And oh, by the way, from remarks by the president in Golden, Colorado, September 13, 2012, concerning the Benghazi attack:
"Let me say at the outset that obviously our hearts are heavy this week -- we had a tough day a couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya. Yesterday I had a chance to go over to the State Department to talk to friends and colleagues of those who were killed. And these were Americans who, like so many others, both in uniform and civilians, who serve in difficult and dangerous places all around the world to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans. "And a lot of times their work goes unheralded, doesn't get a lot of attention, but it is vitally important. We enjoy our security and our liberty because of the sacrifices that they make. And they do an outstanding job every single day without a lot of fanfare. "So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/13/remarks-president-golden-co http://tinyurl.com/9ulcxkt --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > 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. > > He clearly included the Benghazi attack in "acts of terror," > and he repeatedly referred to it as an "attack" in the > statement. > > > 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: > > Here's the full transcript (which refers to it as an > "attack" multiple times and includes the phrase "acts of > terror"); I gather you didn't bother to look at it when I > posted the link: > > http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/president-vows-justice-will-be-done-after-killing-of-u-s-ambassador-to-libya-and-three-american-diplomats/ > > http://tinyurl.com/9y9hj7n > > This is a truncated version: > > > '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. > > Oh, please. I posted the mention of "acts of terror" in > full context, but you didn't read that either. It's crystal > clear that it includes this specific attack: > > "Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked > the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were > lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate > sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of > ArlingtonCemetery, 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 is only as strong > as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and > military who represent us around the globe. > > "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter > that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today > we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States > of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done > for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." > > Obviously he wanted it understood that he was including > Benghazi in "acts of terror." He even used a very similar > phrase for it, "terrible act," two sentences later. That > was not an accident. > > As I pointed out earlier, imagine if someone had *objected* > to his having called the Banghazi attack an act of terror > and he wanted to make it seem that he hadn't--what could > he possibly have said that would have been convincing? > > > An act of terror is not necessarily terrorist in nature, > > people just have to experience terror. > > Give it up, Xeno, that's about as implausible as it gets. > Nobody refers to an "act of terror" except in the context > of terrorism. > > > Obama called it a 'terrible act'. He called it 'this type of senseless > > violence'. > > And "outrageous and shocking." > > > 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. > > Not in context, not *honestly*, nope. > > <snip> > > 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. > > No honest reading of the statement could possibly conclude > that it was too vague to discern for sure that Obama meant > that morning to characterize it as a terrorist attack. It > was only as time went on and information began to come in > from the field that it seemed prudent not to be specific > until the full story was known. If anything, Obama jumped > the gun in labeling it terrorism. There was a real question > for a while as to whether it had actually been a > spontaneous demonstration against that vile video. > > > 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. > > Which is why he didn't need to say that it was inadequate > when he was making his first statement. The only issue is > *why* it was inadequate, and he didn't know that then. >
