I don’t mean to play the liberal here.
But if you forget about what everyone else said and just focus on what obama said at the rose garden. He did say ‘ACTS OF TERROR’. So when you’re bickering with your liberal friends. You need to be ready to answer for romney saying that he didn’t say it.
The truth is, if you remove all context, obama did say acts of terror. The day after the attack, obama said this: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”
The Context of obamas statements will be LOST on your liberal friends. Their question will be ‘Did he or Did he not say “Acts of Terror”. And you will spend the next several minutes trying to explain to their Joe Biden Style grin why Romney said that obama didn’t say that and the transcript plainly says he did. Because for them, at their convenience, rhetoric is more important than context or content.
Am i wrong here?
It doesn’t really matter that he called it an act or terror or not. The point is that he sent around his surrogates blaming a US citizen for making a movie that caused the violence. The facts remain that people died because they did not have the security they needed after Obama’s middle east policies failed.
Do you think more American citizens were murdered by weapons Obama provided to our enemies?
Q Can I ask one more -- are criticizing the President for not classifying what happened in Benghazi as a terrorist attack, going as far as you did or the NCTC director. Can you respond to that and explain why that is?So, the motive becomes irrelevant. If the attack was motivated by the movie, it was terrorism, too.MR. CARNEY: The President spoke eloquently I believe about the attack that took the lives of four Americans at the United Nations General Assembly, and I think made very clear that it is wholly unacceptable to respond to a video, no matter how offensive, with violence, and it is wholly unacceptable, regardless of the reason, to attack embassies or diplomatic facilities and to kill diplomatic personnel. The President -- our position is, as reflected by the NCTC director, that it was a terrorist attack. It is, I think by definition, a terrorist attack when there is a prolonged assault on an embassy with weapons.
The broader questions here about who participated, what led to the attack on the facility in Benghazi -- all those questions are under investigation at two levels, by the FBI and by the Accountability Review Board established by Secretary Clinton to look at issues of security in Benghazi and security at other diplomatic facilities. So, let's be clear, it was a terrorist attack and it was an inexcusable attack.
you are correct that the left will play word games, sophism, and claim a win. But anybody who paid attention to the administration line about the motive for the attack knows that the administration blamed the movie, first. Obama did, in his Rose Garden remarks, and Rice obviously did. Protest over a movie, gone bad. That was a lie. There was no protest, and the administration knew it.