I'll look at the hearings again.

Submitted by Carl (United States), Oct 17, 2012 at 21:00

I am admittedly biased when it comes to Rep. Issa, so I may not have given them as fair a shake as I should have (I was also quite busy that week). As such, I really have only one quibble with your comments above:

"Regardless, Romney clearly had no involvement in the handling of the attacks."

Agreed, but that doesn't mean he's not vulnerable on the topic of Benghazi (which is what I was thinking, but did not communicate). From the standpoint of a presidential campaign, Benghazi is obviously more than just the event; it's all the rhetoric that surrounded it. His comments were a poor display of political point-scoring and they cost him. Though the media correctly handed him his butt, I think he's wise enough to know he can't quite stretch this angle of attack like he could have had he waited for a better view of events. While it may have been something as simple as not accounting for time zone difference, he goofed and goofed big. I'm sure this is a key part of their prep for debates: "we have to attack Obama, but we don't want to give him the opening to roast us on speaking too quickly." So on and so forth.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".