Now that the Obama administration’s initial narrative that the Benghazi assault was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film has collapsed, the new spin from the White House is that President Obama has actually called it a terrorist attack all along.
“Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the President called it an act of terror the day after it happened,” David Axelrod told CNN’s Candy Crowley this morning, referring to a speech Obama made in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12.
Axelrod’s claim has been pushed by journalists over the past few days, most notably Josh Gerstein at Politico, in a blog post headlined “Obama talked of Libya attack as ‘terror’ 2 weeks ago”:
Despite a drumbeat from the right and even independent fact-checkers that President Barack Obama has been unwilling to label as terrorism the attack on a United States diplomatic mission in Libya, the president indicated just a day after the killing of the American ambassador there that the assault was part of a series of “acts of terror” the U.S. has faced.
Mark Landler made the same claim in an otherwise solid article at the New York Times:
The White House maintains that its account changed as intelligence agencies gathered more details about the attack, not from any desire to diminish its gravity. Mr. Obama, his aides point out, labeled the assault an “act of terror” in his first public response, in the Rose Garden, a day after it happened.
Gerstein and Landler are simply wrong on this.
Obama said during the speech that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” — but at no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Here’s the line with some additional context:
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 Arlington Cemetery, 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.
If Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a “terrible act,” a “brutal” act, “senseless violence,” and called the attackers “killers,” not terrorists. It’s also important to consider the context. For a week after this speech, the White House would not call it a terrorist attack. The official position was that Libya was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film, not a premeditated or preplanned act.
Some may wonder why it even matters. Maybe Obama really was referring to Benghazi as an “act of terror” in the speech, and he just failed to make that clear enough — so what?
Actually, this is much more than an issue of semantics. Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the perpetrators. If he were serious about “bring[ing] to justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical. Instead, we now have the FBI sitting with its hands bound in Tripoli, unable to move forward with a serious investigation.
Lying liars telling lies. n nWhen did it become acceptable for the President of the United States to be a serial, bald faced liar? n nI must have missed it, but I worry its acceptability is a marker of America's descent as a nation. n n
I thought it started with Clinton — which is the only difference between the Clinton administration and the Nixon administration. The Nixon cover-up fell apart because some when questioned under oath admitted the truth. That will never happen with an American politician again, will it?
You forgot Carter.
It is more the media, which was RELENTLESS with Nixon. Can you imagine what would have happened if GWB had quibbled as to the meaning of the verb 'to be' — "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" — can you imagine what would have happened? n nHow about Reagan — can't you see Sam Donaldson out there screaming "Mr. President, when are you going to give the American people the meaning of the word 'is'?" Yet with Clinton we had essentially a serial rapist whom the feminists forgave because he passed the Violence Against Women Act — although he personally was one of the worst perpetrators of the same… n nRemember also that not only did Nixon have the honor to resign when Impeachment became inevitable, but he also didn't pull the stunt that Al Gore did in Florida. It is quite clear that Illinois was stolen from him via massive vote fraud in Cook County (Chicago) in the 1960 election, but unlike Gore, he let it go for the good of the country.
What I don't get is what exactly are the GOP accusing Obama and his administration of with this? What end do they believe Obama is trying to accomplish by "covering up" what we did or didn't know about what went on in Benghazi? Are they insinuating that he and his administration wanted those people to be killed? Certainly they can't be saying he's weak on terrorists! Obama made it a priority to track down and kill Osama bin Laden for heaven's sake! I just don't get it. What are they trying to tag Obama with with this?
Do you believe me or your lying eyes? (Or ears)
Secret Service agents vote. FBI agents vote. Military members vote. And they are not silent when it comes to family and close friends.
Obama wouldn't hesitate to call me a terrorist, and my only crime is a severe dislike of him.
At least he didn't blame it on Israel. We're supposed to be happy about that.
It is even more wrong to call their BLATANT BALD-FACED LIES, just merely that "they are wrong on that". n nThat isn't what they are – they are COVERING UP – and to a TREASONOUS degree. n nJustice isn't going to occur until people in the White House and State Dept who are ULTIMATELY responsible for this have been convicted and hanged in public. n nAnything LESS will never measure up to a Fair and Balanced Definition of Justice.
Grammar matters — "an act of terror" and "a terrorist attack" are not the same thing. n nIn "an act of terror", "terror" serves to modify (explain) what kind of "act" it is/was — i.e. "an act of terror", "an act of kindness", "an act of love", etc. n nIn "a terrorist attack", "terrorist" serves to modify (explain) whom the attacker is/was — i.e. "a terrorist attack", "a zombie attack", "an attack by drunken frat boys." n n"An act of terror" would include not only a terrorist attack but something like the Virginia Tech shootings, something truly terrifying but not perpetrated by a terrorist. Notwithstanding Ms. Goodman's valid point of context, notwithstanding what we were being told about how this was only random citizens rioting, the strict construction of what he said has nothing to do with blaming this on actual terrorists. n nWhile all acts of terrorists are acts of terror, not all acts of terror are perpetrated by terrorists. nAfter all, I am terrified of Obama & Obamacare, but that doesn't mean that ……..
Where other people keep on asking what the real distinction is, you describe the difference in the meanings of the phrases perfectly! Have you been told you're brilliant today?
This is the reason that we have to get rid of this President – vote him out of office before Obama ruins this once great nation. This is unacceptable.
He said act of terror on September 12, what do you think he was talking about? Really?! If it was a Republican saying that you would be saying exactly that, what do you think he was talking about? I am anti Obama but come on, fox and all conservative stations/sites are lying. Deal with it THE PRESIDENT SAID IT!
Nah, he was clearly referring to the 1976 raid on Entebbe and the Lockerbie bombing.
Did you read the article or watch the speech? It says right there he was discussing 2001 in that speech. THEN he denied to call Bengazi terrorism for weeks and if you watch him on the View you can see it AND at the UN and everywhere else
So riddle me this Mike. How did we the American people get the notion that some invisible entity said this was because of some film ? We did not make it up. And if the president would have come out and stopped the speculation that it might be terrorists and not a film, his credibility might have survived. Instead he continued to lead from behind. He is forever waiting and testing the wind on what he is going to say next. And this is a big factor in him not being trustworthy to the American people. His one word terror will not save him from his own dismal record. At this point nothing can.
The semantics don't matter as much as Obama's lie that this was an attack provoked by an anti-Muslim video. He completely fabricated this tale and announced it everywhere he appeared for 2 weeks. Our ambassador pleaded for more security, for reinforcements, for HELP (and Biden lied that the Whitehouse was never informed) for several weeks right up until ONE HOUR before he was murdered. What is Obama hiding? I really don't know but it is frightening to speculate the possibilites, don't you agree?
This issue is front and focus on todays debate. I guess somebody told the President this is his best argument. SHAMEFUL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n nIt reminds me of lawyering n nYou give the best argument, even if the truth gets warped beyond recognition n nU count on nobody digging deep enough to learn the truth
Romney did not ask the question correctly, he should have said, did you say Bengahzi was a act of Terror or a spontaneous incident cause by a online video. Even on the view and at the UN , Obama said it as a sponatneous attack. Romney screwed up!
mike. righto. but then for the next 2 weeks him and others never called it a terrorist attack they called it a protest of the video
You're an idiot. What else would he have been referring to during a press conference about what happened in Banghazi when he said " “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” n nMaybe he was talking about Australia. I'm shocked by your ignorance.
actually, it reads like he was referring to the original 9/11 attack. If he truly believed it were an act of terror, he would have been definitive about it…nor would he have gone on a two week binge promoting a little known video…
I watched it. He was referring to the attack that had just happened. This is such a stupid semantic issue, let it drop. There are a million ways to criticize Obama, but this particular one is not productive to anyone.
so, why did he say the attacks were due to a movie trailer a week later? Biden said they didn't know for 4 days at the vice presidential debate. His UN Ambassador went on 5 news shows and said it was in fact a spontaneous attack cause by a YouTube video. Now who is lying?
It is a common democrat method to make speeches that contain sound bites that can be used to covey several meanings depending on which group is listening. Then they use the sound bights as a kind of ambush on republicans and bait them into saying something. I think Romney did great with the answer. Especially since Candy retracted her statement after the debate and said romney was right
There are two events Obama mentions: 9/11 and Benghazi. H then calls BOTH “acts of terror”.r nr nLet me make this clear – he associates Benghazi with 9/11.r nr nSo either Obama is guilty of downplaying 9/11, OR he is describing Benghazi as an event linked to 9/11 – an act of terror, a terrorist attack.
You're saying this matters because more directly calling Benghazi a terrorist attack would have authorised Obama "to use military action, including drone warfare, against the perpetrators."? Tell me, how do you pick out assassins hidden amongst innocent civilians with a drone?
Thanks to this article, I now know Candy Crowley gets her information straight from the Obama campaign. Obama clearly does not call this an act of terror.r nr nObama with the help of the moderator dug himself a deep hole for the next debate.
There you treasonous Republicans go again – lying your Koch sucking faces off. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation." I know you're simple folk, but "acts of terror" are in direct reference to the attacks… but there you are, betting against America again. Would you PLEASE ALL SECEDE ALREADY?! The normal people of America are TIRED of your antics. ROMNEY LOST THE DEBATE, but members of "the Party of Personal Responsibility" only stick to that motto when trying to deny kids a hot lunch program. Take responsibility for your FAILURES and shut your Koch holes. The adults are in charge. You treasonous pigs have been TRYING to politicize whatever you can get your greed-centered sociopathic claws on. Try CONTRIBUTING to America for once and take the cue to shut up. The whole world is tired of your desperation. Thankfully, with Obamacare, mental illness is no longer a pre-existing condition and you can get help.
"The adults are in charge"–funny, because, for one, "Koch" is pronounced "coke." Your general ideological stance and maturity levels are both quite defined.
OF COURSE! The comments "must be approved!" Typical fear-based fascists. Your flimsy, greed-centered, anti-American, failed ideology just can't stand up.
You don't need a PHD to realize that he called it an act of terror. If you don't then you are either in denial, or you didn't fair to well in school. Funding must have been cut by some right wing nut job. Saying 'no act of terror' is implying that it was an act of terror. Dear lord people are thick.
The key to the President's Rose Garden remarks regarding Libya is his opening statement where he says "we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others" (obviously inferring the YouTube video).
What is all this about really? What end do the GOP believe that Obama and his administration are after by "covering up" what happened in Benghazi? Are you who are criticizing the President on this issue saying that he and his administration wanted the attack to happen and/or wanted those people to be killed? Or are you saying that the President and his Administration are weak on terrorists? Certainly it can't be that – Obama made it a priority to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden for heaven's sake! I just don't get it.
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve.. Today we mourn four more Americans…. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act…." There is no reasonable question that the deaths of four Americans described in the second sentence is one of the "acts of terror" referred to in the first. So Obama DID refer to the Bengazi consulate attack as an "act of terror". And while it was derelict of Crowley to back up Obama's attempt to parlay this fact into a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for his administration's disgraceful performance the real problem was Romney's incompetence in posing the issue in the way he did. (cont.)
(cont.) Goodman writes, "Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF)…" apparently not realizing that Obama DID certify that AUMF applied, almost immediately.____But that was never an issue. The issues are (a) Competence, in refusing to supply as much security to the Ambassador to Libya as is ordinarily given to Ambassador Rice when she goes to the UN, and (b) Truthfulness, as in repeated and SUSTAINED assertions that the military assault grew spontaneously out of a protest that never took place. Wheter or not Obama called the military assault "terrorism" is IRRELEVANT to these concerns, and Romney's failure to raise them properly is inexcusably weak.
It seems fair to say that Obama included the safehouse attack in his reference to acts of terror and there is no reason to deny him that cover of the timing of this statement. This argument over when he called it terror is a huge distraction to the real issue of the attempted coverup that occurred over the next two weeks. It has been proven that they knew it was terror but blamed it on the video…everything else is irrelevant. The passion and name calling are a crutch for lack of a reasonable argument.
It's taken four years for America to realize President Obama is not qualified.
This is kinda ridiculous how they get away with it!
There is this and then there is the two weeks that followed. Axelrod points to this one speech (to none other than Candy Crowley, interestingly enough) on the anniversary of 9/11 2001 that says "terror" once to try and undo weeks of rhetoric that simply can't be retracted. It hardly seems like a frivolous distinction or case to me.
IDIOT !