tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6412826294594900386.post7689692274542138946..comments2023-04-12T08:12:17.855-05:00Comments on yellowarmadillos: Electoral despairAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12068839756237461498noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6412826294594900386.post-80242795096378321832012-10-19T12:22:09.224-05:002012-10-19T12:22:09.224-05:00Michael, you are right that I was focusing on the ...Michael, you are right that I was focusing on the "No acts of terror". I did so because that is the basis on which Crowley and the other presidential supporters are basing the claim that he called it an "act of terror". I am pleased to see that you agree that that was too generic to meet their requirements.<br /><br />You are also quite right that I did miss the relevance of the use of the word "terrible" later in his remarks.<br /><br />I suppose one could say that not catching that was a terrible mistake.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12068839756237461498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6412826294594900386.post-39554037073256807042012-10-18T12:44:09.160-05:002012-10-18T12:44:09.160-05:00For the moment let’s accept your argument that the...For the moment let’s accept your argument that the Prez called the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism in the Rose Garden speech. <br /><br />Why then would Rice, Clinton, Obama (in his UN speech), and a large portion of the media continually refer to the attack as a reaction to the movie trailer for the next several days?<br />Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07669679191229234850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6412826294594900386.post-27083358909679953692012-10-18T12:34:50.395-05:002012-10-18T12:34:50.395-05:00Thought-provoking post Wayne -- thank you.
I bel...Thought-provoking post Wayne -- thank you. <br /><br />I believe the President can claim that in his Rose Garden speech he referred to the killing of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi as an "act of terror." In particular, he can claim that the phrase "acts of terror" refers to something from two paragraphs prior: in that paragraph, the President makes 9/11 a part of the overall context and also mentions Benghazi as well. <br /><br />But, that's a bit of a problem, since between the references to 9/11 and Benghazi, he also mentions soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely he's not claiming now that they were part of some kind of "war on terror", is he? <br /><br />Anyway, at best the connection between "acts of terror" and Benghazi is oblique, in my view. Perhaps as Michael suggests, the word "terrible" is meant to be taken as the adjective form of "terror" -- but to me this is even more indirect. <br /><br />Speaking as a citizen and as a member of the President's party, I'm really bothered by his opaqueness here. I mean, they killed our main man in Libya (and other Americans as well), and I have to parse the language of the President's speech to figure out what he really thinks about it? <br /><br />This verbal elusiveness -- along with all of the references from him (in this same speech) and other spokespersons (UN Ambassador Susan Rice comes to mind) about the nefarious video -- signal to me that he wanted to hedge his language on this. If he were doing so because there's an ongoing investigation about the incident, then that would be understandable. But then he and his surrogates should have withheld their statements in which they clearly suggest that the video contributed to the attack on our people in Benghazi. <br /><br />So what was the purpose of his blurry language about this? A man as bright and verbally dextrous as our President can speak much more clearly than he did. My guess would be that he knew what he was doing. In particular, it is hard for me to see it as anything other than an obfuscating, election season, CYA maneuver. <br /><br />*If* that's the game the President is playing -- and I'm trying to stay open to the possibility that I'm misreading him -- then should I hold it against him? Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12649280628102915160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6412826294594900386.post-78337824175742727602012-10-18T12:03:01.681-05:002012-10-18T12:03:01.681-05:00I'd like to make a counter argument in favor o...<br />I'd like to make a counter argument in favor of the president actually calling the attack in Libya an act of terror.<br />You're focusing on the comment "No acts of terror..." This comment is not in reference to any particular acts of terror, and is a general statement on American values in the face of adversity. <br />What you seemed to have missed is from a couple of line further down. "We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for <b>this terrible act</b>."<br />He used the adjective form of terror, terrible. Which, from the first definition from the OED, means: 1. Causing or fit to cause terror; inspiring great fear or dread. Also: awe-inspiring, awesome.<br />Now, you can easily make the argument that I am reaching for an explanation that codifies my own worldview, and I'd retort that not all speeches can be written on a 5th grade level. <br />But is a “terrible act” an “act of terror”? With the different definitions of “terrible” a “terrible act” is not always synonymous with an “act of terror”. However, in this context, because it directly references the events in Libya, it is.<br />Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01501092767358868675noreply@blogger.com