"Here is what I will say, if four Americans get killed it is not optimal..."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 … t-optimal/
Here is my prediction. There won't be anywhere near the hooplah raised about this, as there was about Romney's statement about Benghazi in the debate(where Crowley incorrectly corrected him).
"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"
She was so wrong...
Yes, she was wrong. He said that after changing the subject to the original 9/11.
He didn't call the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack. You can try to say it was implied, but that's just your opinion.
Instead, when he mentioned the Benghazi attack, he said we renounce all attacks on religion.
But it's ok. These bumps in the road sure aren't optimal... we just need to keep moving forward to realize our hope and change our future.
No it's not implied acts is a plural.
As for those comments you can get on your high horse and pontificate as much as you like but it's immature as hell diplomats accept dangerous assignments around the world and if they are killed by terrorists that is sad but it does not and should not change American policy or even be a political issue beyond did they get sufficient protection.
Now the protection issue is a valid one and should be discussed everything else is just politically motivated bull, these were murders not a political incident.
Josak, that is exactly the definition of implied. If you say 'This was an act of terror', then that is not implied. If you talk about something, then change the topic to something else, and then say 'We will not accept acts of terror', then you can argue that it is implied, but it can't, by definition, be anything more than implied.
I'll agree with you there(bolded). No, they did not get sufficient protection. They were attacked at least twice leading up to the main attack, and requested security multiple times.
If the moderator for the next debate lets Romney speak, you'll hear about it.
If you talk about two acts of terror in sequence and then say "acts of terror" it takes a complete and utter fool to decide that means anything other than that both were acts of terror it's not implied it directly follows the rules of grammar and logic.
Obama was right in making the point that some Americans on a dangerous assignment being murdered by a non state entity is not an important factor to US policy nor should it be, just like if tomorrow four Nigerian ambassadors were killed by the KKK (as an example) it should not dictate Nigerian policy nor does it have any impact on their prior policy.
Republicans have tried to twist the issue into being political beyond did they get enough security (where I admit I lack the necessary knowledge to comment) but as I understand it three times as many people assigned to the embassy would not have changed the result as 20 emergency response unit men arrived and were also driven back so the attack must have been overwhelming. Obama was absolutely correct that those murders are not an important matter in terms of deciding policy. Grabbing at those comments and trying to make them sound uncaring is just dumb partisan politics something I would expect you to refrain from.
This is pure semantics. Of course he was talking about the attack in Lybia...
It's funny, actually. Obama is praised as such a great speaker, but he makes so many grammatical mistakes that lead to confusion.
You didn't build that... technically, he said you didn't build your business... it was just a grammatical mistake.
This is probably another grammatical mistake, but he simply did not label the attack as a terrorist attack. He changed the subject, then used a generic reference, which is really just another antecedence problem.
Regardless, I do not consider failed security, deaths of Americans, to be bumps in the road or 'not optimal'.
9/11 consisted of multiple acts of terror. Sorry, but unless you say "X is Y", you CANNOT do more than imply.
And I strongly disagree with you, but it's not surprising. You make a strong stance on the subject, while admitting you don't really know about it. What was that you said about partisan politics?
I was honest enough to say that I have limited knowledge (forgive my intellectual honesty) and then said that from my limited knowledge that was my OPINION that is the opposite of the dumb partisan politics you have been increasingly postulating I suspect I have done more research into the event and understand it better than you anyhow having read the reports and experienced combat but I was trying to be moderate and sensible obviously not a policy worth pursuing around you.
Whatever he said or did not say, he allowed members of his staff to lie about the incident for weeks! Many times he also engaged in the deception! Obama lied, repeatedly. On an issue that directly affected national security and the safety of the American people!
by k12rswow4 years ago
When Romney caught Obama regarding "a terrorist act in Benghazi" and then pointed out the White House didn't make that known for 2 weeks.Tomorrows headlines will be buzzing.
by Ralph Schwartz2 weeks ago
It took President Obama six hours to respond to the crisis is Benghazi when our ambassador and his detachment were killed by enemy combatants on September 11th. Obama’s six-hour absence, during which the...
by Sooner284 years ago
No one had any question that George Bush's War on Terror was at least partially referring to terrorists. It wasn't "up in the air."An act of terror would have to be performed by a terrorist! No...
by Alternative Prime6 months ago
So, who didn’t realize this pathetic republican scheme from day one? Are you upset? Angry at BACKWARD conservative republicans for the total waste of your TAX money? Republican Kevin McCarthy seemed to...
by Quilligrapher3 years ago
In an interview with Fox News, Rep. Darrell Issa admitted, using more words than was necessary, that his May 8th hearing on the Benghazi terror attacks did not produce any new information.VAN SUSTEREN: "You have...
by Reality Bytes3 years ago
Benghazi scandal demands answersThe Benghazi controversy is not one, but four separate scandals — each of which calls into question the president’s leadership.First, Benghazi raises legitimate questions...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.