair, he accuses Obama of a “grotesque lie” in the debate. His recent attack on the theologian authors (including Charles Camosy) of “On All of Our Shoulders,” which George acknowledges to be a show of “contempt,” was hardly the charitable act of a disinterested Catholic concerned about Church teaching who just happens to be a Romney/Ryan supporter.
October 19th, 2012 | 7:32 pm
Intellectually, I agree with George, of course. And I saw the clip. Obama is obviously not making light of Benghazi. On the other hand, Obama and his policies are such a clear and present danger to the Republic, and getting rid of him is so important, that I have a hard time objecting to anything that helps to do that. I’ll try, though.
October 20th, 2012 | 8:31 am
David Nickol: I think what Prof. George is referring to (concerning the infanticide issue), is when Pres. Obama was a state senator, he apparently opposed a bill that would require doctors to provide all the care necessary to save the life of the fetus, if it survives an abortion. (federally, THE BORN ALIVE PROTECTION ACT addresses this). Apparently, Mr. Obama, while he certainly doesn’t seem to support infanticide pre se, voted against protecting the fetus that survives an abortion, because he believed that it would set a precedent for further anti-abortion measures. THE WEEKLY STANDARD, has an informative article on this. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/404kfgky.asp
October 20th, 2012 | 3:08 pm
One of the flaws in Robert George’s thinking is that individuals deliberately and cynically choose to be “partisan.” While I think this may possibly be the case some of the time with some politicians and political consultants, I think it is the case that, for example, Robert George really does think Obama told a “grotesque lie” about Benghazi, and others (including myself) see no lie at all and consider Robert George to be blatantly “partisan” on this point.
We could argue about the Rose Garden statement in which Obama refers to terrorism, and we could argue about exactly what was said in the debate. And I think we would probably honestly disagree, with each side considering the other side partisan.
Also, the fact checkers have found no shortage of Romney and Ryan statements that they consider misleading, incomplete, or not accurate. Would Robert George label a Romney/Ryan untruth a “grotesque lie”? Isn’t the rhetoric we use part of “partisanship”?
The fact of the matter is that those who are Obama supporters and those who are Romney supporters interpret the same set of facts quite differently. This is not to say that they are both right always, or there is no real truth. On the other hand, it seems to me that whether or not one considers something an “egregious lie” has a great deal to do with one’s viewpoint and not so much with how factual the statement is.
I might, for example, point out that Romney clearly made the “47 percent” comments. We have them on tape. At the time they came out, Romney’s statements about what he had said were widely characterized by the press as “doubling down” on the comments. Yes, they were inelegantly stated, he said, but in general he stuck by them. Then later, Romney says, “Well, clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you’re going to say something that doesn’t come out right. In this case, I said something that’s just completely wrong.” Now, taken his initial comments to the donors, the sticking by the remarks although saying they were inelegantly stated, and the comment that he said something “completely wrong,” it is impossible to harmonize them. I think Republicans would not be quick to accuse Romney of “egregious lies” here, but clearly everything Romney said could not have been true.
October 20th, 2012 | 3:23 pm
Mister George is correct. This is as pointless a controversy as jumping on Romney’s “binder” comment. And Publius correctly points to the contrast with the brutal, sarcastic distortion Democrats lavished on every word from from George W. Bush’s mouth.
But there is a legitimate criticism of Obama to be made here. The “optimal” mis-step came easily in a presidential appearance on a “comedy news” show. Our Head of State should not be engaging in discussion of serious foreign-policy life-and-death issues with a comedian. Such an appearance is inherently trivializing.
Congenial as it may be, Mr. President, that place is not your place.
October 20th, 2012 | 5:45 pm
Well .. . .Obama -does- support infanticide. He even voted in favor of post-birth infanticide three times while in the Illinois Senate. . .
October 20th, 2012 | 10:31 pm
If one is to deny Barack Obama protected infanticide, when he energetically found ways to do so FIVE times in his career, I suppose we can easily dismiss his dissembling on Benghazi.
October 20th, 2012 | 10:55 pm
@David Nickol…
Lets say you *had* to try and come up with a substantial difference between what Robert George was saying we shouldn’t do and things he has done. What’s the best you can do?
October 21st, 2012 | 5:35 pm
Lets say you *had* to try and come up with a substantial difference between what Robert George was saying we shouldn’t do and things he has done.
Michael V,
I think a good example of what Robert George claims to be opposed to is right in his post.
I have been extremely critical of what I believe was a grotesque lie told by the President in the most recent debate, suggesting that from the start he had identified the Libyan attack as a premeditated act by terrorists, and not merely a spontaneous attack by a mob that had been enflamed by an offensive anti-Islamic film.
This is, in my opinion, almost a purely partisan take on the debate and the issue of what happened in Benghazi. I am sure we will get more discussion of it in the final debate, but it seems to me to be the case that details of what happened in Benghazi are unclear to everyone. Note this from the Washington Post:
Or see David Ignatius’s column titled CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks.
The fact of the matter is that Obama in his Rose Garden statement the day after the attack did not say the attack was/was not a preplanned terrorist attack, but he clearly did regard it as an act of terrorism. He also did not say it was/was not related to the anti-Muslim video, although he did allude to the video. George, if I understand him correctly, seems to believe Obama lied egregiously by saying he had, from the outset, called the Benghazi attack a preplanned terrorist attack. To the best of my knowledge, Obama has never said it was/was not preplanned. And as of this point in time, it is not clear whether it was/was not preplanned. It is also not clear whether the anti-Muslim video was/was not a motivating factor.
The fact checking sites I have looked at tend to say that Romney had some legitimate points about how the administration and its representatives characterized the attack, but so did Obama. I would say if Robert George wants to be a citizen and not a partisan, he should acknowledge that fact rather than accuse Obama of telling an egregious lie.
October 21st, 2012 | 11:53 pm
David, see the statements of Jay Carney and Susan Rice re the murder of our ambassador as the result of a spontaneous riot generated by an anti-Islamic movie trailer. This was the position held by the administration for approximately two weeks. We now know, according to CBS news, that the final hours of the coordinated attack was being viewed in real time by the Defense Department. There was no demonstration, as they could see in real time. Those are facts not subject to partisan interpretation — for whatever reason the administration chose to dissemble for two weeks.
October 22nd, 2012 | 10:05 am
There was no demonstration, as they could see in real time. Those are facts not subject to partisan interpretation — for whatever reason the administration chose to dissemble for two weeks.
Publius,
Please see After Benghazi Attack, Talk Lagged Behind Intelligence:
We now know, according to CBS news, that the final hours of the coordinated attack was being viewed in real time by the Defense Department. There was no demonstration, as they could see in real time.
How can you tell from watching the final hours of an attack how it began?
It is clear to me that the Obama administration was relying on intelligence reports to convey what was happening. Intelligence reports may may have been inaccurate or confused in the immediate aftermath of the attack, but that is perfectly understandable. (Remember how sure we were that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? We even went to war over it.)
How is it possible to know how far ahead the attackers planned or what their motives were until we can identify who they are? This issue is being politicized by Republicans as part of the election campaign.
October 22nd, 2012 | 10:25 am
First, what is wrong with being a partisan? Don’t the parties stand for different principles? Aren’t they quite different in their visions for America?
Second, the problem with the “optimal” comment wasn’t so much the word itself but that the President of the United States was discussing the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans on a comedy show that makes light of the news. If the President doesn’t want to be accused of taking foreign policy lightly, perhaps he ought to avoid the frivolous television shows and the Hollywood fundraisers.
October 22nd, 2012 | 12:35 pm
Here’s an alternative conservative take: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/intelligence-reports-are-not-necessarily-the-truth/
October 22nd, 2012 | 1:02 pm
David,
The Obama administration has “politicized” the story by persisting with a faulty account of the Benghazi murders by insisting for two weeks that the murder of four Americans was the result of a “spontaneous demonstration” due to a movie trailer. These facts are indisputable: Ambassador Stevens had been requesting additional security for weeks prior to the 9/11 assault. Last week, the State Department said that it never believed the 9/11 attack on the U.S. consulate was the result of a protest over an anti-Islam movie, contradicting previous statements. Both Susan Rice and Jay Carney persisted in telling the nation that the attacks were the result of a “spontaneous demonstration” — and now we are told that the CIA Station Chief submitted a report within 24 hours of the attack noting that it appeared to be a coordinated terrorist assault, yet the Obama administration’s disinformation campaign persisted. Susan Rice, Jay Carney and others had the option of saying “no comment” or “we don’t know at this time” instead of propagating a myth. That’s “politicizing” the story…..
October 22nd, 2012 | 2:59 pm
the Obama administration’s disinformation campaign persisted
Publius,
You have not given evidence for a single assertion in your above post.
Both Susan Rice and Jay Carney persisted in telling the nation that the attacks were the result of a “spontaneous demonstration” . . . .
I have already cited articles from both the Washington Post and the New York Times pertaining to what Susan Rice and other officials said. They were relying on information from the CIA:
So Rice was giving information based on what she was told by the CIA. But let’s look at a bit of what Susan Rice said, which is significantly different from what you claim she and others said. And note, by the way, how tentatively she speaks. She is saying there is an investigation taking place, but she is giving the best available information she has at that early time. Do you believe this to be a lie?
She is not, in fact, saying that it was just an angry mob protesting a video and it got out of hand. She is saying (based on what the CIA told her) that there was a protest and then extremists with heavy weapons joined in. I fail to see what difference it makes whether the extremists (terrorists) joined an ongoing demonstration or just attacked on their own.
Susan Rice, Jay Carney and others had the option of saying “no comment” or “we don’t know at this time” instead of propagating a myth.
Susan Rice, Jay Carney, and, I might add, the press were all making it clear they were giving out the best available information they had at the time. It is simply preposterous to expect the President, the Press Secretary, and the UN Ambassador to say, “No comment. We can’t say anything until an investigation is completed.”
Ambassador Stevens had been requesting additional security for weeks prior to the 9/11 assault.
That is actually another issue entirely.
October 22nd, 2012 | 3:13 pm
and now we are told that the CIA Station Chief submitted a report within 24 hours of the attack noting that it appeared to be a coordinated terrorist assault, yet the Obama administration’s disinformation campaign persisted.
Publius,
Note the following:
I think you somehow expect American intelligence to have immediate, clear, infallible answers to all possible questions within 24 hours of an even halfway around the world. In truth, the full details of what happened in Benghazi may never be known. Let me just say one more time—we went to war largely because of intelligence, gathered over months, about (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
October 22nd, 2012 | 6:20 pm
David, your account, while an able defense of the Obama administration, is outdated. We now know that:
1. Ambassador Stevens repeatedly requested additional protection in the days leading up to his murder
2. A live phone line, a drone circling above, and the CIA station located one mile from the consulate reported a coordinated attack involving RPGs and automatic weapons. There was no report of a demonstration
3. The assault lasted 7 hours, during which time 4 Americans were killed, and no assistance was authorized from Washington despite the real time information. The terrorists were unable to locate the Ambassador initially, but found him in a “safe house” where he had fled.
4. The administration persisted for two weeks to describe the murders as the result of a spontaneous demonstration related to a movie, rather than a coordinated terrorist assault.
October 23rd, 2012 | 10:05 am
David N,
As Publius had stated, an able defense of a position now indefensible. The facts on the ground have overtaken the Administration’s alternate narrative and the results are there for all to see.
We now know, for instance, that the President moved Special Operations forces in the region to ready status but the judgment was made that it was too late. In what world does one prepare elite (and exceedingly deadly) forces to respond to a “spontaneous demonstration”?
In what world does one accept (and continue to promote) a narrative that a heavily armed and clearly organized cadre of terrorists sprang forth (like Athena from the head of Zeus) out of a disorganized mob protest about a months-old You Tube video clip?
In what world does one know that there was precisely targeted indirect fire (mortars) — fire that, to be effective, takes significant strategic planning, and yet not at, at the very least, indicate to an anxious public that the outlines of a pre-planned and executed terrorist action were clearly evident?
Your answer to all of this (lately) has been that of the Administration (lately). It was an “intelligence failure” (or more accurately multiple “failures”). Suppose one stipulates to that narrative and accepts the David N. (inapt, in my view) analogy to the casus belli for the war in Iraq? If one were to accept this analogy, is it not therefore appropriate to respond as those on the Left did to that circumstance? To wit: “Bush lied, people died!”
If, as you and many others in your party have declared, a President (GWB), is morally and politically culpable for intelligence failures on the part of his administration, how does President Obama escape the selfsame judgment? Would it not, by the very standards of your analogy, be fair to say “Obama lied, people died”? If not, why not?
October 23rd, 2012 | 10:16 am
Publius,
The case against Obama and his administration is apparently so damning on the matter of Benghazi that given a national audience and a set-up question by Bob Scheiffer, Romney said:
October 23rd, 2012 | 2:41 pm
The facts on the ground have overtaken the Administration’s alternate narrative and the results are there for all to see.
david c.,
I’d like to point out two things, and then, if I have time, I will try to answer some of your points.
First, my point in writing on this topic was to demonstrate, which I believe I have done, that Robert George’s statement that Obama told a “grotesque lie” in the second debate in his exchange with Romney (and Candy Crowley) as to whether he had or had not called the attack on Benghazi a “terrorist attack.” I think this analysis from Factcheck.org bends over backwards to be evenhanded, and there is no justification in it for accusing Obama of telling a “grotesque lie.” Robert George, I content, was viewing the debate through very partisan eyes. I don’t claim to be objective or nonpartisan myself, but grotesque lie is extraordinarily strong language to describe and exchange which independent fact checkers characterized as having some truth on both sides. In my opinion, you and Publius are taking this discussion far, far past anything I was attempting to comment on.
Second, I have taken great pains to rely on the latest news accounts and to document everything I have said with quotes from reliable news sources and links. You and Publius have simply asserted facts and put interpretations on them without citing any sources. I am deliberately not citing liberal sources like The Nation or Mother Jones, even though I believe they have good information, since I am trying to present, as far as possible, reporting from major news sources that can’t be dismissed out of hand by partisans on either side. I can’t tell where your information is coming from or how reliable the sources are.
Your answer to all of this (lately) has been that of the Administration (lately). It was an “intelligence failure” (or more accurately multiple “failures”).
I have not heard any administrations sources claim there was a failure of intelligence in the ongoing investigation in the Benghazi attack. If you check my message above (October 22nd, 2012 | 10:05 am) you will see that what has been said is that intelligence gathering and reporting is not instantaneous. It develops over time. We still don’t know the answers. Here’s a story from just three days ago from ABC News titled Intelligence Shows No Planning for Benghazi Consulate Attack:
If, as you and many others in your party have declared, a President (GWB), is morally and politically culpable for intelligence failures on the part of his administration, how does President Obama escape the selfsame judgment?
I don’t recall ever saying that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction (or about anything else, for that matter). It has almost become a cliche that not only US Intelligence, but the intelligence agencies of other countries, thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I do think, however, that Bush and Cheney very much wanted to go to war with Iraq, they were too eager to assess the evidence clearheadedly, and there was no need. I think if you ask virtually anyone, they will say the war in Iraq was a war of choice, not a war of necessity. Iraq should never have been invaded. I do think some military action was called for against Afghanistan, but I think an invasion was a mistake. I think history will judge Bush as having taken the United States into two unnecessary, unjustified wars and as having left the messes for his successors to clean up. But I wouldn’t call him a liar. Nixon was the liar.
October 23rd, 2012 | 10:50 pm
David, your account defending the President has been overtaken by events, and yet it seems that your partisanship prevents you from acknowledging this . . . . And deflecting criticism by citing Mitt Romney adds nothing to the fact that the administration knew what happened as it happened. You might branch out and enjoy Googling “drone over Benghazi,” or “open line to State Department from Benghazi.” CBS News has been very good on this story, as has the Daily Beast. These sources and others will take you beyond the administration line if you are open to it.
October 24th, 2012 | 10:43 am
the administration knew what happened as it happened
Publius,
I am not sure what that even means. Here’s a quote from CBS News from yesterday:
Do we know who the attackers were? Do we know how far in advance they planned? It seems to me that Obama and other administration officials were cautious in what they said, but I simply don’t see a concerted campaign to deceive. Nor do I think there was any motive to deceive. Why would a spontaneous demonstration against the Benghazi consulate that ended in the killing of four Americans be any “better” than a planned attack by al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group?
Interest in the “conspiracy theory” aspect of this is fading fast, because there was no conspiracy. There are many legitimate questions to be asked, but there is simply no compelling evidence that the Obama administration sought to deceive the American people about the nature of the attack.
October 24th, 2012 | 1:18 pm
David:
It’s pretty simple: it means the State Department and the White House were watching via a drone circling above and listening via an open telephone line as to what was going on as the consulate in Benghazi was under assault (aka the “spontaenous demonstration”).
From today’s Reuters (and elsewhere, if you choose to look):
“Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.”
October 24th, 2012 | 3:08 pm
“Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.”
Publius,
From ABC News:
Do you honestly consider it reliable intelligence that Ansar al-Sharia allegedly posted to Facebook and Twitter that they were responsible for the attack? Facebook and Twitter? Imagine intelligence officials testifying before congress and being asked, “How do you know who perpetrated this attack?” Imagine them answering, “It was on Facebook and Twitter!”
So Ansar al-Sharia has allegedly both claimed and denied responsibility for the attack.
And as I quoted above, Obama said on “60 Minutes,” only 14 hours after the attack:
October 24th, 2012 | 9:22 pm
David,
Al Qaeda and their affiliates use social media all the time. They are not in a position to hold formal press conferences.
October 25th, 2012 | 11:05 am
David N,
As I said, valiant effort but futile. You state that I have simply “asserted facts without support”. My facts above are rather simple and (I thought) well known on the public record. I stated:
1) the President gave the make ready command to the forces nearest to hand — including special operators. Do you deny this?
2)The forces which attacked the embassy were armed with heavy automatic weapons and RPG — not the sort of thing available to any old mob on the street even in a place like Libya. Evidence of the effects of these weapons was visually available within hours of the attack and were all over the internet and news media. Do you deny this?
3) There was drone footage and reports from those on the scene during the attack of targeted mortar rounds landing on buildings within the compound. Basic military knowledge instructs us that accurate mortar fire must be either pre- calculated or called in by forward observers — either of which takes planning and intelligence. David, mortars are light artillery — further de facto evidence of terrorist involvement rather than mob violence run amok. Do you deny this?
I will ask then, what “spin” have I placed on these facts? All of this information was known in the first few hours of the attack. All of the evidence (including now security video from the compound grounds) pointed to and continues to point to a coordinated terror attack unrelated to some sort of spontaneous mob action or spurious claims about inflammatory You Tube videos.
Which leads to my final point. You write mockingly of the claims of responsibility by terrorists for the attack through social media… And offer a scenario in which intelligence officials are asked: “How do you know who perpetrated this attack?” Imagine them answering, “It was on Facebook and Twitter!”
Wow crazy right? Except that that is precisely the kind of explanation the Administration and it’s defenders like yourself, proffered for weeks.– or to put it in your imaginative terms: “How do you know what precipitated this attack?” Imagine them answering, “It was a You Tube video!”
October 25th, 2012 | 1:20 pm
David C.,
Nice response poking holes in the arguments of those defending the Obama administration’s account(s) of the events of 9/11/12. Had this occurred four years ago, how long do you think it would take before the battle cry “Bush Lied, People Died” would be bandied about in all the “right” places….?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact