“Terrorism” is not a magical word
Acts of terror
Terror acts
An act of terrorism
The debate over what the president and his advisors & surrogates have said – and they words they have used to explain what happened in the __ attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi fails miserably to advance any substantive foreign policy objective. We really should not be engaging in this particular debate. Whether or not the president can win this particular formation of the debate – and it seems to me that he can as demonstrated by his debate performance last Tuesday - It’s a debate wholly within the framework of rightwing world talking points.
I would be more comfortable with an attempt to change the debate frame altogether, with a response from President Obama and his surrogates that downplays what he called the event and when. Whatever President Obama said – or did not say and whatever he intended or did not intend would not have changed the events on the ground as they happened or for that matter the aftermath of those events. Had he somehow spoken exactly as those on the right wanted what difference would that have made to the events on the ground? Nothing! This whole “controversy” is about how the event was explained – after the fact – to the American public.
What’s more, to move onto the offensive, I would point out just how difficult it is to get, say, and do the right thing in the moment of extremely tense and hostile events unfolding thousands of miles away. I would point out for instance 1) that Mitt Romney blundered his way through his own, chosen foreign policy trip, one conducted under the tamest and most generous of circumstances. In his first stop in England his ill-considered language managed to insult an entire nation (and our closest ally at that) and unite the English people against Romney. And Things went down-hill from there. 2) I would further point out that President Bush employed the kind of cowboy rhetoric called for by Romney and friends to ill-effect. The tough talk and harsh “your-either-with-us-or-against-us” and “axis-of-evil” language produced shockingly horrible results.
In contrast to this President Obama’s careful and considered temperament and tone has produced results. You can call how the President has handled events as they unfolded in Libya and Egypt (and now in Syria) “leading from behind” if you want but you must also call it a striking success.
Uttering the words “terrorist attack” does not make things better, solve any problems, or magically make your enemies suddenly do what you want them to. The Republicans and neo-cons go around blurting and bleating the phrase “terrorist attack” as if they have some kind of terrorist Tourette’s syndrome. Then Senator Biden got to heart of it when he slyly lambasted Rudy Giuliani for his “a noun, a verb, and 9/11” vocal tick.
Just as President Obama today diagnosed the former Governor of Massachusetts with “Romnesia” so too should Obama diagnose Romney with terrorist Tourette’s syndrome.