Wednesday, October 17, 2012
When the Benghazi embassy attack happened, Mr. Romney was making reckless and unfounded statements about the events while they were still occurring, in the literal sense that the buildings were still smoking. The implication--obvously false--that he had better intelligence information at hand than did Mr. Obama, has never been directly challenged, even during last night's 2nd Presidential slugfest. Nonetheless, even with the huge benefit of hindsight, Mr. Romney keeps tossing away his nice pair for the chance at an inside straight. It's pitiful, and an indication of how incompetent he would be at the actual job he's trying to get us to hire him for. Even a month after the Beghazi attack, Mr. Romney still did not know that Mr. Obama had termed the event terrorism at a news conference the next day. This leaves Romney's backers arguing that Mr. Obama didn't say "terrorism," when the plain fact of the transcript shows otherwise. This is laughable.
A lot of people will draw to an inside straight of course. It's certainly gambling, and in the context of gambling, well, gambling kinda makes sense in a way. But it's always, even in that context, a mistake. Unless of course you have already counted the cards. In which case then it becomes sorta like when General Norman did that flanking move around the Iraqi Army in Kuwait. Mr. Romney proves himself, in this "debate," to be a victim of his own propaganda, and a man willing to use the deaths of good people for his own ends. Romney's backers continue in full bluster about this non-event even when the survivors of the victims ask them to leave it alone.
And then, of course, there's this: