The Benghazi Attack: Why It (Really) Matters

Posted on Oct 21 2012 - 9:00pm by Harrison

The latest scandal to grip the Obama administration – which we will see play out during Monday’s debate if Romney has his way – is why the attack on the American compound in Libya wasn’t labelled by the Obama administration and its ilk as a terrorist act immediately.

The answer is very simple and it is that Obama feels that if he called terrorism what it is he will be encouraging more of it by making Muslims feel angry and, in the process, will be cutting off “dialogue” with them.

Why else would the Obama administration order words and phrases like “war on terror” and “terrorism” dropped from the lexicon and replaced with silly things like “overseas contingency operations” and “man created disasters” unless he was going for the politically correct approach?

Conservatives generally believe that by calling someone a “terrorist” it clearly identifies the situation and isolates things allowing for a solution while Liberals think that you are muddying the waters… offending innocent parties and making it tougher to achieve compromise.

This is why Bush liked “war on terror” but Obama prefers “overseas contingency operations.”

Both phrases describe basically doing the same thing however Obama believes that even though he’s blown up thousands with unmanned predator drones and operations continue in Afghanistan and war is still being waging around the globe by American forces Muslims will somehow not see it as being anti-Islam.

In America, terrorism and Islam have become synonymous.

I think most Americans believe that while not everyone who is Islamic is a terrorist, almost every terrorist is Islamic.

Obama knows this so he believes – as do most Liberals – that if he doesn’t call it “terrorism” he will somehow be lessening the possibility that there will be terrorism in the future.

It is this rationale that matters the most because this is the “logic” that drives the Liberal agenda on what we know as terrorism.

It is, of course, flawed, deeply faulty logic that costs lives and makes the situation more dangerous but, unfortunately, it drives the Left’s decisions.

That is why the administration would ignore calls to beef up its security, add more man power, do anything to make the compound more secure… if they showed any concern that it would somehow draw attention to the situation and create terrorism.

Crazy, I know, but that’s why the Left is so deeply flawed in their “thinking.”

1 Comment so far. Feel free to join this conversation.

  1. Steve Dennis October 22, 2012 at 1:49 AM -

    The logic is not only flawed, I would say it is backwards. What Obama is basically doing is blaming the US for creating the situations which lead to terrorism instead of putting the blame were it belongs, with the terrorists. He thinks if we are nice to them they will leave us alone but all it shows is weakness and that is something they do not respect.
    Steve Dennis recently posted..New Mitt Romney ad: Leaders find a way