Obama Did NOT Tell Us It Was A TERRORIST Attack In Benghazi -- And Why It Matters

Daniel Pipes may very well have pinpointed the key the second debate between Romney and Obama:

Obama got away with saying that he had characterized the attack on the Benghazi consulate as a terrorist incident because the moderator confirmed his point; in fact he misrepresented the facts when he said

"The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that … this was an act of terror."

Reince Priebus, the Republican party chairman, instantly seized on this inaccuracy and accused Obama of lying and others are sure to follow suit. This inaccuracy will likely haunt Obama over the next three weeks and turn the Libyan fiasco into an even bigger problem for his reelection campaign. That will matter more than who "won" the debate. 

The fact is that Obama did not tell the American people that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack -- nor did he take advantage of his appearances on TV or speech at the UN to make that point.

Here, John Sununu makes that point very clearly -- listen to it till the end:



During the debate, moderator Candy Crowley interrupted and took Obama's side on this issue. Instead of saving Obama from criticism, Crowley may have helped to put the spotlight both on Obama's mis-statement and on the remaining questions about the Obama administrations dealing with Benghazi in the weeks leading up to the election.

Here is Candy Crowley admitting -- in her own way -- that in fact Romney was right that Obama did not tell the American people that the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens was the result of a terrorist attack:



Now, why does it matter whether Obama told us that this was a terrorist attack?

Alana Goodman writes about the importance of the fact that No, Obama Didn’t Call Benghazi “Act of Terror” in Speech:

Actually, this is much more than an issue of semantics. Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the perpetrators. If he were serious about “bring[ing] to justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical. Instead, we now have the FBI sitting with its hands bound in Tripoli, unable to move forward with a serious investigation.

Goodman wrote this back on September 30. Since then, after finally make its way to there 4 days later, the FBI left Benghazi after only 12 hours.

For all its talk about finding the killers, the delay in getting starting and the limitations on the FBI investigation do not inspire trust that the terrorist victims will be avenged.

Nor is it likely to inspire fear in the terrorists who are planning further attacks on the US.

-----

If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Benghazi and Election 2012 and Obama and Romney.