Obama, Romney Clash Angrily Over Libya Attack -- Reuters
Oct 16 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney locked horns on Tuesday over last month's deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, engaging in their angriest exchange yet on an issue that has become a flashpoint in the final weeks before Election Day.
Moving aggressively to regain lost ground after a weak performance in the first presidential debate, Obama fought back against his rival's accusations that he had played down the Sept. 11 assault in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
Seeking to dent Obama's national security credentials, Romney attempted to use the incident to cast Obama's entire Middle East policy as a failure and raise questions about his foreign policy prowess.
Read more ....
My Comment: So after reporting and posting ad-nauseam for the past month on the inadequate U.S. administration's response to the US consulate attack .... and their using an obscure video as justification for their narrative .... I learned in last night's debate that I was wrong .... that President Obama did in fact state that this was a terrorism attack, and was further backed and supported by the debate moderator. The video of President Obama's statement on the terrorism attack on the US consulate is here .... and guess what .... there is no mention of terrorism.
Sighhh ....
As to what is my take on last night's debate .... Mitt Romney lost no votes, President Obama gained no votes. As to what to expect in the next few weeks .... barring some national or international emergency .... everyone has already made up their mind on who to vote for in next months election. As to who will win .... this is not The Barack Obama of 2008 .... he now has a record and it is a tough one to defend.
4 comments:
Did you not hear his remarks from 5:55 - 6:04 aside from the countless times he used the term attacks. If for some reason you have been experiencing a problem with hearing I have provided a direct quote: "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." Every news outlet aside from Fox has discredited the notion that he had failed to label the attack as terrorism the day after the attacks. I hope this resolves your issue (conspiracy issue) with President Obama and whether he labeled the attacks on the Benghazi consulate as a terrorism.
Thank you Eric for your comment. I guess I did not make myself clear. Of course the consulate was attacked, everyone from President Obama to little old me knows that .... how else was the Ambassador and three Americans murdered. But language is important .... and this administration has always been very careful in defining events that carry tremendous meaning both at home and abroad. This is why he deliberately avoided the word "terrorism" in his Rose Garden statement .... he understood that such a word would imply something far more serious than saying the phrase "act of terror'.
But guess what .... this is something that I can understand and agree with .... while any attack against a diplomatic post that results in fatalities is "an act of terror" .... which President Obama and everyone else realized .... he was also careful and accurate in not saying the word "terrorism" .... meaning that it was something that was planned and deliberate .... because at that moment of time he did not know the complete details of what had happened since the intel was only starting to come in.
But aside from arguing all day on language and how Presidents use language in making public statements (Eric, in the future I will only do this over a glass of beer) .... the problem that I have is that in the next few days the true picture of what had happened became known by this administration, but the focus, attention, and narrative was that this was not a planned act of terrorism but a result of a video and a demonstration that went out of a control. From Amb. Susan Rice's numerous appearances on the talk shows on that Sunday to President Obama's speech at the UN .... this became the focus and explanation to the American people.
Why they went this road .... I can write a chapter just on that. But they now know that (belatedly) this was not the road that they should have taken, and to their credit they are trying their best to correct it starting with Defense Secretary Panneta who came out two weeks after the attack to state categorically that this was terrorism with probable Al Qaeda links. As for Hillary Clinton's statement in Peru yesterday "accepting responsibility" .... I can just imagine the arm twisting that went into making her say that statement. And even then .... it was carefully worded.
Just reread my above comment ... and I hate it. But I have had a long 24 hours, and I am squeezed for time. Your comment deserves a better response Eric. I will try to do better next time.
I don't understand the difference between terrorism and acts of terror. They both mean the same thing just worded differently. This is like defining what is is. Both terms insinuate actions conducted by terrorists. Who else would conduct acts of terror than terrorists. This argument is way off and a distraction from the facts. Pres. Obama is ultimately responsible as president, I'll give you that, but to insinuate that he did not believe the attacks were conducted by terrorists smells of conspiracy theories based on opinion or semantics.
Post a Comment