Mitt Romney Smacked Down 2nd Time, President Obama Did Call Benghazi Consulate Attack an “Act of Terror” on 9/13
Mitt Romney got the smackdown of a lifetime during the presidential debate when he was fact-checked by Candy Crowley, the moderator of the second presidential debate, when he claimed the president didn’t call the Benghazi consulate attack and “act of terror.” Well, it turns out the president did use those words the very next day, September 12, after Ambassador Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty were killed in a deadly attack, during a speech in the Rose Garden. Romney claims Obama didn’t use those words until 14 days later. Foreign Policy also said President Obama used those words on September 13 during a campaign stop in Colorado.
“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.” Source
Candy Crowley isn’t walking back her comment, but agreed that it did take the administration 14 days to admit that it wasn’t the film that really caused the attack, but a terrorist hit. The Republicans, including Paul Ryan (Lying Ryan) is spinning this as though she did.
This was cross-posted from The Hinterland Gazette.
Share This
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUWm5CQ3bDY
And the spin has started.
During the debate, Romney challenged Obama’s assertion that he had gone into the Rose Garden the day after the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and called it an act of terror: (emphasis mine)
ROMNEY: I think it’s 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.
OBAMA: That’s what I said.
To which Romney said incredulously “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?”
To which Obama said, “Please proceed, governor.”
To which Romney said, “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.”
Obama replied: “Get the transcript”
Crowley said: “He did in fact, sir (call it an act of terror).”
To which the president said, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”
And this is what the transcript shows the president said in the Rose garden on Sept. 12, the day after four Americans were killed in Benghazi (not about Timbuktu, not about Sept 11, 2001; not 14 days later — but on Sept. 12 , in the Rose Garden, about what he was talking about: the Benghazi attack on Sept. 11, 2012):
(Emphasis mine)
Spin it as you may — and will — parse it is you may – and will — interpret it as you may — and will — case closed as far as what Obama did or did not say in the Rose Garden on Sept 12, when addressing the Benghazi attack the day before.
Yes the President did use those words but at the same time He and others, though not all, in the administration were pushing the idea that the attack wasn’t an act of terrorism but a reaction to a youtube video. People here are still under the impression that there was a protest involved, some separate group of people, present during the attack in Benghazi. There never was but that shows how misleading the reports from the white house were. So yes the President used those exact words but to the greater point the Administration made statements that proved incorrect and misleading and continued to do so long after they should have known better. Romney was correct but got hung up on wording and lost the point. This not from me but the woman who “smacked down” Mitt.
And the big picture election issue is that Benghazi is still out there which, by itself, cannot be a positive for any Administration…….the parsing of words by either friend or foe of Obama will ensure that it stays in the news and rolls into the next debate as well.
It depends on what the word is is. And we know how that worked out.
CC did verify that the words act of terror were used, and in a masterful act Obama used her words to cover his. Well played.
But, the context and subsequent theme of “it’s the video” does not support the meaning as used in the Rose Garden:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/act-of-terror-is-to-obama-what-is-was-to-clinton/
Question: If Obama thought this was an organized act of terror, would he have flown off to fund raisers after the RG speech? Would he still be mentioning the video six times at the U.N.?
Crowley is not to be blamed and keep looking for that blue dress.
POLITiCAL WIRE:
Flashback of the Day
“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.”
– President Obama, commenting on the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya on September 12, 2012.
Mitt Romney insisted in last night’s debate Obama didn’t portray it as a terrorist attack.
Joe, it’s also pretty telling that President Obama also used that phrase on Sept. 13 during a campaign event in Colorado. You don’t need it told any plainer than that. I didn’t realize the Republicans also have the gift of clairvoyance to say exactly what the president meant by his comments in the Rose Garden. They are losing credibility fast on a subject that should be considered vulnerable for the Obama administration.
Oh for goodness sake dduck. Romney was just plain wrong.
The point is that he was wrong because of delicate parsing (i assume that’s why DD is using the references to Clinton-speak). The bigger point Romney was raising is the emphasis the administration placed on alternative explanations for the attack, and even when he can point to where he used the word terror it was used obliquely.
I think it was a mistake for Romney to zero in on this one point, a rhetorical one that is really a red meat for the base thing…and even more unfortunate that he did it in a way that invited this rebuttal since he wasn’t technically accurate.
Not to make light of this, but it’s like forgetting to tell someone happy birthday but when that person feels hurt about it you verify that on that day you were speaking about how important birthdays are and that they should always be honored. Saying that as a general sentiment isn’t exactly the same as applying it to a specific situation.
Anyone remember “Actionable Intelligence” from… oh… about 2001? Something happened in Sept then too.
If you want to give a pass to the Bush Administration on not stopping Sept 11th 2001 attacks from lack of “Actionable Intelligence” then you have NO RIGHT to demand it from the Obama Administration.
You can’t have it both ways conservatives. Be consistent. Of course, consistency isn’t a trait for Romney either.
it’s like forgetting to tell someone happy birthday but when that person feels hurt about it you verify that on that day you were speaking about how important birthdays are and that they should always be honored
So he just randomly decided to obliquely talk about acts of terror — not this one, but any one! — the day after the attack, right in the middle of a speech about the attack, and while saying those who carried out the attack would be brought to justice? That Obama is too clever by half, it seems. It would be more like your scenario taking place during a toast at the actual birthday party of the person whose birthday it is.
Rambie, as usual it cuts both ways… Those who felt that the reference to domestic attacks in the Aug 6 DPB was actionable should be willing to say that the multiple warnings about deteriorating security in Benghazi were actionable.
Roro- fair enough that the analogy doesn’t completely work. What i was getting at is the part about addresing something in a generic way vs. specific, and Obama only seemed comfortable going as far as the generic. Togwther with the rest of the comments from him and the others in the administration, it wasn’t at all a clear statement of terrorism as a motive for this particular attack.
Terror on the Thames, is referring to Jack the Ripper. Reign of Terror relates to the French Revolution. Terror behind The Walls refers to a haunted penitentiary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMVEvXt3Zjs
Point is terror is a common term not automatically tied to a “terrorist” attack or person. Different meanings and usages.
Your fig leaf is not good enough guys.
Just speaking as a simpleton here dd … but ‘acts of terror’ and terrorism is synonymous with most individuals…
But more important is the truth Obama came across as sincere and Romney came across as one trying to make political points.
Even when he was asked by the family to not use this as political fodder… he could not resist doing it again…
So you’re still going with the idea that he was speaking about acts of terror in general, during a speech about one specific event, just after vowing to find and hold to just those responsible for this act in particular? And Dems are the ones engaging in “delicate parsing”? ..
Yes dduck, perhaps he was talking about Jack the Ripper, or night terrors perhaps. Who’s to know?
Roro, I guess I’m not being clear. I do not think Obama was speaking of unrelated things with that comment. I just think he purposefully buried it deep in the speech, and continued to downplay the terrorist angle. Why he did so is an open question, but that he did so is pretty obvious to me. YMMV I suppose.
As far as why that matters, to me this narrow point of rhetoric doesn’t matter which is why I referred to it as Romney throwing red meat. The broader issue of deflections involving the video and other embassy events does matter somewhat, though even that is just one part of what should be a broader foreign policy discussion. Hopefully we’ll get some of that in the final debate.
Casual Observer… good to see you again…
I agree with you.. had rather see this issue being treated with a greater respect for the families and and investigating to insure others are safe than to be turned into a battleground for political points… for that is political tackiness at its worst…
The clapping for Candy C may of been more due to the spirit in the law rather than letter of the law… with the spirit of the law says; ‘first lets honor, before trying to gain on other’s sorrow…’
CStanley “Rambie, as usual it cuts both ways… Those who felt that the reference to domestic attacks in the Aug 6 DPB was actionable should be willing to say that the multiple warnings about deteriorating security in Benghazi were actionable.”
You missed my point. The Bush administration did NOT have enough information to act to stop 9/11/2001 attacks. Same with the Obama admin, as more information came in they revised their statements.
The GOP is having a hissy fit because they didn’t have all the facts immediately available. Plus they are using the fact that the Obama administration is man enough to admit they didn’t have all the facts and revise their statements as new facts arrived.
Can you prove they did indeed have all the facts? NO? Didn’t think so.
Rambie that seems like two different issues- revising as new information became available and then the idea of whether or not attacks were avoidable based on intel of threats.
The legitimate issue being raised about the Obama admin’s response to Benghazi is that the timeline shows them being behind the curve with those revisions. There may or may not be a legit (nonpolitical reason for that, but so far I haven’t seen any real explanation come out.
Who cares? What if they knew it was a terrorist attack and said it wasn’t? What is the big deal? Did Obama suddenly forget how to handle things in the ME? Is Clinton all of a sudden incompetent? It changes NOTHING.
You know what else it doesn’t change? The fact that Romney is obviously way out of his league, like Bush, dealing in these matters. He will be another bull in a china shop over there, and heaven help our soldiers who are likely to get used when we should be handling things diplomatically, or god forbid, staying out of it entirely.
I feel like a swarm of bees is attacking common sense on this subject, so let me state my position, not the Rep position, on this subject.
(1) Terror is a common usage term, we all agree. So we could ask Obama what he meant or ask his press secretary. Did he mean a terrorist attack or was he using the common term? ASK HIM. Romney should have, but he missed the chance.
(2) If Obama thought it was a terrorist attack, why didn’t he stay in D.C and meet with all the security, military, State Dept. and intelligence people? If he was saying it was a video then he could fly off to campaign stops. What was he thinking?
(3) Carney, Rice and Obama himself kept maintaining it was the video, and Obama did NOT clarify anything last night with the “act of terror” quote.
(4) People in the intelligence community knew it was an organized attack and not the video and testified (On Sept. 19, Matthew G. Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said about the killings in Benghazi during a Senate hearing, “Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.”) to congress before the WH and State finally stopped the video defense.
(5) On Sept 25th: Obama STILL blames the video in his UN speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfiUQASpVdc
(6) Ask Rice about what she said and who told her to go on the talk shows.
(7) Why didn’t the admin just say they are waiting for further information on the attack instead of the video story?
Ram is those are two different issues. One is whether or not attacks can be foreseen and prevented and I think I’m in agreement with you that they often can’t so we shouldn’t place blame for that.
The second issue involves being forthright with information and people from all over the spectrum are questioning the timeline and wondering why the administration kept pushing the video mob story long after it was clear that they knew that was false. Maybe there’s a nonpolitical reason for that but I haven’t heard it.
In fact it’s funny I just saw that Candy Crowell herself had pressed Axelrod on this and that is why she knew that Obama had used the ‘T’ word (he corrected her just as she corrected Romney) I am pointing to this again just to say that this isn’t just a GOP thing , it’s lots of people and the press questioning the timing of information.
dduck, the big part of your argument that I’m totally not getting is why thinking that the killings being connected with anger over the video automatically means it’s not an act of terror. There was tons of stuff happening all over the Islamic world due to anger over that video. It’s not all that crazy an idea that it would have been connected.
roro, I am sorry you are “not getting it” I can’t be clearer. They kept with the video story AFTER Olsen testified under oath to the Senate committee.
End result: Romney got caught. Obama gets the point and wins the optics and sound bite award. And Benghazi is still out there along with the Terrorist Jubilee doing whatever, whenever and NO administration (Republican or Democrat) knowing what to do. Why? Because we are losing the hearts and minds war in the Middle East abysmally. And frankly we will never win it until homegrown leaders win it.
Well, dduck, if you’re going to be both nasty and not read my question, I suppose we’re at an impasse, eh? According to you, Mitt utter lies during the last debate were actually true, but Obama uses the words “act of terror” in reference to the attack didn’t mean he communicated it was an act of terror. Ok, player, whatever you say.
roro, I read your question, it was rhetorical. Did you read my reply and the actual quote is: “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.” is a general remark with flag waving and music and is OK just not on point in this debate. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya
So are you saying Obama thought it was a terrorist attack? Yes or no.
From that dubious news source, The New York Times:
[United States intelligence agencies have reserved final judgment pending a full investigation, leaving open the possibility that anger at the video might have provided an opportunity for militants who already harbored anti-American feelings. But so far the intelligence assessments appear to square largely with local accounts. Whether the attackers are labeled “Al Qaeda cells” or “aligned with Al Qaeda,” as Republicans have suggested, depends on whether that label can be used as a generic term for a broad spectrum of Islamist militants, encompassing groups like Ansar al-Shariah whose goals were primarily local, as well as those who aspire to join a broader jihad against the West.
But in the heated election-year American political debate such distinctions have been lost, scholars said, as the administration has framed the attack around the need for American outreach to the Arab world, while Republicans have focused on the perils of American weakness there.
And the result has produced accounts at great variance with what witnesses said they saw.
To those on the ground, the circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to the group. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound.
The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.
At a news conference the day after the ambassador and three other Americans were killed, a spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as the proper response to such an insult to Islam. “We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the prophet,” the spokesman said. “The response has to be firm.” Other Benghazi militia leaders who know the group say its leaders and ideology are all homegrown. Those leaders, including Ahmed Abu Khattala and Mohammed Ali Zahawi, fought alongside other commanders against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Their group provides social services and guards a hospital. And they openly proselytize for their brand of puritanical Islam and political vision.
They profess no interest in global fights against the West or distant battles aimed at removing American troops from the Arabian Peninsula.
Nevertheless, the group’s motivation became a source of disagreement. At last week’s Congressional hearing, Mr. Nordstrom tried to contradict lawmakers who insisted that the group was at least “loosely affiliated with Al Qaeda.”
Representative Dan Burton, Republican of Indiana, cut him off. “Don’t split words,” he said. “It is a terrorist organization.” ]
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp
NYT article is from 10/15, after they got with the program and stopped putting a story on the CNN and the diary in the Business section.
So yes, i agree with dubious, DDW.
Same question to you: So are you saying Obama thought it was a terrorist attack on 9/12,13? Yes or no.
Nite all.
dd
I think he thought it was an act of terror but of course they didn’t know at that time if it was spontaneous or a result of a planned 9/11 attack by a well-organized terrorist group – which, according to this article, it wasn’t. Things were in a pretty chaotic state and they were trying to understand what had happened and get their people to safe places on that Sunday. And, I suspect, they didn’t want to make anything worse. Now some President’s might use this as an excuse to start bombing and getting congress in an uproar. This one doesn’t work that way.
Richard Clark, no stranger to terrorist activities, said the way it works is the security group at the White House decide, depending on the latest information, on what should be said and all official spokespersons give that as the latest information. He said that what Ms. Rice would be doing exactly what any administration (now or earlier) would expect. And that they always have an Accountability Review which handles the investigation of these things and they shouldn’t say anything more until that review is completed.
I’m sorry NYT didn’t have any more information than anyone else, at first, and put it in a less prominent area of their paper; that must have been disappointing for you. And I’m sure you are as upset as I am that a House member doesn’t want to accept what a witness said and wanted him to say “It is a terrorist organization”. But that’s politics, I guess.
And that is all I have to say until more comes out.
Ohio, if Obama thought it was a terrorist attack on 9/12, then he should have remained in Washington, and they wouldn’t have sent Rice out doing the two step, same for Carney, unless these people are expendable and the campaign is of more importance than a “terrorist attack”.
So you, roro and DDW might want to consider what he thought on 9/12.
Dduck- i agree with you on the terrible optics (at minimum) of hitting the campaign trail wile all of this was still unfolding.
On a different note though….i keep trying to wrap my brain around the CIA involvement and all that it portends. I read on another blog and think this has merits…speculation that all of the parsing has to do with the legalistic international definition of terrorism. The idea being that if Obama knows that this was really a CIA mission that blew up, rather than our sovereign diplomatic mission being attacked, then technically it really WASN’T an act of terrorism so he is being careful to not go on the record as calling it that.
Thoughts?
CS, I don’t know any of that CIA angle so I have no thoughts. It just doesn’t seem logical, or sensible, if you know it was a “terrorist” attack on any U.S. personnel, CIA diplomatic, whatever, to send out Rice, Carney, etc., with a story that could easily unravel. State saw an empty street just before the attack. Makes no sense to me.
dd
I’ve just explained they didn’t know if it was a terrorist attack, but even if they did, the President would never leave the WH if that’s the criteria. Our troops and civilian humane organization people get attacked by terrorists all the time. Unless you think the POTUS shouldn’t campaign in those cases, also? Simply not an option. Unless you think President Bush or any other wouldn’t have done the same? Terrorists were at the apex of their activities in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2004
I’ve also explained that, according to Mr. Clark, all WH spokespersons are given the information security has and are expected to speak with that in mind, campaign or no campaign. But don’t let that sway you.
Ohio, I am swayed by the President not saying that the Rose Garden “terror” was equivalent to “terrorist” two weeks later.
I am swayed by the fact someone launched the full court press on the video story and kept it up even to the extent that Obama mentioned the video six times during his U.N. speech two weeks later, and only once said terrorist.
I am swayed by the fact no one has interviewed Rice, does it have to be someone we don’t like like Issa, to get her “motivation” for her TV binge?
I am swayed because Obama is not clarifying what happened as far as the WH cause/reaction to the attack.
And finally, if “they didn’t know it was a terrorist attack”, why all the fuss over the RG use of the general term “No terror attacks…………..” at the debate.
It was my impression, which I am sure you won’t agree with, that he was trying to give the impression he meant terrorist.
dd
Keep swaying, friend. You might end up on the
rightcorrect side.