Skip to main content

View Diary: Romney campaign steps back on Libya after debate, but Rove fills the gap (93 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But Mitt asked to get that on the record! (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Uwaine, native, exterris, Vicky, Matt Z, DMentalist

    The Right Wing whine about Candy Crowley overstepping her debate moderator role - by confirming the President's response remarks about the Benghazi attack - is a whopping crock.

    During Candidate Mitt Romney's retort about the President's response to the Benghazi consulate attack the former Ma. Governor prefaced his follow-up remarks (to "The President just said...“an act of terror") by saying the next very key several words of rhetorical flourish that up to now have been thoroughly ignored in all the discussions I've seen: "Want to get that on the record."

    Romney certainly cannot have meant that he wanted to get what Candidate President Obama moments ago had just said during the debate "on the record" because that's, well (the entire debate is on the record), redundant. He had to mean to get what the President "allegedly" said in the Rose Garden on September 12th "on the record", which of course was Mitt's bone of contention.

    So when Candy Crowley responded (and if I may add, as a professional journalist, she did so instinctually) to confirm what the President said on that occasion, she was simply providing the requested FACT, ON THE SPOT, to Romney's request to get THAT on the record!

    And so, what threw Mittens for a loop (and the entire Right Wing) was that he got what he rhetorically requested, because he did not mean to literally have the factual "record" reported IN THAT MOMENT! It was meant to be a "gotcha moment" for subsequent consumption by the campaign and media post mortems.  HA!

    •  he was breaking the rules asking direct questions (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      catfood, Just Bob, Vicky, Matt Z

      of Obama too...  they weren't supposed to do this in the
      debate, of course, the rules do not apply to him.

      "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment." *Ansel Adams* ."Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."*Will Rogers*

      by Statusquomustgo on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 11:38:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The stupidest part about this question… (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, Calamity Jean

      …is that the attack on our consulate was, by definition, not an Act of Terrorism because it was directed at a US government facility and not a civilian population.

      Teh stoopidTM, it hurts. Buy smart, union-printed, USA-made, signs, stickers, swag for everyone: Get your We are the 99% Yard Sign.

      by DemSign on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 02:40:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not sure I agree with this (0+ / 0-)

            It was a US government facility, but it was NOT a military installation.  It was staffed by civilians.  And as a diplomatic facility, it is supposed to be off-limits from attacks even during wartime.  Timothy McVeigh also bombed a government facility, but I don't think it's disputable that he was a terrorist.

             I'm not even sure that targeting civilians is required to earn the label of terrorism.  I did a quick review of the topic on Wikipedia, which says that there's actually a lot of controversy about how terrorism should be defined.  The targeting of civilians is provided as one possible definition, but to me the key defining element seems to be TERROR, i.e. the use of violence to have a psychological impact.  By this definition, even the 1983 bombing of a U.S. marines barracks in Beirut could fit the definition.  I would say that any attack without justification in military strategy other than inflicting terror would fit the definition.  The attack on the marines in Beirut had no strategic significance. It did not weaken the U.S. military. It did not capture any territory.  America had plenty of Marines to replace those that were lost in the attack.  But the attack achieved the desired psychological impact, and the U.S. forces were withdrawn from Beirut as a result of the public outcry.

             In my book, if the primary purpose of an attack is to inflict terror, regardless of the target, then it's terrorism.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (120)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Elections (37)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (32)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (22)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • White House (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site