Error attacks.

In the following blog I will be critiquing the Washington Times editorial titled "Obama’s Benghazi lie". Before I begin my critique I would like define the word terrorism;  as I find the word is often misused, or needlessly used in an inflammatory manner.

Terrorism as defined by Merriam Webster’s online dictionary: The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

The unnamed author of “Obama’s Benghazi lie” primarily seems to be criticizing President Obama’s recent conduct; concerning the Benghazi attacks. The presumably conservative writer mostly expresses displeasure that the President, and his cabinet members, are not using the word terrorism. And when they have use terrorism, it has been inconsistent, which is true, but not the real meat of the issue.

In the beginning of the article the author implies that Candy Crowley is biased because she fact checked the Presidents statements about the attacks in retort to Mr. Romney. Why is it biased to make sure you are correctly informed? This new antifact-checking(willful ignorance?) tactic that the Republican party has publicly encouraged, is to say the least disconcerting. The facts matter, and if we can’t agree as something as simple as a verifiable public statement by the most visible figure in the country, we have no shared basis of reality from which to make discussion.

The writer goes on to reiterate that the President did not refer to the incident as a terrorist attack, nor did he label the assailants as terrorists. It seems rather short sighted to me to push the terror issue, and ignore that the President has clearly and repeatedly stated that intelligence is still coming in, and we don’t fully understand what happened. He has also stated, that he and his administration are going to do everything in their power to fix the problem and prosecute any involved parties, which the Times also conveniently omitted. We now know from State dept reports that information on the nature of the attack was gathered very quickly,(within days), but expecting on the ground intelligence the same day, in a country without central ruler-ship clearly established is just unreasonable. It took the concerted power of the Bush administration years to come to the realization that there were no WMD in Iraq, and they most certainly didn't discover the identities of the perpetrators the same day and unveil the information on national television.

‘
The Author further criticizes Mr. Obama for attempting to soothe foreign relations over the inflammatory youtube video. Even if it’s in no way related to the Benghazi attack, that video did ruffle some feathers. And it behooves all of us to not offend a major global religion, or it’s worshipers. The Times go on to elude; that the White House is trying whitewash the story to benefit the Obama campaign, which in my opinion is preposterous. If the past indicates anything, throwing around the word terrorism is beneficial to an election

In summation, I believe the Author has clearly ignored the the real issues such as; embassy security, lack of congressional funding to the state department, and foreign relations. All in the name of being displeased with Obama for not being bombastic enough for their taste.