Our Views: Rose Garden storm strategy

Hurricane Sandy was serious business. As we well know here in Louisiana, even a Category 1 storm can produce quite a wallop, as when Louisiana was struck this year by Hurricane Isaac.

In Sandy, though, there’s a particular complication: She arrives in the midst of the last week of a hotly contested national election. Campaign events for both President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney were canceled in Virginia — a major battleground state — and elsewhere along the East Coast.

In Washington, even hunkered down for a Sandy visit, there’s political speculation about everything, including the impact of this late-season storm. The conventional wisdom is that it favors Obama, who can be First Responder in Chief even if campaign events are scuttled for a few days.

We are very familiar in Louisiana with hurricanes, but also with hurricane response by state officials. Gov. Bobby Jindal, often at odds with Obama on many issues, has several times benefited politically from the same role as the president now gets an opportunity to play.

Not least, Obama benefits from the hard lessons that the federal government underwent in the disastrous 2005 storms in Louisiana, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

If the Rose Garden is awfully wet from the hurricane, it’s still a political strategy to work there, very visibly doing one’s job. And the Federal Emergency Management Agency and others doing the work are better-placed to help than before the disasters of Katrina and Rita.

Comments

1) Comment by agagent - 04/11/2012

We know that the Obama administration lied and tried to cover up after the attack. We know the Obama administration did not take the security risks seriously. We were warned of the attack. We even knew the terrorist were gather weapons and putting up roadblocks before the attack. A state department security assessment of an unstable situation like Benghazi we should US forces or not place state department there. We know there was sufficient time to send more aid to the Americans being murdered in Benghazi. We also know that many in the media were happy to aid the Obama administration in not reporting the terrorist attack.

2) Comment by krl777 - 04/11/2012

agagent dutifully parrots Fox News, all the way down to the statement, "People who were there dispute the CIA timeline." And who knows ... the story of the Blue Mountain Security manager and the claims of Fox's unnamed British and American security officials on the ground may turn out to be true. But that requires proof, and all we have so far is the Fox campaign and internet commentary which simply dismisses counterevidence as products of alleged MSM bias. Yes, we know Administration opponents have their narrative, and their "facts" which show that Obama is a murdering, lying traitor, and we know that Administration defenders have their narrative, and their "facts" which show that the Administration is never at fault. How do you, agagent, adjudicate those contradictory claims. The answer, unfortunately, is that it seems that you don't -- you quote partisan sources mindlessly. I have sketched the CIA narrative, which could be wrong, and could even be fabricated if there is a deep conspiracy going on. But the more outlandish the conspiracy theory, the higher the burden of proof, a concept with which agagent seems to have no acquaintance.

3) Comment by agagent - 04/11/2012

People who were there dispute the CIA timeline. The timeline does not excuse the cover up and all the lies coming from the Obama administration since the attack. Emails showed that the consulate staff knew they were sitting ducks. The Obama administration ignored the unstable local conditions, two previous attacks on the consulate, specific warnings of a 9/11 attack, and reports of terrorist massing for an attack just prior to the attack. Instead of moving the staff or increasing security, the security had been decreased. More help during the attack might have saved lives and given us an opportunity to kill or capture more of the terrorists. Terrorists who attacked us in Benghazi will attack us again at the next opportunity.

4) Comment by krl777 - 03/11/2012

Ambassador Stevens died in the 50 minutes between the receipt of first reports of the attack at 9:40 pm and the arrival of CIA personnel from the CIA annex. Evacuation of the mission personnel to the annex followed immediately, ending with a firefight, filmed by the drone which had arrived by that time, with no further casualties at that time. This was followed by a more than four hour lull, during which the drone continued to send images to Tripoli and Washington. Then, around 5 am, came mortar fire on the annex which caused further casualties. So the initial casualties came before any response could be mounted. And the mortar fire on the annex, after a four-to-five hour lull in fighting, is not something that was anticipated, or that could be very effectively defended against -- witness the vulnerability of even full US military camps in Iraq and Afghanistan to this sort of attack. Are we to understand that agagent, or Newt Gringrich, would have rushed troops in during the four-hour period when the fight on the ground was already over? To what purpose? To provide further American victims of the mortar attack? The Administration response over the next couple of weeks was cautious and fairly non-commital, which is probably the right stance when the facts are still emerging, and you are actively seeking to identify the perpetrators behind the scenes, and to make preparations to retaliate. But perhaps agagent is of the G.W. Bush philosophy, which is high on belligerent bluster, and low on effective action. It's clear in hindsight that the Benghazi mission needed more protection within its walls. And the Obama Administration might fairly be judged amiss in not providing it. But that judgment must be made by people who are fully informed about the vulnerability of US missions throughout the world, especially in the many countries where violent jihadists lurk, not by partisan defenders of the Administration, or partisan critics like agagent or the Fox-Limbaugh-Drudge axis of bamboozlement. Not all of our missions can be like the US embassy in Baghdad, situated on a heavily fortified piece of land as big as Vatican City.

5) Comment by agagent - 03/11/2012

We should never put U S troops under UN command: "U.S. forces set up camp at Beirut International Airport, a spot difficult to defend because the airport remained open for business and because warring factions controlled strategic hillsides nearby. “It was selected almost entirely for diplomatic and political reasons,” Geraghty said. “I was uneasy from Day One that we were in that position.” (Marine Col. Tim Geraghty, who commanded U.S. forces in Lebanon at the time.)--Navy journalist Joe Ciokon

6) Comment by agagent - 03/11/2012

There were no warnings of the terrorist attack on the US marine barracks in Beirut. That attack was over quickly. We did not have time to send help to our Marines. There were many warnings of the Benghazi attack and that attack lasted 7 hours . . . . sufficient time to send more help to Benghazi during the attack. Reagan did not cover up the attack like the Obama administration covered up the terrorist attack on Benghazi. Reagan apologized and pulled our troops out. He realized it was a fruitless mission (UN peace keeping when there was no peace)

7) Comment by krl777 - 02/11/2012

There is no US consulate in Benghazi listed on usembassy.gov. That at least leaves the full functions of the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi, and its relationship to the nearby CIA station, open to question. There were indeed attacks on Western interests in Benghazi and elsewhere in LIbya in the months prior to 9/11/12. But we do not have Libya under US military occupation. We are no more able to protect US sites there from organized military attack of the sort that was unleashed on Sept. 11, complete with mortar fire, than we are able to protect outposts in Afghanistan from similar Taliban attacks, or than Reagan was able to protect the US marine barracks in Beirut from the attack that killed 241 American servicemen.

8) Comment by agagent - 02/11/2012

The CIA facility was separate from the consulate. The consulate, which was attacked first, was not well defended. It was not up to the State Department security standards of an interim consulate. A security detail had been removed from the consulate against the wishes of person in charge of security. Personnel from the CIA facility went to the rescue of the consulate. The security planning was inadequate in view of previous attacks and reports of an impending attack. The response to the attack was not adequate since the attack lasted 7 hours, giving plenty of time to send help. After the terrorist attack the Obama administration attempted a cover up.

9) Comment by krl777 - 02/11/2012

The consulate in Benghazi was a CIA site. The CIA agents on hard were sufficient to repel the initial terrorist attack. They were not enough to protect Ambassador Stevens and others at the site, including themselves, from the intense mortar attack that followed the initial assault. That isn't a form of attack that they expected. It's not clear anyone would have expected that particular form of attack in that context, least of all the low-imagination critics of the administration.

10) Comment by Whatnow - 02/11/2012

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57544026/sources-key-task-force-not-convened-during-benghazi-consulate-attack/

11) Comment by nimby? - 02/11/2012

Reggie Bush's fault ....

12) Comment by DMJ - 02/11/2012

"A senior U.S. intelligence official also insisted that the CIA security team that initially responded to the attack was not given orders "to stand down in providing support," as had been suggested in media reports." I guess these "reports" were the bimbos at Fox News "asking questions" again.

13) Comment by DMJ - 02/11/2012

Since we're posting links about Benghazi in the comment section of a story about Hurricane Sandy... http://news.yahoo.com/detailed-account-benghazi-attack-notes-cias-quick-response-020906681--abc-news-politics.html Turns out, there were no orders to 'stand down.' Bummer, huh? You guys thought you had something. Don't fret. There'll be another manufactured scandal right around the corner...

14) Comment by agagent - 02/11/2012

Revealing secrets like when: Obama revealed too many secrets about the bin Laden raid putting Navy SEAL Team 6 in danger, announcing the raid before we could take advantage of the intelligence gathered, outing another country’s secret agent and claiming responsibility for his work, leaving the Afghan doctor who helped us capture bin Laden, and revealing our computer virus attack on Iran’s nuclear program? It is a wonder that most of the Obama administration could get a security clearance with such leaks.

15) Comment by agagent - 02/11/2012

"In a letter obtained by CNN, Leon Panetta, who was CIA director during the bin Laden hit, wrote that the operation "led to an unprecedented amount of very sensitive — in fact, classified — information making its way into the press." Leaks, he noted, "endanger lives."--News Investors,com

16) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 02/11/2012

And whatnow's posts a link to the House hearing that revealed classified information, putting CIA agents in danger --- http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank- letting-us-in-on-a-secret/2012/10/10/ba3136ca-132b-11e2-ba83- a7a396e6b2a7_story.html

17) Comment by agagent - 02/11/2012

The Obama administration did leave Americans behind in Benghazi. If Obama was on the job, he voted “present” and failed to make the tough decisions. Thanks to the heroes who disobeyed orders to stand down and died helping other Americans escape the terrorist attack in Benghazi. We should have removed our state department personnel from Benghazi when the British and the Red Cross left or have them in a hardened facility protected by US forces. There were two previous attacks on our consulate; Benghazi has been very unstable; and there were warnings of an impending attack. The Obama administration failed to provide adequate protection, failed to send adequate assistance when help was requested during the attack, and the President and his administration have repeatedly lied about the murder of 4 Americans in Benghazi. Since the terrorist attack in Benghazi we have had a massive cover-up by the Obama administration with the assistance of most of the media.

18) Comment by DMJ - 02/11/2012

Kinda hard to believe this article was about Hurricane Sandy, eh Whatnow?

19) Comment by Whatnow - 01/11/2012

http://beforeitsnews.com/terrorism/2012/11/the-security-failures-of-benghazi-oversight-hearing-part-1-2-2444518.html

20) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 01/11/2012

"Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council, has said that despite some claims, there was no real-time video of the attack being watched in the Situation Room." So the spokesman for the NSC is a reporter and has an opinion. Your hatred of the president has clearly blinded you. Quite sad. And the ambassador walked the Turkish diplomat out of the compound at 2:30 and the attack started at 3:40. So your claim that the admin was claiming there was a protest at the time the ambassador walked his guest out is false. It's too easy to pick apart the lies you have been spoon fed

21) Comment by Whatnow - 01/11/2012

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/benghazi-blunder-obama-unworthy-commander-in-chief-176736441.html

22) Comment by Whatnow - 01/11/2012

DMJ, that is the reporter's opinion, but the facts are coming out and Fox was the first to find those out. I don't agree that there wasn't real time video. The drones were flying, recording and transmitting the whole thing to the situation room. We now know that Obama knew it was an attack by Al-Queda two hours after the attack started and not a stupid video or a protest. So, he lied about it for two weeks and even lied to the UN. There were no protesters. There are e-mails from Ambassador Chris Stevens to some 400 agencies in Washington that prove that. He even walked a guest leaving the embassy to the front gate at the time the alleged protest was supposed to be taking place. Do you think he would have let the guest come into harm's way during a protest? There are people in Benghazi that are giving more answers to Fox than this president and administration is giving to the American people. The MSM is coddling this story and barely reporting about it to win an election. Like it's just a bump in the road. If this had been the killing of Bin Laden, I'm sure that it would be in all of the MSM papers with video to show it before the election. I'm finished here. If you want to believe all the people who are CYA's that's fine. Believe what you want.

23) Comment by DMJ - 01/11/2012

From that very article: "Without question in this hyper-partisan environment, Republicans operatives are fanning flames and creating suspicions where there’s no evidence of wrongdoing, trafficking in false rumors and idle speculation. The White House has felt the necessity to pop its head up to shoot down stories it says are false. For instance, Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council, has said that despite some claims, there was no real-time video of the attack being watched in the Situation Room." Oops.

24) Comment by Whatnow - 01/11/2012

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/the-benghazi-drip-drip-drip/

25) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 01/11/2012

"Pathetic answers and denial" You sure had your say. Try posting sources for all of your "facts". You know you can't. That’s why you can't win a single argument and why you choose to remain ignorant.. your aversion to facts…

26) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 01/11/2012

For examples of facts with sources, Whatnow should look here... http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/ and not rumors or opinions from Fox"News" personalities

27) Comment by Whatnow - 01/11/2012

Pathetic answers and denial. Oh well, I had my say. Think what you want. I'll just wait for the outcome if we ever find out the truth.

28) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 01/11/2012

“How can Benghazi be an intelligence failure when it was all shown in real time in the situation room at the White House for seven hours?” – facts not in evidence “How can it be an intelligence failure when the SEALS were told three times to stand down?” – facts not in evidence “How can it be an intelligence failure when help was two hours away and none was sent within the time frame of the attack?” - facts not in evidence. The “help” was much farther away. “How can it be an intelligence failure when the Benghazi embassy begged for more protection?” – facts not in evidence “How can it be an intelligence failure if the real time events were watched by the people in the situation room” – facts not in evidence… "But there are facts than cannot be overlooked and denied..." Here’s the thing, just because Hannity or some retired general on Fox with an axe to grind says it’s true, doesn’t make it true. I’ve watched Fox’s coverage. Not a single factual statement. Just rumors and conjecture…

29) Comment by DMJ - 01/11/2012

How can it be an intelligence failure? You're answering your own question with each additional question. Also...the President doesn't micromanage every embassy. Yes, he is the boss, but he doesn't run the CIA; he doesn't run the State Department's public relations; he doesn't sign off on every press release; he doesn't organize or authorize security on such a small scale. Just what do you think the President does? Bush, somehow, wasn't responsible for 9/11 yet Obama is personally responsible for Benghazi? Please. Like I keep saying...desperate and petty. If I hadn't read your posts on these boards for a while, I might buy your outrage.... but you tipped your hand a long time ago. The right wing (call yourself an independant if you like) was looking for a scandal and they found one. It's a weird scenario when politics drives someone to seek out failure and ignore success for the sake of an election. Get it together. It's looking like we might have 4 more years of President Hussein. You gotta pace yourself.

30) Comment by Whatnow - 01/11/2012

How can Benghazi be an intelligence failure when it was all shown in real time in the situation room at the White House for seven hours? How can it be an intelligence failure when the SEALS were told three times to stand down? How can it be an intelligence failure when help was two hours away and none was sent within the time frame of the attack? How can it be an intelligence failure when the Benghazi embassy begged for more protection? How can it be an intelligence failure if the real time events were watched by the people in the situation room and for two weeks we were told along with the U.N. speech by the President that it was due to a video? You guys can diminish these facts all you want. But there are facts than cannot be overlooked and denied. If not for Fox reporting what goes on, you wouldn't know at least half of what goes on in Washington. The MSM refuses to publish anything that may demean the President or his administration. Manufacture a controversy? The fact that Dems want to ignore this issue and shove it under the rug, just shows that Obama in your eyes could do nothing wrong, no matter what. Someone in that situation room gave the order to stand down and wanting answers for that doesn't make me a Republican, which I'm not. It makes me a angry person for being lied to and wanting someone held responsible for the deaths of our four Americans that begged for help.

31) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 01/11/2012

DMJ, I was flipping through the channel late one night after sandy hit. All of the news channels were focused on the aftermath of the storm...Guess what Fox "news" was discussing? Benghazi. And this was over a three hour period. Not one mention of Sandy except for the scroll at the bottom of the screen. They (Fox and Whatnow) are just a mouthpiece for the RW and they ARE desperate to manufacture a controversy. Heck, Newt prefaced every one of his statements with “this is just a rumor but…blah blah blah Benghazi”. Yes, mistakes were made; Americans lost their lives; but its not some huge cover-up. And Whatnow accuses other of “drumming up these controversies”. Sheesh

32) Comment by DMJ - 01/11/2012

Whatnow, switch to decaf. 4 Americans were killed due to an intelligence failure, yet I'm willing to bet you voted for W's re-election even as he ran on the slogun "He kept us safe" despite thousands of Americans dying on his watch due to a severely more agregious intelligence failure. Or lemme guess....you voted for Kerry? Didn't think so. Can you say "double standard?" Look...Benghazi was terrible. They had bad intelligence and they followed that up with poor PR, but trying to say that the Benghazi incident is indicative of some kind of greater failure is just pushing it. And yes, it looks desperate. Romney looked terrible when he politicized the event in its immediate aftermath. The only people who agreed with him are people that were going to vote against Obama anyway...like you.

33) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 01/11/2012

DMJ, But I agree. Media needs to quit spinnning thsi disater into political terms. Gov Christie (even though I disagree with his policies most of the time) has the right attitute concerning the response for this disaster.

34) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 01/11/2012

DMJ, "but I for one will scream for the truth for ever how long it takes". Whatnow wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on his derriere. We've seen him feebly attempt to deflect facts when presented to him.

35) Comment by Whatnow - 31/10/2012

No, DMJ, it's okay when the Advocate brings up the politics while speaking of the hurricane and how it can make Obama look good. And you said so in your post. Desperate? Making Obama look bad??? You don't need me to do that for Obama. He has done a fine job on his own. Is that what you think this is all about? Get off your high horse, DMJ. This is about someone who will never look good no matter how many deaf, dumb and blind ignoramuses vote for him. Keep your "hear no evil, speak no evil, speak no evil" Obama mask on, but I for one will scream for the truth for ever how long it takes on Benghazi. And Benghazi is not political, although Obama won't discuss it until after the election. He is making it political by keeping his mouth shut so that he can win this election. He sure was in the situation room for Sandy. But, where was he during Benghazi? If he was in that situation room, then he is a liar. But, that's okay. He's Obama.

36) Comment by DMJ - 31/10/2012

Speaking of the hurricane...let's talk about Benghazi. Sure, it's not related to this subject, but it (kinda) makes Obama look bad, which is all that matters, right? Looking a little desperate...

37) Comment by Whatnow - 31/10/2012

It's a shame that no one was doing their job while the four Americans were pleading for their lives in Benghazi and were ignored by this administration. Telling people to listen to their local governments to stay safe was real hard, I'm sure. Photos from the White House situation room concerning Sandy are all over the papers. Where are the photos of the room during Benghazi? I guess the media and the White House hopes that people will forget if it's not talked about. Well, Benghazi will not go away like a hurricane.

38) Comment by DMJ - 31/10/2012

I think it's disgraceful to frame a natural disaster in political terms right after the disaster. There'll be a time for that. It's not now. I think both candidates have handled themselves with class during this. I can't say the same for the various media outlets.

39) Comment by [e-mail] - 31/10/2012

If FEMA was helping with money not taken from us...