Big or small, you have to get the story straight to be able to intelligently analyze it.
The first thing Mitt Romney did was screw up the story. Within hours, he accused the White House of issuing an apology it didn’t issue. Romney, not Obama, screwed up. Is the guy really Presidential material when he can’t touch a foreign policy issue (hey, let’s insult the UK!) without screwing up?
Tom Friedman had An Excellent point this morning, and that in light of the tragedy of losing 4 Americans, the Libyan people a day after the attack took it upon themselves to go out in the streets and support the American government, something that has NEVER be done before.
Not sure the OP’s rally-around-the-president-and-flag theory holds up. The American public would seem to be quite fickle with significant attacks abroad.
US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were bombed on August 7, 1998.
Per Gallup, Clinton’s approval ratings did not budge much at all.
Approve Disapprove No opinion
98 Sep 14-15 63 35 2
98 Sep 11-12 63 34 3
98 Aug 21-23 62 35 3
98 Aug 10-12 65 30 5
98 Aug 7-8 64 32 4
98 Jul 13-14 63 31 6
But Clinton did see a bump in approval following the USS Cole bombing on October 12, 2000. He was, of course, a lame duck at that point with the Bush v. Gore election only weeks away.
Approve Disapprove No opinion
00 Dec 15-17 66 32 2
00 Dec 2-4 60 35 5
00 Nov 13-15 63 33 4
00 Oct 25-28 57 38 5
00 Oct 6-9 58 37 5
I looked for similar week-by-week data for Reagan’s approval following the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut but could not find the data.
US Ambassador to Afghanistan Adolph Dubs died in an exchange of gunfire between his kidnappers and Afghan/Soviet security forces on February 14, 1979. The Roper Center cites Gallup polling showing Carter’s approval rating dropping from 42% before the attack to 37% in the subsequent poll. His approval rating would take a sharp leap (32% up to 51% approval) nearly two weeks after the November 4, 1979 taking of hostages in the Tehran embassy.
The public is very fickle.
The OP (me) didn’t specify that approval always bumped up–what I said was that conventional wisdom dictated that. I specified that it seems to work that way for R presidents, whose base is jingoist morons, but maybe not for D presidents so much.
Where are you getting this conventional wisdom from, and how does it apply to an attack such as this one?
It might help if you produced some actual data to back up what you “specified”.
Sorry, John. Didn’t know I was responsible for producing hard data for how the conventional wisdoms seems…
Here’s how it works:
Produce evidence that this is the conventional wisdom. And be sure to relate it to this type of attack, which is quite distinct from an attack on actual US soil by foreign agents (like the on on 9/11/01).
If you are successful at that, then you need to produce data that this wisdom is correct.
Otherwise, I can’t see why anyone would want to debate something that only exists, at least for now, in your imagination.
THE PUBLIC EDITOR
My intention in writing it was far less grandiose. I wanted to make the case that the hearing had enough news value to display it on the front page — as most major newspapers did — rather than on Page A3. Jill Abramson, The Times’s executive editor, and Dean Baquet, a managing editor, told me that the hearing did not break enough new ground to warrant the front page; they also said they were wary of its partisan politics.
The amount and vehemence of the reader response struck me as important. So I took two days this past week to reread all of The Times’s Libya coverage since Sept. 12, the day after the attack.
I drew a couple of conclusions.
First, it is utterly wrong to say that The Times has ignored or buried the Libya story. As of Friday, editors had placed it on the front page on 18 days out of 38, sometimes with news, sometimes with analysis.
The coverage has been extensive, aggressive and sweeping.
snip*
Second, to be more critical, the Libya coverage has not consistently and effectively helped readers make sense of what is happening. The Times has not effectively connected the dots in a murky, fast-moving and difficult-to-report story.
I did see efforts to do that — most clearly in a strong question-and-answer article last Thursday by Scott Shane, a national security reporter. That article, however, did not appear on the front page but on Page A16.
*snip the rest
Clearing the Record About Benghazi
By SCOTT SHANE
The dispute over how the Obama administration has characterized the lethal attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, last month boiled over once again in the debate on Tuesday night between President Obama and Mitt Romney. But questions about what happened in the attack, and disputes over who said what about it, have left many people confused. Here are some of the facts as they are now known:
When did Mr. Obama first talk about the attack on Sept. 11 in Benghazi, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, as terrorism?
Mr. Obama applied the “terror” label to the attack in his first public statement on the events in Benghazi, delivered in the Rose Garden at the White House at 10:43 a.m. on Sept. 12, . . .
snip
Was that the only time Mr. Obama used the “terror” label?
No. The next day, Sept. 13, in a campaign appearance in Las Vegas, he used similar language.
snip
If the president referred to the attack as an “act of terror” twice in those two days, why has there been such a controversy over what Republicans call the administration’s deep reluctance to label the attack terrorism?
The “act of terror” references attracted relatively little notice at the time, . . . .
snip
What exactly did the administration officials say that prompted the Republican response?
Several officials emphasized that the attack appeared to be spontaneous, . . .
snip
When did administration officials begin consistently to use the “terrorism” label?
On Sept. 19, Matthew G. Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said about the killings in Benghazi during a Senate hearing, “Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.” The next day, asked about Mr. Olsen’s testimony, Mr. Carney declared, “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
What were American intelligence agencies saying about the attack?
snip
(James R. Clapper Jr.) . . . <said> snipping intelligence analysts who at first believed that the attacks were part of a spontaneous protest revised their initial assessments “to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”
What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?
snip the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place.
Is it fair to link the Benghazi attack to Al Qaeda?
Only very indirectly. Ayman al-Zawahri, the leader of Al Qaeda, had called on Libyans to avenge the killing of a Libyan-born Qaeda leader, and American intelligence officials have said they intercepted boastful phone calls after the assault from the attackers to members of the Qaeda affiliate in North Africa, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
Why has this event become such a flash point in the presidential campaign?
snip Republicans have seized on the Benghazi attack — which resulted in the first killing of an American ambassador in decades — snip suggesting that the administration has exaggerated its success against Al Qaeda and has pursued policies that have left the Middle East in chaos.
So, why did Amb. Stevens go to Benghazi? First story I heard said he was responding to rioting and unrest, felt he needed to be with his people. But there was none?
Did the terrorists know he was there? Or were they simply attacking a relatively soft target and didn’t know? Why not the embassy in Tripoli, if they want to be rough tough terrorists?
And whats this about bragging on the phone about it? Talking on the phone is whispering in The Man’s ear. They don’t know this shit, these terrorists?
Is it possible the terrorists were lying? My reading suggests that Amb. Stevens was well regarded in Libya, perhaps they spread the story themselves, to give them cover and “legitimacy”. Were they hoping to capture the ambassador alive, hold him hostage as a bargaining chip?
And, finally, considering how much we don’t know even now, where in the hell did Romney get his rock solid intelligence from?
Define “conventional wisdom,” with precision and exactitude as to parameters of sampling polls, which specifically must refer to “conventional wisdom” and not to any other measure, and distinguish all the possible types of attacks, not only “domestic” and “foreign” (and “both” of course, as well as measuring the combination of both in proportion) but also providing large enough samples of each type of attack and each poll (multiple weekly tracking polls on each event would be required, of course) to be certain–and I mean CERTAIN–that you’re measuring what you think you’re measuring.
And show your work.
Then I’ll think about complying with your request.
Democrats didn’t politicize terrorist attacks, going back at least as far as Carter, in the way Romney/Ryan are doing today. Mondale tried but got no traction.
For example,
CBS decided to post the entire 60 Minutes interview on their website recently. The first question addresses why Obama avoided calling this act terrorism in his Rose Garden speech. When asked about this Obama does not push back on the question. This seems to suggest Obama was lying in the debate when he said the terror reference in the Rose Garden speech referred directly to the Libya attack.
Of course CBS successfully buried this until two days before the election.
A bombshell! No bomb in the shell, but the bombshell!
People are dead, and you want to quibble about quotes?
Do we really need a second thread about this, replete with the same old tired arguments and misinformation?