GOP MEATHEAD Peter King UPSET Obama ‘WAITED 4 MINUTES’ To Call Libya Attack An ‘Act Of Terror’

[Segami]

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) managed to contradict two right-wing attacks on President Obama’s handling of last month’s assault in Libya within less than two minutes.


The major Republican talking points are that the Obama administration waited 14 days to refer to the attack in Benghazi as terrorism and that the President did not specifically describe the attack in Benghazi in his Sept. 12 address in the Rose Garden.


On CNN last night, King both stuck with those talking points and undermined them. The New York Republican acknowledged that Obama referred to the Benghazi attack as “an act of terror” on Sept. 12. But now, King is incensed that Obama waited 4 minutes to say it (thus, a significant step back from the previous 14 days GOP talking point). King then said the whole thing doesn’t matter anyway because he wouldn’t “expect” Obama to have a totally informed assessment of the incident as soon as Sept. 12, the day after the assault:

KING: I’m going to use my words very carefully. I think the president’s conduct and his behavior on this issue has been shameful. And — first of all, as far as it being an act of terror, the president was almost four minutes into his statement on September 12th before he mentioned an act of terror. It followed a paragraph in which he was talking after September 11th.


When he — earlier in his statement, when he was talking about the attack in Benghazi, he didn’t say anything about terrorism at all — nothing about an act of terror. It wasn’t until he was well into the remarks and anyone looking at it will be confuse, is he talking about Benghazi or is he talking about September 11th or all acts of terror?


And I don’t expect the president to be able to say on September 12th, this was definitely a terrorist attack. But to deny the fact, to ignore the fact that al Qaeda affiliates from that region, there had been terrorist attacks before, to me, this was politics at its worst, because you’re talking about the loss of American life.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/18/1040521/peter-king-obama-libya-4-minutes/

[JaneQPublic]

1. At least he didn't finish reading "My Hungry Goat." (nt)

[factsarenotfair]

2. Are they trying to make our heads explode? n/t

.

[tk2kewl]

3. Dog I hate that mutt

and he is my congressmutt

[LovePeacock]

4. Conservatives are pro-war. They love war. They just refuse to fight in any of the wars themselves.

[OldDem2012]

14. Peter king is a total ass...pretty much in line with the rest of the far-right wing of the GOP. nt.

[Angry Dragon]

5. So is the king saying any killing is an act of terror??

and should be called that within one minute??

[pinboy3niner]

6. King is following the Romney playbook...

http://themoderatevoice.com/159760/romney-libya-comments-cartoon/

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

7. 4 minutes? Paul Ryan could have climbed 5 mountains in that time

It's practically a lifetime.

[Segami]

9. Or feed a thousand homeless people with two loaves of bread and a single fish...and then...

washing all the dirty pots and pans he used to cook this miracle meal.

[City Lights]

8. LOL!

Keep trying, Peter.

[maxsolomon]

10. Diplomacy, Decorum, Gravitas, Statecraft

things Peter King does not understand.

[BlueStreak]

11. What difference does any of this make, even if Obama never called it a terrorist attack?

Obviously Obama DID call it such the day after and the second day after. But what if he hadn't used those words? What difference would that make? This is the GOP idea of an important foreign policy difference?

Wow.

Instead of arguing about when Obama said those words (which is beyond dispute), the media ought to be asking what Romney would have done differently. Would he have send the marines or Cruise missiles into Libya? Would he have "rounded up a bunch of ragheads" and shot them? What is the point here?

[Segami]

12. Its a smoke screen to put Obama on 'D' and give cover to Mitt's empty-shell positions.

[BlueStreak]

15. Doesn't seem to be working. It *might* work better if it were true.

but even then, I just don't get the point. George Bush went 7 years and never caught Osama bin Laden. Romney is arguing about 10 days?

Here's what I know. If I am one of those guys who attacked the embassy, I'd better be getting my affairs in order, because this administration is going to nail them eventually -- unlike what Bush/Cheney did.

We can rightly criticize Obama for being quick on the trigger with drone missiles -- and indeed, that is the sort of discussion that SHOULD be happening in a foreign policy debate. But arguing about the exact adjectives used during the first couple of days after the attack? That's ridiculous and really lame.

Romney should be explaining if he intends to jump right into a war in Iran. He should explain how he would do a better job with Libya. He should explain his solution for moving Israel towards peace in the region. But he argues about foolishness.

[NightOwwl]

13. Do they really want to go there?