I can’t stand all the pointless weaseling from both of these guys. Yes, Obama used the word ‘terrorist’ in his 9/12 Rose Garden speech, but using the word ‘terrorist’ is not the same thing as saying THIS was a terrorist attack. At best, it’s ambiguous. And the ambiguity is clarified sufficiently by 14 days of saying he did NOT think it was a terrorist attack.
I can only assume he spread those words because it is important to his election campaign that voters recognize that he’s decimated al-quaeda, and a terrorist attack at this time would look bad on that record so he hoped to minimize any damage from the perception that al-quaeda is still out there.
But we’re not stupid! He HAS decimated al-quaeda, their organization is leaderless and a mess, and their power is hugely undone. He DID accomplish this. But OF COURSE some of them are still out there. Why not just say that?
Ripping up the power structure of al-quaeda doesn’t mean that the battle against terrorism is at an end, it doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of unorganized loonies still out there (witness the Libyan Embassy, and witness this clown today in New York). But it doesn’t detract one iota from what HAS been accomplished to realize that the whole thing isn’t over, that we’re going to have to keep facing this for a long time, just as we did with Russian Communism for a long time.
No matter who is elected President, there are still going to be threats. It’s not like all the rogue terrorists would run away crying and hide under a blanket because Mitt Romney’s such a big tough guy. That’s no more sensible than imagining they all went to their grave with bin Laden.
Instead of Romney pretending Obama said this, and Obama pretending he said that, why not just tell it like it is? We all know it anyway. And then get to the ROOT of this, by dealing with all the hatred and fear that is so very much behind this.