.
October 17th, 2012
10:46 PM ET
Controversy over Obama's use of 'terror'
The second presidential debate led to new rhetoric from both sides on when Pres. Obama called the attack in Libya an act of terror. In question is the meaning behind his words on Sept. 12 in a statement he made in the Rose Garden; was he referring to the assault the night before on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, or was he talking about the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington? Anderson Cooper reports.
|
|
Filed under: Libya • Mitt Romney • President Barack Obama • Terrorism |
About this Show:
Anderson Cooper goes beyond the headlines to tell stories from many points of view, so you can make up your own mind about the news. Tune in weeknights at 8 and 10 ET on CNN.
Questions or comments? Send an email
Want to know more? Go behind the scenes with AC361°
Subscribe to the podcast
Subscribe to the AC360 podcast on iTunes!
On Twitter
Search the AC360 blog
Why are we arguing with Mr. Obama about this? Let's just concede that the President was talking about the Benghazi attack. Then the question becomes, "Why, Mr. Obama, did you and your administration try to cover this obvious terrorist attack from the American people?"
Fareed posits that even if a mob had stormed the American Consulate in Libya it would still have to be considered an act of terrorism. But this loose use of the term robs it of most of its significance. If a crowd at a sporting event gets out of hand and destroys property and/or kills or injures people, is that terrorism too? It's clear the distinction here is between a violent act and a violent act designed and planned to cause political change. The President was slow to decide that the incident was planned but quick to decide it was prompted by a video. Any common sense interpretation of this is bound to conclude that this is curious, at the very least.