Support NeoGAF

[ultim8p00]

Basically when the the attack happened, intelligence said that the attack was a riot by protesters over a youtube video, then 2 weeks later said it was a terrorist attack.

So Romney, after hearing Obama tell everyone during the debate that he told the nation on the day after the attack that it was "an act of terror", Romney jumped all over him because intelligence didnt say it was actual terrorist until 2 weeks later.


Romney wasnt wrong that Obama thought the attackers were rioters reacting to a youtube video. But he was wrong when he tried to call out the President for the actual words he spoke the day after, when he addressed the nation, because Obama did say that it was an "act of terror" regardless

I would argue that this is actually an incomplete explanation of why this made Romney look really bad.

Terrorism IS the practice of committing acts of terror. Most people people understand that.
Therefore, Obama did indeed at least allude to it being the product of terrorism. The reason Romney failed so miserably is because he went about attacking Obama the wrong way. What Romney should have done is talk about the fact that the Obama administration purposefully misdirected the public into believing that the attacks could have some kind of connection to the video while fully knowing it wasn't; it was a planned terrorist attack. This is the actual issue at hand. Not some stupid semantics bullshit, but willful misinformation along with reasons as to why security was not beefed up. I really wanted to hear an answer for that. Many arguments have been made FOR the misinformation (e.g it was a CIA base, they needed time to get the facts right, etc etc) but the issue still stands and is worthy of SERIOUS criticism.

However, Romney clearly doesn't actually give a shit about the issues, and all he cares about is pandering to morons. So instead of really hitting Bams where it hurts, he instead went for the "USA USA TERRORISTS HUR DURR YOU DIDNT SAY THE MUSLIM TERRORIST WERE RAPING OUR WOMEN YOU MUSLIM COMUFASCIST DERP" stupid zinger-fox-newsy-bullshit-line and it backfired horribly in his face.

The Libya issue should have been a guaranteed WIN for Romney, but because Romney doesn't care, he couldn't even capitalize on real issues that actually matter. It exposed Romney for who he truly is: someone who would unabashedly politicize the death of innocent Americans just to win votes. The audience hated it, which is why they clapped.

 

[demosthenes]

Romney should have done the same on the Arizona model law point as Obama did on Libya. If Candy was going to fact check quotes she could have there as well, and it would make the debates much more interesting.

Wish there was someone there doing this as they spoke.

 

[mernst23]

He did refer to it as an act of terror.

He did not refer to it as a premeditated act of terror, which is the point Romney was trying to make but fucked up.

Acts of terror are not terrorist attacks.

Let's go dig up how many times Bush used "acts of terror" instead of "terrorist attacks" when referring to 9/11 and hammer him for being a disrespectful asshole!

 

[KHarvey16]

Anyone who is arguing that Romney is wrong here is simply playing semantics and willfully mischaracterizing and ignoring the larger point that he was making.

Romney's claim at the debate was specific. It was that Obama did not call the act a terrorist act the day after during a speech in the Rose Garden. That claim is not making a general point. If that was his intent, he failed.

 

[MattKeil]

He did refer to it as an act of terror.

He did not refer to it as a premeditated act of terror, which is the point Romney was trying to make but fucked up.

I have seen a lot of dumb things blown out of proportion in a lot of presidential races in my time, but this "He didn't call it terror!" "He said it was terror!" "He didn't say it was PREMEDITATED terrorism!" nonsense is by far the dumbest. Such a non-issue and such a fucking smokescreen from the GOP.

At least it's distracting people from pointing out that Romney has not directly answered a single question about economic policy. It's great that he can go on for paragraphs about how Obama's policies don't work, but how about a single sentence about his specific plans to do things differently that doesn't amount to vague platitudes. We know Obama's policies and plans, but whether you agree with them or not, Romney hasn't offered an actual alternative plan beyond "Well we sure won't do THAT, that's for sure!"

 

[marrec]

Show me Obama specifically calling the incident a terrorist attack on that day.

Protip before you start looking: He didn't.

I'm unable to vote but in the interest of fairness I would have preferred the moderator to be more impartial and not said anything as the semantics of words used are confusing to the masses.

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.

How are you missing this?

Acts of terror are not terrorist attacks.

Let's go dig up how many times Bush used "acts of terror" instead of "terrorist attacks" when referring to 9/11 and hammer him for being a disrespectful asshole!

Explain to me the difference please.

 

[FlashbladeGAF]

Show me Obama specifically calling the incident a terrorist attack on that day.

Protip before you start looking: He didn't.

I'm unable to vote but in the interest of fairness I would have preferred the moderator to be more impartial and not said anything as the semantics of words used are confusing to the masses.

but she was fair

the moderator agreed with Romney that it took awhile for the administration to declare it an act of terrorism.

 

[Cyan]

But... Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack on that day. So it's not a fact. Which is why the moderator should have kept her mouth shut.

...

Please proceed, yodathesoda.

 

[Ace Harding]

I'm glad a link to this thread brought factcheck.org to my attention. I'd heard of it, but never checked it out. It's especially helpful to see the other side so I don't blindly accept all of Obama's assertions.

But on this particular issue, it's pretty clear that Romney had his facts mixed up.

 

[JB1981]

Romney's claim at the debate was specific. It was that Obama did not call the act a terrorist act the day after during a speech in the Rose Garden. That claim is not making a general point. If that was his intent, he failed.

If they believed it was a coordinated act of terror then why did they claim it was in response to the video and not, ya know, the work of an actual terrorist organization and had no causal connection with the viral video

 

[ElectricBlue187]

He did refer to it as an act of terror.

He did not refer to it as a premeditated act of terror, which is the point Romney was trying to make but fucked up.

He also failed to establish motive and place the terrorists at the scene of the crime at the night in question. He also didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were in fact part of a terrorist group. Really piss poor job Obama

 

[marrec]

If they believed it was a coordinated act of terror then why did they claim it was in response to the video and not, ya know, the work of an actual terrorist organization and had no causal connection with the viral video

They didn't claim it was in response to the video.

 

[JB1981]

They didn't claim it was in response to the video.

Yes they did. This was the narrative they pushed for the last two weeks.

 

[FlashbladeGAF]

Acts of terror are not terrorist attacks.

Let's go dig up how many times Bush used "acts of terror" instead of "terrorist attacks" when referring to 9/11 and hammer him for being a disrespectful asshole!

It doesnt matter how you want to interpret the words.

Romney tried to call out Obama because he believed Obama never even said the word "terror" which he was wrong on

Just like he is wrong when he says Obama "apologizes"

 

[soundahfekz]

I was actually worried romney would have the advantage on libya, which he should've as it was a gimmie, but not only did he blow it, but stepped and slipped on a pile of shit in the process

 

[Red]

If Mitt didn't do something this stupid, it wouldn't have overshadowed the fact this was the one direct question that Obama refused to answer all night.

"I am the commander in chief, the blame lies solely on my shoulders."

Paraphrasing, but still... how else did you want him to answer it?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Yes they did. This was the narrative they pushed for the last two weeks.

The embassy in Cairo condemned the video, they did not say it was a reason for an attack that had not happened yet

 

[yodathesoda]

Romney's claim at the debate was specific. It was that Obama did not call the act a terrorist act the day after during a speech in the Rose Garden. That claim is not making a general point. If that was his intent, he failed.

You just don't get it. The point is not the semantics of words used, but the dodging of Romney's real message which was reinforced incorrectly by the moderator.

Some people don't have the intelligence to look at things in a more unbiased light and are more prone to be spoonfed information based on their prior bias. It's OK to be wrong, now go fill your mop bucket.

 

[mernst23]

It doesnt matter how you want to interpret the words.

Romney tried to call out Obama because he believed Obama never even said the word "terror" which he was wrong on

Just like he is wrong when he says Obama "apologizes"

But he bowed to foreign leaders. He's apologizing for American exceptionalism!

 

[devilhawk]

They didn't claim it was in response to the video.

That's not true. In the same Rose Garden speech:

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.

 

[thekad]

Yes they did. This was the narrative they pushed for the last two weeks.

Wrong.

 

[demosthenes]

Acts of terror are not terrorist attacks.

Let's go dig up how many times Bush used "acts of terror" instead of "terrorist attacks" when referring to 9/11 and hammer him for being a disrespectful asshole!

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/faq-what.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/white.house/index.html

Just because you asked.

edit: Oh I see, you're just trolling.

 

[FlashbladeGAF]

Yes they did. This was the narrative they pushed for the last two weeks.

The day after, they were waiting on more intel.

Later they pushed that it was based off the youtube vid, but then did a 180 when they got more info.

Romney should have focused on that instead of trying to catch Obama on what he said during the day after.

 

[AgentP]

Why does it matter what they called it? What difference does it make?

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

Damn rewatching that is brutal. All happened so fast I didn't notice the "Please Proceed, Governor" setup.

 

[devilhawk]

Come on guys. Just as we can easily infer that the "acts of terror" line refers to the Libya attack, we must make a similar inference on this:

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.

You guys sound like Republicans spinning the "acts of terror" quote.

 

[ghst]

They kept peddling the notion that the attack there was some kind of spontaneous demonstration, resulting from the anti-Islam video that spread all over the net. In actual fact, it was a pre-meditated and well coordinated terrorist attack on the consulate. The administration didn't come clean about what happened until about two weeks after, when everyone and their mother already knew what had actually happened.

they weren't peddling a notion, they were making a rational conclusion based on all available information at the time. was their information lacking? probably, there en-lies the fuckup.

obama deliberately spoke from both sides of his mouth in the rose garden, that's what politicians high on stakes and low on information do. that romney called him out on precise semantics rather going for the open goal of mixed messaging was catastrophically boneheaded, but still could ultimately work to his advantage if team obama continues to assert that they knew it was a coordinated attack all along; especially leading in to the foreign policy debate.

 

[KHarvey16]

If they believed it was a coordinated act of terror then why did they claim it was in response to the video and not, ya know, the work of an actual terrorist organization and had no causal connection with the viral video

Why do you add the qualifier "coordinated"? An act if terror covers both coordinated and uncoordinated acts. An attack spurred on by anger over speech is terrorism.

The whole thing is stupid anyway since the reaction was to send more forces to secure the consulates and start an investigation into finding the perpetrators immediately.

 

[JB1981]

The day after, they were waiting on more intel.

Later they pushed that it was based off the youtube vid, but then did a 180 when they got more info.

Romney should have focused on that instead of trying to catch Obama on what he said during the day after.

To cover up their massive intelligence fuck up. Regardless of what "word" Obama used in that rose garden address, he fucked up, clinton fucked up, the adminstration fucked up and they covered it up for weeks.

 

[ultim8p00]

Show me Obama specifically calling the incident a terrorist attack on that day.

Protip before you start looking: He didn't.

I'm unable to vote but in the interest of fairness I would have preferred the moderator to be more impartial and not said anything as the semantics of words used are confusing to the masses.

If you are saying that he didn't specifically say "terrorist attack" then you are correct. He did however call the attack "an act of terror" which is the same thing. As per rules of English, they both mean the same thing. You are either playing a semantics game, or you aren't good at reading comprehension. It's like arguing that he didn't say "Yellow Building" he said "a building of yellow color."

The words are only confusing to people that are stupid. An 8th grader should be able to understand that.

The moderator was impartial because she corrected Romney for being misinformed and making Obama look like he was lying (which is what Romney was trying to say), but she also acknowledged that Romney's general idea was correct. To ignore Romney's lie at the expense of Obama would have been unfair and impartial.

Come on guys. Just as we can easily infer that the "acts of terror" line refers to the Libya attack, we must make a similar inference on this:

You guys sound like Republicans spinning the "acts of terror" quote.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that Obama was trying to make it seem related to the video. In fact, what most people seem to be saying is that this is what Romney should have focused on, instead of the words that Obama said.

No one is spinning anything but nice try.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Why does it matter what they called it? What difference does it make?

A feeble attempt to make the president appear weak on terrorism from a man with ZERO foreign policy experience.

 

[3rdman]

So much butt hurt here...

Romney got caught in a trap of his own doing...The details of what was said and argued by Romney is really unimportant. The fact of the matter was that last night, Obama simply reiterated was he had said on the day of the attack...that's all. Romney, in his bravado (and ignorance), then asked the President to confirm his statement and that he found that interesting because he simply assumed that it wasn't true.

Crowley called him out on it because what Romney was saying at that instant (that Obama hadn't called it "an act of terror" in the Rose Garden) was wholly and demonstrably incorrect.

What's more baffling is that this whole affair is even a line of attack...what the fuck kind of "patriot" goes off attacking the administration before anything is remotely settled about who or what happened? It was very fitting to see this blow up the face of that opportunistic pig.

 

[nib95]

To cover up their massive intelligence fuck up. Regardless of what "word" Obama used in that rose garden address, he fucked up, clinton fucked up, the adminstration fucked up and they covered it up for weeks.

Don't think they did. Chances are they knew it was a terrorist attack, coupled with it being a CIA site and all, they probably just wanted to move the emphasis away from anything too heated, especially prior to election and especially when Libyans were out protesting by the thousands against the acts and taking care of extremists themselves.

 

[Hellsing321]

Why does it matter what they called it? What difference does it make?

It doesn't and its a stupid line of attack. No one cares why the attack happened or when it was called a terrorist attack. People only want to see those responsible brought to justice and steps made to prevent things like this from happening in the future.

 

[soul creator]

should go in the OP

fixed

 

[JB1981]

They did a 180 when they got more info? LOL. No! They did a 180 when the facts of what happened didn't jive with the story they had been pushing. The cat was out of the bag, man. All they did was save face.

 

[RobotChant]

Im not an American, and after seeing that video, im confused as hell, what exactly happened here? Is this Obama owning Romney?

Romney chided Obama for seeming to not care that our consulate was attacked and slow to label it for what it was, a terrorist attack. Obama shamed Romney for suggesting he didn't care and claimed that his speech in the rose garden the day after the attack he had called it an "act of terror." Romney says Obama is lying and that it took two weeks or so before the administration admitted it was an "act of terror."

Obama: get the transcript.
Romney: get this on record.
Moderator: He did say "act of terror."
Crowd claps.

Romney went after three words that he believe didn't came out of Obama's mouth. Act. Of. Terror. He was wrong.

Romney should stick to non-specifics like he does with his economic plan.

 

[thekad]

To cover up their massive intelligence fuck up. Regardless of what "word" Obama used in that rose garden address, he fucked up, clinton fucked up, the adminstration fucked up and they covered it up for weeks.

What was the intelligence fuck up they were covering up?

 

[KHarvey16]

You just don't get it. The point is not the semantics of words used, but the dodging of Romney's real message which was reinforced incorrectly by the moderator.

Some people don't have the intelligence to look at things in a more unbiased light and are more prone to be spoonfed information based on their prior bias. It's OK to be wrong, now go fill your mop bucket.

He said Obama didn't say something specific during a specific speech delivered in a specific place. Obama did, though, and Romney was corrected just as you have been. Get over it.

 

[marrec]

Yes they did. This was the narrative they pushed for the last two weeks.

I think you're getting your chronology messed up, let me lay it out for you.

Hour 0:
Egypt starts things off right with violent protests that WERE about the video.

The embassy in Libya states that there are demonstrations due to a video and that the consulates been attacked.

Hour 1:
Romney says:

"I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Day 2:
It's not until the next day that details of the attack on the consulate begin to emerge including that Stevens has been killed. Romney is asked if he meant what he said yesterday and he says 'Yep'

Obama comes out and says:

"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."

Clearly condemning the attacks as terroristic and promising justice for those killed.

Day 3:
An Obama spokes person says that many protests are taking place over the video, but does not say the Benghazi attack was due to the video.

Later, Obama ONCE AGAIN calls the attacks an act of terror:

"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."

Day 6:
It's not until DAYS later than Susan Rice goes on TV to talk about the attacks. During this time she NEVER says that the attacks were just protests and even goes so far as to say:

"We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons"

So the official stance on Day 6 is "There was a protest that was hijacked by extremists" No, Rice did not use the word "terrorism" but it's absolutely implied.

Day 9:
Three days later National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen says:

"I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy"

Day 10 (Sept 20th):
Finally it comes out from witnesses at the scene that there was in fact no protest at the Consulate proper.

So as you can see, the official narrative was NEVER that it was a protest gone wrong.

 

[LosDaddie]

If you are saying that he didn't specifically say "terrorist attack" then you are correct. He did however call the attack "an act of terror" which is the same thing. As per rules of English, they both mean the same thing. You are either playing a semantics game, or you aren't good at reading comprehension. It's like arguing that he didn't say "Yellow Building" he said "a building of yellow color."

The words are only confusing to people that are stupid. An 8th grader should be able to understand that.

The moderator was impartial because she corrected Romney for being misinformed and making Obama look like he was lying, but she also acknowledged that Romney's general idea was correct. To ignore Romney's lie at the expense of Obama would have been unfair and impartial.

I don't want to add to the dogpiling here, but well said.

Romney clearly wanted to make Obama appear weak on terrorism by claiming he didn't call the attack specifically a "terrorist attack" the next day. When in fact, Obama called it an "Act of Terror" the next day. It was a blatant lie from Romney.

 

[LCGeek]

Fox News is already saying Obama's words can be interpreted differently.

These right wingers in the media are disgusting human beings. How do they actually get up in the mornings and look at themselves in the mirror?

Fear and Money make an easy conscious for shills. They fear a world of diversity or where they western sense of culture isn't dominating anymore. Pretty practical when you think about their motivations and why. Reinforce the status quo or actually go through the social pains of growing up what do you think a convenient simplistic mind will choose to do more often than the other.

 

[mernst23]

To cover up their massive intelligence fuck up. Regardless of what "word" Obama used in that rose garden address, he fucked up, clinton fucked up, the adminstration fucked up and they covered it up for weeks.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/14/krauthammer-whitewashes-bushs-history-to-bash-o/189890

This link proves just how unprecedented the attacks in Libya are. Obama really just is the worst president ever.

 

[KHarvey16]

They did a 180 when they got more info? LOL. No! They did a 180 when the facts of what happened didn't jive with the story they had been pushing. The cat was out of the bag, man. All they did was save face.

Why did they want to cover up the attack?

 

[nib95]

Melt down from Republicans on this has been hilarious. I suppose when you lose the debate on facts, policies, personality and grit, you have to get desperate and reach to assinine semantics.

And they said the melt down from Dems was bad last time? At least it wasn't insensitive towards deceased Americans. Time to move on with this. Especially when Obama's record on getting justice for such things is pretty solid, as he rightly defended.

 

[SirButterstick]

I love it.

"Please proceed, Governor."

"I I . . . uhhhhh I . . . "

Deer in headlights.

 

[teruterubozu]

Melt down from Republicans on this has been hilarious. I suppose when you lose the debate on facts, policies, personality and grit, you have to get desperate and reach to assinine semantics.

And they said the melt down from Dems was bad last time? At least it wasn't insensitive towards deceased Americans. Time to move on with this. Especially when Obama's record on getting justice for such things is pretty solid, as he rightly defended.

Is there really a meltdown? All I see and hear is "Binders" shit on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Facebook, Rush Limbaugh and everywhere else. It's like both sides are missing the point entirely.

 

[devilhawk]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that Obama was trying to make it seem related to the video. In fact, what most people seem to be saying is that this is what Romney should have focused on, instead of the words that Obama said.

No one is spinning anything but nice try.

Posters absolutely are disagreeing. Spinning.

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.

Romney definitely should have focused on that instead. The semantics attack was dumb. Obama clearly infers that video at fault as he states the denigration of religion is no excuse for the attack.

 

[FlashbladeGAF]

To cover up their massive intelligence fuck up. Regardless of what "word" Obama used in that rose garden address, he fucked up, clinton fucked up, the adminstration fucked up and they covered it up for weeks.

Saying it was a terrorist attack AFTER mistakenly reporting it was rioters is just a simple fuck up.


Going to war over "weapons of mass destruction" is a massive intelligence fuck up

 

[marrec]

Posters absolutely are disagreeing. Spinning.

Romney definitely should have focused on that instead. The semantics attack was dumb. Obama clearly infers that video at fault as he states the denigration of religion is no excuse for the attack.

Please read my timeline above.