Skip to main content

So much time has been spent in the last week proving that the President of the United States used the word "terror" within 48 hours of a horrible attack on one of our embassies that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including an Ambassador.

Additional time has been spent on "proving" that the White House was not "lying to the American people" in the first few days after this attack.

As usual, the attacks are cynical posturing, yet more examples of the GOP grasping at anything to tear the President down, even if it means endangering people by leaking their identities in an attempt to embarrass the White House.

And as usual, the Democrats get caught up in the facts - facts which totally support the POTUS - instead of just rejecting outright the premise that the President has to have said the word "terror".

What if the President had not said the word "terror"?  

It was only hours after a horrible incident a world away, the area still in utter chaos, the CIA still on the ground trying to piece together what happened.

The State Department was busy securing our other embassies in the region, the President most assuredly devouring every CIA update.

Almost immediately, apparently, they began to suspect it was not just a riot over a video that exploded into unconscionable violence, but either an opportunistic or planned attack by an organized group - an act of terror.

But did we know everything two days after the event - two emotional, hectic, challenging days with a million moving parts, fraught with confusion and anger?

No, we did not, and it's unreasonable to think we would have all of the answers or be assured of anything within that short period of time.  

So why are we accepting the premise that the President should have quickly called the incident "terrorism"?  It's on video and yet the GOP still denies it, parsing his words.  Although it made his opponent look bad to be stupidly wrong in front of the nation, the Democratic response still comes from a position of (a) accepting a specious premise, and (b) needing to respond to ridiculous and meaningless accusations in order to 'prove' something.

Of course, Issa has been hoist on his own stinking petard in his zeal to prove some sort of coverup.  And Romney looked like a clueless, desperate hack insisting the President didn't say something that he clearly did.

But why are we accepting the premise that it's the responsibility of the White House to report every detail to us as it unfolds in real time, and then accept being accused of covering something up as we learn and report new facts?  Why do we accept the premise that Obama would have somehow failed us as President if he hadn't said "act of terror"?

The fact is that the words spoken by the President of the United States matter.  They matter not in the way the Republicans insist they do, that they have to be as aggressive and knee-jerk and jingoistic as possible - in fact, just the opposite.

What if a President knew exactly which group carried out an attack, and wanted to give them a false sense of security by publicly blaming it on spontaneous (or stoked up) protest against an asinine video produced by a racist hack, as the CIA closed in on them?  Is it the President's duty to make sure the public knows every detail or to concentrate on securing the region and bringing murderers - terrorists - to justice?  

What purpose would it actually serve to blurt out TERRORISTS!!!!! when all the facts were not in?  We all know that if he had asserted without reservation that this was a terrorist incident only to find out later it was not, the republicans would have attacked him for that as well.  And if he knows it's an act of terror, does he have to use the word terror in public speeches to prove that to us or to be an effective leader?

It's strange to think we need to hear the President bluster and posture about TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!, when in fact murdering an Ambassador inside of an embassy is pretty much always terrorism even if it's just about a stupid film.  Killing Americans simply because of a fanatic need to show displeasure and punish us over some perceived slight is always terrorism.  Does the President have to call it that for us to believe he is a competent leader?

Of course not.  Shrieking "terror!!" at every incident is the modus of fearmongers like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, who want to frighten us into handing them the reigns without further question. Ironically, the very same Republicans who want to keep us frightened and meekly reliant on a paternalistic government who accuse Democrats of using entitlements to keep us dependent on government.

The White House tells us what's going on because they trust us.  (Although I'm not naive enough to think they tell us remotely everything that they know.)  Contrast this, even when it's a bit clumsy, with a government that scares us with some trumped up boogie man story to goad us into supporting a ghastly and unjustified war.  

While it's really satisfying to see the look on Romney's lying face when he got caught flatfooted, we can't count on having such a prime opportunity handed to us again.  

It's ridiculous for the GOP to try to tell us our safety and security depends on whether the President used the word "terror".  Their insistence on aggression and knee-jerk hyperbole as an answer to every situation has grown stale.

Jingoism is not diplomacy; diplomacy and vigilance are preferable to war; there will always be volatile situations around the world and they are usually addressed better by nuance than violence; it's better to rely on facts than on dogma; and cooperation with other nations is strength, not weakness.

The President's words matter.  That's why we need a President who is mature enough to choose them carefully - like the one we have.

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

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Why is it that a 3% tax increase for the wealthy is considered "socialism" and an 8% wage cut for the middle class is "doing your part"? MartyM

    by delphine on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:12:22 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, I complained about this in a diary last week (0+ / 0-)

    Pres. Obama took a strong stand against the attack from the start, and that was all that should have mattered.

    Never attribute to malice what is owed to ignorance or honest disagreement.

    by ConfusedSkyes on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:29:34 AM PDT

  •  What might be in the Administrations (0+ / 0-)

    best interest?

     1.  Having the attack perceived (at least for a while) as an unfortunate one-of event, carried out by an out-of-control street mob, triggered by a specific, widely condemned anti-Islamic action unlikely to be repeated.  


    2. Having the attack seen as a well organized, premeditated, 9/11 attack in an essentially lawless part of Libya NATO helped destabilize. An area where US interests have been attacked before (including the consulate), and known to be the gateway and haven for anti-American elements sympathetic to, or in league with, terror groups who have attacked the US in the past. This might call into question the whole Libyan enterprise, as in what was the point?

    The President could have called the attack a banana, but these questions would remain.

  •  I agree completely. (0+ / 0-)

    The administration was said to be "waffling" because when asked if this was a terrorist attack, they said "We don't have enough information yet to be sure."

    I have SO MUCH RESPECT for someone who, when they don't have enough information to give a definite answer, will TELL YOU SO.  And I can't understand why there are people who seem to think that's an admission of weakness.

    •  How much time should they be given (0+ / 0-)

      before factual information should be provided?

      •  Not sure I understand your question. (0+ / 0-)

        Do you mean, how long should we give the government to find things out?  Or how long should we give them before they tell us what they've found?  Or what?

        (It would also be nice if government spokespersons, when giving information to the public, would make a clear distinction between observation, deduction, conjecture, and hearsay.  But that's just a pleasant fantasy.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site