Emphasis and paraphrase mine:
Ricks said he thought the story of the Benghazi attacks was “hyped, by [Fox News]”
Scott asked why Ricks would call it hype when four Americans were killed, including the first U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years.
Ricks responded that few people knew how many U.S. security contractors were killed in Iraq and compared that to the attention paid to “what was essentially a small firefight” in Libya.
Shortly after the election, I got into a Twitter argument with a now former follower about the impact of the Benghazi attacks on the election. He wondered why anyone would vote for the incumbent after the security failure in Libya that resulted in an ambassador’s death. One of the points I made was the same as above: that statistically speaking, the Iraq campaign – whose spoken WMD premise was debunked – resulted in far more deaths. Yet, the incumbent responsible for that war was reelected in 2004.
Clearly, military casualties don’t seem to figure much into electorate voting. Or at least they haven’t in at least 2 of 3 presidential elections in the past decade. Note that this is not a statement on the morality of the electorate’s views, it’s just a statement of evidential fact.
Fox News and others can continue to crow about the Libya incident for as long as they want, but (unfortunately?) it’s just not a huge part of the greater public conscious.