With a single misstatement at Tuesday night’s debate, Governor Romney succeeded where the Obama administration hadn’t: He negated the political consequences of the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, crushing them under the weight of their own artificiality.
Romney kept insisting that President Obama did not refer to the murder of four Americans as “terrorism” in his initial response. In fact, Obama referred to them as “acts of terrorism,” in his first statement, and called the attack an “act of terror” the next day. After the debate, Republicans were in the unenviable position of arguing the semantic differences between “acts of terrorism” and “terrorists.” That segment of the debate — Romney’s insistence that Obama hadn’t called the attacks terrorism and moderator Candy Crowley’s “yes, he actually did” retort — was replayed over and over again.
Comments
What Romney did was show exactly who he was. A CEO. CEO's brook no opposition no, no broad concensus. Mitt thinks he's the boss. That's who we'd be electing not a Pressident but a CEO and that's Mitt's problem.
”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,”
"System" that is the sentence quoted. Quit making a fool of yourself on this one. Romney messed it up now unless your paid shill for Mitt, just quit and if you're paid quit wasting my time and the time of others.
The real issue isn't whether or not Obama ever called the event a terrorist attack. The real issue is why, when all the intelligence authorities deny they EVER originated the "video did it" story, did Rice, Carney, Clinton AND Obama procede to propagate that completely unfounded story......FOR WEEKS? Obama has never answered that question because NO ONE has asked how it was determined, immediately after the attack, that the video incited a "riot". One could understand a mistake could occur, somehow, immediately afterward. One could excuse as an "oversight" the initial, mistaken, claim that the video was to blame. But how is it possible, when there was utterly NO intelligence supporting the video story, for ALL the major characters in an administration to go on FOR WEEKS, not only claiming the video was the reason but having Rice make the claim on TV, having Obama make the claim at the UN, having Clinton blame it at the arrival of the bodies of the victims and then running an ad on Pakistani TV condemning the video? If there was no intelligence supporting the video claim EVER, how was it decided to continue to flog it? That is the issue; how could a completely unsupported (and unsupportable) claim become the foundation of an administration's weeks long explanation of the unprecedented murder of an ambassador? Without any intelligence support the administration, from top to bottom, repeated a baseless story and in so doing certainly changed the character of something that might have been a "mistake" into a despicable attempt to deceive the American public. Why? Because it was grossly negligent in ignoring the multiple requests from multiple parties in Benghazi for more security including from the ambassador himself. If this isn't disgusting, corrupt and disgraceful, what is?
Actually the "video" issue has now been linked to the events. Grant you not a direct link but it is fairly obviou that there isa conflation between the two events even if it is simply as a cover for the attack. What I would find more interesting was whether the activities throughout the Muslim world were related to 9/11 or the video. But I would imagine from an intelligence standpoint that may take awhile to untangle.
More importantly this never should have been politicized. Romeny goofed on that. The smart move would be to move on, but I get the feeling Mitt will bring it up again,much to his own detriment. People forget the Pres. has info Mitt doesn't. Mitt should tread carefully or the Pres. wil let him walk into another one.
This comment has been removed.
The tragedy in Beghazi could have pulled the US into a place we don't want to go. We may have to go there some day but rushing into battle is not what American mothers want.
Security. Yes, they needed security. Someone should have been willing to spend more money in Libya. Maybe spend less somewhere else or just up the cost overall. But so many Americans think that government spending equals waste. The Republicans cut embassy security in the House budget and the administration was able to restore only some of it. That's what happens with compromise and reaching across the aisle...you get some of what you need but not all.
So, if we are going to look at the cause..let's go back to America's willingness to be taxed when the threat is not obvious to all of our Congressman.
If we want to look at the consequences, let's thank our lucky stars that the current President is not "trigger happy."
If Mitt is as thick headed as some of his supporters he will go further in chasing this rabbit down the hole and get himself in real trouble. Mitt is not a foreign policy guy and should try to keep his losses in this area low. If he goes into the debate with this neo-con playbook he will get into a lot of trouble. American's do not want anymore wars.
I guess that you don't mind being lied to. If Obama said that he was a terrorist attack, how do you explain Susan Rice and jay carney blaming it on the video?
attarurk - what a stupid comment!!!
This comment has been removed.
meanie Romney vs. cool, sophistacted Obama,
This comment has been removed.
Juiliette apparently has the same reading and hearing comprehension difficulties as the editorial board of the Globe. In his Rose Garden statement, Obama mentioned "act of terror" in a very generic way, not specifically tieing in the attack on the consulate. And even if he did (which I don't concede), why then have Susan Rice go on the Sunday shows and say that the video was the reason for the attack? Why did Obama say the same thing on Letterman and The hideous View? Why mention the video so many times in his UN speech? I mssed if he said it on the "Pimp with the Limp".
I am at a loss to figure out why the Globe employs Julliette Kayyem. Her colunms are not insightful, interesting or relevant. She's not a particularly good writer nor does she have any particular areas of expertise that I'm aware of. I guess she must be cheap and the Globe needs to fill column inches.
This comment has been removed.
I propose that a sense of reality and ownership be inserted in the whole debate about the US role in the world and whether diplomacy or military might be supreme: I propose that the draft be re-introduced but that it be universal. If you are found fit you are Army bound, if less than fit you are installed in a non-combatant role; in either case two years of your life given to the country. (Unemployment would drop too!) In 1964 classmates and I, about to graduate from college, were making choices (in the absence of grad school deferments or National Guard status) pick your service and get a commission or wait and be drafted for two years in the Army. I chose Marines, others chose Navy...one even chose Coast Guard figuring he would spend 4 years at the Coast Guard base on Cape Cod, I met him by chance a year after OCS, he had just returned from driving a patrol boat in the Mekong Delta (Vietnam) for a year. In any event war and its consequences became real for us and our families. We did not spend two years wandering around France our worst day ruined by having doors closed on us as we preached about someone's else's salvation...we had our own salvation in mind. Maybe war would not be so easy to enter into so easily if ALL had skin (literally) in the game; rich/poor, black/white/yellow/brown/red, male/female, gay/straight, bright/average...ALL. How would Mom think about it then?
Here is the White House press release of Sept 12 responding to the death of our Ambassador: "I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants." Nowhere in that statement does the word "terror" appear. The only allusion to a possible "cause" is the phrase "United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others". Not even the NY Times coverage of that press event MENTIONS terrorism as a possibility noting only "The attack apparently began as a reaction by an angry mob to a YouTube video denouncing Islam’s founding prophet". So suggesting that it was "clear" Obama deemed this a "terrorist act" is belied by the very reporting of the Globe's sister publication.
Kayyem exposes herself as a fraud again. Obama's reference to terror in the Rose Garden was AFTER he used the video as the excuse and AFTER he apologized for it! Obama's reference to terror was later, after general references to 9/11!!!!!!! NOT Benghazi!!! Even the fraudulent 'journalists' have had to point this out, but oh no, not Kayyem!
Obama then lied about the video for another week! Obama went to the UN and used the video as an excuse there, and apologized for the video six times. Then Obama sent Susan Rice to lie on every network on national TV... because Hillary Clinton refused to sell the stupid lie she KNEW would be coming back around. Obama sold that video lie for over ten days. It took almost a MONTH for Obama to outright call it a terrorist attack, and that was only after a month of pestering by the media!!
That the media allows Obama to get away with this lie, and then the media PARTICIPATES in this lie, is reason alone to vote against the media's candidate: if the media isn't going to be the watchdog, their candidate can NOT be allowed to remain in office!!!!! You would think the media would be the first to understand this!!!!!!
This comment has been removed.
The lunacy of this particular debate, at this point virtually lost in semantics, is detractign from the real issues of foreign policy and the different approaches of the two candidates. And that is what Ms. Kayyem is trying to get at here (even if many of you don't want to hear it, and want to parse the various video statements over and over again). Needing to find a wedge into the foreign policy debate, where he is percieved to be significantly weak by voters, Romney advocates an aggressive approach to continuing the "war on terror" with pre-emptive strikes, an approach that, if actually articulated out loud, would probably cause him to lose the election. The President should, in the next debate, try to draw Romney out to tell how he (Romney) would go into Syria, attack Iran, and swoop into Libya, all in the name of protecting "American interests" and continuing the war on terror wherever necessary. For that is what Romney has indicated he would do, albeit obliquely, by his critique of the Obama approach. But, unfortunately, the American voters, weary of war and overseas involvement, rejects those direct, aggressive approaches, which were the same ones advocated by Cheney, the ones that got us into the messes we've been stuck in for over a decade now.
It's "semantics" when Kayyem says Obama called it a terrorist attack and even the NY Times, the next day, doesn't mention the word "terror" in its review of Obama's official remarks? Kayyem is fabricating an excuse just as Obama fabricated the now utterly discredited "video" explanation. You WANT it to be a battle over "semantics" but the reality is that Kayyem, the press in general (and you, apparently) have no interest in understanding why a president, his secretary of state, his UN ambassador and press secretary would try and float a completely undocumented reason for an murderous attack of Americans. How disgusting is it that so many people have no interest in a transparent LIE that Obama circulated to avoid accountability for ANY responsibilty in the ensuing murder of an ambassador? Do you people have no shame?
"There you go again." Most of America doesn't care about who said the word "terror" when, and what it means about this particular situation. American voters are themselves deciding which candidate will keep us out of war (Obama) and which will get us into another one soon(Romney). Romney thought this Benghazi issue would be his way into the foreign policy discussion, but it's backfired on him badly. But by all means keep blabbing about it out here on the comment boards, where the sounds of silence are so very deafening.
Wow you guys still going on about this nonsense. Obama let Mitt walk into it and Mitt did, all of this twisting and turning by some of you only makes matters worse. If your a Romney supporter you better hope he is smarter than some of you and let's this thing go.
If Romney keeps this nonsense up and his spokesmen keep this nonsense up the next thing you know they'll get backed into a corner calling for war with Iran and then you can forget the election. The public by and large has no desire for another war.
"System" like it or not this is the sentence, ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” . You can run it around in circles and the words won't change. All you can do at that point is argue about what was in his mind or what he meant and you can't win that argument.
I may think he meant one thing, you may think another, but the words are there. This is politics. Mitt stuck his foot in his mouth, the President walked him into that door and Mitt took it. Just like in golf take the penalty and move on, make a better shot. Talk about way too funny.
A teacher tells a parent; "Your child lied to me". The parent replys "No lies will ever be tolerated by me". Has the parent AGREED with the teacher? No, the parent has simply uttered a platitude, which has no reference to the ACT IN QUESTION. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation" could be stated, any time, anywhere by anyone. It does NOT speak to a specific instance. It does not state Benghazi was a terrorist act. Its a lawerly, artful yes, DODGE. That so many liberals don't get this is understandable as they believed Clinton when he said it all depended on the meaning of the word "is". Its funny that a president totally mischaracterizes the murder of an ambassador to cover himself politically? You have a very distorted sense of humor to find such duplicity amusing.
"jjag" Do you understand politics, government, life? Obama did the typical CYA and Mitt walked into a solid right. Now all of Mitt's backers can go through all of these verbal permutations as you have just done and it doesn't change a thing, except maybe in your own mind.
I have said numerous times, I could give a flip less who wins. I despise Mitt and I'm not a big fan of Obama's but "not a big fan" beats "I despise" every time.
Now you get just as silly when you say the President "mischaracterized" the murder of the ambassador. I find duplicity in politics whether by politicians or those of you on the web to be nothing except for what it is. And it is simply politics. "I will twist whatever the other guy says to fit my own meaning." Romney does it. Obama does it. And you are doing it. And you doing it is what is sad. They have a vested interest. You only an emotional one. You would delude yourself for emotion?
"obamafan" said attarurk - what a stupid comment!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say, " wow are you insightful. A brilliant statement on your part to argue the point. I am duly impressed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"pdrom" said, "I guess that you don't mind being lied to. If Obama said that he was a terrorist attack, how do you explain Susan Rice and jay carney blaming it on the video?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say obviously not given I watched the debate as Mitt ran off a string of BS followed by a string of BS by Obama. Then I have some fun goofing around with "system" and a few others who couldn't see reality if it bit them in the butt.
So no shading the truth, lying whatever you wish to call it doesn't bother me in the least. But then I'm 65 and have heard all this BS before, so why should it.
"jjag" Come on he failed? Really all the talk is about Romny getting caught. Obama didn't fail. You could tell he got what he wanted when he said "proceed". You say your not emotional but this is your statement, "it isn't simply "politics". It is simply a disgraceful display of duplicity." The fact is Mitt made it an issue, got caught and now you want to make it a matter of "duplicity".
Mitt raised the issue and was accuesed of "politicizing" the event. Of course he did and he should have. It was an opportunity for him. But he "blew" it. You say you don't hate Obama nor love MItt, but come on all of your postings are anti-Obama. But hey if you want to believe this is a big deal or something that will help Mitt, that's okay with me. It just doesn't change my mind nor do I think it will change the mind of any independents. They say Mitt get called out. That my friend is politics.
"jjag" Let me add the fact that Mitt talks about the ambassadors death is just as repugnent. Neither of these guys have anything to be proud about regarding this event.
attaturk; I don't know what you're reading. I haven't say anything regarding Romney's response, I've only tried to make clear that Kayyem's assertion that Obama's "first statement" on the attacks did not characterize that attack as "terrorism". I don't care whether anyone determines Romney "blew it" or not. The point is Obama lied from the begining, Kayyem is wrong about his calling the attack terrorism IMMEDIATELY (even Jay Carney, a week later, said Obama wasn't calling it a terrorist act). The point is NO ONE is asking the logical question; Where did the "video" story come from? Why did Obama and his adminstration run with it, exclusively, for WEEKS when within days of the event the intelligence community stated bluntly they NEVER deemed the attack driven by a video. Why make up the story, any story? That you and others don't get this essential point is fascinating. It has nothing to do with "emotion" or "winning". It has to do with DUPLICITY at the highest level. Simple.
"jjag" This is what you don't get. He didn't lie. I don't care about all the stuff that followed. Mitt set up the moment by saying,
"Did you say in the rose garden it was an act of terror?" Obama said "proceed", because he knew where this was going. Mitt then inserts foot and repeats the mess up, "It took him 14 days to call it an act of terror." Obama lowers the boom, check the transcripts. And you get Obama's "an act of terror" remark. Now I do not deny your allowed to parse it but I simply saying it doesn't help. All this "video" stuff is great talking points, but it doesn't matter. I fuly understand what your are saying. You just can't seem to bear the politics. You're all into this whether it is honest or dishonest and what happened after and I'm talking politics. Mitt lost the round. You guys oughta just give it up. But your so partisan you can't. I haven't said Obama was honest. I have said it just doesn't matter from a political perspective.
If you think that Mitt or his spokesperson or yourself can spin out of it. Fine go for it. I'm just saying how it works.