Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, Mitt DID catch Obama in a gotcha moment. It takes liberal twisting of the facts to un-gotcha the situation by taking Obama's statements out of context and wilfully ignoring the subsequent actions of Obama and his administration to see anything otherwise.
This is denial on a level that I have come to expect only from birthers and other conspiracy theory nutcases.
I still don't see what you see. All I know is that I heard the arguing in the debate and went and looked up the transcripts. I then compared it to the specific issue that Romney had with Obama's wording on the day after the attack and if he said act of terror. Romney got tripped up on that phrase. If he wanted to go after Obama about the days after the attack and what his administration said, he should have but he focused on the wrong thing. Both of them are lawyers. Romney should know better when it comes to his line of questioning.
Both sides are twisting to their advantage as clearly seen here in the forums.
Actually it is likely that Obama was avoiding a definitive statement on the matter for perhaps good reason.
Of all the people in the world the guy who was most knowledgeable on the security in Benghazi was Ambassador Stevens. Yet he chose to go there. There is clearly a good bit of spook in all of this. That, for reasons of statecraft or intelligence, the Administration and President declined to deal with the nature of the specific event may be very reasonable. They wish to have a good few of what did happen and what was going to appear in the next days before opening their mouths.
It would appear obvious that Stevens had intelligence ties. So that makes it all the more tricky.
And note that creating great scrutiny on the details of the event as Romney did may not have been in the nations best interest.
Historically, the press and loyal opposition have generally given a bit of latitude to the president in their capacity of handling foreign policy, because anything the President says is not only a message to the America people, but often a way of tipping their hands to our foreign challengers. Whereas there is nothing positive to be gained by presidents lying or dissembling on domestic policy (where we are the targets of said policy, and we need to evaluate how we feel about it), there are clearly cases on the world stage where the needs of our knowing or not knowing something in real time is overshadowed by the fact that our knowing means our enemies knowing too.
In this case, calling something terrorism immediately automatically reveals to the broader world a number of things about what the state department does or does not know, especially to the groups who committed the actions. It is entirely possible that, in being called out, they might be more likely to go into hiding or... well, who knows what. But it's operationally useful knowledge.
Given the way partisanship works, all of this would have been infinitely obvious to Republicans under Bush, and infinitely appalling to liberals. Of course.
This is why Romney's response on the night of Sept 11 was regarded as an ugly breach of norms - not that the president can't or shouldn't be questioned, but because we give presidents the latitude we do for certain extremely pragmatic reasons. Romney on that evening was possible aiding and abetting our enemies.
"Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutelyno justification to this type of senseless violence."
I still don't see what you see. All I know is that I heard the arguing in the debate and went and looked up the transcripts. I then compared it to the specific issue that Romney had with Obama's wording on the day after the attack and if he said act of terror. Romney got tripped up on that phrase. If he wanted to go after Obama about the days after the attack and what his administration said, he should have but he focused on the wrong thing. Both of them are lawyers. Romney should know better when it comes to his line of questioning.
Both sides are twisting to their advantage as clearly seen here in the forums.
Mr. Romney didn't get tripped up in the phrase. He asserted that President Obama was wrong in the statement that he called it an act of terror in that Rose Garden speech. Mr. Romney never said that the President didn't use the term "act of terror." He CORRECTLY asserted that the President never called this particular incident an act of terror, and that it was many days before the President or his administration did so. Confusion on the issue was created by the overly helpful Candy Crowley stepping in to defend the President. The next day she had to admit that she was wrong, and even did that only halfway, parsing words like so many of President Obama's defenders continue to do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
