On Benghazi, the debate and ‘acts of terror’
The most dramatic moment of last night’s debate came when Mitt Romney insisted that President Obama had not immediately called the deadly attack on our consulate in Benghazi an act of terror. Obama just as boldly insisted that he had, and for a moment it appeared as if the two men were about to bet $10,000, if not the presidency itself, on the outcome of their disagreement.
The moment passed quickly when moderator Candy Crowley stepped in to rule Obama correct and Romney incorrect, a step that conservatives are condemning harshly this morning as evidence of liberal bias.
Let’s unpack this whole piece of baggage, starting from the beginning:
1.) The premise of the entire debate is false, because the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was not an act of terror. An act of terror, by definition, targets the civilian population and attempts to inflict terror on that population. This was a military operation/assassination, targeted not at civilians but at the top American presence in Libya and, indirectly, at the armed guards who protected that presence. It was an attack on the United States and its interests.
Calling it an act of terror confuses the issue. However, we prefer that confusion. That confusion allows us to place this attack safely within our preferred War on Terror narrative and casts America as the innocent victim of nefarious, brutal men rather than as a major player contending for some share of power and influence in Libya, which is what we are.
September 11 was an act of terror. The truck bombing that killed 241 Marines in their barracks in Lebanon in 1983 was not an act of terror. Attacks on our forces in Afghanistan are not acts of terror. And neither was this.
2.) The Obama administration, for reasons that remain unclear, balked at calling it either an act of terror or a direct military operation. They initially preferred a third category, describing it as a mass protest that got out of hand. And while that characterization may have reflected initial and incorrect intelligence about the attack, they clung to that characterization long after it had become clear that it was false.
I have no idea why they did that. Maybe the facts changed more quickly than a sluggish bureaucracy was able to change its story. Maybe they were reluctant to admit to Libyans and the world that the facility targeted in the attack also served as a CIA outpost. The Republicans argue that the administration was attempting to hide its own security failing, but frankly that makes no sense either. The basic security arrangements that were needed to protect the Benghazi consulate from direct military attack would also have helped to protect it from an angry, unruly mob. Under either story line, those arrangements failed.
In fact, protecting that facility and its occupants from an attack of this sort — a coordinated, concerted assault by numerous well-armed fighters — would require security levels well beyond those needed to fend off a mob. So again, I am mystified as to why the administration was so slow to alter its story.
One other note: A lot has been made of the fact that the attack came on the anniversary of Sept. 11. I don’t doubt that the date made the operation more attractive to attackers. However, if they had gotten a shot at Ambassador Chris Stevens on Sept. 12 or Oct. 12, I suspect they would have taken it. He was that important to U.S. efforts to influence Libya’s future.
3.) If you nonetheless buy the argument that it was important to mislabel this an act of terror, then Romney and his fellow Republicans have a small point in claiming that the president and the Obama administration failed to do so.
The Obama administration likewise has a small point that he did do so.
Here’s what the president had to say in the Rose Garden the day after the attacks, in context:
“As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”
As you can see, Obama did refer to the violence in Libya as acts of terror, so the Democrats are right. But he did so briefly and indirectly, and for days afterward his administration inexplicably continued to try to sell the mob-violence narrative, so the Republicans are right as well. It is, in the end, an open question, which means that Crowley was probably wrong to interject herself on it so definitively.
4.) None of this matters much, or should matter much. Stevens is still dead. Libya is still fractious. The United States still faces years if not decades of difficult work in the Middle East. The Arab world remains convulsive as it attempts to achieve many centuries of modernization in a matter of mere decades. The fact that the two campaigns are squabbling so bitterly over such relatively small distinctions suggests just how constrained our foreign policy options really are at this point. Neither side has a major point to make, so they focus on minor ones.
Despite his aggressive talk and the neo-con Hall of Fame that he has gathered to advise him, for example, Romney cannot identify a single policy step that he would have taken differently in the Middle East, Iraq or Afghanistan. This supposed “controversy”, along with worn-out phrases such as “apology tour” and “leading from behind,” is designed to mask that reality and make small things appear large.
We have more important things to talk about.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
277 comments Add your comment
TaxPayer
October 17th, 2012
10:48 am
The inverse correlation between Republican moods and the economy is quite strong. I’d call it a solid -1. It sure is nice to see the economy doing so much better than it was just four years ago.
They BOTH suck
October 17th, 2012
10:49 am
Scout
While I thought it was disingenuous that you didn’t want to discuss or debate your own assertion last night and was wanting to deflect, I could have used a better choice of words or just ignored you after the 2nd or 3rd time.
That was my bad.
Have a great day.
Mick
October 17th, 2012
10:49 am
See what’s happening here? The spin is moving at warp speed against romney, just as it had previously moved for him. These debates (?) are performance theater and I’m not sure they should be so definitive in electing a president…but hey, that’s the american effing way right now…
Mighty Righty
October 17th, 2012
10:51 am
The after debate polls of independent’ who watched the debates from Nevada and that liberal enclave MSNBC show Romeny with a distinct majority who consider him to be the winner. Obama had to have a big win to turn the momentum for Romney around and he wasn’t up to it even with the clear help of the CNN crow. The University of Colorado presidential poll which has accurately predicted every presidentail election since Nixon is forcasting Mitt Romney has a 77% chance of winning the popular vote.
mm
October 17th, 2012
10:52 am
Last night the cons lost their last great hope of an election “changer” when Benghazigate was put down like an old mule.
Thomas Heyward Jr.
October 17th, 2012
10:52 am
Obama BooBoo.
.
you may use it.
stevie ray...clowns and jokers
October 17th, 2012
10:53 am
JOE HUSSEIN
Your comment about Clinton in your 10:38 is one of the funniest things I’ve heard here ever…kudos..
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
October 17th, 2012
10:54 am
Paul:
If you will read the entire act you will find that it codifies a different way of dealing with your premise.
In other words, if anything they do would violate U.S. law it meets the definition of terrorism but the method of “dealing with it” is legally different.
You’re smarter than that …………. it’s why we have “drones” and Gitmo (as upheld by the Supreme Court).
mm
October 17th, 2012
10:54 am
“The after debate polls of independent’ who watched the debates from Nevada and that liberal enclave MSNBC show Romeny with a distinct majority who consider him to be the winner. Obama had to have a big win to turn the momentum for Romney around and he wasn’t up to it even with the clear help of the CNN crow. The University of Colorado presidential poll which has accurately predicted every presidentail election since Nixon is forcasting Mitt Romney has a 77% chance of winning the popular vote.”
Everyone better roll up your pants because with this post the sh*t is getting deep.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
October 17th, 2012
10:55 am
Are you righties quite Benghazi-ed out yet?
Our will your comic stylings continue?
stevie ray...clowns and jokers
October 17th, 2012
10:55 am
MICK,
Here’s something that we all can laugh at….I heard interview of woman questioning difference between Romney and Bush…she was asked the question which side was clapping at Crowley’s comments of Rose Garden issue, here response was it was not any of the 85 but it was Michelle Obama…
USA Patriot
October 17th, 2012
10:55 am
Joe Mama – 10:04 – I don’t recall the GOP ignoring N. Korea, Iran, & China while cleaning up in the middle east. Looks to me like the DEM’s are ignoring N.Korea, Iran, & China.
Thomas Heyward Jr.
October 17th, 2012
10:56 am
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
October 17th, 2012
10:43 am
Since Jay doesn’t “exchange” with me anymore the question in my 10:28 is open to anyone.
The suicide attack on the World Trade Center (civilian target) was an act of terrorism ……. yes/no ?
The suicide attack on the Pentagon (military target) was an act of terrorism ……. yes/no?
———————————————————————————————————————————————-
.
yes
.
no.
.
Will you answer mine.
.
What about our State department droning Kaddafi’s convoy which enabled the murder of Libya’s president.?
Terrorism or no?
.
Brosephus™
October 17th, 2012
10:57 am
Paul
Did you happen to see some of the other links on your security story?
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/09/the-trip-that-wasnt-dems-cry-foul-over-libya-codel?s_cid=related-links:TOP
Paul
October 17th, 2012
11:00 am
Scout
“n other words, if anything they do would violate U.S. law it meets the definition of terrorism but the method of “dealing with it” is legally different.”
what in your post supports that assertion?
Mick
I’ve thought it pretty amazing for some time that so many people would select a president based upon a few debates.
mm
October 17th, 2012
11:01 am
The cons really need to realize that everything is on the internet now. Smart people can factcheck the GOP BS on their own.
Paul
October 17th, 2012
11:02 am
Brosephus
I didn’t. Thanks.
“Democrats on the oversight committee say Republicans have completely shut them out of the investigation, failed to give them notice of an overseas trip to Libya, kept documents concealed, and delayed one witness from speaking to them.”
I’ve thought for a long time Issa was more interested in theater and self-promotion than he was in truth.
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
11:02 am
S. Ray — “JOE HUSSEIN Your comment about Clinton in your 10:38 is one of the funniest things I’ve heard here ever…kudos..”
Thank you! That’s very kind of you to say!
Many of our cons forget — and I’ve said it MANY times — that I was still supporting Republicans back during the Clinton era, and so I didn’t vote for him. Either time.
Whichever side of the aisle you’re on, I think it’s pretty clear that ole Bill was a horndog and that jokes along that line are often funny no matter who you prefer to vote for.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
October 17th, 2012
11:02 am
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
I don’t think the State Department “droned” anyone. I believe you mean the CIA or our military.
That said ………………. no.
There are many reasons why but the basic one is that there are “good guys” and “bad guys” out there even at the international level.
For example ……………. in this country, a FBI raid on a mafia headquarters is legal. A mafia raid on FBI Headquarters is not.
It’s really not that hard to understand ……….. IF ………… you know the difference between good and evil.
Obama/Biden 2012
October 17th, 2012
11:03 am
Umemployment has dropped from 10.2% to 7.8%
The stock market has doubled since the stimulus.
5 million private sector jobs have been created since 2009.
GDP has been growing since 2009.
Americans net worth is up $10 trillion dollars since 2009.
Auto sales are up. Retail sales are up. Home sales are up.
Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive.
Obama has done a very good job.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
October 17th, 2012
11:04 am
Paul:
“what in your post supports that assertion?”
Read/study the entire Patriot Act including the codified methods for dealing with terrorism and the Supreme Court decision(s) upholding same and you will understand.
Brosephus™
October 17th, 2012
11:04 am
I’ve thought for a long time Issa was more interested in theater and self-promotion than he was in truth.
He declared as much after the 2010 elections. I’m waiting for him to start an investigation on the debate moderators.
BuckeyeInGa
October 17th, 2012
11:06 am
John Sununu is looking HORRIBLE covering last night debates
Mick
October 17th, 2012
11:06 am
paul
Even though I was in the minority view about the first debate, there was nothing said by romney I found convincing. Seems people were more impressed in the way he spoke rather than what he was actually proposing..now its his turn to feel the heat…
Lord Help Us
October 17th, 2012
11:07 am
‘It’s really not that hard to understand ……….. IF ………… you know the difference between good and evil.’
An ironic glimpse at the superficial, fragile reality of the simple-minded…
Mark in mid-town
October 17th, 2012
11:08 am
There was plenty in last night’s debate that would allow either side to claim they won. I try to be objective and thought Obama won by a very small margin even though I think his presidency hass been a disaster and I greatly support Romney over him. That being said, the performance of the moderator was nothing short of disgraceful. It wasn’t just that she ran interference for Obama, her selection of questions was clearly tilted towards Obama. Just unbelievable. For the life of me and I’m sure for the life of other Republican supporters, just why does the Republican Party each presidential election cycle approve the selection of nothing but liberal moderators for the debates? Occasionally, some liberal moderators can act professionally and be fair to both sides with both the selection of questions and their conduct in refereeing, but that was certainly not the case last night. Candy Crowley clearly interjected herself into last night’s debate in a partisan way and made herself the story. But again, the Republicans only have themselves to blame when they sanction the use of only liberal moderators for these debates.
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
11:08 am
USA Patriot — “Joe Mama – 10:04 – I don’t recall the GOP ignoring N. Korea, Iran, & China while cleaning up in the middle east.”
Well, *I* do.
Clinton set up the Agreed Framework in which the North Koreans agreed to abandon and dismantle their nuclear weapons program if we would set them up with two reactors to produce domestic power. They even agreed to let the IAEA monitor them constantly to ensure that they weren’t trying to sneak out fissile material or spent fuel for reprocessing. We also agreed to supply them fuel oil between the time of the agreement and the time the reactors came online.
All went well until Bush was in office; he and his negotiators got all froggy and accusatory with the North Koreans, and then the agreement fell apart. Within two years — during which time we refused to talk to them — they finished developing and then tested an atomic weapon.
So while Bush was mucking around with Iraq — which hadn’t even TRIED to develop an atomic weapon — North Korea took advantage of the situation and went ahead and finished their work. Result — CONSERVATIVE FAILSAUCE.
“Looks to me like the DEM’s are ignoring N.Korea, Iran, & China.”
Nope. You pretty clearly don’t keep up with either current events or recent history. Smarten up, son.
Lord Help Us
October 17th, 2012
11:09 am
‘why does the Republican Party each presidential election cycle approve the selection of nothing but liberal moderators for the debates? ‘
Can you nominate some moderators?
Ray Tardinski
October 17th, 2012
11:12 am
“The cons really need to realize that everything is on the internet now. Smart people can factcheck the GOP BS on their own.”
So if “smart” people can fact check – what does a single celled organism such as yourself do?
This coming from one who supports the biggest BS-er of all time. Fact checking at media matters and MSNBC is not fact checking. Did the Odumber answer one direct question last night?
Paul
October 17th, 2012
11:12 am
“Read/study the entire Patriot Act ”
Your deflections are getting lame, Scout.
It would appear you get an idea in your head, you post something, then when asked ‘how did you get here from there” you fall back on “study the entire history of western civilization….”
BTW – are you also making the case the consulate is not part of the territorial jurisdiction of the US?
Mark in mid-town
October 17th, 2012
11:13 am
Umemployment has dropped from 10.2% to 7.8%
———————————————-
Actually, when weighting for the substantially high drop in work-force particiaption rate, the unemployment rate has actually increased. Applying the same work-force particpation rate that was in place when unemployment rate was 10.2%, then the 7.8% unemployment rate would really be closer to 11% which is higher than the 10.2% rate. In other words, the only reason that the unemployment rate has dropped from 10.2% to 7.8% is that millions of out-of-work people are no longer being counted as unemployed, even though for all intents and purposes, they are every bit as unemployed as the 7.8% who are still being officially counted as being unemployed.
Brosephus™
October 17th, 2012
11:17 am
Didn’t the last job numbers show that work-force participation increased?
Matti
October 17th, 2012
11:19 am
Mark in mid-town,
Do those calculations count each binder full of women as one, or as a number greater than one?
Thomas Heyward Jr.
October 17th, 2012
11:28 am
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
October 17th, 2012
11:02 am
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
I don’t think the State Department “droned” anyone. I believe you mean the CIA or our military.
That said ………………. no.
There are many reasons why but the basic one is that there are “good guys” and “bad guys” out there even at the international level.
For example ……………. in this country, a FBI raid on a mafia headquarters is legal. A mafia raid on FBI Headquarters is not.
It’s really not that hard to understand ……….. IF ………… you know the difference between good and evil.
——————————————————————————————————————————
.
Thanks for your candor and forthrightiousness.
i understand your reasoning but…….. I would never leave it up to the State, and their cadre of self-interested politicians/bureacrats , to make that judgement (good or evil ) for me.
.
This is where progressives such as you are, of the right and left , differ from Liberty-loving individuals.
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
11:36 am
T. Heyward — “It’s really not that hard to understand ……….. IF ………… you know the difference between good and evil.”
If it’s their tactics and behavior that make them evil, then how are we *not* evil when we employ the same tactics and behavior?
If it’s their belief system that makes them evil, then President Bush lied when he said we weren’t at war with islam. And our wars in the Middle East and South Asia are now predicated on bigotry.
BADA BING (imagine an umlaut above the i, I'm trying to class this place up a little)
October 17th, 2012
11:37 am
To be fair to Mitt in the next debate, the moderator should be Ted Nugent. He would be no more biased than Crowly.
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
11:39 am
T. Heyward — “i understand your reasoning but…….. I would never leave it up to the State, and their cadre of self-interested politicians/bureacrats , to make that judgement (good or evil ) for me.”
Ah. So if you yourself decided that something was “evil,” then are you saying that you reserve the right to strike against that “evil” even if so doing would be prohibited or considered illegal by the State?
.
“This is where progressives such as you are, of the right and left , differ from Liberty-loving individuals.”
What an absolutely ridiculous and arrogant statement.
JamVet
October 17th, 2012
11:41 am
The pervert moderator would be Jesse Ventura.
He would put up with ZERO cr@p from those two entitled empty suits.
And as an added bonus he would waterboard Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Sean Hannity during commercial breaks…
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
11:44 am
I liked the part of the debate where Candy Crowley told Romney to stop being such a whiny liar and to siddown and STFU.
moonbat betty
October 17th, 2012
11:49 am
Ha Ha “pervert moderator”
LOL, Jamvet!
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
11:51 am
M. Betty — “Ha Ha “pervert moderator” LOL, Jamvet!”
Well, he *did* once claim to be a “g*dd*mn*d sexual Tyrannosaurus.”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093773/quotes
Tundra Dude
October 17th, 2012
11:52 am
We have more important things to talk about.
Once again, the “Debate Commission” did their job….acting as Gatekeepers,
ensuring the important things are off the table.
JKL2
October 17th, 2012
11:52 am
Jay- “leading from behind,” is designed to mask that reality and make small things appear large.
obama has been a lead from behind guy his entire life. He did next to nothing as a state senator and even less as a federal one. He would have made an excellent VP for Clinton. Unfortunately he has zero leadership skill and is terrible at personal communication. Insert “lipstick on a pig” comment here.
Thanks to the 47% we’ll be stuck with this idiot for four more years. Not sure how he will be as a “lame duck” because he doesn’t really do his job now anyway.
moonbat betty
October 17th, 2012
11:54 am
Wonderful – now we get to listen to the sheep baaaaaaaahing “binders” for the next 2 weeks…
Lame.
moonbat betty
October 17th, 2012
11:55 am
Good one, JHM.
moonbat betty
October 17th, 2012
11:58 am
I was hoping Candy would make Obama and Romney Tango together on the stage – then we could see who would lead.
Brosephus™
October 17th, 2012
12:02 pm
Thanks to the 47% we’ll be stuck with this idiot for four more years.
Yet another who fails to realize the composition of the 47%.
Thomas Heyward Jr.
October 17th, 2012
12:09 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
11:39 am
T. Heyward — “i understand your reasoning but…….. I would never leave it up to the State, and their cadre of self-interested politicians/bureacrats , to make that judgement (good or evil ) for me.”
Ah. So if you yourself decided that something was “evil,” then are you saying that you reserve the right to strike against that “evil” even if so doing would be prohibited or considered illegal by the State?
.
“This is where progressives such as you are, of the right and left , differ from Liberty-loving individuals.”
What an absolutely ridiculous and arrogant statement.
———————————————————————————————————————————————
.
I may only “strike” against something that violates my personal property rights.
.
See comman sense……..although I doubt it will stick.
Mick
October 17th, 2012
12:11 pm
Funny, I don’t consider romney an idiot…but the people who hate obama go to the extremes…I do consider romney a decent person but one who will say close to anything to grab the brass ring..that’s his choice…
HDB
October 17th, 2012
12:19 pm
This seems to sum things up quite nicely:
“As has been the case throughout the campaign, Romney’s problem is that this rhetoric lacks a firm foundation in the truth.”
Jamelle Bouie, Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/how-romney-lost-by-swinging-and-missing-on-libya/2012/10/17/04f8da50-1859-11e2-a346-f24efc680b8d_blog.html?hpid=z3
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
12:26 pm
T. Heyward — “I may only “strike” against something that violates my personal property rights.”
We were talking about terror attacks and the like. How’d you go from terror attacks to violations of your property rights?
I smell backpedaling and cowardice.
.
“See comman sense……..although I doubt it will stick.”
Your failure to articulate and clarify your intentions says quite enough, thanks.
alex
October 17th, 2012
12:46 pm
@bropsephus, my, my a bit thin skinned are we?;can’t take a little humor. Your bias is evident and YOU can’t trust the president far enough to throw him, my my. Reading this blog sounds as if Atlanta is full of radical rights and lefts,where’s the moderation? I think we throw andrew sullivan, limbaugh,mathews, and hannity into a room,lock the door ,return in 30 minutes and if anyone of them has survived being bored to death-we elect their repective party….
Now Jay I’m upset that granny dunwoody or that godzilla didn’t “call” you on the gang banged remark—-
smc
October 17th, 2012
12:47 pm
Crowley and Obama are liars.
Watch the full ‘rose garden’ speech on 9/12/2012.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nu6VZ9DeVc
If you watch the full thing — see that Obama was talking about 9/11/2001 just prior to referring to “Acts of Terror” — this is a section of the speech after and separate from when he announced the “attacks” by “killers” in Benghazi. It is clear he was referring to 9/11/2001 and general such possible future attacks as “acts of terror” and did not define Benghazi in that way at all – and ALL of his and his administration’s words and behavior after that point referred to protests and a video as the cause of the Benghazi attacks for several weeks following.
Chicago style spin in conjunction with Candy Crowley and most media sources put out carefully and selectively edited video of the “rose garden” speech and talking points to reconstruct history (in other words — lie).
Ray
October 17th, 2012
12:55 pm
I’m glad Romney got called out on this one, but honestly, this whole Benghazi “issue” is an example of how stupid the political discourse has become in this country.
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
12:57 pm
smc — “It is clear he was referring to 9/11/2001 and general such possible future attacks as “acts of terror” and did not define Benghazi in that way at all”
If he was referring to *future acts of terror,* then how, exactly, do you figure that Benghazi wasn’t included in that category?
Brosephus™
October 17th, 2012
1:00 pm
my, my a bit thin skinned are we?;can’t take a little humor.
When humor is present, then it is enjoyed.
Your bias is evident
As is your willful ignorance, but I’m not trying to make jokes of that, am I?
BeeJay
October 17th, 2012
1:04 pm
Obama did NOT say the attack in Libya was a terrorist act. He said “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.” This is a statement of policy, not a description of what happened the night before in Benghazi. He did not call this particular attack an act of terror. His moronic followers and groveling media worshipers however will interpret the statement any way they please, as usual. And the truth be damned. Congratulations, Bookman, on being sucked in as well.
smc
October 17th, 2012
1:20 pm
Candy Crowley needs to review the concpept of the Fourth Estate — this is NOT — or I hope not — a banana republic.
First of all — Obama did not answer Kerry’s question regarding security in Benghazi and Candy Crowley did not hold Obama to answer the question as she professed she would do prior to the debate on her Sunday show.
Secondly, Crowley and Obama are liars.
Watch the full ‘rose garden’ speech on 9/12/2012.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nu6VZ9DeVc
If you watch the full thing — see that Obama was talking about 9/11/2001 just prior to referring to “Acts of Terror” — this is a section of the speech after and separate from when he announced the “attacks” by “killers” in Benghazi. It is clear he was referring to 9/11/2001 and general such possible future attacks as “acts of terror” and did not define Benghazi in that way at all – and ALL of his and his administration’s words and behavior after that point referred to protests and a video as the cause of the Benghazi attacks for several weeks following.
Chicago style spin in conjunction with Candy Crowley and most media sources put out carefully and selectively edited video of the “rose garden” speech and talking points to reconstruct history (in other words — lie).
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
1:20 pm
BeeJay — “Obama did NOT say the attack in Libya was a terrorist act.”
And he did NOT say that it WASN’T one, either.
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
1:21 pm
smc — “It is clear he was referring to 9/11/2001 and general such possible future attacks as “acts of terror” and did not define Benghazi in that way at all”
In your opinion.
Thomas
October 17th, 2012
1:36 pm
Too funny- the blind leading the blind here-
I ran over you spouse and all you are worried about is understanding the issues surrounding me running over our spouse.
We have a witness that actually saw you running over my spouse and has it videotaped but I understand you need more time to understand the issues surrounding the homicide.
We don’t want to be quick to judge why this happened but I will tell you Ms. Scarlett ran her baby stroller in front of the car- more to come but we are confident that happened even though Ms. Scarlett lives in Oregon, has no baby, and no other person is seen in the video that you, in fact, have full access to.
And then comes Cookie Bookie………. it was not vehicular homicide- let’s be clear, the person died from the trauma of seeing the car approach at a high rate of speed. Really Cookie? I am turning to you for a definition of “terrorist attack” truly pathetic.
tiredofIT
October 17th, 2012
1:38 pm
Peadawg
October 17th, 2012
10:24 am
“Yeah,ask me if we’re better off than we were 4 years ago.”
Hell all I have to do is look at all the construction going on around Athens to know we’re doing better.
++
Same in Gwinnett
Krickstand
October 17th, 2012
1:39 pm
The article to which you refer about a first hand report of ground activities has only unidentified sources. Written by Christopher Stephens about the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens – what an amazing coincidence. Were there really only one or two bullet holes left behind and have local families really moved into the secure compound already? This is remarkable information the government has aparrently overlooked.
tiredofIT
October 17th, 2012
1:46 pm
What does it say about a man whose was in the private sector for all of those years and had to ask for binder of women? He is a CEO and he has never worked with women? How it that possible? Sounds like no respect to me.
Obama won the debate. But the victory comes with a Benghazi asterisk | Full Comment | National Post
October 17th, 2012
1:46 pm
[...] am referring to the moment when Romney attacked Obama for not having immediately called the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. [...]
John Daly
October 17th, 2012
2:09 pm
“None of this matters much, or should matter much.” Wow, I bet it matters to Ambassador Stevens and the other three families think that it matters quite a bit.
alex
October 17th, 2012
2:15 pm
You make my point, my second point is lighten up , anyone who TM’s bropheus can’t be all that serious or should not take themselves so seriously—-sheeesh. You can join the gang in the room, you’ll win ….
Ahem
October 17th, 2012
3:07 pm
An ambassador has been killed and all MittOblunda can do is politize it and lie.
Ahem
October 17th, 2012
3:08 pm
Enter yAn ambassador has been killed and all
MittOblunda can do is politize it and lie.our comments here
Mighty Righty
October 17th, 2012
3:09 pm
Who would like to wager there have been more jobs sent over seas by Obama’s policies than occurred or were caused by Romney. I will give a few examples though there are many more. Start with GE building a green energy plany in China that will unltimately employ 20,000 chinese. (GE is headed by Obama’s jobs czar) How about the light bulb plant in Virginia that had to close due to Obma green energy policy. Those jobs were sent to China to make those $20.00 light bulbs we are now forced to buy and handle the used bulbs according to hazardous waste rules. Or the stimulous money Obama gave to Tesla Motors to build cars in Finland. There are other examples but you get the idea.
Mighty Righty
October 17th, 2012
3:19 pm
tiredofIT
October 17th, 2012
1:38 pm
Peadawg
October 17th, 2012
10:24 am
“Yeah,ask me if we’re better off than we were 4 years ago.”
Hell all I have to do is look at all the construction going on around Athens to know we’re doing better.
++
Same in Gwinnett
None are so blind as those who refuse to see the shopping centers which are half empty, the ten percent unemployment rate in Georgia and the twntey million who are unemployed nationally while our president considers millions who are unemployed due to his policies as one of the success stories of his administration. Wow! In today’s economy I guess any construction would stand out. I know the tens of thousands of unemployed construction workers are doing well in Athens and Gwinnett although I’ll bet it would be a surprise to them.
Yes, Obama won the debate. But the victory comes with a big Benghazi asterisk
October 17th, 2012
3:28 pm
[...] am referring to the moment when Romney attacked Obama for not having immediately called the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. [...]
tiredofIT
October 17th, 2012
5:12 pm
None are so blind as those who refuse to see the shopping centers which are half empty, the ten percent unemployment rate in Georgia and the twntey million who are unemployed nationally while our president considers millions who are unemployed due to his policies as one of the success stories of his administration. Wow! In today’s economy I guess any construction would stand out. I know the tens of thousands of unemployed construction workers are doing well in Athens and Gwinnett although I’ll bet it would be a surprise to them..
++
Thank you for reminding everyone of the damage done by the failed republican policy’s which led to the crash in 2008. As far as Georgia, hows that red state government working out. The unemployed construction workers should have known their field of employment was going to take a hit someday as development was way over done and not based on any real need. If you can’t get a job take some personal responsibility, get some education and move forward.
No WHINING!
Ralph
October 17th, 2012
5:30 pm
So Jay, you’re casting your lot with the meaning of the word ‘terrorist’. It appears to me that you are fighting over the definition of ‘is’ again. Do all ‘progressives’ have this problem?
Jm
October 17th, 2012
7:06 pm
Jay I agree
Well done and balanced
David Granger
October 18th, 2012
12:25 am
May I point out that President Obama slipped over after the debate to the person who had asked the “terrorism” question and explained to him why he “delayed calling the attack a terrorist attack”. (Wasn’t that EXACTLY what the President had denied doing?):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/presidential-debate-libya-questioner-says-obama-didnt-answer/2012/10/17/7109898e-1867-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html
But immediately after the debate, Ms. Crowley herself admitted that Romney had been correct in his assertion that President Obama had not referred to the Libya embassy attack as “terrorism” until many days later:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=athcyCTnTTs
MBA
October 18th, 2012
7:09 am
Journalists are supposed to be the solution to political problems. Bookman’s left-wing bias becomes the problem.