One thing very important is missing in all the brou ha ha over Libya from my perspective. Sure the President said it was terrorism the first two times he talked about it in public, and the transcript proves that.
BUT...the missing part in all this is that the very first candidate who tied the attack to the protests in Egypt against the anti-Muslim video was Mitt Romney, in that disastrous statement he issued the day of the attack. And Romney never did mention terrorism. Read the transcript, the Romney double down, and my blather below the orange turd.
Keep in mind that both sides suspended campaigning for the anniversary of the 09/11/01 attacks, but Romney thought he had such an opening that he could not resist the chance to take a cheap political shot at the President over an unfolding tragedy.
As far as I'm concerned that is akin to a candidate using a moment of silence at a public event to grab the mic and blurt out his website address. They may get the spotlight but they sure look like a jackass as a result.
This is the statement which Romney rushed to the media on the evening of 09/11.
"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks,”
Romney was castigated by both sides of the political aisle overnight for unfairly attacking the President. He still saw fit to call a press conference and double down on the initial statement the following morning.
Here is a link to the transcript of that event.
If you search either of those transcripts in their entirety you will not find 1 mention of the word terror or any permutation thereof.
However the very first time President Obama spoke on the Bengazi matter he did specifically say these people died as a result of an act of terrorism. The next day President Obama reiterated that in a stump speech in Nevada.
To recap: Mitt Romney was the first candidate to tie the Bengazi attack to the protests, and the next day he repeated that mistake, while never mentioning terror. He got it wrong.
President Obama particularly mentioned terrorism when discussing the attack, and repeated that the following day. He got it right.
But somehow the Romney campaign senses some sort of weakness on the part of the President over the mentioning of the word terror in conjunction with the Bengazi attack? In what universe?
To be perfectly honest in the debate tomorrow I expect the moderator the bring up Bengazi, but it will not suprise me in the least if Romney tries to steer the conversation off the topic asap. He's already been soundly whipped on this particular issue on two seperate occassions. I think there is an opening for the President to simply detail the timeline on who said what to win round number three if Romney really wants to go there.