Yes, Obama is a pretty clever fellow. And thank God for that! Otherwise he would have painted himself, the US and the world into a corner of unconsidered retaliation.
My guess is it was genius when he used the phrase acts of terror. By doing so he honored those who had lost their lives and also bought some time to find out what really happened. Again, my guess is, if he had used the phrase terrorist attack, then the press, the GOP, and even the public would have been demanding instant and unconsidered retaliation. Nonetheless the GOP attempted to use the situation to their advantage. The combative nature of politics exaggerated these days. Yep, going to the Dome, every day, twice a day. ________________________________ From: authfriend <authfri...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 10:16 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Romney & Lyin' Ryan Fooled by Benghazi Pseudoscandal --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u <no_reply@...> wrote: > > His comments were so ambiguous that you can make out of them > any thing you like Judy No. No, they were not ambiguous, they were crystal clear. He was crystal clear the morning after, he was crystal clear again on the following day. Romney was wrong. Suck it up, BillyG. There is no way you can make out his comments to be saying anything but that it was a terrorist attack. , that's the point. He's a pretty clever fellow, that Obama. > > They're still spinning this story. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > >
