--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- 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: > > I read both the full version, and this one. This one is on the White House > website. Why does it say even less than the full version, and not even calling it an act of terror?
You know, I'm not a White House insider, Xeno. I'm really not in a position to know how they decide what to put on their Web site. But, you know, the video of Obama making the statement is on the same page, isn't it? The fact is that Obama referred to the Benghazi attack *three times*, on the public record, as an "act of terror." It's really long past time to stop denying the obvious. > > > '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: > > It is not crystal clear. If it were there would be wider > agreement as to what Obama was doing or not doing. No, the disagreement about what he said in the Rose Garden has to do with dishonest right-wing politics. > > "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. > > Always you are the honest one. Yeah, sorry you have a problem with the person you're arguing with being honest. > Here is FactCheck.org's take on the debate; it provides some support for both > views: No, sorry, it provides no support for the claim Romney made about what Obama said in his Rose Garden statement. Case in point re honesty. > http://factcheck.org/2012/10/factchecking-the-hofstra-debate/ > > > > <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. > > How do you know what he did or did not know? A lot of government activity is > hidden from our mortal eyes. There's no evidence he knew anything about what had happened with the security at that point. > According to this BBC article, Benghazi did not have adequate security, and > did not have a typical security contract for areas like that. It's dated September 14. > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19605322 > > If this were so unambiguous why the firestorm, both politically and in the > news? Obviously some is pure politics, but it seems it was the news > organisations like CNN that started poking around in the story and > undermining the administration's waffling on the issue. Disingenuous question. As you know, what I've said was unambiguous was Obama's Rose Garden statement as to the Benghazi attack being an act of terror. > I'm sure there is enough blame to go around, but that always happens when > something tragic happens. >
