This is, I’m inclined to agree, related to the Benghazi cover-up.
The Obama administration/campaign narrative has been “GM is alive, and Osama is dead,” with the implication that, Osama b. Laden being dead, the battle against al-Qa’ida and terrorism is essentially over. There’s nothing to see here. They’re on the run. Obama triumphans. (The specious claim about General Motors is a subject for another time.)
So when things happen like the Fort Hood massacre and the Benghazi killings, these have to be marginalized, dismissed, as weird anomalies — as, in these particular cases, respectively “workplace violence” and the unfortunate and utterly unpredictable result of spontaneous crowd hysteria caused by a stupid and scarcely watched anti-Islamic video.
But this isn’t, apparently, merely a matter of rhetoric, or terminology, or even campaign positioning: Denying that the Fort Hood attack was an act of war, or an act of terrorism against the military, evidently deprives surviving victims and the families of those who were killed of certain benefits that would otherwise come to them.
That simply isn’t right.