To take a momentary reprieve from the horserace and hurricane coverage, is there any reasonable conservative* critique to the Administration's handling of the attacks on the Libyan embassy? The whole thing seems to be entirely pulled from the fever swamps of right wing imaginations. But maybe there is some legitimate thing that could be said about what went wrong. Since there seems to be a non-zero chance that a close Obama reelection will lead to the House voting impeachment articles against him over the incident, I feel like I should be well-armed.
*I know, "reasonable conservative" is mostly an oxy-moron at this point. But I try to give the benefit of the doubt.
Neil Sinhababu and Nicholas Beaudrot's political blog
2 comments:
The conservative claim is Obama stopped the military from going in and watched Ambassador Stevens die.
After Barack's win the House Republicans will bring up articles of impeachment assuming they still have the house and Faux will spend 4 years day after day trying to reconstruct this as Obama aided the terrorists.
Right, that's the most feverish of the fevered claims.
I'm just looking to see if there's some critique -- any critique -- that David Brooks could put in an op-ed with a straight face beyond "the messaging was a little bungled" in the first few days, which is easily rebutted by "it wasn't immediately clear what was going on!"
Post a Comment