During his appearance on Meet the Press
this week, Senator Lindsey Graham insisted over and over again that the "video protest" narrative was invented because it worked so well to President Obama's advantage.
Well, I think one of the reasons that Susan Rice told the story she did, if the truth came out a few weeks before the election that our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had been overrun by an al Qaeda sponsored or affiliated militia, that destroys the narrative we’ve been hearing for months that al Qaeda has been dismantled, bin Laden is dead, we’re safer. And Susan Rice just did not say it was a result of a mob spawned by a video like Cairo. She actually said on Face The Nation, “I want to remind the American people this president promised to go after bin Laden, refocus on al Qaeda. He got bin Laden. Al Qaeda has been dismantled. And the truth of the matter is nothing could’ve been further from the truth, and the story she told reinforced a political narrative helpful to the president, but disconnected from reality.
"Nothing could be further from the truth."
Apparently Republicans, who ran their 2002, 2004, and 2006 campaigns almost exclusively on the fear that liberals would somehow invite worse attacks than 9/11, the anthrax mailings, multiple embassy attacks, and untold scores of deaths throughout Iraq and Afghanistan that were happening on their watch, are now arguing that this single terrorist attack had the potential to instantly unravel all of Obama's strategic victories against al Qaeda.
Seems like a stretch to me. Of course, Susan Rice isn't the first administration official who's come under prolonged and concentrated fire for weirdly trumped-up reasons.
Previously there was Eric Holder:
And Shirley Sherrod:
If two points make a line and three make a pattern, what do four make again? I'd suggest "tapestry" but that implies too many colors.