Becky Bowers is completely unskilled!

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2012

Politifact takes a dive on Benghazi: Politifact is a fact-checking site run by the Tampa Bay Times.

In 2009, it won the Pulitzer Prize. In the opinion of the guild, Politifact does high-level work.

This week, Politifact decided to fact-check the Obama-Romney town hall debate. In one example, Becky Bowers tried to fact-check Romney’s bungled set of statements about Obama and Benghazi.

If this was a good-faith attempt by Bowers, she simply doesn’t have the skill to be a working journalist.

What happens when modern American journalists try to fact-check matters like this—especially when a powerful script is being driven from the right?

What happens is the kind of crap you can see for yourself at Politifact’s site. If Bowers was working in good faith, she is almost completely unskilled.

Bowers presents a transcript of the part of the debate she’s fact-checking. We’ll highlight Romney’s inaccurate statement.

We’ll also remove the quotation marks Bowers has weirdly typed in:
Bowers' transcdript chunk:
Obama: The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened—that this was an act of terror—and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime.

Romney: I think interesting the president just said something, which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

Obama: That's what I said.

Romney: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?

Obama: Please proceed, governor.

Romney: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

Obama: Get the transcript.
That’s the part of the debate Bowers says she’s checking. In her double headline and in her first paragraph, she defines the specific claim which is under review.

For unknown reasons, Politifact doesn't put dates on its work:
BOWERS: Says President Obama waited two weeks to call the attack in Libya "terror."

Romney says Obama waited 14 days to call Libya attack terror

For weeks, Republicans have been hammering the Obama administration for allegedly concealing the true nature of the attack in Libya that claimed the life of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. During the second presidential debate, Mitt Romney charged that "it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."
"It took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror!” Rather quickly, Bowers notes that this statement by Romney was wrong—that Obama called the attack an “act of terror” on September 12, the morning after it happened!

You might think the fact-check would stop right there. Sadly though, Bowers kept going.

As we will see, this is just horrible work. Bowers is grossly unskilled:
BOWERS: However, in the days that followed, the White House spokesman and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations suggested that the attack seemed to have taken advantage of a demonstration over an American-made video that disparaged Islam.

On Sept. 13, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States."

The next day, a State Department spokeswoman said, "We are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated." But she ended with this: "Obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating."

On Sept. 16, five days after the attack, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said, "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

On Sept. 20, Carney told reporters, "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials."

But that same day, Obama told an audience at a town hall meeting, "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

It wasn’t until Sept. 21 that everyone in the administration as a whole stated publicly that the attack was planned and executed by a terrorist group.
Can we talk? If that work is done in good faith, Bowers is almost completely unskilled. But good God! On the basis of those passages, Bowers ended up ruling that Romney’s statement was “half true!”

How did Bowers reach that judgment? And why is a person with so little skill working for such a major news org?

Bowers' analysis fails to make sense every step of the way. Let’s review her analysis in three separate chunks:
BOWERS: However, in the days that followed, the White House spokesman and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations suggested that the attack seemed to have taken advantage of a demonstration over an American-made video that disparaged Islam.
Bowers has already noted that Obama called the attack an “act of terror” on September 12. But in this paragraph, she says that various officials later “suggested that the attack seemed to have taken advantage of a demonstration over an American-made video that disparaged Islam.”

Presumably, she means that the attackers were said to have done that. But why would a statement like that be relevant to the question at hand? Let’s suppose that some official did say that about the attackers. How would that contradict the claim that the attackers had committed an act of terror?

Answer: There’s no contradiction at all! The attackers could have taken advantage of the demonstration (whatever that means) to conduct an act of terror! But Bowers is trying to get in line with an ugly, ubiquitous right-wing attack—and her intellectual skills seem to be very limited.

As Bowers continues, so does her lack of skill:
BOWERS: On Sept. 13, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States."

The next day, a State Department spokeswoman said, "We are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated." But she ended with this: "Obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating."

On Sept. 16, five days after the attack, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said, "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."
None of that makes any sense.

In the first of those paragraphs, Bowers quotes Jay Carney—and he's making an accurate statement! In a September 13 press conference, Carney was asked a sensible question about events in Egypt. (He wasn't discussing Benghazi.)

Carney's answer made perfect sense. It didn’t contradict the claim that an act of terror occurred in Benghazi:
QUESTION (9/13/12): Are you satisfied with the efforts the Egyptian government has taken to protect the U.S. facilities there?

CARNEY: Well, I can tell you that the United States embassy in Cairo is secure and all U.S. government personnel are safe and accounted for. There are protests, small protests, in Cairo continuing, and obviously, we are monitoring that situation closely. And I would note that, again, the protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States.
Carney wasn’t discussing Benghazi when he made that accurate statement. (Did Bowers really not know that?) But then, Bowers’ next paragraph (see above) doesn’t make any sense either.

In that next paragraph, Bowers is quoting State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. (Despite what Bowers writes, Nuland’s statement was actually made on September 13.) But even after we get the date right, what's supposed to be wrong with Nuland’s statement? In what way did it contradict the claim that an “act of terror” occurred?

Nuland said it still wasn’t known if the attack was premeditated. In what way would that mean that the attack wasn’t an “act of terror?”

Nuland’s statement doesn’t contradict the claim that an “act of terror” occurred. Ditto for the statement Bowers quotes from Susan Rice. And By the way: As far as we know, Nuland’s statement of uncertainty was completely justified. Just this week, the New York Times reported that the attack was not preplanned.

So far, Bowers has made no apparent sense. As she continues, so does her striking lack of journalistic skill:
BOWERS: On Sept. 20, Carney told reporters, "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials."

But that same day, Obama told an audience at a town hall meeting, "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

It wasn’t until Sept. 21 that everyone in the administration as a whole stated publicly that the attack was planned and executed by a terrorist group.
Does Becky Bowers speak English? In that last paragraph, she says that, on September 21, “everyone in the administration as a whole stated publicly that the attack was planned and executed by a terrorist group.”

Do you have any idea what that bafflegab means? As speakers of English, we don't. Meanwhile, this is the question Obama was answering in the statement which has Bowers troubled:
QUESTION (9/20/12): We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?

OBAMA: Well, we're still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don't want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests–

QUESTION: Al Qaeda?

OBAMA: Well, we don't know yet.
Obama was speaking about the protests which had occurred “in different countries.” He wasn’t specifically discussing Benghazi. He said nothing which would contradict the claim that a “terrorist attack” had occurred in that instance.

Why is Becky Bowers a journalist? If this work was done in good faith, she is completely unskilled. Bowers goes on for seven paragraphs suggesting that something was wrong with what these officials were saying—more specifically, suggesting that they were somehow contradicting the idea that an “act of terror” had occurred.

Incredibly, she ends up saying that Romney’s statement at the debate was “half right!” Even though it was flatly wrong, by her own account!

In all honesty, nothing Bowers says here makes sense. Why is this person a journalist?

Go ahead—read Bowers’ full “analysis.” If Bowers is acting in good faith, she is completely unskilled. But please understand:

In those paragraphs, Bowers is getting in line with a powerful meme being driven by powerful right-wing forces. She's finding ways to suggest that those right-wing forces have been lodging a sensible complaint.

But none of her work supports that idea! None of her evidence supports the idea that Obama or Obama officials were waffling on the “act of terror” designation.

In what way was that claim withdrawn? Bowers doesn’t say.

Can we talk? “Journalists” did this sort of thing all through the Clinton-Gore years. In 1999 and 2000, they used these slipshod analytical tools to turn endless statements by Candidate Gore into lies.

Now, with election on the line, they've been stampeding into line with respect to another ugly attack. As usual, the liberal world is sitting around and letting this terror act happen.

If Bowers was working in good faith, then she's grossly unskilled. But let’s not restrict ourselves to Bowers. This kind of “analysis” has been appearing all over the mainstream press corps as this right-wing script takes hold.

And sure enough! As this ugly theme has spread, the liberal world has sat around diddling itself, the thing it has always done best. Street-fighting Lawrence hasn’t said boo! He’s busy challenging Tagg to a fight and kissing the asses of speech-writers.

The liberal world always accepts this crap. Why does the liberal world do that?

Coming: Glenn Kessler on Benghazi. Also, the New York Times.

38 comments:

  1. Great, Bob. You've finally caught up with what Rachel Maddow said two days ago.

    But of course, Maddow was completely wrong and off-base, if not downright stupid, when she said it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr Somerby,

    You are just way off lately. You have been giving Romney the equivalent of "half-true" on his tax plan for a while now. Why so upset about half-true on this? If it's not a lie, then why not rate it half-true?

    It's just not clear what scale of truth you are using: what are the gradations between lies, misleading assertions, dishonest portrayals and half-truths?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't say what exactly is way off here. You wanted Somerby to say it was "a lie."

      --Rather quickly, Bowers notes that this statement by Romney was wrong—that Obama called the attack an “act of terror” on September 12, the morning after it happened!

      --You might think the fact-check would stop right there. Sadly though, Bowers kept going.

      I think that shows what the scale of truth Somerby was looking for is:

      If the statement by the candidate is literally contradicted by the facts, say so, and stop there.

      What's "way off" tinbox?

      Delete
    2. Well the Howler didn't (and doesn't) stop there when the tax plan is discussed. Then Somerby starts looking back at some, but not all, of the things that the candidate has said on other occasions that could be construed in a way that make the plan maybe not a lie.

      While Somerby's general point that it is often not helpful to call something a lie --especially when it has been carefully crafted by a politician--is a useful guideline, he has lately been applying this idea arbitrarily.

      For Bowers to find some truth in Romney's Benghazi accusations is no different from Bob finding that Romney's knowingly-impossible-to add-up tax plan is not a lie (so presumably at least possibly or partially true).

      Delete
    3. Sorry, tinbox, but Bob isn't being arbitrary. With Romney's tax plan nonsense, Bob consistently makes the point that Romney can withstand charges of lying because what he says is technically accurate. (Mathematically impossible, yes, but technically accurate.) Because people argue with the ramifications of Romney's plan instead of what he actually says, he can avoid responsibility for misleading and confusing everyone. With the Benghazi charge, though, Romney was not technically accurate.

      When you are a fact-checker and you find a statement is technically inaccurate, your job is done. If you want to go further (to see if the underlying claim is correct even though the technical expression wasn't), that's fine, but in this case, the fact-checker didn't seem to understand what she was talking about, since none of the information she presents actually disputes Obama's statement.

      Bob is consistent in his frustration with journalists who can't find their asses with both hands and a flashlight.

      Delete
    4. So if you're going to hang your hat on "impossible, but accurate," I'm not sure what the standards are for truth. How is impossible also true?

      And if you're going to make heroic stretches, then why not admit the possibility that Romney is right about Benghazi--that while Obama denounced terrorism in general, he did not flatly and directly describe that Benghazi attack as terrorism in his first response?

      Delete
    5. tinbox for Romney 2012!

      Delete
    6. Agreed, tinbox. How can "impossible" possibly go together with "accurate" in anything Romney has said about his income tax?

      1. It will be "revenue neutral"? Impossible but accurate?

      2. The rich will be paying the same share after the rate cut, but they won't be getting a tax cut? Impossible but accurate?

      3. Small businesses will be getting tax cuts to stimulate growth, but nobody else, especially the middle class will be paying more? In fact, the middle class get a tax cut, too? Impossible but accurate?

      Lordy, if you don't want to call it a candidate looking at the camera directly and lying, then at least borrow from Elwood Blues and call it bullshit.

      Delete
    7. "Impossible" goes with "technically accurate" precisely because Romney isn't giving enough details. He has this big swirly plan that's a crock of shit, but because it involves diverse things ("moving parts," as Bob calls them) like cutting tax rates, closing loop holes, and maintaining current revenues, any time you try to pin him down on one thing, he simply moves to another. That isn't lying. It's confusing and misleading as hell, but it isn't lying.

      For the record, I'm fine with calling it bullshit. I just don't think we can call it a lie. For all we know, Romney fully believes every bullshit word that comes out of his mouth.

      And, tinbox, we aren't talking about whether something is true or false. We're talking about whether something is a lie or not. A person can say a false thing without lying, just as a person can say something that is technically accurate but still highly misleading.

      Seriously, have you even read anything that Bob has written over the past decade?

      Delete
    8. Nick, rather than get bogged down over trying to parse and split hairs over "true vs. false" against "truth and lies," in my experience, one sure way that a person, candidate or otherwise, is (choose your favorite word) lying/bullshitting/misleading is that they change their story so often that they can't keep it straight.

      Mitt is having that problem across the board, and not just on his tax plan, which seems to "evolve" daily.

      For instance, he very specifically said during the last debate that employers should not make contraception decisions for their female employees. Really, Mitt? Is that why you endorsed the Blunt Amendment?

      Oh, I forget. We're supposed for forget what he said before, and listen to only what he says now. The whole "Etch-A-Sketch" thing.

      And you know what? That's exactly what Somerby was saying when he defended Mitt from the first debate when he said he didn't propose a $5 trillion tax cut. He only proposed, at one time, a 20 percent tax rate cut, but he's open to negotiation on that, so that means it won't necessarily blow a $5 trillion 10-year hole in revenues.

      This is the way liars/bullshitters/misleaders work. They want their stories to be as vague as possible, then when pressed for details, and those details start contradicting each other, it because, "That was then, this is now."

      Which would lead a thinking person to consider, "OK, what's it gonna be tomorrow?"

      Delete
  3. I have to say I think you've gone all lizard brain on this one too, Bob. Clearly, the context of what Obama said in the Rose Garden was not labeling what happened in Benghazi as a terrorist attack, and the White House indeed spent two weeks trying to avoid just such a label - perhaps because an attack killing an ambassador is basically an act of war while an irrational mob act spinning out of control is just an unfortunate incident by some outliers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The context is not at all 'clear.' It's one possible interpretation but not necessarily true. In any case, let's assume the administration's (slight) ambiguity was intentional; perhaps this is because the administration truly did not have all the facts and they were taking a cautious approach, which is the job of statesmen and women. this is why speechwriters craft these statements so carefully, making references to terror in general but not necessarily making any references to terror specifically, precisely because information is still being gathered and analyzed. And this is also why Romney SHOULD be hammered for his criticism, even if there is some ambiguity there, because handling a delicate issue requires that kind of nuance. Romney is just being a giant douche with his 20/20 hindsight saying that the Obama administration should have handled it differently when in fact they handled it just about as well as anyone could. Suppose, for instance, the attacks really did end up being random violence that got out of hand?

      Delete
    2. Steve, it was delivered in a speech solely about Benghazi on the day following Benghazi, and repeated in the days following.

      The only people who can possibly pretend that Obama did not use "acts of terror" specifically about Benghazi are those who want to believe that he just couldn't possibly have.

      In other words, his statement couldn't be clearer to normal users of the English language.

      But for those flailing around, hoping to pick their boy up after a historic face plant on national TV, and pull his foot from his mouth and Obama's foot from his backside?

      Well, of course Obama meant "acts of terror" only in the most vague, general terms. When delivering a speech solely about Benghazi and the day after Benghazi.

      Delete
  4. I might add that Joe Biden indeed awkwardly laughed his way through that debate like a crazy uncle while Paul Ryan - whose views I oppose almost 100 % - was calm, cool and collected. Biden lamely tried to "zing" Ryan while Ryan made arguments. I was surprised to see your reading on this - the media backed Biden - and Obama in the second debate - merely for being "combative" in the way children are "combative," not for the strength of their reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Rhodes:

      It's a subjective thing about Biden's smiles. I watched it and thought Biden demolished Ryan and that Ryan was pathetic. Given the scripted Orwellian garbage Ryan was spewing, it was not inappropriate for Biden to express some scorn. All in all I saw nothing inappropriate in Biden's demeanor. If you notce, ryan was smiling also, though not as broadly. Again, it's unfortunate that body language is elevated over substance, to the point that the substance of what the debaters are saying is irrelevant.

      A/C in MA

      Delete
    2. Right, Steve. You oppose Paul Ryan's views 100 percent.

      Do you really think you're that clever and other people are that stupid?

      Delete
    3. No, Anonymous, I only think you're that stupid because, unlike you, I have an extensive public record of political views and analysis that you can check out any time you want. As for scripted Orwellian garbage, A/C, you give yourself away thinking only one side trafficks in it.

      Delete
    4. Oh, you are THAT Steve Rhodes! The world famous political analyst!

      And through all these years of experience and thoughful analysis, you can only repeat the right-wing spin machine talking point that the only reason "the media" thought Biden and Obama "won" those debates was because they were "combative" like children!

      Excuse me if I don't bother looking you up. I can find that sort of thoughtful analysis by googling "Free Republic."

      Delete
  5. Tinbox:

    As Somerby has explained several times, it is impossible to assign a truth value to Romney's tax plan. In Somerby's own words, it has too many "moving parts." That, by itself, is a damning, fatal criticism of Romney's tax plan.

    The same cannot be said for Romney's statement about the Benghazi attacks. "Obama and his administration waited 14 days to call the Benghazi attacks terror." while this is not a lie per se, it can very easily be assigned an unambiguous truth value (FALSE, in this case).

    So, no, Bowers' "nuanced" analysis of Romney's statement is not at all like Somerby's critique of Romney's tax plan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

      Sorry, but if you read the transcript, you can see that Obama's response does not clearly call the Benghazi attackers "terrorists." Obama only references terrorists after invoking a remembrance of 9/11 and then only in general terms.

      Obama passes on several early opportunities to describe the attacks are "terrorist," but he (for perhaps good reason) does not use that term--he calls the attack "outrageous and shocking" and the attackers "killers," but doesn't use the "T" word until after he has brought up 9/11. Obama's remark that
      "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."
      could easily be construed as referring to the 9/11 attacks.

      Delete
    2. Tinbox,

      No, the "acts of terror" comment can not "easily be construed as referring to the 9/11 attacks" while excluding the Benghazi attacks.

      Here they are:

      >>>>>...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....
      <<<<<

      By the way, what are you claiming is the reason for which the president "invoked a remembrance of 9/11" in his September 12, 2012 Rose Garden remarks which were focused on the Benghazi attack if not to tie them together as having something in common with each other and what would that something be?

      Delete
    3. Many politicians raise the events of 9/11 for a variety of purposes. Presiding over the killing of OBL is likely the most popular action of the Obama presidency. It is not surprising that on Sep 12 he made the claim that "justice would be done" right after mentioning the 9/11 terrorist attacks. However, he simply does not flatly and directly call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism. He seems, in fact, to dance around that rather slickly.
      Indeed, there were, and still are, good reasons not to call it a terrorist attack. The perpetrators may have been an out-of-control militia--essentially rioters without any larger plan to intimidate US (or Libyan) civilian populations. Obama wouldn't have had definitive information on the attackers on Sep 12 and it would have been prudent to express outrage and shock without characterizing the nature of attack with regard to intents and motives.

      Delete
    4. You know, tinbox, if Obama delivered those remarks one day earlier at a 9/11 memorial service, then perhaps he was referring to 9/11 and other acts of terror besides Benghazi.

      But once again, for the umpteenth time, when you are delivered a speech about Benghazi, the day after Benghazi, then what you are referring to when you call it "acts of terror" is crystal-clear.

      Delete
    5. No, tinbox, "lots of politicisns raise the events of 9/11 for a variety of purposes" is not the answeer to cmike's $64,000 question.

      Let's put it another way, assuming for the sake of argument that Obama was only talking about 9/11 when he said "acts of terror" in his speech about Benghazi on the day after Benghazi.

      If the only thing you can think of is 9/11 while the president is talking about the Benghazi attack, what does that make the Benghazi attack?

      And you know what? If there were a left-wing spin machine anywhere near as brazen and fact-challenged as the right-wing spin machine, then I suppose it could have been said that G.W. wasn't really talking about 9/11 in his first speech about 9/11. He was talking about Pearl Harbor, and never called 9/11 a terrorist attack.

      And that would be just as stupid as the bullroar you are trying to sell now.

      Delete
  6. It's truly amazing how long it's taken Bob to realize that Polifact is as phony as Fox's No-Spin Zone/We report the facts, you decide bulls**t.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What I don't get is what difference it makes whether President Obama referred to the attacks as "terrorist" or "acts of terrorism" or, for that matter, "crimes." These people killed four Americans as well as several Libyans, and as Obama said, they will be brought to justice. I get the feeling that, if Obama had said "terrorists," the wingnuts would accuse him of not saying "Moslem terrorists," and, had he said "Moslem terrorists," he wold have been accused of not saying "Al Queda Moslem terrorists." And so on and on until the election, after which it would make no difference to anyone who currently has their undies in a bunch on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's no longer just the wingnuts, it's the mainstream press.

      Should Rachel say something?

      Delete
  8. If something is not "planned" I don't think it would meet a definition of a "terrorist attack". There is certainly beginning to emerge some evidence which would make this whole discussion moot.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If something is not "planned" I don't think it would meet a definition of a "terrorist attack". There is certainly beginning to emerge some evidence which would make this whole discussion moot.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The reason this gotcha moment for Obama isn't playing out the way Bob wants is, as several have pointed out, the fact that Obama's original statement is too ambiguous, probably deliberately so.
    And the administration's response to the attack WAS contradictory and defensive, absurdly claiming that none of the attacks were in any way a reaction to US policy, and were 100% because of a video.
    If Obama had anything like a positive vision for his second term, none of these stupid gotcha moments would matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, you just keep believing it isn't "playing out."

      Meanwhile, we got Peter King trying to back track and say, "OK, he did say it was an act of terror. But he didn't say it until four minutes into his speech."

      That's getting pretty desperate.

      Meanwhile, as the right-wing continues to defend the indefensible and spin the unspinnable, Obama has spent the last two days hammering Romney on women's issues.

      Google up "Romnesia."

      Delete
    2. "If Obama had anything like a positive vision for his second term, none of these stupid gotcha moments would matter."

      News flash, they don't matter anyway; except in the sense that they are stupid distractions from what should be discussed. Having "a positive vision for his second term" wouldn't help either, as that's also irrelevant in today's current political environment.

      Delete
    3. "Romnesia" is almost as cute as the memes about binders and Big Bird, and will be just as effective.

      Delete
    4. Ah, I keep forgetting that you and only you know what is and is not "effective."

      But since the bigger picture has alluded you, I'll say it again.

      While the Romney campaign is trying oh so hard to cover Mitt's biggest blunder, Obama is hammering him on the other blunders. And it ain't just "a binder full of women."

      To wit: Mitt still doesn't know what his position is on the Lilly Ledbetter Act. His "pro-life/pro-choice" position is still as muddy as ever. Latinos know very well what a steaming pile of horseshit that his saying he only liked the e-verify portion of Arizona's anti-brown-skin law was.

      But you go right ahead. Keep busy trying to convince people that Obama didn't call Benghazi an act of terror when he said it was an act of terror.

      Who should they believe? You or their own lying eyes and ears?

      Delete
    5. Oh, and his tax plan remains even more vague and ill-defined after the debate as it was before the debate, and that was hard to do.

      And it is now even farther away from adding up and making any kind of sense with the latest "pick a number" deduction "bucket."

      Delete
    6. Earth to ABL: This whole Romney Republican issue about whether Obama unambiguously called the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism is a Karl Rove style manufactured issue. Your argument is pointless, Your claim that Obama's response was that the attacks were 100% because of the video is baldly false; you yourself say his statement was "ambiguous," then adding "probably [? - how do you know that was 'probably' the case] deliberately so?"

      Also, when did Obama, "defensively absurdly" or otherwise, claim that "none of the attacks were in any way a reaction to US policy?" I don't believe that any such claim has been made by the Obama administration. I would ask you, do you think the attack was in any way a reaction to US policy? If so, what policy was being reacted to, and what is your basis for saying so? You yourself are ambiguous; are you attacking the president from the left or the right?
      AC/MA

      Delete
  11. Lost in all of this tempest in a teacup is why the hell it matters whether Obama used the term "terrorist" or not and how directly he applied it to the Benghazi attackers. Who really gives a crap whether it was "terrorism" or not? Would the ambassador be any less dead if it hadn't been?

    Personally, I'm glad the administration tried to hold off giving a definitive statement that the attack was terrorism and what caused it. That's much better than haring off down the road to military revenge only to find out later that oops, we got it wrong, too bad about that "collateral damage."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. One thing I took from the Vice debate was how Ryan criticized the Obama administration of causing us to be attacked by looking weak.

      Have we already forgotten how shooting our mouths off and talking tough worked? Turns out, not real well. I'd much rather err on the side of caution in such matters.

      Delete