Are Republicans seriously claiming Romney was right on Obama's Libya comment

[BringinTheTruth]

Better to get in late, than never, but the Republicans ARE seriously claiming not that Romney was right, but that the President was both wrong and intellectually dishonest.

Let's break this down, in the fashion of the truth:

First....Harry's quote, while accurate, is inapposite to the issue.  The issue is not whether Barack Obama CONDEMNED the act in Bhengazi.  The issue is two-fold:

1)  Did the actions of the administration make us susceptible to attack, and
2)  Did the administration then try to cover up the attack. 

I believe the answer to both is yes.  So does Romney. 

Now....after B.O. said he called this an act of terror in the rose garden, which I believe was a bait, Romney's response should have not been to ask a question he didn't know, and focus on what we DO know:

1)  The administration did not know if this was a preplanned, concerted attack on the consulate the next day....evidence suggests they did, but they claim they did not...so let's give the administration the benefit of the doubt and assume they did not.  If they did not, the question is....when did they?

2)  We KNOW that prior to 9/14 and 9/15 the administration had information that there was never any spontaneous crowd in front of the consulate, that the streets of Bhengazi were quiet an hour before the attack, and that this is the position of the state department because that is what they testified to before Congress last week.  So....

3)  On 9/16 Susan Rice, after having been briefed, went on FIVE television shows to tell the American people that there was NO evidence of an attack, and that the only information that was available was that this was a spontaneous demonstration.  WHY?

I ask WHY, because we now know that wasn't true.  We now know the State Department knew it was not true.  And we know that the administration's response was to harass and detain an American citizen who made a film and published it, which has generally been recognized as well within the First Amendment.  I also ask WHY because Rice didn't act alone....so who above her briefed her and upon whose orders.  I suspect the names, Gibbs, Plouffe, Jarrett and/or Axelrod are involved.  If so, then this is a direct political cover up.  Recall also the furor Dems had when Karl Rove became involved in policy....same difference.  If this was not those guys....was it the NSA team?  If so...then why did the NSA team not have the intel that State did when it is their job to protect America?  Finally, was it the President himself?  Because if he did this, then that is a breach of his duty as the Chief Executive and as a political leader.  Also, is it possible he did not have proper information....if not...why not?  We KNOW he went on The View AFTER State knew this was not a spontaneous act and said there was an investigation....that was wrong.  Was it intentionally wrong, or did the President not have command of his intel and State teams?  Any way...it looks bad.


Now....as for the debate.

Romney was in the midst of attempting (poorly) to make the above point.  What he should have said was "The President did not declare this act to be an intentional act against the US interests for two weeks, when we knew that it was within hours of the attack itself.  He did not keep us safe from terror, and for 14 days he either was failed by his own team, OR he was not truthful with the American people."  Simple.  However, Wide Wanda made a clear error in "fact-checking Romney," and doing so erroneously.  She later said Romney was right in the main, but chose the wrong word.  However, a responsible moderator, or a competent Romney in the moment, would have said, "WHY, if this was an intentional act/terror attack, did you go on the View days later and say it wasn't....WHY did Susan Rice go on every TV show around and say the intel was exactly the opposite of what we now know to be true."

The President had and has no answer for that.

So yes....the President said "act of terror" in the vicinity of "Bhengazi attack," however, he did not identify the day after the attack what the attack was, and he still didn't for two weeks.  Crowley stunned Romney, clearly, and in the course of doing so, did it erroneously herself, and Romney laid an egg on the question.  Moreover, because of Crowley's poor and inaccurate actions, and Romney's inability to correct, this issue has not, and I suspect won't, be properly framed, and in that sense he was entirely wrong - what should have been his strongest debate opportunity became his weakest answer.

But in the end, that is still being talked about, which the President did not want to happen, and that favors Romney the more the media begin to do their job and press these proper questions.   

^ The Truth.  Obama did not call the attack an act of terror.  He said "acts of terror" in the general vicinity of his statement condemning the attack and vowing to learn what happened.  I have the Texas A&M-LSU game on.  Imagine if Jenn Brown asks Les Miles what happened after the game and he said "We lost the game.  We are going to have to figure it out.  We'll look at the game tape and see where we went wrong.  Nobody will beat us with the run, though."  This would not at all be read to be some suggestion that the run game is what made them lose.  It could have been their defense.  Or maybe too many penalties.  The gist is, that he's going to look into it and see.  Same thing here.  Obama didn't know what happened.  He made a general reference to "acts of terror" but did not specifically identify what prompted the attack, and weeks later, he and his administration were telling America that it was some spontaneous rally gone bad.  Coincidentally, such a tale would also help his flailing campaign, thereby raising the question of whether the statements were politically motivated. 

It's very simple.   

[BringinTheTruth]

No....because the premise for the remainder of the entire article is attempted to be established in paragraph 1.  Any logic class teaches you that if the premise is flawed, or fails, the remaining conclusions do not stand.

[BringinTheTruth]

Did you not read my prior post.  The premise for the remaining facts is entirely incorrect.  The conclusions are misleading and the asserted facts beyond paragraph 1 are not presented in the proper context because of the premise's failure.  Sorry, but claiming victory isn't the same as actually winning, friend.

[BringinTheTruth]

No.  Not remotely. 

[Brittain33]

Here are some interesting bits from the Q&A I linked to. Food for thought.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BringinTheTruth]

1.  If Ambassador Rice's story is accurate....then why did the President call it an act of terror the day after?  Because that is the story they are now telling.  Also, why did State Dept officials testify that prior to her appearances they knew this was a preplanned attack.  She went on all five Sunday shows and said this was a reaction to the movie.  It was not.  Believe State or believe her.  But the administration is at odds on this.  WHY is that ever the case?

2.  If Rice didn't know that at the time, WHY wasn't it corrected when it was learned?  WHY had she not been briefed by State OR Defense(Leon Panetta has said it was a preplanned attack)?  WHY is Rice getting bad intel or different intel than State or Defense? 

3.  WHO briefed Rice?  Was any of the political team involved in that?

These questions are not being answered, and to this day the administration doesn't have its story correct.