The Off Topic Topic

[Phillip V]

... and why are we so certain that labelling it a terrorist attack a few days earlier would have hurt Obama's election campaign?

Funny thing is, Obama did label it a terrorist attack the day after it happened.  Romney claimed he didn't, and looked like a fool.  Romney making a fool of himself in that second debate may have shifted some votes, but it's hard to blame Susan Rice for that.

Obama used the generic "act of terror" term in the context of blaming it on the YouTube video at the same time. The moderator injected herself into a debate which was not about wording rather than assigning source of attack on the consulate.

[Admiral Yi]

Would it be better if she sold the attack on the US ambassador in Libya as a spontaneous outgrowth of the video protests instead of a planned terrorist attack to protect vulnerable intelligence assets that may be identified if she provided this information? Or if she did so because she thought underplaying the terrorist angle genuinely served the US's interests?

You're really reaching Yake.

When she sold it the way she did, did she break any laws or rules or oaths? When a State Department Official (if that's what she is?) comments on an developing situation, what obligations does she have for spinning things one way or the other? What obligations does she have to provide accurate intelligence briefs to the general public?

As the people complaining are the Senators who are going to potentially pass judgement on her nomination, the legal stuff (of which I assume there is none, as her statement was not made under oath) is irrelevant.

... and why are we so certain that labelling it a terrorist attack a few days earlier would have hurt Obama's election campaign?

I'm stumped myself.  One of the reasons I don't think it's a very damning indictment.

[Razgovory]

... and why are we so certain that labelling it a terrorist attack a few days earlier would have hurt Obama's election campaign?

Funny thing is, Obama did label it a terrorist attack the day after it happened.  Romney claimed he didn't, and looked like a fool.  Romney making a fool of himself in that second debate may have shifted some votes, but it's hard to blame Susan Rice for that.

Obama used the generic "act of terror" term in the context of blaming it on the YouTube video at the same time. The moderator injected herself into a debate which was not about wording rather than assigning source of attack on the consulate.

Yeah, and?  Romney claimed that it took 14 days before Obama would say it was an act of terror.  "Act of Terror" is Romney's statement. 

""I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror,"

This of course was not true, and he looked like a fool for saying it.

[Phillip V]

... and why are we so certain that labelling it a terrorist attack a few days earlier would have hurt Obama's election campaign?

Funny thing is, Obama did label it a terrorist attack the day after it happened.  Romney claimed he didn't, and looked like a fool.  Romney making a fool of himself in that second debate may have shifted some votes, but it's hard to blame Susan Rice for that.

Obama used the generic "act of terror" term in the context of blaming it on the YouTube video at the same time. The moderator injected herself into a debate which was not about wording rather than assigning source of attack on the consulate.

Yeah, and?  Romney claimed that it took 14 days before Obama would say it was an act of terror.  "Act of Terror" is Romney's statement. 

""I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror,"

This of course was not true, and he looked like a fool for saying it.

And... exact wording vs context

Romney was debating about assigning the source of the attack. He made the mistake of using the wrong phrase, so the moderator steered the debate towards wording instead of terrorism.

[Razgovory]

I put the exact quote up there.  He made the mistake of saying something that wasn't true.

[Phillip V]

I put the exact quote up there.  He made the mistake of saying something that wasn't true.

And your quote redirects from your original post in which you state that Obama labeled Benghazi a "terrorist attack" a day after. He did not.

[Razgovory]

What?  Are you trying to say there is some material difference between "terrorist attack" and "act of terror"?

[Phillip V]

What?  Are you trying to say there is some material difference between "terrorist attack" and "act of terror"?

Yes. That's why the CIA Director testified before Congress about this "material difference": http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/benghazi-not-petraeus-affair-is-focus-at-hearings.html

Civilian protesters are not considered "terrorists". In fact, looking at Obama's Sept 12 remarks, he only says that "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation": http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

Instead, the attack was actually committed by a terrorist cell affiliated with Al-Qaeda, which was later admitted by the Administration, but not till after Obama declared to the United Nations on Sept 25 that "there's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy": http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2012/09/20120925136535.html

[jimmy olsen]

Young black male approaches and pushes old Asian man in front of train.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/man-pushed-in-front-of-midtown-subway-train-witnesses-say/

I know it's hard to think of it in the heat of the moment, but people should know that in case they fall on the tracks, by far the best option is to lay between them rather than try to climb back onto the platform.  There is enough clearance for the train to pass over you, should it be unable to stop in time.

Depends on the train doesn't it?

[Syt]

It depends on whether or not a train is incoming - Vienna's subway stations have emergency brakes installed on the platforms, too, though.

[Razgovory]

What?  Are you trying to say there is some material difference between "terrorist attack" and "act of terror"?

Yes. That's why the CIA Director testified before Congress about this "material difference": http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/benghazi-not-petraeus-affair-is-focus-at-hearings.html

Civilian protesters are not considered "terrorists". In fact, looking at Obama's Sept 12 remarks, he only says that "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation": http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

Instead, the attack was actually committed by a terrorist cell affiliated with Al-Qaeda, which was later admitted by the Administration, but not till after Obama declared to the United Nations on Sept 25 that "there's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy": http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2012/09/20120925136535.html

I'm not seeing this "material difference" in the article, and when a protest becomes violent and involves attacks it can be terrorism.  It's a little late to put it on the line for Romney.  He said something that was untrue and it cost him.  The guy lost, you don't have spout bullshit anymore.

[CountDeMoney]

Kill more New Jerseyans, not bears.

Tuesday marks the second day of New Jersey's yearly black bear hunt.
The hunt got off to a foggy start Monday morning, with hunters killing 122 bears.
The first was a 165-pound male killed in Jefferson Township, Morris County. The second bear taken was a 124-pound male in Sparta, Sussex County.
The hunt runs until sunset Saturday, concurrent with the firearm deer hunting season, in an area north of Interstate 78 and west of Interstate 287
The hunt aims to control the state's black bear population, now estimated at about 2,900 in the hunting area, about 500 fewer than in 2010.
Environmental Protection Department biologists expect a harvest similar to last year's, when 469 bears were killed.

[dps]

Would it be better if she sold the attack on the US ambassador in Libya as a spontaneous outgrowth of the video protests instead of a planned terrorist attack to protect vulnerable intelligence assets that may be identified if she provided this information? Or if she did so because she thought underplaying the terrorist angle genuinely served the US's interests?

You're really reaching Yake.

When she sold it the way she did, did she break any laws or rules or oaths? When a State Department Official (if that's what she is?) comments on an developing situation, what obligations does she have for spinning things one way or the other? What obligations does she have to provide accurate intelligence briefs to the general public?

As the people complaining are the Senators who are going to potentially pass judgement on her nomination, the legal stuff (of which I assume there is none, as her statement was not made under oath) is irrelevant.

... and why are we so certain that labelling it a terrorist attack a few days earlier would have hurt Obama's election campaign?

I'm stumped myself.  One of the reasons I don't think it's a very damning indictment.

Well, there are 2 things here.  I think the idea is that if it was a spontaneous, peaceful protest which suddenly turned violent, then it couldn't have been foreseen or prevented, because, well spontaneous (and we do generally hold that people have the right to peacefully protest things, even they're misguided to do so).  On the other hand, if it was a pre-planned terrorist attack, then there should have been an opportunity to learn about the plot and prevent it.  While that's probably technically correct, I think it's a leap to say that the administration should be faulted much for failure to do so--we're not going to be able to uncover every terrorist plot in advance and prevent it;  intelligence failure will happen, no matter who is President.  Either way, I think we can agree that security was inadequate, but it's really not the President's job to decide the detail of security arrangements at individual embassies.

The second thing is that there is an idea that the administration deliberately mislead the American public at first about whether this was a spontaneous protest or a planned attack.  I personally don't think that they deliberately mislead people;  rather, I think that senior officials (up to and including the President) made the mistake of speaking before they were informed of all the facts.  I could be wrong about that, but that's how it seems to me.

[Phillip V]

What?  Are you trying to say there is some material difference between "terrorist attack" and "act of terror"?

Yes. That's why the CIA Director testified before Congress about this "material difference": http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/benghazi-not-petraeus-affair-is-focus-at-hearings.html

Civilian protesters are not considered "terrorists". In fact, looking at Obama's Sept 12 remarks, he only says that "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation": http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

Instead, the attack was actually committed by a terrorist cell affiliated with Al-Qaeda, which was later admitted by the Administration, but not till after Obama declared to the United Nations on Sept 25 that "there's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy": http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2012/09/20120925136535.html

I'm not seeing this "material difference" in the article, and when a protest becomes violent and involves attacks it can be terrorism.  It's a little late to put it on the line for Romney.  He said something that was untrue and it cost him.  The guy lost, you don't have spout bullshit anymore.

Lawl. I give you exact quotes as you cried for, and that still continues your crying.

[Razgovory]

I wasn't crying for exact quotes.  I was providing exact quotes.