Skip to main content

Markos tells us now that "Please proceed, Governor" was his favorite moment of 2012.  Well, OK.  Not my pick, but I understand it.  Now with the election over, though, I feel free to write what I dared not write back then, with the election still in doubt.

Romney was technically right.  He really was.  He really, really was -- and because you don't believe it I've written several million words explaining it in painful detail below.  The right-wing critiques of Obama were wrong, but Romney was technically right -- and Crowley was wrong to correct him.

Romney was right to his discredit.  He was making a fatuous, jingoistic, and perverse argument as to how Obama should have responded, doubling down on his ghoulish real-time performance of the previous evening as attacks in the Arab world were still ongoing.  But he was right: Obama didn't do the politically popular but substantively stupid thing that Romney said he should have been done: he did not conclude that the "outrageous attack" on the Benghazi consulate was definitively an act of terror.

Nor should he have done so.  But let's please set the record straight, for the sake of accurate history.

The rest of this comment, below the video of the Rose Garden speech, comes mostly from a reply that I initially made in kos's diary before deciding that it really warranted its own discussion.

The correct (but far less effective) response that Obama could have made to Romney is that (1) it was too early at the time to conclude whether the underlying protest was organic or manufactured, which was necessary to determining whether it (the whole thing) was "an act of terrorism"); (2) that there might be wise diplomatic reasons for not calling it "an act of terrorism" at that early moment; and (3) that it really didn't matter whether or not he called it an act of terrorism (or "of terror") or not.

Obama's position, though, was that he was going to win on a technicality -- given the unclear reference in his speech, as noted below -- so he went with it.  I don't blame him for trying, but I'm surprised (but pleased) that Crowley fell for it.  (Maybe "playing the ref" against her helped a bit?)

What did Obama actually say?  Let's start with the transcript from the White House site (UPDATE: note that this is the one with the video -- and that it appears on a secondary (i.e., without the video) page here.  I initially omitted both links):

Statement by the President on the Attack in Benghazi:

"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

"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.

"On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

"The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward."

You'll note that this selection doesn't include any form of the word "terrorism" -- though to me "outrageous [and shocking] attack" and "senseless violence" better fit the bill anyway.

Did the President say "act(s) of terror" elsewhere in his speech?  Yes -- but it's not in the transcript published on the site, which may explain why Romney would have been poorly briefed.  (I would have expected them to focus on that public transcript rather than a sentence that could be found at the 4:18 mark of the 5:35 video itself, if they were going to gripe about Obama supposedly soft-pedaling the idea of terrorism.)

The portion of the speech containing the words "acts of terror" appears after the selection chosen for publication as "Statement by the President":

"Of course yesterday was also a painful day for our nation as we mark the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.

"We mourn with the families who were lost that day. I visited the graves of troops who made that final sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

"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 only is 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, alte that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the 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. But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.

"These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served -- in the hope that our flag represents to people around the world who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity. We grieve with their families, but let us carry on the memory and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.  Thank you and may god bless the memory of those we lost, and God bless America."

Right-wingers say that Obama was talking there about 9/11 rather than Benghazi.  That's not true.  He was speaking about "acts of terror" generally -- and implicitly about Benghazi as at least a possible (although not necessarily at that point definite) "act of terror" as opposed to a mere act of "senseless violence," etc.

Obama's statement is not incompatible with his later being able to back away from the charge that the attack in Benghazi was itself an "act of terror" had later evidence shown otherwise -- nor should it have been at that moment.  Romney's demand that the President react from the start by calling it an act of terror, evidence be damned, was dunderheaded -- but not necessarily bad politics.

What Obama probably realized is that even if Romney was technically correct that he had "never called Benghazi an 'act of terrorism'" on Sept. 12, he had done enough to make Romney's caviling about it look like petty quibbling.  (Sometimes being technically correct isn't good enough.)  Obama then knew that he was going to survive this attack on Benghazi during the debate and that he could not improve on his situation at that moment by saying another word.  Hence: "please proceed, Governor."

I don't think that Obama had any idea that Crowley was going to choose that moment for a fact check -- let alone that she was going to back him up on it!  He had the presence of mind, once she did, to ask her to repeat it and to claim the victory.  ("Can you say that a little louder, Candy?"), more than his previous sentence, was actually the point where he nailed home the win.  But let's not confuse the fact that he won the point (and game and match) with saying that he was right.

He wasn't right.  Technically -- very technically, and then only to his substantive discredit -- Romney was right that Obama did not make an assertion from which he could not withdraw if future information warranted.  (Again: good for Obama -- a smart and honest diplomat!)  But ... this position is quite hard to explain.

In the bumper-sticker world of modern politics, Democrats usually get the dirty end of the stick when it comes to having an argument that is too complex for voters to understand.  The beautiful irony of this election as that this time, in this critical instance, it happened to the Republicans instead.

Thus, "please proceed, Governor" comes across as a decisive winning spike rather than as the saving volley it was: "you may be technically right, but you're never going to be able to explain it here well enough to convince the audience.  Go ahead and try."  This very approach, in fact, had been Romney's own strategy throughout the first debate.  Now it came back to bite him -- and he can't stop whining about it!

It couldn't happen to a more deserving party.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Please proceed, commenters. (17+ / 0-)

    Right now, I have no more to say than that!

    Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

    "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
    -- Saul Alinsky

    by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:38:21 AM PST

    •  In the 2nd debate, Romney claimed that Obama (20+ / 0-)

      did not call what happened in Benghazi a terrorist attack the day after in the Rose Garden.

      The video shows Obama calling it an act of terror.

      Romney was wrong.  I like to split hairs with the best/worst of them, but this one I'm not getting at all.

      •  Read the transcript again, carefully (4+ / 0-)

        Please explain what you mean by these words:

        "Obama calling it an act of terror"
        specifying what you mean by "it" and "calling" and why you think that he did so.

        One clear way of his doing so would have been to say "Last night's attack on Benghazi was an act of terror."

        He didn't say that -- nor should he have said it at that early moment.

        Please explain to me why you think that he did in fact say that.

        Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

        "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
        -- Saul Alinsky

        by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:58:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's called context (10+ / 0-)

          what was the only reason for calling the Rose Garden press conference? (answer: the attack in Benghazi) If you say "it" when you are specifically only talking about one subject, the further defining of "it" shouldn't be necessary. It was pretty obvious that "it" was "the attack in Benghazi".

          “There can be no happiness if the things we believe in are different from the things we do.”-Freya Stark

          by in2mixin on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:04:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're right that context is necessary (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nova Land, Chitown Kev, martini

            but you're wrong that it supports your position.

            My alternative reading of this statement:

            Our country only is 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 for more Americans who represent the 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.
            Is that whether or not Benghazi is determined to be an act of terrorism as opposed to a "mere" outrageous attack of senseless violence,
            (1) We are represented by people of high character.

            (2) Terrorism will never shake our resolve, alter that character, or eclipse our values.

            (3) The people that did this will be punished.

            He didn't have to make the assertion that Benghazi was an act of organized and previously planned terrorism -- as opposed to the result of an organic riot or improvisationally taking advantage of an unexpected riot to kill people -- at that moment.  Accordingly, he didn't do so.  But given that he didn't recognize it as more than a to-be-determined possibility at that point, it's correct to say that he didn't definitively say that this act was terrorism.  And, again, that was the right call.

            Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

            "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
            -- Saul Alinsky

            by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do we really require that people must (10+ / 0-)

              speak in simple noun verb object sentences or else they dont mean anything?  
              You are asking the president to speak like an idiot, the plain meaning is there, all the parsing in the world won't remove it.

              These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. Abraham Lincoln

              by Nailbanger on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:27:04 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So if the evidence had turned out to say that (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Nova Land, martini

                this had just been an organic mob protest, like the one in Cairo, that unlike Cairo had tragically turned lethal, the President would have to admit that he had false characterized events.

                Is that what you're saying?  Either he definitively said that it was terrorism rather than mob violence, less than a day after the event when the facts weren't in, or he didn't.

                You say that it was clear, plain meaning, no retreat from it.  I say that had the evidence shown that it was mob violence rather than a planned and organized terrorist attack, you'd be singing a different tune.

                The President left the characterization of Benghazi vague intentionally, while the evidence was out -- while saying that if it (or anything else) was terrorism, we'd punish it severly -- and was right to do so.

                Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                -- Saul Alinsky

                by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:54:01 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  If it turned out to be... (7+ / 0-)

                  an organic mob protest how would it not be an act of terror?

                  This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

                  by Tonedevil on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:59:24 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Great question! (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    martini, Spider Jerusalem

                    Because it would have been an act of rage over the provocation of the anti-Muslim video -- as was the case in Egypt -- rather than calculated political violence designed to strike fear in a broader population than just the specific target.

                    It's sort of like how not every killing is a murder.

                    Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                    "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                    -- Saul Alinsky

                    by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:48:50 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Any attack on an embassy . . . (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Seneca Doane, Nova Land, martini

                    should be considered an act of terrorism, even if no one is injured  and regardless if it is planned, spontaneous, or the result of a protest that spiraled out of control.  Unless of course the attack is aided by a government, in which case it is an act of war.  

                    That being said, when I first heard the debate, I had the same reaction as SD, that Romney might have a valid (but meaningless) debating point.  But that is what made the outcome so wonderful, because Romney got smacked down for engaging in typical RW behavior of foaming at the mouth over  small meaningless inaccuracies while they are allowed to get away with large lies by the MSM.  

                    Dedicated to recapturing the American Dream by changing the framework of the debate to focus on: Growth, Efficiency, Community, Sustainability and Economic Fairness. Improve constantly and drive out fear - Dr. W. Edwards Deming

                    by Paradigm Change on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:42:38 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  It was a speech about the Benghazi attack (11+ / 0-)

          and only about the Benghazi attack.

          Is your thesis that he just stuck that paragraph about acts of terror in there out of the blue and in no way related to the topic of his remarks?  Really?

          “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

          by jrooth on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:12:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It was a speech a violence of undetermined motive (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nova Land, Chitown Kev, martini

            that had taken place on the anniversary of 9/11.  There was certainly reason to suspect that it was terrorism; there was also reason -- most notably the virtually simultaneous /non-terrorist demonstration taking place in the adjoining country -- to think that it wasn't.  He dealt with the possibility of its being terrorism without declaring that it definitely was.

            That's all you need to justify the presence of that paragraph in the speech.

            Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

            "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
            -- Saul Alinsky

            by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:56:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  As for it being "only about the Benghazi attack" (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nova Land, Chitown Kev, martini

            go back a few sentences:

            "Of course yesterday was also a painful day for our nation as we mark the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.

            "We mourn with the families who were lost that day. I visited the graves of troops who made that final sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

            It was a speech prompted by the Benghazi attack, but it was not solely about the Benghazi attack.  It was putting an event that may or may not, at that moment, have turned out to be terrorism in the context of other attacks on the U.S.

            Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

            "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
            -- Saul Alinsky

            by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:01:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're engaging in ridiculous pettifogging (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Smoh, jrooth, emelyn, Deep Texan, jofr

              The paragraph beginiing "No acts of terror..." refers to both the 9/11 attacks and the Benghazi attack.

              In the next sentence of that paragraph, the President clearly indicates that he is including the Benghazi attack.  First, he refers specifically to the Benghazi dead ("Today we mourn for more Americans...").  Then, he refers to the attack as an "act," which quite clearly is intended to include it within "act of terror", since that is the topic of the paragraph.

              For your argument to make any sense,  the sentence "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alte that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for" would have to be considered a non sequitur.

              "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

              by Old Left Good Left on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:06:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not at all (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Nova Land, martini

                He can be making a general statement about acts of terror against Americans along with recognizing that Benghazi may (and probably will) turn into one -- and talking about how we will withstand it if it does.  That's not a non-sequitur at all.

                Read my other comments for the "so if contrary evidence came in" problem, given your interpretation.  (Also, frankly, if he did want to make clear that Benghazi was an act of terror, then frankly he did a terrible job of it.)

                Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                -- Saul Alinsky

                by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:15:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  If considerations of (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jrooth, Deep Texan, carlos the jackal

                  grammar, sentence and paragraph construction, and logic are insufficient to sway you from your lonely path, I doubt that any further discussion will.  So I'll just go ahead and be blunt:  this diary is fucking stupid.

                  "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                  by Old Left Good Left on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:22:56 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  OK, opinion noted (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    martini

                    I presume that you're done here then.

                    Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                    "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                    -- Saul Alinsky

                    by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:32:09 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  That was carefully done with a fine grade sifter. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Seneca Doane, jofr

      I do question, though, whether you mean to imply that Romney's dunderheaded bluster would have been better, smarter politics than Obama's gradient, textured, blendable fence-straddling.

      The majority of your own discussion seems to disagree with that half-suggestion of begrudging approval which seems to surround the consideration of Romney's technical correctness like an oily film.

      It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

      by Murphoney on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:11:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama's approach was right -- and would have been (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        martini, Chitown Kev

        better politics had it turned out not to be an act of terrorism.  Turned out, when all the facts were in, that it was an act of terrorism, making it politically advantageous for Romney to claim "I knew it all along."  When dunderheaded bluster turns out to have led to the correct assertion, then yes it's pretty good politics.  Obama obviously thought so, or he would have given a Dukakis-style explanation in the debate.  He had said just enough in the speech to let him get away with it.

        Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

        "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
        -- Saul Alinsky

        by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:59:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nah, Romney was wrong and Obama WAS (14+ / 0-)

    right.

    Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.--Bertrand Russell

    by Timaeus on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:43:37 AM PST

    •  Nah. And I explain why in painful detail. (4+ / 0-)

      Choose to address it or don't; as usual, I care most about just having gotten it down into writing.

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:46:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In his spoken remarks from the Rose Garden, (9+ / 0-)

        Obama called it an act of terror.

        Ergo, Obama was right at the debate and Romney was wrong.

        That IS addressing the issue.

        Who cares what it says on a typed transcript or whether Romney was adequately briefed?

        Crowley corrected Romney because she had heard Obama say "terror" just a few days before the debate.  I'm not sure, but I think she may have been at Rose Garden when the remarks were made.

        Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.--Bertrand Russell

        by Timaeus on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:52:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Timaeus, as a fellow attorney, I know that you (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annecros, martini

          have respect for the facts.  I'm not asking you to rely on the transcript alone.  I embedded the video.  I do not deny that Obama used the word "terror" that day in the Rose Garden and that that is probably why the none-too-swift Crowley made her correction.  What I deny is that, at that early moment, "he called the attack on Benghazi an act of terror (or terrorism)."  That he used the word "terror" is not, are you surely must know, definitive.

          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
          -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:01:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have great respect for your thinking (9+ / 0-)

            and writing abilities, but I don't seem to be able to do the quantum gyrations needed to grasp your point here.

            He said "act of terror" in a statement that was entirely about the Benghazi attack.  Romney said he didn't call it an act of terror for 14 more days.

            So Romney really is not technically correct.

            Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.--Bertrand Russell

            by Timaeus on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:27:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It wasn't "entirely about the Benghazi attack" (0+ / 0-)

              Go back a few sentences.

              "Of course yesterday was also a painful day for our nation as we mark the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.

              "We mourn with the families who were lost that day. I visited the graves of troops who made that final sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi."

              The odds probably were that it probably was terrorism.  But he didn't know that -- and he reserved making a definitive conclusion accordingly.  That was GOOD on his part.  But, it turned out to be terrorism, so it was also inconvenient.

              Obama , more clearly called it an act of terror two days later, so Romney was clearly wrong about the 14 days -- although right that for a time the U.S. seemed to back off of that as a definitive conclusion.  (See "Rice, Susan.")  They could both be wrong in part.

              But about the narrow question that was the core of the controversy (and about which Candy Crowley commented), it is the case that Obama reserved judgment on Sept. 12 about whether this specific attack fell into the category of terrorism until the evidence was in.  That was proper and, I think, intentional.  It was also inconvenient for him by the time of the second debate.  Luckily, Candy Crowley didn't get it.

              Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

              "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
              -- Saul Alinsky

              by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:07:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  What is your DEAL, S. D.? (13+ / 0-)

        Is there a reason that you feel a need to super parse so you can feel vindicated?  

        I witnessed the mini smack down of you in kos's very fun diary and your response is to double down?  Spend some irretrievable time of your life to prove WHAT exactly?  

        •  P.S. You're right about one thing: (5+ / 0-)

          your explanation is indeed "painful" inasmuch you seem lost in the weeds.

          •  Sorry to have hurt your brain (0+ / 0-)

            "Examining the evidence" is not "lost in the weeds," for pity's sake.

            Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

            "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
            -- Saul Alinsky

            by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:32:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I'm seriously confused myself (15+ / 0-)

          This sort of parsing seems unnecessary and just plain wrong.  

          In President Obama's remarks, he is clearly talking about the original 9/11 attacks and the Benghazi attacks, and he refers to both generally as "acts of terror."

          It wasn't an occasion for legal parsing of words, nor would anyone see the need for such a careful parsing, were it not for an offensive bunch of Republicans, bent upon creating a scandal where none exists.

          This diary feels to me like a well-intentioned waste of time.

          A 47% return on investment--that's pretty doggoned good!

          by deminva on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:08:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  agreed (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bluegrass50, emelyn, jofr, Patate

            waste of time and wrong.

            please delete.

            -You want to change the system, run for office.

            by Deep Texan on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:12:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Please leave the diary (0+ / 0-)

              Problem solved, for you.

              Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

              "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
              -- Saul Alinsky

              by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:32:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Do you think that he reserved judgment, less than (0+ / 0-)

            a day after the attack and before all the facts were in, as to what motivated the attack, or do you think he jumped to a politically advantageous conclusion?

            He was -- rightly -- "parsing words," because he didn't know whether it would meet the legal definition of terrorism, but he DID know that it was wrong, heinous, and would be punished.  And you think that that's bad ... why?

            Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

            "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
            -- Saul Alinsky

            by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:34:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm finding it difficult to respond to you (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jrooth, Deep Texan, Smoh

              because it feels as though  you are both "correcting" me and putting words in my mouth.

              I don't believe President Obama was parsing words when he referred to "acts of terror."  I think he was circumspect, neither rushing to a falsely precise description of the Benghazi attacks, nor undercutting intelligence efforts by revealing how much  (or how little) the US already knew about the attacks.  

              As I read the words (am I not a lawyer, but I do have a PhD in English), President Obama is referring generally to the original 9/11 attacks and the Benghazi attacks as "acts of terror."  

              As for parsing of words, it's certainly not an inherently bad thing to do.  But every time I reread President Obama's remarks, I'm struck anew by how much others must engage in parsing of words not to admit that he's referring to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror.  He talks about the attack.  He talks about the four Americans who lost their lives in that attack.  He connects their courage and their sacrifice to the courage and sacrifices of others who have been victims of similar attacks.  And then he says we will never allow these acts of terror to stand unchallenged.

              Does he ever state unequivocally that "these acts of terror" should be construed to include the Benghazi attack.  No.  But it's obvious that that's what he means.  

              It would be as if I was talking about dimes, and nickels and pennies and quarters.  And I finished up by saying how interested I am in US coins.  Did I ever "admit" that dimes are US coins?  No, I didn't.  But please!

              A 47% return on investment--that's pretty doggoned good!

              by deminva on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:27:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Let's stick with the coins example (0+ / 0-)

                You're in an antiquities shop and on a far counter you see ancient U.S. pennies, nickels, and quarter coins, all of which you recognize.  Then you see a small and unfamiliar coin.  Looks like it might be a dime, but you can't see it clearly enough to say whether it is a U.S. coin or not.  Could be foreign, could be a slug, could be a very small medal.  When you get closer, you'll be able to tell -- but not yet.

                You don't know whether you're justified in calling it a U.S. coin.  So you don't.  But can you call it a coin?  Well, it's in a coin shop; it's fair to call it a coin.  So you can talk about it in the context of coins, but not yet in the context of "U.S. coins."

                coins:U.S. coins::act of violence:acts of terror

                If you call it a "U.S. coin," you may end up having to recant.  No need to, yet.

                Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                -- Saul Alinsky

                by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:41:57 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Dude, you're parsing (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Deep Texan

                  And by the way, I'm using dude in its ungendered form.  
                  In the full remarks (which you quote), President Obama speaks side by side of the Americans (just) killed and of our refusal to let such acts of terror go unchallenged:

                  "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 for more Americans who represent the 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. But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.

                  "These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.

                  There are unmistakable linkages forged between "acts of terror" and "this terrible act," and between "will [not] ever shake the resolve" and "we will not waver."

                  If you continue to disagree, bully for you.  You're in a minority here.

                  I believe firmly that the President wasn't parsing words, and rather, that readers must pursue exquisite parsing of words not to see that he's referring to this attack as an act of terror.

                  A 47% return on investment--that's pretty doggoned good!

                  by deminva on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:56:04 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  OK, Dude, but are you comfortable with (0+ / 0-)

                    the implication of your position?

                    Let's say that starting an hour later, evidence began to mount showing that what happened in Benghazi really was a spontaneous demonstration of outrage over that movie rather than a pre-meditated act of terror.

                    You think that Obama, if pressed, would have had to back off that statement, right?

                    I don't -- because I think that he discussed Benghazi in terms of violence against Americans (definitely) and only possibly terrorism.  He's making a general statement about our reaction to terrorism, because it was possible and even probable that the Benghazi attack was terrorism -- even if as then not yet certain.

                    Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                    "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                    -- Saul Alinsky

                    by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:03:16 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Seneca Doane

                      the president, being a dude, would have pointed out that there are premeditated acts of terror, certainly, but also unpremeditated acts of violence that rise to the level of terrorist acts.  And I think he would have called the journalist asking the question a dude.

                      A 47% return on investment--that's pretty doggoned good!

                      by deminva on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:40:34 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Then why do you suppose that he didn't say it more (0+ / 0-)

                        clearly -- or for that matter more often -- on Sept. 12?  And then there's the whole Susan Rice question, if you're right.

                        Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                        "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                        -- Saul Alinsky

                        by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:33:35 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Good grief, SD, that's nuts. (0+ / 0-)

                  I hope you're alright.

                  Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.--Bertrand Russell

                  by Timaeus on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:22:16 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Can we agree on this much? (0+ / 0-)

                    "Not all public acts of violence are 'acts of terror'."

                    If so, what's the problem with the notion that Obama was, at this early point, reserving his opinion as to whether the violence against the Consulate constituted "acts of terror"?  That is, after all, what they said they were doing.

                    "You're crazy" is not an argument, but for what it's worth I hope you're all right too, just in a general sense.

                    Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                    "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                    -- Saul Alinsky

                    by Seneca Doane on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 05:39:40 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm just going to leave it with "nuts," sorry. (0+ / 0-)

                      "At 65, it seems that I may not be at the peak of my rock ’n’ roll powers. But that is not for sure."--Neil Young (and he was right, as I attest from his 11/30/12 show in Fairfax, VA, which was over the top righteous).

                      by Timaeus on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 03:44:40 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  There's an art to listening to politicians that... (0+ / 0-)

          rivals their ability to speak for hours without saying anything that should actually, factually, truthfully make you good or safe.

          It's not that they never say anything, but it's nice to be able to tell the two instances apart.

          It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

          by Murphoney on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Gee, why do I think that we should strive (0+ / 0-)

          for historical accuracy based on a close reading of the evidence?

          I don't know -- because I'm a truth-respecting liberal?  What are you?

          Has it occurred to you that in arguing that Obama said that it WAS an "act of terror" -- as opposed to spontaneous mob violence that doesn't meet the definition of "terrorism" -- before the facts were in, you're saying that Obama made up his mind to do the politically popular thing without caring whether it was true?

          I don't think that you've thought through the implications of your argument.  Until you do, maybe you should ratchet down the snottiness.

          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
          -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:31:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out (3+ / 0-)

            "terrorism" is at this point a word almost completely devoid of meaning beyond "violence we (the United States and/or Israel) don't approve of."  So do I wish politicians wouldn't keep using the term?  Sure.

            But that doesn't change the fact that he used the words "acts of terror" in the context of remarks specifically about the Benghazi attack and that it takes some Herculean gyrations to claim he was talking about something else.

            “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

            by jrooth on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:47:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  We have no disagreement over whether Obama (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Chitown Kev, Spider Jerusalem

              considered it a potential, even likely, act of terror.  He clearly did so.  The question is not whether he suspected that it might be an act of terror, but whether he went out on a limb and (rather stupidly, if so) said so definitively before all of the relevant evidence was in.

              That was an actual and substantive difference between the campaigns.  Obama respected reality, which directed that he wait a while longer to be correct, while spelling out in his speech how we would deal with Benghazi whether or not it turned out to be an act of terror or something else -- such as the riot in Cairo.  Romney didn't give a damn -- as characteristic of him in all things, if he could make a politically advantageous claim, he was going to do it, truth be damned, and he was arguing (in the "ghoul" press conference on 9/11) that that's what we should want in a President.

              (As an aside: GG is right that "act of terror" is very ambiguous these days, but "almost completely devoid of meaning" is stretching it.  If people upset about what they considered to be the blasphemous movie had someone killed an American that day in Cairo, it would not have been considered an "act of terror.)

              Obama was saying that the perps were going to be punished either way, act of terror or not, but he put this violence in the context of our history of "acts of terror" against us.  But if it had turned out to be a Cairo-style mob gone bad, he would not have had to retract a word.  Given how you interpret his speech, you must think that he would have had to.

              Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

              "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
              -- Saul Alinsky

              by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:15:14 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  I think you missed the point of the post (3+ / 0-)

      I was always very nervous when I heard or read Dem's touting of this debate moment because, as Seneca points out, Romney was technically correct.

      But I live in a world where hearing "ATM machine" annoys me.  A mere technicality..  

      Pushing for an alternative option to "America, Love It Or Leave It."

      by scrabblehound on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:50:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Actually Romney was wrong... (15+ / 0-)

    He wasn't saying that Obama DIDN'T call it an act terror, he was saying that Obama didn't call it an act of terror until 14 days after the attack.

    But even if Obama hadn't called in an act of terror in the Rose Garden (which he did), he did not wait the mythical 14 days rightwingers convinced themselves was true.  Benghazi was being labelled a terrorist attack almost immediately and was being described as such well before 14 days.

    So Romney was still wrong.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:47:43 AM PST

    •  Romney was wrong about the 14 days (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annecros

      but the controversy was over whether he said it -- "it "being that "the Benghazi attack was an act of terror" rather than just uttering the word "terror" -- in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12.

      Romney was right that the reference was -- intentionally -- not definitively inclusive of the attack on Benghazi.  Nor should it have been.

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:04:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  But Romney was very specific in the debate (14+ / 0-)

    He asked the President:

    Romney: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?

    Obama: Please proceed governor.

    Romney: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

    Had Romney said "terrorism", I think you'd have more of a leg to stand on, but he focused on the semantics and was clearly wrong.

    "Mitt Romney isn't a vulture capitalist: vultures only eat things that are dead." -S. Colbert

    by newinfluence on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:49:31 AM PST

    •  Good point. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, newinfluence, Smoh, jofr

      Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.--Bertrand Russell

      by Timaeus on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:54:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Start a couple of lines earlier (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annecros

      That first sentence was Romney incredulously repeating what Obama had just said, after Romney had accused him of not saying it.  Hence "is that what you're saying?"

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:05:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Starting a couple of lines earlier... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        Only makes my point stronger.

        "Mitt Romney isn't a vulture capitalist: vultures only eat things that are dead." -S. Colbert

        by newinfluence on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:59:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't see where you get that impression (0+ / 0-)
          We have A, B, and C: all acts of terror.

          Now we have D -- which may or may not be an act of terror.

          If it is, though, we'll withstand it as we always do.

          Either way, though, we will have justice.

          Makes perfect sense, but doesn't require calling Benghazi ("D," in my example) "an act of terror."  Romney's disagreement: "you didn't clearly call D an act of terror!"  That is correct.  So what?

          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
          -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:56:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't understand your response (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Smoh, MBishop1, Deep Texan

            My point is that Romney made it a debate of semantics, a debate in which he was wrong.

            OBAMA:The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime. …

            ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror

            Then the rest that I quoted above. Romney made it about whether Obama said three words in the Rose Garden. He said them.

            "Mitt Romney isn't a vulture capitalist: vultures only eat things that are dead." -S. Colbert

            by newinfluence on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:14:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Much doo-doo about nothing. (14+ / 0-)

    Cows left, close the barn.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:54:01 AM PST

    •  They may have left the barn, but (0+ / 0-)

      they left a lot of bullshit behind, and I'd like to clear it off of the historical record.  If you don't like that, you know the way out.

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:06:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your infintessimal hair-splitting is clearly (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan, MBishop1, jofr

        of a superior variety.

        I only hope the masses can see it.

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:09:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Did you just get your sarcasm on my soul? Ew! (0+ / 0-)

          I'm sure that "the masses" would have trouble with it.  I do expect better from people on this site, though.

          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
          -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:57:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  So if we disagree, we should leave. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        It's going to be a lonely place.

        Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

        by Smoh on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:59:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't mind disagreement (0+ / 0-)

          I do mind dickishness.  Can I stop there?

          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
          -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:34:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Absolutely spot on (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annecros, Seneca Doane, condorcet

    Gonzalez never called the Geneva Conventions quaint and Bolton never advocated destroying a part of the UN building either (honest - read the transcripts). Sometimes it is good to be honest about these things.

  •  It appeared as if Obama was prepared for precisely (11+ / 0-)

    ... this remark from Romney.

    That's why Obama is cool enough while Romney starts walking down that plank to pick up his water and take a sip.

    You could see the wheels turning...

    "Oh, shit, this is gonna' be sweet!"

    And, sure enough, Romney walks right into it.

    I don;t think Obama even needed Crowley's response. My guess is that his team had the full transcript all lined up and ready to fire out as soon as the words left Romney's lips. Every journalist and pundit would have a copy of the full transcript with Obama's words highlighted as soon as Romney finished his sentence.

    Crowley just happened to know that Obama did, indeed, use the phrase "acts of terror" so she backed him up on the spot. But I have no doubt that Obama knew it was coming from Romney and, thus, gave him plenty of rope.

    •  Correct. In fact, Crowley had that transcript on (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Johnson, Deep Texan

      her desk all ready.

      Every journalist and pundit would have a copy of the full transcript with Obama's words highlighted as soon as Romney finished his sentence.

      Notice: This Comment © 2012 ROGNM

      by ROGNM on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:02:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  OK, Bob. Take 25 words and explain to me (0+ / 0-)

      (as Obama could have done in the debate) why what he said was a definitive conclusion that the attack on Benghazi was -- not merely heinous and disgusting mob violence -- but an act of terrorism as customarily defined.

      Do you agree that:

      (1) If he said that it was terrorism, he should have been vulnerable to having to admit that he was wrong if the as-yet-unreceived evidence had shown that, as in Cairo, it had just been a spontaneous demonstration -- but in this case one that had taken a terrible and tragic turn?

      (2) If it's so clear that Obama knew that it was terrorism at that early moment, the attacks on Susan Rice have bite?

      If not, why not?

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:41:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not a matter of what Obama knew or... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        ... didn't know.

        It was semantics.

        Obama was prepared for this statement by Romney.

        •  Oh. (0+ / 0-)

          Well, what do you think the controversy was about?

          Do you think that Romney was saying "you never used the word 'terror' on Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden?"  If so, he was clearly wrong.

          That's not what he said, though.  He said that Obama did not describe the Benghazi attack as "terrorism" -- that is, that he did not conclude (prematurely and unfairly, by the way) that it was terrorism.  And that's correct.  He appropriately recognized the possibility without stating that it was definitively true.  Either way, terrorism or mob violence, the response that "justice will be done" was appropriate.

          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
          -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:19:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think you're overthinking it. (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jrooth, Deep Texan, MBishop1, Smoh, Nailbanger

            The Romney campaign and its surrogates (along with crazy crew at Fox News) had been making this claim (that Obama didn't call it "terrorism" for 14 days) long before the debate.

            It had become a Republican talking point.

            So Obama knew it was coming. And Romney used Obama's exact phrasing in the debate: "Act of terror."  In fact, he repeated those three words three times.

            And Obama had, in fact, said "acts of terror" in the Rose Garden.

            Period.

            That's what was going on there.

            So I think the fact that Romney surrogates and the idiots at Fox News had been running around for days before the debate claiming that Obama didn't call it terrorism for 14 days was just the tip-off to the Obama camp that Mitt might make this mistake.

            Romney would have been better off saying the word "terrorism" than "act of terror," but let's not forget that Romney was also trying to cover his own ass on this because of the crap he pulled the day after the attack.

            •  Romney may have screwed up (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bob Johnson

              he may have meant to say terrorism because Obama had said act of terror.

              it's possible he got them switched up and only realized it, when it was too late.

              don't know though.  don't care.  

              -You want to change the system, run for office.

              by Deep Texan on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:38:14 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, agreed. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Deep Texan

                I bet when Romney was getting prepped for the debate, he was told to say "terrorism," but his team failed to point out that he should not use "act of terror."

                Romney, personally, had no clue what Obama had said in the Rose Garden, obviously. Otherwise he would have used "terrorism" instead of "act of terror."

                •  that's the only thing that makes sense (0+ / 0-)

                  other than complete and utter incompetence.

                  which does make sense as well. either way it was really bad for Romney.  

                  but so what, who cares? it's over.

                  -You want to change the system, run for office.

                  by Deep Texan on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:47:14 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  We see different words as having been significant (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Spider Jerusalem

              You're focusing on "acts of terror."  I'm focusing on "called it."

              He used the former words -- about some category of thing.  The question is whether he did the latter thing specifically about Benghazi.

              I say that he -- appropriately -- had hedged, and that Romney was criticizing him for having hedged, because Real Men Don't Hedge.

              Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

              "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
              -- Saul Alinsky

              by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:45:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  You need to get out more often (0+ / 0-)

        This is the most ridiculous diary I've ever read.  The diarist has parsed a written transcript that's a condensed version of the statement delivered in the Rose Garden.  S/he then insists that Romney was right because he didn't do his homework (which we now know to be true of his campaign) and didn't listen to the entire statement delivered.  

        Then to make matters worse, s/he continues to tell people who disagree with him/her to leave.  That's not how it works here.  

        Fifteen minutes of my life I'll never get back.  

        (and I agree with Kos: it was the best moment of the campaign.

        •  The diarist also read the full transcript (0+ / 0-)

          and watched the video several times to correct it.

          The diarist also suspects that Romney may have been poorly briefed, but does not "insist" on the point -- much as Obama did not insist on Sept. 12 that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

          Markos's rules are that one has the right to tell people not to be dickish in one's own diary.  I have had lots of interaction here with people who disagree with me on substance, some of them long friends or associates of mine here, without asking them to leave.

          However, when someone starts name-calling, they're often being dickish.  When someone says that this wasn't worth doing, they've stated their case and having done so can leave, because doing it more than once becomes dickish.

          That is how it works here.  You can look it up.  Search kos's posts for "dickish."

          I hope that you have other better 15 minute periods today.  But I hope you don't get any of them back, because that could create time paradoxes.

          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
          -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:40:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Really? (5+ / 0-)

    We are going to get in a pissing match over this? Good grief.

    The 47% also "pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more" but when Romney does it he thinks it's a virtue, while when they do it, he thinks they are deadbeats.

    by jsfox on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:59:04 AM PST

  •  You're wrong. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emelyn, in2mixin, Deep Texan, MBishop1

    You claim: "Did the President say 'act(s) of terror' elsewhere in his speech?  Yes -- but it's not in the transcript published on the site ..."

    Here's the transcript as posted on the White House website:

    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.
    So did you omit the link to the transcript in hopes of concealing this falsehood?  If not, what's your excuse?

    “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

    by jrooth on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:01:36 AM PST

    •  You're linking the the press release (0+ / 0-)

      I'm quoting the page with the video, which many more people would have seen than the raw transcript, and which shows in the Google search.  I had meant to put the link -- here -- into the diary and will fit that now.

      Did you read the diary closely enough, before suggesting that I'm a liar, to note that the second block quote contains exactly what you're quoting there, with boldface and with additional context?

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:45:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        The link I gave is in the section "Speeches and Remarks" (page 15 currently) section of the site.  That is the place where all transcripts are posted.

        And yes, it is a considerably less strained reading of your diary to say that you were lying when you claimed the words were not in the transcript on the White House site (plainly falsified by my link to the actual transcript on the site) than the gyrations you are engaging in to try and divorce the words "acts of terror" from the sole topic of his remarks that day are.

        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

        by jrooth on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:57:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Look at the page to which I linked (0+ / 0-)

          Under the video appears the word "transcript" followed be several paragraphs.  If one didn't watch the video or know about other information, one would think that that was the full extent of the speech.

          Obviously, they could have included the "acts of terror" section as well, but didn't.

          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
          -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:22:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  When it comes to terrorism, is it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FloraLine, Smoh

    defined in the eye of the beholder, or the intent of the perpetrator?
    The Cons, because they are predisposed to assign blame to someone else, go for the latter. Obama was clearly referring to an act of terror that terrorized, regardless of the intent. From his perspective, the core element of such an act is that it attacks innocent persons to make a point and influence a third party. In that context, the whole Iraq aggression would be characterized as an act of terror since the people of Iraq were being attacked to demonstrate to China and Russia how powerful the U.S. is.
    Romney twisted himself into a pretzel and, since he wasn't willing to take help getting out, Obama told him to go ahead.

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:03:12 AM PST

  •  Nope, you're wrong (9+ / 0-)
    No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation
    This is a direct reference to the attack in Benghazi. Otherwise it makes no sense. It would be like spending 20 minutes talking about Benghazi, then saying "No violent protests will ever shake the resolve of this great nation," and then saying "Well, technically I didn't say Benghazi was a violent protest."

    Words have context. Removing words from their context does not work. You are wrong, Romney was wrong, and you should feel silly for writing this pointless diatribe.

    matthewborgard.com ~ @MatthewBorgard

    by zegota on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:13:11 AM PST

    •  Go back a few sentences and read it again (0+ / 0-)

      I've posted them three times now, so that will be enough.

      "Violent protest" does not equal "act of terror," for pity's sake.

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:23:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are being a lawyer when none is required (0+ / 0-)

        Violent protest does equal act of terror, unless you attach some deeper significance to the distinction. The Republicans start with the dubious notion that the public sees an important distinction, therefore Obama has an incentive to parse words therefore the wording is significant as a matter of political calculation. In fact the distinction is politically meaningless, so the parsing is also meaningless.

        Actually the above is wrong. The Republicans start with the notion that the wording is the result of political calculation, then work out semantic distinctions which support that notion.

        The phrase epistemic closure is being bandied about. This is an example. A = Obama is playing politics with Benghazi therefore B = administration comments are designed to minimize political damage, since C= administration does not blame Al Qaeda then B+C implies D = Al Qaeda behind attack would damaging to administration this with E= Al Qaeda was behind attack allows us to conclude: E+D+C implies A: the administration was covering up with their statements. We have closure.

        But absent A, B and D are unsupported, so the entire argument is circular. If A was true then A would be justified. If not A then A is not justified.

        •  If your argument is that violent protest = terror (0+ / 0-)

          can you point me to anywhere, among the vast number of opportunities that they have had to comment on that equation, that a representative of the Obama Administration has ever said so?

          I don't believe that; I don't think that they believe that; I think that their public statements around this time demonstrate that they don't believe it.  I think that you hang your argument by a week reed.

          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
          -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:44:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  You misread my comment (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not surprised. The "violent protest" line in my comment was a metaphor.

        President Obama said it was an act of terror. If he had used the words "violent protest" in that line, there would be absolutely no question that he was talking about Benghazi.

        Instead, he used the phrase "act of terror," and there's no question that he is talking about Benghazi.

        The only possible way you could disagree is to be ignorant, wilfully or otherwise.

        matthewborgard.com ~ @MatthewBorgard

        by zegota on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:18:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The title of this diary makes me think of Hermes (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, in2mixin, Murphoney, Smoh

    Conrad.

    I think you're completely wrong, but I'm happy to think of being technically correct as the best kind of correct. So thanks for the Futurama moment.

    Also, I'm having really good coffee and enjoying R schadenfreude. Anyone else?

  •  This is just a rehash (5+ / 0-)

    of several wrong diaries posted immediately after the debate where the same tired argument was made.

    The OFA campaign KNEW this attack was coming from Romney because Romney surrogates had been laying the ground work for a week. OFA could have preempted the attack in the days leading up to the debate, but why would they?

    This was a chess game, plain and simple, or perhaps a "The whites of their eyes" moment. Obama and OFA as a whole waited until Romney had fully committed himself and had no possible avenue of retreat.

    Let's ask this:

    Who gets to decide what Obama meant when he said "no acts of terror"?

    Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them - Thomas Jefferson 30 July, 1816

    by Roiling Snake Ball on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:31:50 AM PST

    •  Really? I missed those diaries (0+ / 0-)

      I was out doing politics instead of spending time here.

      Link to those diaries and I'll tell you whether I think that they were wrong.  I would not have written this right after the debate, or before the election at all, but with the election over I think it's fair to correct the historical record.

      As to your last line: if Obama wants to say that he knew, said definitively on Sept. 12, and stuck to the belief thereafter that this was an act of terror rather than a mob riot gone tragic, he can.

      If he does so, then he really should allow -- in fact, require -- Susan Rice to come by his office once a month for the next four years and kick him in the balls as hard as she can, because in that case the Administration's actions in sending her out and make less definitive statements than that about Benghazi were unconscionable.

      Luckily, that's not what happened.  He had hedged while awaiting the evidence, as was proper, and released a conclusion only when that conclusion was fair.

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:30:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mitt was wrong. (3+ / 0-)

    He was talking about acts of terror in a statement specifically written to address the attacks.

    Couldn't mean nothing else.

    Show us your tax returns !!!!!!

    by Bush Bites on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:34:11 AM PST

    •  He couldn't be reserving judgment about whether (0+ / 0-)

      these were terrorist attacks as opposed to mob violence, while putting these attacks in the larger context of terrorist violence (which they at least possibly were) and saying that we'd have justice either way?  Show me how that's impossible.

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:31:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You're right! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, bluegrass50

    I just reread the transcript.

    "No spontaneous demonstrations will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..."
    OK, you and Mitt win.

    Show us your tax returns !!!!!!

    by Bush Bites on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:39:53 AM PST

    •  The concept of "reserving judgment until (0+ / 0-)

      the evidence comes in" is, I presume, entirely foreign to you?

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:32:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not technically right. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane, Chitown Kev

    The statement puts Benghazi in a context as one of several acts of terror.

    However, it is worded in such a way (since it did not say explicitly, "Benghazi was an act of terror") that they could have used the technical wording to back away from the idea that they had in fact called it an act of terror, if it had turned out to be a spontaneous demonstration instead.

    I don't know if that was on purpose or not but it suited the situation very well.

    •  Yes, that's exactly right (2+ / 0-)

      He could have backed off of a decisive conclusion without having to recant a word of it.  That means that he did not say that it was terrorism.  What he did was to put Benghazi, until we had all the facts, into the context as one of several acts of international violence against Americans.  That was the proper context.

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:34:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

        I still don't think that makes Mittens right though.

        •  He was narrowly right about whether Obama (0+ / 0-)

          called Benghazi an act of terror, which is what Romney said he hadn't done and what Crowley "corrected" him as saying that he had done.  It was the issue.  He was wrong about the 14 days, but for other reasons.

          I'd characterize Obama's position as "even if it is found to have been an act of terror," then XYZ.

          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
          -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:52:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  exactly (4+ / 0-)

      The president chose his words carefully- as he should.

      We should applaud a man with the ability to do so and with such a precise command of the English Language.

      That is what we need in a president.  American exceptionalism does not result from choosing mediocre minds.

      This diary reminds me of arguing about the defintion of "is".

      Bear in mind that the Pakistanis view our drone attacks as terrorism.  And both the Palistinians and the Israelis view their own actions as defensive and the other's as terrorism.

      As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

      by BPARTR on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:42:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know whether you realize that you are (0+ / 0-)

        agreeing with me, but you are.  By choosing words that allowed him to back away, though, he could no longer claim to have definitively "called Benghazi an act of terror" on 9/12.  You can't have it both ways.  The proper answer to that, though, would be: "so what?"

        Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

        "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
        -- Saul Alinsky

        by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:53:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •   "You can't have it both ways." (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan

          but he did.  that is the master politician.

          As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

          by BPARTR on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:11:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Whether he can remains to be seen (0+ / 0-)

            But if that's your reaction, then you can agree that Romney was technically right, but that it didn't matter -- and thus with my thesis here.

            Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

            "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
            -- Saul Alinsky

            by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:45:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Well, technically, it was a matter of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    tact over blunder, and regardless of the facts (not yet known, as stated), blunder was definitely wrong.

    Tact = Obama
    Blunder = Rmoney.

    I'm part of the "bedwetting bunch of website Democrat base people (DKos)." - Rush Limbaugh, 10/16/2012 Torture is Wrong! We live near W so you don't have to. Send love.

    by tom 47 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:24:05 AM PST

  •  If we're being pedantic here... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, newinfluence

    Technically, Obama was 100% correct. See: Rose Garden, speech ONE day later because of the Benghazi attacks, "acts of terror". It can't be more clear than that. Romney literally accused the President of not calling it "an act of terror" for 14 days.

    So Romney had completely wrong information, whatever transcript was published - this was about what the President said in the Rose Garden, not a piece of it that was published in text form. If he was going to attack President Obama for the Benghazi "scandal", the least he should've done was listening to the speech the President made about the attacks the day after. But hey, Romney was too busy putting out press releases that President Obama was on the side of the extremists who killed these diplomats, before the President could even open his mouth on the matter.

    So this diary remains a pedantic study of the parsing (and twisting) of words and facts. You don't want President Obama to say that it's terrorism right off the bat before all evidence is collected, that's okay. You call that good politics, sure. But those ideas seem to be motivating you to look for ways totally disconnected from reality to separate his words ("acts of terror") from his Rose Garden speech because he referenced 9/11 as well. Seriously?

    And he did not call it terrorism, which is a more loaded term than "act of terror", which describes any hate crime. This  choice of words was most likely made for purely pragmatic and sensible reasons. You already got your good politics and anti-reactionary answer right there so there is no need for twisting facts.

    But that does not change the fact Romney hammered him on not saying it was an "act of terror" for 14 days - and those two accusations still happen to be completely false, no matter how you look at it, mental gymnastic angles included.

    Attacking and murdering these diplomats was an act of terror any way you look at it. The President made this perfectly clear in that speech - and he WAS practicing good politics by not invoking the term terrorism that is often used for jingoistic purposes. What more do you want?

  •  I did not have sex with that woman (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, Nova Land

    When Clinton issued his famous denial he meant it in a very specific context. He was accused of the high crime? of lying under oath in a matter relevant to a judicial procedure and so committing perjury. The allegedly perjurous statement was his claim that he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton is contending that under the definition of sex he had been given for the deposition, he did not have sex as defined and so his testimony was not perjurous.  Technically Clinton was correct (although eventually other statements in his testimony were found that could not be quibbled with). There was a certain logic to Clinton's claim. The only reason that his behavior  warranted investigation was the claim that it violated the law. It was not the affair per se, but lying under oath that raised the matter to an affair of state. Therefore the technical parsing was appropriate. It was not germane whether Clinton had had sex, only whether he had had "sex". This did not serve him well in the court of public opinion, where the statement was taken as a denial about the underlying behavior and not the perjury. Except for a handful of legally sophisticated observers, the distinction was absurd and incomprehensible.

    Any reasonable person, including Obama, would recognize a violent assault on a US embassy or consulate in response to or to highlight perceived offenses (as the video) as a terrorist act by definition. That is why this whole Republican enterprise fell so flat - the notion that this was anything but a terrorist attack requires a very peculiar perspective and definition, but the significance of the language depends on that definition being broadly recognized and used so that the choice of language has a political significance.

    The Republican view is that Obama and his administration are trying to keep from the public the info that Al Qaeda was behind the attack. The wording is important because in the Republican view, calling it terrorism would link it to Al Qaeda and Obama does not want an Al Qaeda attack just before the election. To me that is the absurdity of this whole "scandal". Obama had just called out Romney for naming Russia instead of Al Qaeda as the primary threat facing the country. (On Sept 7 in his nomination acceptance speech). If Al Qaeda is the greatest threat facing the country, it is hardly surprising that they could mount a small but successful attack on an American target abroad. Indeed if the attack had actually been a spontaneous uprising that would support a criticism that Obama and the administration had been too focused on Al Qaeda and ignored broader political currents in the Muslim street. That really is the core problem for the Republicans, they start with the premise that the Obama administration did something wrong, invent an incomprehensible motive, (deny Al Qaeda is still a threat), then twist words and meanings until they can find support for their theory.

    In the end unless you are steeped in the Republican mindset, none of it makes any sense at all. Of course it was a terrorist attack, the distinction between an Al Qaeda attack and a angry mob firing rocket powered grenades requires a very nuanced view of messaging that is lost on 99% of Americans. It makes no political difference to any real voters who lack that nuanced view
    so there is no real world motive to shape administration statement for political effect.

    •  I disagree, but it's an interesting argument (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chitown Kev
      Any reasonable person, including Obama, would recognize a violent assault on a US embassy or consulate in response to or to highlight perceived offenses (as the video) as a terrorist act by definition.
      If done by a state, it's an act of war -- but if done by an individual, is it terrorism?  Again, if it's that clear I find it odd that  Obama just didn't say it more clearly.  And then, again, what was going on with Susan Rice if it was obviously terrorism?

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:06:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rice had no role (0+ / 0-)

        So she could read the talking points. The folks at State and CIA had skin in the game, so they could not go out and say exactly what the players needed said. We do not discuss in real time what we think happened in a situation like this. We don't talk about CIA outposts and we don't tell terrorists we have ID them just before we take them out, The administration had no reason to believe that Romney and Issa would break all the rules about politics and foreign policy. We don't do this shit and someone needs to get their ass handed to them for going there.

        On the terrorism thing. Really what would you call a violent assault on a consulate in response to some ginned up provocation? If a bunch of rednecks shot up a gay bar after an election to establish marriage equality would you have any trouble calling it terrorism? Why is this different?

        •  You mention a "ginned up provocation" (0+ / 0-)

          That could make the difference in deeming in terrorism -- it's planned rather than organic -- the equivalent of first degree murder rather than manslaughter.

          As for the shooting up the gay bar after marriage equality passes, it's hard to see how (assuming that the choice of the bar and the choice to shoot were intentional rather than happenstance) this would not be considered terrorism.  If it was the equivalent of an unpremeditated crime of passion, rendering it similar to manslaughter, then it wouldn't be.

          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
          -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:23:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Romney Tripped Over the Ambiguity (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane

    You've admitted Obama hedged i.e. Obama actually took more than one position because of uncertainty and for political reasons.

    In order for Romney to have been technically correct, he would have had to show Obama deliberately excluded Romney's assertion. Obama made no statement, explicitly or implicitly, that excluded Benghazi being an act of terror.

    Obama took multiple positions, one of which included that Benghazi was a terrorist, therefore Obama did have this position because it was one of his positions.

    What Romney should have asserted is Obama did not claim Benghazi was solely an act of terror and had excluded all other possibilities.

  •  My English professor would warn us time and again (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane

    about the free-floating this.

    Look again.

    "Of course yesterday was also a painful day for our nation as we mark the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.
     "We mourn with the families who were lost that day. I visited the graves of troops who made that final sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

    "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 only is 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, alte that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the 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. But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.

    What does "this terrible act" refer to?

    It could refer to September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and he Pentagon or it could be referring to Benghazi. Given the structure of this portion of Obama's Rose Garden speech, it's hard to tell.

    That ambiguity is there for a reason.

    Tipped and recced, SD.

  •  I always thought so too.... (3+ / 0-)

    ... but was glad that Romney got the smackdown anyway.  

    With careful listening and reading of Obama's 9/12 speech, after this became an issue, it sounded to me like he'd left it deliberately vague.  So that when further evidence came in, he wouldn't have painted himself into a corner by blathering unsubstantiated opinions about it too soon.  (Unlike some Republicans who shall remain nameless.)

    And he did it really well, too -- he got live, on-stage credit for the phrase "acts of terror" plucked out of the vagueness and applied to Benghazi.  We've always known (as do the righties) that the man's a very good orator.  He threaded that needle just perfectly.  He fooled Candy Crowley, Mitt Romney, and all y'all too, har har.   OK, mosta y'all.   It sure seems like people who agree with this diarist are seriously in the minority.  Fine by me.  Hope it is also fine by you, Seneca Doane.

    This .signature unintentionally left blank.

    by Avast Ye Swobbie on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:23:10 PM PST

    •  I'm coping with it, thanks! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chitown Kev

      I have to say -- I think he's good, but the 9/12 speech was really intentionally crafted like that, he's great.

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:08:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site