For Conservatives

[Oneuli]

ISIS took credit for the recent attack at a Syrian restaurant that killed four Americans -- two service members, and two civilians. I'd like to invite you to think through what your reaction would be if we found there was some confusion in the administration's initial communications response to the attack -- for example, if, in the immediate confusion following the attack, the administration were slow to publicly identify ISIS as the attacker, or didn't consistently call it an act of terror, or speculated incorrectly about some details about the circumstances around the attack, etc.

The reasonable reaction would be to give them some leeway. If the botched messaging or flubbed details made no practical difference in policy, and were cleared up in fairly short order, it just wouldn't be much of a story, right? Even the most crazed of liberals would have trouble treating that post-attack communications aspect of the story as a huge scandal. Yet now, imagine if it were a Democratic administration. Or, rather, don't imagine it, since we have a close parallel. After the Benghazi attack, there was a short period of confusion about whether or not an anti-Muslim video, which had sparked a riot at our Cairo embassy that same day, had also played a role in the Benghazi attack. Needless to say, the conservatives didn't grant the administration any leeway about that. Even though those details made no practical difference in policy, and were cleared up in fairly short order, it was treated as a major scandal. In fact, players in the administration were still being grilled relentlessly, four years later, about why they weren't quicker to definitively publicly identify ISIS as the attackers, why they speculated about a role for the video, and similar trivia. It was baffling to those of us outside the conservative media bubble.

The argument the right-wingers used to justify freaking out about short-term communications snafus regarding Benghazi was the idea that Obama had an incentive to maintain the illusion he was making progress in the war on ISIS, so his team tried to downplay the attack and the connection between ISIS and the attack. Well, in a similar sense, Trump clearly has an incentive to downplay this attack (he has yet to comment on it), and ISIS's continuing ability to harm us in Syria, since his plan for withdrawal was sold with the idea ISIS had already been defeated there. Yet, for the life of me, I can't imagine turning a little political spin about this attack into a massive four-year-long scandal. Can you?

[Phantasmal]

ISIS took credit for the recent attack at a Syrian restaurant that killed four Americans -- two service members, and two civilians. I'd like to invite you to think through what your reaction would be if we found there was some confusion in the administration's initial communications response to the attack -- for example, if, in the immediate confusion following the attack, the administration were slow to publicly identify ISIS as the attacker, or didn't consistently call it an act of terror, or speculated incorrectly about some details about the circumstances around the attack, etc.

The reasonable reaction would be to give them some leeway. If the botched messaging or flubbed details made no practical difference in policy, and were cleared up in fairly short order, it just wouldn't be much of a story, right? Even the most crazed of liberals would have trouble treating that post-attack communications aspect of the story as a huge scandal. Yet now, imagine if it were a Democratic administration. Or, rather, don't imagine it, since we have a close parallel. After the Benghazi attack, there was a short period of confusion about whether or not an anti-Muslim video, which had sparked a riot at our Cairo embassy that same day, had also played a role in the Benghazi attack. Needless to say, the conservatives didn't grant the administration any leeway about that. Even though those details made no practical difference in policy, and were cleared up in fairly short order, it was treated as a major scandal. In fact, players in the administration were still being grilled relentlessly, four years later, about why they weren't quicker to definitively publicly identify ISIS as the attackers, why they speculated about a role for the video, and similar trivia. It was baffling to those of us outside the conservative media bubble.

The argument the right-wingers used to justify freaking out about short-term communications snafus regarding Benghazi was the idea that Obama had an incentive to maintain the illusion he was making progress in the war on ISIS, so his team tried to downplay the attack and the connection between ISIS and the attack. Well, in a similar sense, Trump clearly has an incentive to downplay this attack (he has yet to comment on it), and ISIS's continuing ability to harm us in Syria, since his plan for withdrawal was sold with the idea ISIS had already been defeated there. Yet, for the life of me, I can't imagine turning a little political spin about this attack into a massive four-year-long scandal. Can you?

Bravo! Standing ovation

[Frank Apisa]

ISIS took credit for the recent attack at a Syrian restaurant that killed four Americans -- two service members, and two civilians. I'd like to invite you to think through what your reaction would be if we found there was some confusion in the administration's initial communications response to the attack -- for example, if, in the immediate confusion following the attack, the administration were slow to publicly identify ISIS as the attacker, or didn't consistently call it an act of terror, or speculated incorrectly about some details about the circumstances around the attack, etc.

The reasonable reaction would be to give them some leeway. If the botched messaging or flubbed details made no practical difference in policy, and were cleared up in fairly short order, it just wouldn't be much of a story, right? Even the most crazed of liberals would have trouble treating that post-attack communications aspect of the story as a huge scandal. Yet now, imagine if it were a Democratic administration. Or, rather, don't imagine it, since we have a close parallel. After the Benghazi attack, there was a short period of confusion about whether or not an anti-Muslim video, which had sparked a riot at our Cairo embassy that same day, had also played a role in the Benghazi attack. Needless to say, the conservatives didn't grant the administration any leeway about that. Even though those details made no practical difference in policy, and were cleared up in fairly short order, it was treated as a major scandal. In fact, players in the administration were still being grilled relentlessly, four years later, about why they weren't quicker to definitively publicly identify ISIS as the attackers, why they speculated about a role for the video, and similar trivia. It was baffling to those of us outside the conservative media bubble.

The argument the right-wingers used to justify freaking out about short-term communications snafus regarding Benghazi was the idea that Obama had an incentive to maintain the illusion he was making progress in the war on ISIS, so his team tried to downplay the attack and the connection between ISIS and the attack. Well, in a similar sense, Trump clearly has an incentive to downplay this attack (he has yet to comment on it), and ISIS's continuing ability to harm us in Syria, since his plan for withdrawal was sold with the idea ISIS had already been defeated there. Yet, for the life of me, I can't imagine turning a little political spin about this attack into a massive four-year-long scandal. Can you?

I agree with Phantasmal, Oneuli.

A STANDING OVATION!

[CFM]

I agree with Phantasmal, Oneuli.

A STANDING OVATION!

You also thought Obama should be elected because he's black.

[volsrock]

ISIS took credit for the recent attack at a Syrian restaurant that killed four Americans -- two service members, and two civilians. I'd like to invite you to think through what your reaction would be if we found there was some confusion in the administration's initial communications response to the attack -- for example, if, in the immediate confusion following the attack, the administration were slow to publicly identify ISIS as the attacker, or didn't consistently call it an act of terror, or speculated incorrectly about some details about the circumstances around the attack, etc.

The reasonable reaction would be to give them some leeway. If the botched messaging or flubbed details made no practical difference in policy, and were cleared up in fairly short order, it just wouldn't be much of a story, right? Even the most crazed of liberals would have trouble treating that post-attack communications aspect of the story as a huge scandal. Yet now, imagine if it were a Democratic administration. Or, rather, don't imagine it, since we have a close parallel. After the Benghazi attack, there was a short period of confusion about whether or not an anti-Muslim video, which had sparked a riot at our Cairo embassy that same day, had also played a role in the Benghazi attack. Needless to say, the conservatives didn't grant the administration any leeway about that. Even though those details made no practical difference in policy, and were cleared up in fairly short order, it was treated as a major scandal. In fact, players in the administration were still being grilled relentlessly, four years later, about why they weren't quicker to definitively publicly identify ISIS as the attackers, why they speculated about a role for the video, and similar trivia. It was baffling to those of us outside the conservative media bubble.

The argument the right-wingers used to justify freaking out about short-term communications snafus regarding Benghazi was the idea that Obama had an incentive to maintain the illusion he was making progress in the war on ISIS, so his team tried to downplay the attack and the connection between ISIS and the attack. Well, in a similar sense, Trump clearly has an incentive to downplay this attack (he has yet to comment on it), and ISIS's continuing ability to harm us in Syria, since his plan for withdrawal was sold with the idea ISIS had already been defeated there. Yet, for the life of me, I can't imagine turning a little political spin about this attack into a massive four-year-long scandal. Can you?

ISIS took credit for the recent attack?

ISIS claims responsibility for Orlando mass shooting

That was under Obama, when the JV Team attacked America

[Phantasmal]

You also thought Obama should be elected because he's black.

Yawn, you are so boring.

[ThatOwlWoman]

But Benghazi is different. Really. It is. Because Obama and Killary. Just remember, it was Obama and Clinton's fault because they didn't beef up security and in fact had allegedly started withdrawing funds and personnel that could have protected the ambassador. Kind of like Trump has bee......

Oh wait. You're right. It's almost exactly the same.

[CharacterAssassin]

You also thought Obama should be elected because he's black.

Why do you fantasize about and masturbate to black men who are infinitely more powerful and successful than you'll ever be?

[Phantasmal]

But Benghazi is different. Really. It is. Because Obama and Killary. Just remember, it was Obama and Clinton's fault because they didn't beef up security and in fact had allegedly started withdrawing funds and personnel that could have protected the ambassador. Kind of like Trump has bee......

Oh wait. You're right. It's almost exactly the same.

Bawahahaha, love it

[ThatOwlWoman]

Yawn, you are so boring.

I know, right? He's like one of Pavlov's cockroaches -- say "Obama" and he spurts out "n-word!"

[CFM]

I know, right? He's like one of Pavlov's cockroaches -- say "Obama" and he spurts out "n-word!"

Say Obama and you pucker your lips.

[Phantasmal]

Say Obama and you pucker your lips.

Yawn, such a child

[Evmetro]

I'd like to invite you to think through what your reaction would be if we found there was some confusion in the administration's initial communications response to the attack -- for example, if, in the immediate confusion following the attack, the administration were slow to publicly identify ISIS as the attacker, or didn't consistently call it an act of terror, or speculated incorrectly about some details about the circumstances around the attack, etc.

I enjoyed your creative writing project, thanks for posting it. The above invitation does not align correctly with how we perceived the post Benghazi narrative. We perceived a gross intentional deception that was politically motivated.

[Truth Detector]

Yawn, you are so boring.

Yawn, you are so stupid.

[Truth Detector]

But Benghazi is different. Really. It is. Because Obama and Killary. Just remember, it was Obama and Clinton's fault because they didn't beef up security and in fact had allegedly started withdrawing funds and personnel that could have protected the ambassador. Kind of like Trump has bee......

Oh wait. You're right. It's almost exactly the same.

Idiot thinks Trump caused Benghazi.