I just research the facts, as should you

Submitted by sara (United States), Oct 17, 2012 at 20:29

Carl, thanks for your detailed response. I suspect that we agree more than we disagree in the main, but here are some comments

You said: My response was to Dr Pipes' comment that, "in fact [Obama] misrepresented the facts when he said 'The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that … this was an act of terror.' (Actually, he called it 'senseless violence.')" Given the actual transcript, Obama is entirely within his rights to maintain—without lying or deceiving—that he did in fact do the very thing Romney said he didn't. I have no sympathy for an attack in a debate (form either side) that is not based in fact, nor do I intend to cut Dr. Pipes slack on his blog post.

You are correct here and I agree, even though I believe that Obama had an idea that Romney would make such an accusation and he expertly turned it back on him, not realizing what a windfall it would be.

As to your comments above, I don't recall Obama saying Romney lied, but perhaps you heard a different debate than I did.

I did not say that Obama said Romney lied. I was referring to the spin from his campaign and the help of the press today splashing the headlines everywhere I looked. Undecided or uncommitted voters who read that, who haven't watched debates and just see the headline, will take it at face value. They do not care that Crowley apologized for mis-stepping or saying that essentially Romney was correct to point out that the WH for 2 weeks denied it was a terror attack. the BHO WH has employed that tactic before, to tell stories and spin, and then publish retractions later when no one cares.

Regardless, Mitt chose a poor angle of attack and it bit him in the butt. No tears here. He's a smart guy and should have been more prepared

Agreed

(though he himself is vulnerable on the Beghazi front as well).

do not agree here. His only involvement was the comments given right after the US embassy in Egypt released their appeasing statement, which he got pounced on by the press and WH, but it was BEFORE the Benghazi attack info came out. That he stayed silent after that was a mistake in my opinion, but his campaign did not want to deflect from the crisis. Regardless, Romney clearly had no involvement in the handling of the attacks.

You obviously have your own opinion on what the Obama administration should or should not have done in the two weeks before they returned to an official categorization of the act. Personally, I'm not privvy to the goings-on in such rarified air, nor do I know what Ambassador Stevens' thoughts on the subject were or his actions with respect to the requests made for additional security (he may well have decided not to forward them in the interests of the more open image he liked to put forth)

What are you talking about? First, the hearings clearly demonstrated that intelligence (even video) knew it was a terror attack immediately. Ms. Lamb testified that they had realtime info throughout and that there were multiple requests for add security and that 36 employees had been brought home because their stint was up. Why the WH refused to clarify is speculation, but one doesnt need 'rarified air' for publicly available facts.

Second, Amb Stevens' journal was released by CNN which included requests for security and fear of an attack being imminent. Public knowledge.

.In the absence of reliable information (the hearings were useful, but unfortunately marred by point-scoring as everything is these days), I'm inclined to give the administration some leeway on this one, especially since I would not have wanted to be in their shoes on 9/11/12.

I wont comment on this but to say that I have no sympathy for administrations who are elected to protect the citizens of our country and should be prepared for all contingencies. This applies equally to the 9/11/01 events and the previous administration.

But this is neither here nor there. Romney choose a poor angle of attack last night and it cost him a real chance to put some pressure on Obama. .

Agreed

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".