Attacks in Libya - Do You Care When the Word 'Terror' Was Used?

It most certainly DOES matter. Our president tried to convince everyone that it was a "spontaneous protest" over a stupid movie trailer. He said it on TV and at the United Nations. This event ALSO happened on 9/11. Why wasn't there additional security on that date or even additional security as requested by the Embassy? 9/11 has symbolism in the middle east as well as the United States. You had the Ambassador to the United Nations going on several talk shows on Sunday spewing the same nonsense. The same with refering to the Ft. Hood shooting as "work place" violence. Really? This administration seems to struggle saying "radical islam terrorist".

Yes, to me, words matter. Also, the term "coverup" in this situation comes into play.

20 moms found this helpful

It matters because it identifies the motivation behind the attack.
He did ignore the attack. He's skipped intelligence briefings, there was requests for extra security, they were denied. They had intelligence that it was going to happen , it was ignored. And lets not forget he was doing fundraisers the next day. FUNDRAISERS!!!! Instead of spending time finding out what happened.
How could anyone be so stupid as to think that attack was based on a halfassed youtube video that's been out months before the attack. 2 Weeks after the attack He blamed the attack on a youtube video infront of the UN. The UN!!!! WTH. TWO WEEKS , there's NO WAY he didn't have the exact cause of the attack two weeks later. If you don't think he did you have no idea how intelligence works.
Yes HELL it matters. It matters to the families of the 4 men that were tortured, raped and then killed. 3 of the 4 were beheaded. So you tell them and their families it doesn't matter.

ETA : WMDs were found in Iraq. Bush didn't use it as a publicity stunt.

17 moms found this helpful

Absolutely. We care becuase it speaks to the president's intent. President Obama tried to intentionally misrepresent what really happened in Libya becuase he thought we wouldn't find out the truth, or he wanted to delay the exposure until it died down. He was hoping it wouldn't come up as a topic of election discussion & considerations.

You see, the truth, that terrorists planned the attack, tortured and murdered our ambassador and 3 others on our soil (embassies are considered on the soil of the embassy nation) doesn't fit into his narrative about foreign policy. He's one of three things - naive, ignorant or lying about what certain religious zealots want to do to Americans. And with the Arab Spring (which our president promoted and encouraged) those zealots are now running countries. He wanted us to believe that a video created in the US caused mass riots so that the murderer-terrorists can be related to... "Poor guys were so upset aht their prophets was disrespected..."

By continuing with that story he may have been hoping to not have to talk about his foreign policy which has seemed to encourage chaos in the middle east - and as a result - on our soil. So yes - when he refused to admit it was a planned terrorist he was intentionally attempting to mislead the country for his own benfit. Shame on him.

15 moms found this helpful

I care. To me this is a failure of the President to be President. The President has a responsibility to protect American citizens on American soil. By long standing diplomatic custom, the land the embassy sits on is the territory of that country. So the embassy personnell were killed in an attack by muslims. And they attacked on American soil.

It would have been equally outrageous if Bush would have initially said the planes crashing into the World Trade Center was due to navigational error.

When the embassy personnel requested marines the first time, their request should have been investigated. Marines should have been flown in from peaceful countries like England, Holland, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc. Embassies requesting military protection is not like requesting paperclips or pencils. The President should have been told immediately (The 3:00 am phone call) if not sooner. Marines could have been flown to American ships or bases around the Mediterranean. Then they could have been helicoptered to Lybia. The marines could have arrived within 24 hours of notification.

The arabs attacking the embassy would not have climbed over the wall around the Embassy if they were shot at by the marines protecting the embassy. The marines are able to make a body shot at 400 yards and a head shot at 300 yards or less. The walls were not 50 yards away.

If the President really thought it was a demonstration against some u-tube video, then he really isn't smart enough to have ever been president. I personally think he didn't think it would do any lasting harm for al-queda to protest the video. I think he completely missed that it was the same date as 9/11. Again, not smart enough to be allowed to be president. If Reagan had been president, there would have been a strong contigent of marines on embassy grounds and a battleship or two off shore with guns zeroed in on the roads outside the embassy. I really think Romney would have done something similar to what Reagan would have done. Would it have made a difference? Well, the american citizens were held hostage while milk-toast Carter was president. When Reagan became president, they were released as he had his hand on the bible taking the oath of office. They knew Reagan wouldn't have put up with that.

The smoke and mirrors put up by Biden when he said Paul Ryan voted to cut embassy funds was really see through. The cuts in embassy funds was for future years, not now or in the past. Biden was just trying to cover up like Nixon tried to cover up Watergate. How would you deal with a liar of this magnatude? I certainly wouldn't re-elect him to a position he is too incompetent to handle.

Yes, it makes a difference. OMG = Obama Must Go

Good luck to all of us if Obama is re-elcted.

15 moms found this helpful

it took him (obama) two weeks after the incident of terrorism to call it as such. This was a planned attack against an embassy, where American nationals were murdered. Other embassies in the area had stepped up security-and for some reason, "we" failed to do so. He tends to use the "I" word when he describes how he alone "went down the zip-line with a German Shepherd under his arm and killed bin laden." ; and the "we" word when he/his administration/his record/his policies, or lack thereof, are under fire. BTW-where the Hell is Hillary?

obama is fiercely protective of the feelings of his people-and they aren't us:

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."

you can read the transcript online-he talks about "acts of terror" in general, but does not say that the attack on the embassy that took place on....wait for it....9/11, was "terrorism". He doesn't want to incense people who, frankly, are going to bomb us anyway-just to serve Allah and well, for the sheer fun of it.
I care because of how much of a prevaricating _________ he is and everyone just laps it up like he's God. I find it repugnant that he would address the American people with the assumption that we are a bunch of buffoons that can be duped. Really low-but consider the source.

15 moms found this helpful

Oh my Gosh Stacey B TOTALLY said what I wanted to say. The president totally treated us Americans like a bunch of idiots(does he really think we are that stupid?) when he tried to play down the violence AND blame it on that damn movie AND say it had nothing to do with 9/11.

14 moms found this helpful

I absolutely care and am outraged that 4 Americans died in a coordinated terrorist attack. I also think it is shameful that a private citizen was accused of prompting the attack because of a YouTube video that was released in July. This clearly was not a spontaneous attack prompted by a video but rather a well planned out attack on 9/11. I did not believe for one minute that the President thought any differently. He tried to pull the wool over every ones eyes and it has backfired. I am very angry and you should be too.

14 moms found this helpful

Ditto what Mom2KCK said. The Obama Administration downplayed the attack and would not label it as terrorism purely for political/election reasons. My husband and a lot of my friends are privy to a lot of intelligence information. No one can buy into the whole "spontaneous protest because of that video" explanation. It never made any sense.

The word "terror" is used when the attack was planned and deliberate. It does matter, because there are probably more attacks planned. Before the attack, the Obama Administration had planned on saving money on the federal budget by cutting the embassy security budget, despite countless warnings from the State Department of increased threats. I don't know if he still plans on cutting the budget, but I would hope to heck that he has changed his mind.

Yes, I care if the word "terror" is used. There is a huge distinction between terrorism and random acts of violence. Terrorism can be tracked, studied, and possibly even prevented.

14 moms found this helpful

The point isn't whether you call it an act of terror or violence.. the point IS the WH tried to cover it up and downplay it.. Additionally, how sad, how very sad indeed that the Obama Administration tried to blame the attack on a YOU TUBE video.................... please............ the family of decedents should be so pissed off that the WH would attribute the death of their loved ones to a You Tube Video.... and the mainstream media went right along..
It's sick.. and Obama... takes offense???????????? HA.... I USED to think he was okay, but more and more, I just find that he was given a golden ticket (although the mainstream media) plays this down... and he really doesn't come off as that smart.. In a way, he's a puppet..

14 moms found this helpful

WORDS MATTER.

Terrorism is the act of creating fear/terror to subjugate a person or community.

This was NOT a random act of violence. This was premeditated and they (the Obama administration) were given ample warning. Obama chose to ignore the INTEL received and American's are dead because of it.

Obama wants credit for good stuff...well.. he needs to accept responsibility for the bad stuff...as Truman said - "THE BUCK STOPS HERE"... "The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job." Truman

I am LIVID that Hillary is falling on her sword for this. I do believe with every fiber of my being she did her due diligence in trying to get the Embassy the help they needed - Obama refused to listen. If Hillary had won instead of Obama - we wouldn't be in this mess. She is a "bull dog bi**h and gets the job done. (and yes, this is coming from a Conservative who can't stand Obama's platform or policies...he is a lying, back stabbing Chicago THUG...in my opinion and this further proves his ineptitude to LEAD).

14 moms found this helpful

I didn't read any other responses, so this is most likely a repeat.
I believe the problem is that THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TRIED TO COVER IT UP!

YES, that is a BIG DEAL!

13 moms found this helpful

Yep, any thinking American ought to care. I agree it matters that 4 Americans died that day. They were working on our interests over there in a region of unrest. They were attacked by terriosts after requesting more security. It was 9/11 for Pete's sake! They were turned down! The communications guy inside the embassy turned on the cameras and was LIVE streaming it! It went on for 6 hours! They were in contact with embassy officials there and in Washington the whole time. They had gobs of powerful weapons that "mobs" don't have. It matters when they know what really happened and we are lied to because your president doesn't want you to know because it would make him look like a baffoon! Of course you are on high alert and have extra security in that region on 9/11! President Obama wanted it to look like he had the world by the tail and his stupid, head in the sand policies were working. I do care. We are not safer because of Obama. We are weaker than ever and our enemies think they can take us now. Do you think it matters if Iran gets a Nuke?

13 moms found this helpful

Yes, I do care. A lot of much effort was placed on making an individual citizen and free speech the cause of this vs admitting this was an act of planned violence by a group of terrorists. I do care that this was something where the embassy could have been protected or an act that could have been stopped vs. a sudden, impulsive action by an unruly mob.

12 moms found this helpful

Been there said everything I was going to say. E., I think you need to start caring very soon. If he is re-elected your life as you know it now will no longer exist!

11 moms found this helpful

It was an act of terror and they did ignore it. The embassy in Lybia asked for re-enforcement several times prior to the attacks and their request was ignored. Calling it an act of terror lets the bad guys know we are coming for them and we know what's going on.

So yes, I do care if and when it was titled what it was.

ETA: Why is this political? Really? It's political because the PRESIDENT has a DUTY to protect American citizens. He let four Americans die because he ignored their repeated requests for help. He failed. I bet the thought process would be different if it was your loved one who died because the President ignored his repeated requests for protection.

Nicole P - you said " was glad that they didn't call it another "terrorist" attack, and instead labeled it for what it really was, a rabid brainless attack by a bunch of religious zealots" - I AGREE WITH YOU!! That's what terrorists are...so why not call it what it is?

____________________________________________________________

Jo - I'm stealing your line idea :).

It completely blows my mind how many people keep saying Romney is making something that was a non-issue into an issue. REALLY? FOUR AMERICANS who asked for help from our President and NOT getting it is a non-issue? Yet whether or not *I* have to pay for your BC is the biggest issue to you in the election? I'm truly mind-blown.

11 moms found this helpful

I don't care about the choice of words....What I care about is innocent Americans died and it seemed like there was not enough security. Someone was responsible!!!! It was a terrorist attack and a stupid movie was a smoke screen for these losers to attack. 4 Americans are dead for no good reason. This happened under Obama's watch and the buck stops with him!

10 moms found this helpful

Nope.
I don't care.
And no one can make me care.

And really?
"If he is re-elected your life as you know it now will no longer exist!" ???
Aww come ON people!
That's been said of EVERY president that's been elected since President Regan (and quite a few before).
It gets old.

Step away from the hype for a bit.
No matter who is elected, the earth will spin on and life will continue pretty much as it always has - and within months people will complain nothing is being done in Washington except the usual wheeling and dealing - just like they do every 4 years.
And every 4 years - like clock work - it's time to 'take back our country'.
Except nothing ever changes - it doesn't matter which side wins.
Frankly - the voters do not have the power it takes to make the changes they want to see (if we ever figure out exactly what that is).
The President doesn't have that power either (and I would not want him to - remember - Hilter was voted in and he certainly got the trains running on time - people were initially very pleased - but that whole fiasco did not turn out well at all).
Congress could have that power - but they are so caught up in pointing at each other across the aisle going 'Neener neener neener" they'll never accomplish anything.

I'm not going to get hung up on how and when something/anything awful gets labeled to the perceived correct bucket of definition.

A few more weeks of collective hysteria then everyone can go back to enjoying beer and football.

I delete hate mail so don't bother.

8 moms found this helpful

It doesn't matter to the people who idolize, or love Obama unquestioningly despite his repeated dishonesty and lack of respect for the American people and the Constitution. But the majority of Americans DO CARE because he lied, AGAIN. Americans died and he lied!!! Why?? Because HE killed Osama and therefore, HE should be hailed a hero. Didn't do much good, huh? The terrorists are still out there plotting against us. They killed our people on his watch. THIS story hurts him politically and they have the nerve to suggest this story is a non issue. REALLY??? Americans dying in a terrorist attack is a non issue??? Obama sending his people out to lie about it is a non issue??? He blamed this attack on the video at the UN assembly fourteen days after it happened and then lied the other night at the debate and said he called it a terrorist attack the next day. What??? The transcripts are very clear.
Yes, I DO care and I would say the same thing if he was an ultra-conservative, pro-life, Republican.
Is the man a pathological liar or is he just habitually dishonest?

Edited again: Did you hear his latest comment? The deaths were not "optimal." So Americans being beheaded was not optimal. Seriously? One more thing team O's handlers will need to clarify.

8 moms found this helpful

Only his critics are splitting hairs.
Obama has nothing in his foreign policy to "defend"!
The morning after the attacks, his address was appropriate and concise.
Still gathering intel at that point.
We knew something happened, didn't have all of the facts yet, and his address was direct.
People are always better Monday morning quarterbacks.

Ummm....additional security was not requested where this attach happened.
The Republicans CUT the budget for overseas security.
Those are the facts.
Nah--I don't think the playground bullies should be protected.
That's one reason Romney shouldn't be president.
Mitt Robme has already been proven to be THE "playground bully of the campaign, when he held down and cut the hair of an openly gay classmate!
And 4, I said responses to my questions, but you're welcome!

8 moms found this helpful

Yes, it matters. Not necessarily to catch Obama in a "gotcha moment", but for any sitting President in this situation. How many of us have friends or loved ones deployed to dangerous places at this very moment? Don't you want to be sure that our government agencies are protecting them to the highest level of security possible? There are so many questions. Why on earth wasn't security beefed up, even for just a few days surrounding the anniversary of 9/11? It has been revealed that there was a security breech last April and June at this Benghazi compound, so why in the world wasn't that logical leap made that something else could arise on the anniversary of 9/11?
Yes, Obama mentioned the words 'act of terror' the next day in the Rose Garden, but if at the debate he was giving the impression he was calling it an act of terrorism then why elude to the statement of "rejecting all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." It was a play on words "act of terror". He clearly implied at that time though, (in the Rose Garden) this was the result of the Youtube video and went on for days to give that impression. So yeah. We, as Americans, have a right to know what happened. Whether it was a breakdown in communication or ineffective leadership, we need to know who should be held accountable so this doesn't happen again. At least chances of it happening again are much smaller.
I have decided to hand this election coverage completely over to God because it is making me bat $#!T crazy! November 7 cannot come soon enough!
A.

8 moms found this helpful

I've stopped reading the comments, I had to.

Here is my opinion, No I don't care if the word terror was used. He used it, so for the people who want the word used should be content. Alas they are not.
What people need to understand is that there are things that go on all the time. Always have and always will. We do not need to know everything! I agree with HeatherL the time spent informing us of every little thing would be a waste.

It would take away from time, money, and effort needed to resolve the issue. Do you want to live in constant fear? I sure as hell don't. I don't have any first hand knowledge or clearance level to ever know all the details of what happened, neither does anyone else on this site. ( even If they did they couldn't speak on it anyway) So where I get ticked is that people speak on things they shouldn't.

News is embellished, be it for ratings, sells or to prove a particular belief. People need to wake up and stop acting like its the gospel! How anyone can say he never used the word is beyond me. He used the word! Then you have people who can't get around the fact that he did use the word "terror" now argue he used it the general sense of the word or he didn't use it soon enough...Give me a break its ridiculous.

Does when he said it really make a difference? If he went talking about something before having all the information and turned out to be wrong, people would have a fit over that.

How one, not saying you, can say he doesn't care about the lives lost b/c he didn't use the word terrorism right away baffles me!

I don't care when it was used. What I care about is what will be done about it, and how we can TRY to prevent it from happening again.

I also agree with Veronica P.

I do know I am so sick of this election. Make an intelligent, educated, choice based on you believe is best for your family, society and what areas you are passionate about. Vote for that person and keep it moving. I could so do without all the mudslinging. Outright lies and half truths, don't change facts.

Wake up people!

Let me clarify the last paragraph, research each candidate, where they stand on the issues and which one you feel, based on their plans, will best bring about the change you feel is needed. Stop listening to all the bs. Unless you work one on one with him you have no idea what he knew and when.

7 moms found this helpful

I believe they tried to cover it up, so the news wouldn't break that the US experienced a terror attack, on Obama's time. That would look bad for him!!!!!
Then when the REAL news came out, that they covered it up, they quickly changed their story, you know, so Obama wouldn't look like a liar. It does matter when it was officially stated, because that shows the character of the person in office at the moment.

7 moms found this helpful

I truly believe that Romney is trying to turn a NON-ISSUE into a huge issue. I'm scared to death of having a fear mongering, war mongering heathen like Romney leading our country. I sincerely have real fear and anxiety over the thought of that man winning the election.

However, a couple of days ago the Weekly Reader election results came out and President Obama won. The Weekly Reader election is the best predictor for the real election results.

6 moms found this helpful

People who hate Obama love to think he said something terribly wrong which will expose his evil core and prove the military is crumbling beneath him. Yawn. I don't care and I honestly wouldn't care what Romney called it either. My dad is retired military-still consulting at the Pentagon and even as a Republican has nothing but praise for Obama's handling of this.

And I second the sentiment that all this Obama hate-mongering over this is disrespectful to the military families who have asked it not to be treated this way.

6 moms found this helpful

I'm sick to death of partisan squabbling over this. The verbiage does not matter in the least to me. Americans died. Both Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama have taken full responsibility for it, have said they would find those responsible and punish them, and are moving forward in doing so. Libya is a dangerous place. We all know this. The Ambassador knew this, and bravely remained in that part of the world anyhow, serving his country. He's a hero who gave his life in service to our country.

Presidential administrations have, for time immemorial, lied, mislead, or have just plain been confused themselves about situations all around the world, and many, many Americans have died as a result (Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction, for one recent example, but I could go on and on). For people to be so rabid against the President over this example strikes me as disingenuous, especially since so few people acknowledge the bravery and sacrifice of the Americans in that consulate who died that day - so it is not grief over these brave people who died motivating this conversation, but partisan politics. Those who died deserve our respect, and our commitment to do better for the next people who serve in those positions. We can armchair quarterback all we want at this point, but the main job of a consulate (not an embassy, but a consulate, which the host country has the obligation to secure) is relations with the locals. It's an extremely dangerous job in many areas of the world. My heart goes out to those families who lost loved ones that day.

5 moms found this helpful

Wow. These posts are depressing and make me sad for this country. The families of the people who died have begged that this incident not be politicized and that the candidates not use it for their own gain.

How depressing this all is....

5 moms found this helpful

No, I think not. We do not need to know everything all the time, certainly not right in the moment that it's occurring. We think that we're entitled to that. There are always going to be details that we won't and shouldn't have. Our leaders shouldn't have to spend so much time focusing on how much information they give us when they should be tending to the issue. They should tell us enough to know that something happened and they're on it. Then, they should go to it. People who are directly involved are contacted with more information, as it should be, so I should be content going about my business until the dust settles and they can make some sense of it. Even then, I don't have a right to know EVERYTHING. When I want that, I'll go and get a Government job with ALL the clearance.

ETA: By the way, this statement is one that we should all embrace: "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." Anybody who can't appreciate that cannot be considered a good citizen.

4 moms found this helpful

I think the word "terror" is being over used and is starting to lose its bite. I've heard the word terror and terrorist so many times since september 11th that I'm over it. Now when I hear it I just want to scream, "YOU ARE LETTING THEM WIN! Look how terrified we all are of the fucking terrorists!"

I was glad that they didn't call it another "terrorist" attack, and instead labeled it for what it really was, a rabid brainless attack by a bunch of religious zealots. Then the government got a lot of flack about not calling it a terrorist attack, a term which is used to work us all up into a lather, so now they're calling it a terrorist attack. Peer pressure in government. Unbelievable.

4 moms found this helpful

I completely agree, I think the whole issue is ridiculous. We are arguing a) over semantics and b) over something that is an issue of national security is it not?

Why is this political? This is not a democratic or republican issue. American lives were lost. IS this being taken seriously, are actions being done vigorously to remedy.

4 moms found this helpful

Obama stated it was and 'act of terror'. He didn't use the word terrorism. If you encounter a home invasion tonight while your family is safe in your home, that is an act of terror. Is it splitting hairs, yes. Do words matter, yes.
Terror/terrorism, not good on any level.

3 moms found this helpful

Terrorism is not as much about killing a lot of people --- it is more about instilling FEAR or TERROR into people. Instilling fear makes people chnage how they live their daily lives -- lots of fear sets a course of big change and sometimes econimic change.

Look at the way our lives have changed since September 11, 2001. We no longer feel safe and our economy is trashed. Fear has been instilled.

3 moms found this helpful

I don't care what they call it. It just frustrates me when I get the feeling that people in the gov't (both dems and repubs) won't give a straight answer.

3 moms found this helpful

Its stupid to fight over the wording behind it. Bottom line, the president announced it was terrorism related period. No need to fight about delivery. I would much rather focus on what the real issues are and how we can keep our country safe from future attacks.

2 moms found this helpful

It was later reveled that the attacks most likely planned - not random (sept 11 was the day of the attack) and the demonstrations just provided a convenient cover. Thus being an act of terror.

2 moms found this helpful

The entire transcript of President Obama's Rose Garden speech can be found online. He does use the term "act of terror" several times in the speech, especially toward the end.

Spontaneous demonstrations were breaking out in various cities of the middle east over the You-Tube video so I don't think it was clear to anyone at the time that it was a planned attack by al Qaeda.

Members of the security team at the Benghazi embassy had stated they needed/wanted additional security but those requests don't go to the president. They are approved by the Department of Defense. Additional security for Benghazi was denied because of limited funding. Funding decisions are made by members of congress and consequently both parties.

President Obama and Hillary Clinton have stated repeatedly that they are investigating the attack and will take appropriate action when they have all the facts.

Many who answered your post are respectful of the president despite their political affiliation. I wish more people would start checking facts and stop repeating the second-hand distortions they hear. If there is any wrong-doing in our foreign relations, it is the lack of support the president has gotten from our own extremists in congress and radical voters. I use the words extremists and radical to avoid generalizing. I know and respect many Republicans who want to protect and care for all Americans. However, the Republican Party appears, to me, divided with the most unreasonable ones doing all the talking.

I heard Marco Rubio complaining yesterday that President Obama has no plans for the next four years. President Obama has openly and repeatedly shared his plans for strengthening the economy and improving foreign policy by closing tax loopholes on foreign manufacturing as an incentive to keep or bring jobs back to America and for ending the war in Afganistan. Rubio was using a trick that radical conservatives have been getting away with for some time. He was labeling the president with a behavior someone in their own party has displayed. Romney is the one who has not been forthcoming with his plans. Then Rubio had the nerve to accuse the president of bragging about getting Osama bin Ladin. I am disgusted with hearing such criticisms.

President Obama has done a good job repairing damage that had already been done when he took office and under conditions we have never seen in this country. He is not perfect and he has made mistakes. But I trust him to keep fighting for the middle class--another piece of rhetoric Romney has claimed as his own. Republicans and Democrats used to work together to do what they thought was best for all Americans. Today, the goal of Congress was to make Obama a one-term president. I can't help but wonder what he would have accomplished with just a little respectful cooperation.

Earlier recessions were less severe than the Great Depression because of the safety nets put in place by Democrats. Recovery has been slower than in the past because of corporate business decisions prioritize profits over the greater good--like off-shore manufacturing and hiding profits in foreign banks to avoid paying their share of taxes.

Disagreement is one thing. It is healthy because we are enlightened by others' ideas. Deliberately misleading voters should not be tolerated. Please start checking facts for yourselves.