Ah semantics. When something like Benghazi happens, governments have a lot to think about. What happened? Did we screw up somehow? Do we have to cover our asses? How shall we respond? There is also the concern that saying something abrupt might endanger relations with the government in the country where the incident took place.
I do not think Obama actually said it was a terrorist attack. He spoke of 'acts of terror' in a general sense. This is diplomatic-speak so that later on, if the statement is general enough, one can connect dots between different parts of a statement. It is interesting that the transcript of this speech on the White House website is far more truncated than what he actually said. The White House transcript is rather short and mentions the word attack only once in the title, and none of the statement mentions the word terror: '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.' http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/09/12/president-obama-speaks-attack-benghazi So obviously he said more than this but even in a full transcript 'No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation' is pretty vague as a direct reference to this specific attack since he used the word 'acts', not specifically referring to this one at Benghazi. An act of terror is not necessarily terrorist in nature, people just have to experience terror. Obama called it a 'terrible act'. He called it 'this type of senseless violence'. He spoke of 'brutal acts' in a general sense. It seems to me that depending on who you support in the election, and your prior beliefs - conservative or liberal - anyone can pick and infer whatever they want. It seems clear to me the administration wanted to avoid making a commitment as to what exactly was going on because perhaps or perhaps not they knew or did not know exactly what happened, and perhaps they did or did not know if they were culpable here. We would need to see the private cables and messages and phone calls everyone sent back and forth and clearly we will not see them, if they still exist, for a long time. This kind of response is neither Republican or Democrat, it happens when the unexpected happens, and in the political arena that means that someone is going to start pointing fingers at you for not having done something to prevent whatever it was that just happened. So the advice is to speak in the vaguest terms possible so that you cannot be specifically pinned down for having said something to the point. The downside to this is, depending on ones views, such statements can be read in many different ways if you assume statement x is really connected to statement y and is bolstered by comment z. If Obama has said unequivocally 'this is a terrorist attack and the embassy did not have adequate protection in place' then this thread on FFL and similar ones on other sites would not have much going for them. We do seem to know now that it was a terrorist attack. And that it was successful. Therefore whatever protection was in place was inadequate, by definition. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u <no_reply@...> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <richard@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Correct, the President told a subtle lie (last night) > > > > > by suggesting on day one he was calling it a terrorist > > > > > attack, this was a mis-characterization of what he was > > > > > saying on day one (in the Rose Garden!) and everybody > > > > > knows it except Judy and Raunch! > > > > > > > > authfriend: > > > > BillyG, forget it, give it up. Your lie has been exposed. > > > > > > > According to Crowley, on September 30th the Administration > > > took weeks to admit Benghazi might be a terrorist attack. > > > > It took two weeks for the administration to *conclude* > > that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. There was > > confusing and conflicting information coming in from the > > field, and it took time to sort it out and nail it down. > > > > Obviously Obama assumed it was a terrorist attack from > > the start, since he referred to it as an "act of terror" > > in his Rose Garden statement on September 12. That's in > > the transcript and on videotape; it isn't in question. > > Romney insisted he had *not* said it was an act of terror. > > He was wrong. Crowley and Obama both corrected him. > > > What we do know is due to the Obama administration's incompetence and/or > negligence four (4) people are dead, this is indisputable. Hillary should be > fired. >
