Read the fucking transcript. Here, I’ll repost it for you since you seem bound and determined to misrepresent it. His preceeding statment mentions BOTH 9/11/01 and the Benghazi attacks, he refers to “those who represent us overseas” in the next part of his speech, and finally, he again mentions the four casualties in Benghazi immediately after mentioning “acts of terror.”
*Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.*
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
LOL, on preview I see you’ve posted it as some sort of twisted way to support your rediculous interpretation. You are wrong. No, Obama did specifically say “this was an act of terrorism,” but he CLEARLY included the Benghazi attack in what he was referring to as “acts of terror.” (Hint: notice that little s after act. That means plural, as in, more than one act of terror.)
And here we go with the “idolatry” and Messiah stuff again. Nobody actually thinks that way, you know? If we were all walking around with stars in our eyes, we wouldn’t have admitted he lost the first debate.
“Acts of terror” is plural for a reason in that speech. He could have easily said “act of terror,” at which point we could determine that he is speaking of only one act of terror. By saying “acts of terror,” however, it is CLEAR that he is speaking about multiple acts of terror, of which Benghazi was one. But even IF he didn’t call it a terrorist act for two weeks, I still haven’t heard anyone give a plausible reason for why I should give half a fuck. Why do I care who did it? I want the perpetrators brought to justice in whatever way possible, no matter who they are. And given that Obama did to OBL what Bush couldn’t pull off in 7 years, I have high hopes that they will. I see no need to rush to conclusions–in fact, I think that’s dangerous.
Also, most of the board’s conservatives don’t seem to be sports fans. Only losers blame the refs.
Lemme take you in the wayback machine to third grade, where you learn about paragraphs. A paragraph is a group of sentences about a topic. The first sentence in a paragraph is often called the “topic sentence,” because it tells you what the topic of the sentence will be. The remaining sentences in the paragraph elaborate on that topic.
The topic sentence of the last paragraph you quoted is, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” All the remaining sentences in that paragraph elaborate on whether acts of terror will shake the nation’s resolve etc.
The next sentence talks about mourning the people who died yesterday. Unless that sentence is about them dying in an act of terror, it does not belong in that paragraph.
The next sentence is about seeking justice for “this terrible act.” The quoted phrase refers to the death of four people. Unless this terrible act is an act of terror, it does not belong in that paragraph.
The final sentence re-emphasizes our commitment.
Now let’s zoom back to the present. Hopefully you understand now how paragraphs work, and you can see that “act of terror” refers unambiguously to “this terrible act,” i.e., the act that killed “four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.”
And hopefully you’ll apologize for this ridiculous lapse in your reading comprehension.
And hopefully I’ll get a magic pony for Christmas.
Of course he was referring to Benghazi. As noted above, he considered Benghazi one of a number of acts of terror. Reading it any other way is insane or desperate or both. Like Bill Clinton debating the meaning of “is”.
Oh, Anduril.
Do they have a PUMA chapter in the Phillipines, or are you all by your lonesome self?
I would just like to point out that I have a reasonably good mix of liberals and conservatives on my Facebook list, and nobody on there is talking about this whole “acts of terror” vs. “terrorism” thing at all. Not even a little bit. Seriously, nobody cares. Romney looked like a tool on this topic during the debate. No amount of semantic nitpicking after the fact is going to change that. That’s how these things go.
A very minor correction here: I technically should have said:
I got the pointer and the referent reversed, but the essential point is the same: Obama’s phrases clearly and unambiguously intends that the “terrible act” is an example of an “act of terror,” and the “terrible act” refers to the previous day’s events.
Also, the day after the speech in the Rose Garden, Obama was speaking in Colorado: “So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.”
I was going to point out that the paragraph beginning with the “acts of terror” sentence goes on to reference the 4 fallen Americans, and concludes with a promise of justice for them. But I see that **Left Hand of Dorkness **already did so in Post 558. So I’ll just note that I take no personal affront at your “half a brain” epithet. You, like Romney, have every right to splutter foolishly over this non-issue.
And yes I get it. You honestly believe that when Obama gave a speech about the situation in Libya, and he used the actual phrase “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,” … You really, really believe that he was not referring to the events in Libya. During his speech about the events in Libya.
You’re very much like a guy running down the street convinced that everyone is crazy because they don’t see the ants crawling all over him.
This was another thing that stuck out at me. Romney kept emphasizing the need for employers to be ultra-flexible when it comes to hiring women. Why? Because women need to go home at 5 pm to take care of their kids, he said. What seems lost on him is that this is a parent issue. Last time I checked, both men and women can be parents, so flexibility in work times shouldn’t be made out to be a women’s issue. And not all women are mothers. We’re too far into the 21st century to be conflating the female gender with motherhood.
Also, he naively seemed to think getting businesses to hire women is what is at issue.
Seriously. I’m the dad, and I pick my kid up from daycare, because my work schedule allows me to. It sometimes means I require flexibility and need to leave meetings a little earlier than everyone else. It’s not a mom issue, it’s a parent issue.
I’m sorry, but this is completely un-American and especially un-Republican. Stop this and either get your wife to stay home or get married if you’re not, and make your wife stay home.
If you can’t comply, may I suggest you self-deport to a country that respects traditional values. If you won’t do that, we will confiscate your passport and you will become illegal.
Real issues are so… what… oh yeah, revealing of Romney’s weaknesses.
Did he just get thawed out after being preserved in a glacier since the middle of last century, surviving the freezing process as a result of the Super-Stupor Serum and/or the effects of Vapid-Rays?
I don’t know why it even needs to be a parent issue. I’m a male non-parent and I very much appreciate having a job that offers flexible hours, just because I like to do things that aren’t work. Also, making this a parent issue is saying that the parents should have flexible hours and the non-parents can fill in the holes.
We should encourage employers to offer more flexible hours, but they should offer them to everybody.
