Act of equivocation: in the face of terror

“The timing of Mr. Obama’s address, coming on the heels of an earlier statement the same day, was slow by historical standards. The question of why Mr. Obama waited to speak or issue a statement about the Benghazi attacks until the next day may lie in the significance of the anniversary for which he failed to prepare. Perhaps the administration simply didn’t want to talk about the Libya attacks until the date passed, in denial that another terrorist attack occurred on his watch. …

“As Peter Suderman detailed in Reason magazine, Mr. Obama’s memoir ‘Dreams from My Father’ repeatedly proves the president is prone to revising history to fit his vision of how events should have transpired. Claiming to have admitted early that the Benghazi attacks were an act of terrorism is his latest embellishment. It’s a shame Mr. Romney had to battle debate moderator Candy Crowley in addition to the president in his effort to get Mr. Obama to stick to the facts.”

Anneke Green explains about Obama’s incorrect ‘acts of terror’ assertions in the last debate that have been subject to much discussion. The nature of the discussion, the equivocation (“not optimal”) and the denial and the rationalizing are subjects for consideration in themselves. Then there’s the media problem: many of the President’s supporters are not even aware of a 9/11 al Quaida attack on embassy and consulate that resulted in 4 Americans dead including the first ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979.

Comments are closed.