[quote=ucodegen][quote=SK in CV]So we have “an astonishing display of media malpractice” but you can’t even identify what the supposed lie was?
Shouldn’t you have had a BREAKING! tag on this?[/quote]
–SNIP–
These are two crucial answers in the big picture. Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.
Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden.
How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?
There are many questions, and here are a few more.
Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama’s claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?
–What was being put up the Intel/CIA channel was that this WAS a terrorist attack. What it brings up is the potential lock of impartiality with respect to CBS during an election year, and during a debate for the next president. The purpose of the First Amendment is for the public to know what their elected leaders are doing.. so they can accurately evaluate them during an election and decide. The First Amendment is not so that we know the intimate details of some Hollywood Star’s life.
While this does not look good for the current administration, and look like another case of “Fire!, Ready!, Aim!”.. it brings more questions as to whether CBS is acting more like a PAC(Political Action Committee) than a member of the press.[/quote]
I’ve read this kind of stuff a few dozen times over the last month or so. I don’t get what the issue is. It’s apparently obvious to many but it totally escapes me. What is magic about the word “terrorism”? He called it “an act of terror” at least twice in the two days following the attack. And apparently during the CBS interview, he did not. Is that the lie? Would everything have been just perfect if he’d called it terrorism at every opportunity? Are terrorism and a spontaneous attack mutually exclusive? Does calling it terrorism change anything? If so, what is different?
