Skip to main content

The simple fact is that Mitt Romney and his campaign were lazy on this one. They read the pre-speech text of the Rose Garden speech. They missed the video and the White House transcript.

Alex Wong runs that team. So Romney blundered, despite that President Obama more than doubles the length of the prepared text speaking extemporaneously.

During the debate last night Mitt shot without aiming. He went off with a bogus claim that ""it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."

Do not hand this man Romney a shotgun!

Here's the video the Rmoneys missed. President Obama in the Rose Garden with Hillary Clinton standing beside him, on September 12th, 2012, the first day after the fatal attack at Benghazi:

He recounts the sacrifices at Benghazi and 9/11 and what these lives mean to the nation, then:

"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."

The President addresses explicitly the four deaths at Benghazi.

D'oh !! Here you have Romney emulating Cheney with the bird gun:

And the original model from 1976:

Automated google-spoofing is under way, pumping up right wing flack pieces to protect Romney. The clowns also tell us that Ford was a genius and Dick Cheney wasn't at fault shooting Harry Whittington.

There's more: WaPo fact checking and Mother Jones, plus a full and accurate transcript past le chignon d'orange....

Washington Post's fact checker has a field day with the Second Debate:

-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

"(As is our practice, we generally do not award Pinocchio ratings in these instant round-ups.)" I find that a bit funny.

Even trying to defend Romney, the best WaPo's Eric Whemple can do is relate how the right wing got obsessed with Susan Rice's performance when she stuck with the unclassified open-briefing version on the Sunday talk shows:

-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Which ends with a twitter quote from MJ's Nick Baumann:

-- "How did Romney blow that Libya question? Mind-boggling. Confused conservative spin for the truth."

Here is the full text. The Benghazi attack is characterized as one of the acts of terror that must not deter American resolve.

President Obama identified the Benghazi attack as one more in the string of violent plots that includes the big 9/11 attacks.

The word "terror" means what it says:

    THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation.  Often, they are away from their families.  Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.  I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.  And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya.  Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.  Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.  I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

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.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you.  May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

Rightie flacks try to claim that there is a difference between the words "terror" and "terrorism." That "killers" is not a simple and accurate description of the attackers.

Anything to protect rightie lying.

Fox News and Breitbart get pumped to the top ten at Google. Earlier this morning, sunrise Eastern Standard, the whole of the top ten was rightie denials.

These are the creeps who have mailers out telling their supporters to lie to pollsters. To say they're Democrats. Screws up the results, a point or two.

We're going to beat them bad this time, no matter what.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  that's because R-Money gets his news (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bontemps2012, Sylv, Dumbo

    from right wing blogs!

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:08:24 AM PDT

  •  This can't go away fast enough (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coffeetalk

    The rose garden statement was generic. The more it gets discussed the more people will look at the details and timeline. That is not flattering to Team OB.

    •  Shame-shame-shame-shame !! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dumbo

      That is dishonest. He addresses Bengazi as another act of terror like 9/11 and explicitly committing:

      -- 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.  

      -- 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.

      Whether it's 9/11 or Bengazi -- the only acts addressed specifically -- no act of terror is going to damage America's fundamental character.

    •  Really? I find it quite entertaining. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bontemps2012

      I'm really enjoying listening to the right fuming and cycling this over and over and over again last night and today.

      They are contending, essentially, as best I can try to force it to make sense, that when Obama said, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..." that he was referring to 9/11, not  the Benghazi attack.  Even though the Rose Garden speech was about the Benghazi attack.  And even though it was Obama's speech and he's right there to tell us that he meant what he said.  They want to reparse his words so they aren't liars when they say that he didn't mean to say what they say he didn't say.  Even though we all heard the same words.

      And they don't want to let this go.  Which is amusing.  Three weeks until the election.  And this is what they won't let go.  HA!

  •  Two problems with this. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    1.  The reference to "acts of terror" is vague, and it's not all that clear what he is referring to, since it came after references to 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Benghazi.  There's an argument to be made that he was referring to them all as "acts of terror" in a general way.  On the other hand, he didn't specifically say, "The attack on the compound in Benghazi was an act of terror."  

    2.  It would be easier to make your argument if the administration did not send Susan Rice out, just a few days later, to appear on all the Sunday talk shows to say that the attack in Benghazi was, based on what they knew then, prompted by a protest of the video.   That fact would seem to indicate that the President's mention of "acts of terror" a few days earlier was a reference to 9/11.  Either than, or Ambassador Rice was directly contradicting the President when she went on those five Sunday shows.

    This is one of those issues that both sides are jumping on. Democrats are calling Romney a liar based on the language in that speech, Republicans are calling the President a liar based on the fact that his administration had Susan Rice specifically deny that Benghazi was an "act of terror" a few days later.  

    I suspect we'll hear more about this at the last debate.  

    •  There's nothing vague about it. 9/11 and Bengazi (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheLizardKing

      are the two specific acts of terror.

      Read the transcript.

      Obama elevated the Bengazi attack to an oratorical status right next to 9/11.

      By way of comparison, Romney doesn't give a rat's behind about lying. He is more comfortable lying than trying to tell the truth while trying to avoid letting his disdain for poor people, Blacks, women, "illegal immigrants," and us "Gentiles" rush out.

      •  So the President sent his own U.N. (0+ / 0-)

        Ambassador to all five Sunday talk shows just a few days later specifically to contradict his own Rose Garden statement?  Is that what you are saying?

        I understand that the President's Rose Garden statement can be read as you are saying.  However, if you read it that way, then you also must believe that he sent his own U.N. Ambassador out just a few days later specifically to contradict that statement.  And that makes no sense at all.  

        •  Yes. IT makes no sense at all. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bontemps2012

          So he must not have sent her out there to contradict him, because what would be the point of deliberately sending somebody out to say that it wasn't a terrorist attack, to deceive people by unsaying something you had already said in a public address?

          What you are saying makes no sense to anybody but you and those who want so very badly to reinterpret events.  Romney still lied when he said that Obama had said nothing about it being a terrorist attack for three weeks.

          Washington Post today also has a piece saying that Romney might have been screwed over by this because he listened too much to the right wing echo chamber, which had been repeating this crap amongst themselves to the point of excluding what should have been an obvious gotcha that would trip him out.

          What a doof Romney looked like when that blew up.

          •  What I am saying is that, in the long term (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            this is not a good issue for the President.  The more the campaign harps on the notion that "he called it a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden," the more that raises questions about why the administration would have had Ambassador Rice contradict that just a few days later.  

            That moment during the debate was the worst moment for Romney, I agree.  I am simply pointing out that I don't think the Libya issue plays well for the President, either.  Having Ambassador Rice do that, in the face of the testimony that the administration knew all along that it was a terrorist attack.  From the account of the Congressional testimony:

            After declining for weeks to provide details about the assault on Sept. 11, the State Department on Tuesday night arranged with little notice a conference call in which a spokesman gave new details on what had happened.

             The account provided by a State Department official, whom the agency declined to identify, differed from the initial Obama administration reports in some important respects. Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, had said that the attack on the compound began with an angry protest about an anti-Islamic film that was “hijacked” by extremists.

             But the new account provided by the State Department made no mention of a protest. In this account, Mr. Stevens met with a Turkish diplomat during the day of the attack and escorted him to the main gate of the compound around 8:30 p.m. At that time, there were no demonstrations, and the situation appeared calm.

             Little more than an hour later, there was gunfire and explosions. American agents, watching the compound through cameras, saw armed men moving into it. The barracks for a militia that was protecting the compound was set on fire, and the attack unfolded.

            The evidence is pretty clear now that the administration knew immediately (since they were watching in real time) that this was not a spontaneous protest over the video, but a planned terrorist attack.  That certainly supports the President's position on his Rose Garden statement -- a short term win in last night's debate for the President.  But it really raises questions as to why the administration then sent Ambassador Rice out to say  that it was a protest over the video -- a long-term problem for the President.  
    •  "this terrible act" is vague? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bontemps2012

      "No acts of terror...this terrible act." Looks clear to me. He called it an act of terror. We can have acts of terror prompted by the video, and Ambassador Rice has one top priority, diplomacy. She hit the top five talk shows with Africa, Asia, and the Middle East still agitating against the United States. She made a statement based on her current information.

      •  So the President's administration (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        sent Ambassador Rice out to all five Sunday talk shows with information that they knew to be incorrect?  

        You are saying that the President believed, and expressly said, that Benghazi was a terrorist act, and then just a few days later sent his own U.N. Ambassador out to the Sunday talk shows specifically to contradict that and to say that, based on the information the administration had at the time, it was not a terrorist attack but a spontaneous demonstration over the video?  Or are you saying that the administration sent her to all five Sunday talk shows without good information?  

        Look, nobody pulled Ambassador Rice off the street for those five TV appearances.  The administration decides who, from the administration, will go on those talk shows, and then prepares the person as far as what the administration wants that person to say.  So, your view of things means that the administration was talking out of both sides of its mouth.  

        •  So now you're not blaming Obama, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bontemps2012

          you're blaming Obama's administration for contradicting him.  Well, shame on them, for being wrong.  They should have read the president's Rose Garden speech first.  

          Not a big deal, the way you're presenting it.  No surprise then that Obama looks dumb today.

          But keep it up.  You're doing us all a great favor by fleshing out just how dumb Romney was.  I hope this argument continues right up until the election day.

          •  oops, meant to day, no wonder ROMNEY looks dumb (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bontemps2012

            today.

          •  It's law. Criminal law. (0+ / 0-)

            The unclassified story was still that a mob had started the Benghazi action.

            No telling what all was happening then on the ground in Libya. We know that two attacks on militants were in the works that drove them out of the city.

            And yes, Romney was a fool to pile in on Libya again.

            Didn't learn a darn thing the first time.

          •  Really? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, nextstep

            So the President's own administration didn't know what he said in the Rose Garden when they offered Ambassador Rice to all five Sunday talk shows?  And Ambassador Rice didn't know what the President said in the Rose Garden when she agreed to go on all five Sunday shows and speak on behalf the President's administration?  And that, when Ambassador Rice was sitting with members of the President's administration preparing for her appearances on all five Sunday talk shows and going over what she would say (standard procedure for such appearances), nobody in the administration thought to mention to her, hey, maybe you shouldn't say that, based on all the information "we" have now, it was a protest over a video, because that contradicts the President? Is that what you are saying?

            That would be a very bad story for the President, if that were true.

            I agree that Romney looked bad on Libya last night.  But the more this story stays in the news, the more I think the President could look bad.  

            •  I guess that's the case then. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bontemps2012, TheLizardKing

              Thanks for explaining it.  Case closed.  

              However, the whole exercise above was unnecessary because it still doesn't make Romney not a publicly exposed liar.  If he had criticized Susan Rice, rather than Obama, for what she said, you might have a point... but few people would have cared about that the way you do, because they're not partisan enough to be crazy loons concerned with stupid minutiae like that.  

    •  Well, that does it for me, I won't vote for (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bontemps2012, TheLizardKing

      Susan Rice, nuh uh.  Too bad for Romney he wasn't debating her last night.

  •  It exposes the delusional thinking of the right. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bontemps2012, Dumbo
  •  I remember the words 'act of terror' vividly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bontemps2012, rja

    I was struck by it at the time.  To hear the President explicitly refer to it as terrorism...which regardless of the exact hows & whys is precisely what it was.  Even then he was clearly differentiating what happened in Benghazi from the unarmed protests in Cairo and elsewhere.

    He spoke about the perpetrators in explicit terms as terrorists to be hunted down like Bin Laden or Awlaki.  

    And I remember he referred to it again as terrorism when he went on Letterman.

    The only question really has been what sort of terrorism was it?  An angry mob overwhelming the consulate like the seizure of our Embassy in Tehran in 1979...or a coordinated armed assault like an attack on our Embassy in Yemen in 2008.  For a while it seemed like it was both, but increasingly clear it was just armed terrorists intent on attacking us.

    Follow Me on Twitter! https://twitter.com/#!/ZeddRebel

    by TarantinoDork on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:31:43 AM PDT

  •  The foolmoon version is up. (0+ / 0-)

    Here:

    -- foolmoon.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/339927.html

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site