It was surprising that Mitt Romney didn’t mention the attack on our consulate in Libya during the third debate. A controversy developed in the second debate over whether President Obama called the attack an “act of terror” in his initial speech on Sept. 12. Obama did say “acts of terror,” but only in general terms not specifically referring to the Libya attack.
The proof is in his speech. Before saying “acts of terror,” the president stated “and then last night we learned the news of this attack (not “terrorist” attack) in Benghazi and “we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious belief of others” (reference to an anti-Muslim video).
If Obama did in fact call the attack an “act of terror,” why did his own press secretary, Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice tell us for a week that the attack arose out of a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Muslim video?
How could the administration not know the attack was a preplanned terrorist attack when State Department officials watched the attack unfold in real time through its security video system and the CIA station chief reported evidence of a terrorist attack to Washington within 24 hours?
Shouldn’t the president have called an immediate joint meeting?
Was this incompetence or a possible cover-up? Nobody really knows, but we do know this: Al-Qaida is not on the run, and this whole affair calls into question Obama’s leadership in dealing with a serious foreign policy crisis.