There are "acts of terror," and there are "acts of terror"
Okay, I call "shenanigans" on both sides over the whole Benghazi Acts of Terror thang.
Obama did in fact refer to the attack as an "act of terror" the day after the Benghazi killings. "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." This was not just generic boilerplate posturing, but referred to these particular attacks. The denialism and negative spinning from the Right on this is just silly.
On the other hand, Obama's comments were not any sort of announcement that this was being blamed on terrorist activity. They applied just as well (and in context seem to apply) killings associated with protester / angry mob activity. For the Left to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
That said, the whole matter — aside from the actual tragedy of the killings — seems very much a tempest in a teapot to me, ginned up politically by Romney and his supporters to try to prove … well, something. Even Romney couldn't manage to articulate his point on it.
The question of when the Administration did know (and/or should have known) about the nature of the actual attack there (vs. protests and more mob-like activities elsewhere at the same time in both Libya and Egypt) is worth discussing, but nothing that's been actually alleged strikes me as specifically heinous or credible. There were questions raised and indications, publicly, that it might have been a specific terrorist act (vs generic mob "act of terror", I guess) very early on (decent timeline here: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/15/1014241/timline-benghazi-attack/ ) … but, having said that, the idea that if the Administration wasn't giving daily detailed briefings giving concrete and consistent conclusions during ongoing investigations then it must have been trying to "cover up" something is just goofy. Indeed, most of the "suspicious" stuff being pointed at is because there were too many Administration folks being badgered for answers and giving inconsistent ones.
And then, of course, after it came up at the debate last night, now the Right — having criticized Obama for not already brought the Benghazi attackers to justice, are now saying that Obama's trying to do so now soley for political gain.
There may very well be some lessons to be learned in what happened in Benghazi. That the event has become so politicized will make learning those lessons much more difficult, and that the Dem and (especially) GOP election teams are both stretching the truth to score points with the electorate is, at best, unhelpful.
Reshared post from +Media Matters for America
During last night's debate, Candy Crowley corrected Mitt Romney's false claim that President Obama did not refer to the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi as an act of terrorism.
But, the transcript of the President's remarks from the Rose Garden make clear that Crowley was correct. Despite the words appearing in the transcript, conservatives in the media are insisting the President never said it.
Get the full story on the emergence of the transcript truthers here: http://mm4a.org/QSHbZF
Google+: View post on Google+
The transcript doesn't include anything about protests or demonstrations, though, which doesn't mean that he wasn't misinformed, but it does mean that he didn't jump up and announce to the American people that it was definitely just a protest-gone-bad. The point that the right-wing-nut media is trying to make is that it was a cover-up and an intentional misdirection from Obama himself. The transcript makes it clear that this conspiracy theory is bunk. I think that's the important thing to glean from this.
There's brief reference in the transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya) to opposing denegration of other religions but how that was no excuse for violence. He doesn't in these specific remarks, give reasons beyond that hint.
I agree that painting it all as some sort of cover-up is just kind of odd. Covering it up how, and why?
Which is why I'm not even bothering to listen to the debates at all; they have no relevance about how either candidate will actually govern.
I listened to the first 20 minutes of the first debate before turning off in disgust – both candidates said that they'd simultaneously help the middle class with its tax burdens while spending money to help education or whatever. No difference between the two – their lies were consistent.
So what earth-shaking news did I miss from skipping the rest of the debate? Apparently the most important topic that the President will face over the next four years is Big Bird.
I skipped the VP debate entirely, which is just as well because neither Biden nor Ryan will run anything anyway, so whatever they say doesn't really matter.
Now for the second Presidential debate, the big topic was a binder. A binder? Oh, and pension size and composition. That's a critical issue for the next four years.
Regarding the Benghazi attacks, there are two issues: the tactical issues of what happened just before and after the attacks, and the more strategic issues of anticipating and (if possible) preventing such attacks in the future. Neither of these issues rests upon what was said in a Rose Garden photo op.