Maybe the most interesting moment in last week's presidential debate was when the president claimed that he had labeled the attack on Benghazi as a terrorist attack the day after in a Rose Garden comment. Mitt Romney, rightly, challenged such a thing, but was whip-sawed by moderator Candy Crowley who rushed to offer asylum to the president by interrupting Governor Romney and saying that President Obama had indeed labeled the Benghazi attack as the result of terrorism. Now he did mention "acts of terror," but most certainly, he did not attribute the assault in Libya to such a thing,
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
But for another two and a half weeks, he continued to blame the murder of our ambassador on a cheap YouTube video.
Though I don't believe for a minute that his Rose Garden comments were intended to identify the Benghazi attack as the work of terrorists, let's just suppose for a moment that he did intend it and said it. If that's what he believed on September 12, then why would he and his administration speak repeatedly about that little video and with such authority and certainty. The only thing that is more difficult than accurately predicting the future is when you try to re-write history. And sworn testimony in Congress confirmed that this was no spontaneous uprising -- no, it was a carefully rehearsed and orchestrated terrorist act by trained and rehearsed goon squads. But the reluctance of the Obama administration to recognize terrorism as terrorism is a pattern. Because only in Obamaland was the Ft. Hood shooting a workplace incident despite the fact that the shooter shouted jihadist slogans even as he pulled the trigger; he had long standing correspondence with known facilitators of Islamic terror; and whose targeted violence on a military post was anything but random. And to this day, the Obama administration has refused to acknowledge what the actual shooter in the Little Rock assassination of a young soldier himself declared. And that is that he carried out that shooting as an act of jihad.
Governor Romney need not get sucked into the vortex of a word game as to the meaning of a single utterance on a single day over a single incident. The question which the president has yet to answer -- largely because no one has bluntly posed it to him is this -- "do you believe that America and Americans are threatened by an ongoing radical Islamic jihad that is at its heart irrational and intentional?"
The fact is, Islamic extremism is not just an obscure religion that's veered off the main track to incorporate some more esoteric expressions of faith. Folks, this isn't about snake handling and speaking in unknown tongues, fire walking, or years spent in vows of silence. No, this is a theology that justifies shooting a 14 year old girl in Pakistan because she wanted an education. Or somehow thinks that strapping a bomb to your own child's belly to kill innocent people in a cafe is just fine. I don't expect this or any president to be able to suddenly and single-handedly stop the savagery and sickness of this religious perversion. I just would like to have a president who could for once at least be honest as to what we're really up against. That's my view and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to share it with you.