"Zweites Fernsehduell - Obama überführt Herausforderer Romney der Lüge" kann man seit heute um 11.25 Uhr als Überschrift in "Welt-Online" lesen.
Wo hat Romney nach Meinung des Autors Uwe Schmitt gelogen? Er schreibt über Obama:
Was hatte nun Romney exakt behauptet? Man kann es dem Transkript entnehmen. Allerdings ist an dieser Stelle die Debatte sehr lebhaft; es gehen Sprachfetzen hin und her. Wenn es Sie interessiert - Sie finden diese ganze Passage unten als Anhang.
Entscheidend für die Frage, ob Romney gelogen hat, ist dieser Wortwechsel:
Und was sagte nun Obama am 12. September im Rosengarten des Weißen Hauses? Das Transkript kann man zum Beispiel hier lesen:
Später kommt er auf 9/11 zu sprechen und sagt dann:
Es gibt in der gesamten Rede keinen Hinweis darauf, daß Obama diesen Angriff richtig bewertete: Nämlich als einen von langer Hand vorbereiteten Kampfeinsatz einer Terrortruppe gegen das Konsulat, der mit der Aufregung über den Film nichts zu tun hatte.
Am 27. September dokumentierte in der Washington Post Glenn Kessler die Äußerungen der Regierung Obama zu dem Angriff in Bengasi. Er faßte das Ergebnis so zusammen:
In der Sache hatte also Romney in der vergangenen Nacht vollkommen Recht: Weder in der Rede im Rosengarten noch danach hat die Regierung und hat Obama selbst den Vorfall als das bezeichnet, was er war, nämlich ein geplanter Kampfeinsatz von Terroristen.
Die Wahrheit wurde erstmals offiziell mitgeteilt, als - so Kessler - der Leiter des Nationalen Zentrums für für Terrorismusbekämpfung (National Counterterrorism Center) im Kongreß befragt wurde und auf einen direkten Vorhalt hin den terroristischen Charakter des Vorfalls einräumte.
Obama hat am 12. September nicht von Terrorismus und nicht von einer terroristischen Organisation gesprochen, sondern allgemein und ohne direkten Bezug zu dem Vorfall ein einziges Mal das Wort "act of terror" verwendet; man kann das statt mit "Terrorakt" auch mit "Terrorisierung" übersetzen oder mit "Terrorhandlung".
Zwischen dem Ausdruck "act of terror" und dem Wort "terrorism" (Terrorismus) liege eine "world of difference" (lägen Welten), schrieb Kessler am 27. September und verwies dazu auf seine langjährige Erfahrung mit der Sprache der Diplomatie.
Und heute schreibt derselbe Autor in der Washington Post:
Romney hat nicht gelogen; in keiner Weise. Es war Obama, der den Inhalt seiner Rede am 12. September nachträglich anders dargestellt hat, als sie gelautet hatte und damals offensichtlich verstanden werden sollte.
Aber Romney war einen Augenblick unaufmerksam. Er hatte sagen wollen, daß Obama in dieser Rede den terroristischen Charakter des Angriffs verschwiegen hatte, bezog sich aber auf das Wort "act of terror"; und das kam nun tatsächlich in der Rede vor, wenn auch nur in einem allgemeinen Zusammenhang.
Die schlechteste Figur bei diesem Wortwechsel machte die Moderatorin Candy Crowley.
Der Debatte lag eine von beiden Wahlkampfteams getroffene Vereinbarung zugrunde, über die ich gestern im Vorbericht zu der Debatte informiert habe:
Anhang: Der vollständige Text des Wortwechsels zum Angriff in Bengasi.
MS. CROWLEY: — I want you to talk to Kerry Ladka, who has a — wants to switch a topic for us.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK. Hi, Cara (ph).
Q: Good evening, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm sorry, what's your name?
Q: It's Kerry, Kerry Ladka.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Great to see you here.
Q: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me, first of all, talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren't just representatives of the United States; they're my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm's way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody's more concerned about their safety and security than I am.
So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn't happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I've said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.
Now, Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that's not how a commander in chief operates. You don't turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it's happening.
And people — not everybody agrees with some of the decisions I've made. But when it comes to our national security, I mean what I say. I said I'd end the war in Libya — in Iraq, and I did. I said that we'd go after al-Qaida and bin Laden. We have. I said we'd transition out of Afghanistan and start making sure that Afghans are responsible for their own security. That's what I'm doing.
And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there, because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, I got to move us along. Governor?
MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Kerry, for your question. It's an important one. And — and I — I think the president just said correctly that — that the buck does stop at his desk, and — and he takes responsibility for — for that — for that — the failure in providing those security resources, and those terrible things may well happen from time to time.
I — I'm — I feel very deeply sympathetic for the families of those who lost loved ones. Today there's a memorial service for one of those that was lost in this tragedy. We — we think of their families and care for them deeply.
There were other issues associated with this — with this tragedy.
There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading or instead whether we just didn't know what happened, I think you have to ask yourself why didn't we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations went on TV to say that this was a demonstration. How could of we not known?
But I find more troubling than this that on — on the day following the assassination of the United States ambassador — the first time that's happened since 1979 — when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didn't know what happened, that the president the day after that happened flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, another political event, I think these — these actions taken by a president and a leader have symbolic significance, and perhaps even material significance, in that you'd hoped that during that time we could call in the people who were actually eyewitnesses. We've read their accounts now about what happened. It was very clear this was not a demonstration. This was an attack by terrorists.
And this calls into question the president's whole policy in the Middle East. Look what's happening in Syria, in Egypt, now in Libya. Consider the distance between ourselves and Israel, where the president said that — that he was going to put daylight between us and Israel. We have Iran four years closer to a nuclear bomb. Syria — Syria's not just the tragedy of 30,000 civilians being killed by a military, but also a strategic — strategically significant player for America. The president's policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour and pursue a strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes.
MS. CROWLEY: Because we're closing in, I want to still get a lot of people in. I want to ask you something, Mr. President, and then have the governor just quickly. Your secretary of state, as I'm sure you know, has said that she takes full responsibility for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
Does the buck stop with your secretary of state as far as what went on here?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I'm the president. And I'm always responsible. And that's why nobody is more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I did (sic).
The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror. And I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime. And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.
And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president. That's not what I do as commander in chief.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to reply just quickly to this, please.
MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I — I certainly do. I certainly do. I — I think it's interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.
MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you're saying?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.
MR. ROMNEY: I — I — I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript.
MS. CROWLEY: It — he did in fact, sir.
So let me — let me call it an act of terrorism — (inaudible) —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)
MS. CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
MR. ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration — (applause) — indicated that this was a — a reaction to a — to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.
MS. CROWLEY: They did.
MR. ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and — and to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday the — your — your secretary or —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy —
MR. ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and — and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, I'm — I'm happy to —
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me — I —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy.
MS. CROWLEY: I know you — absolutely. But I want — I want to move you on.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK, I'm happy to do that too.
MS. CROWLEY: And also, people can go to the transcripts and —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I just want to make sure that —
MS. CROWLEY: — figure out what was said and when.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — you know, all these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some — their questions answered.
Wo hat Romney nach Meinung des Autors Uwe Schmitt gelogen? Er schreibt über Obama:
Er setzte auch den einzigen schweren Treffer, der einem Niederschlag gleichkam – nämlich als der Präsident den Republikaner im Zusammenhang mit dem Anschlag in Bengasi der Unwahrheit überführte: Romney hatte behauptet, der Präsident habe nicht am Tag danach von einem Terrorakt gesprochen, sondern erst Wochen danach; Obama wehrte sich, und ein Verweis der Moderatorin auf das Transkript setzte ihn ins Recht. (...)Sehen wir uns an, was Romney und Obama in der vergangenen Nacht gesagt haben und was Obama am 12. September, dem Tag nach dem Angriff im Rosengarten des Weißen Hauses gesagt hatte. Den Kontext finden Sie in meinem Live-Bericht über die Debatte, wenn Sie auf den Eintrag um 4.08 Uhr gehen.
Die Glaubwürdigkeit Mitt Romneys bei den folgenden Antworten war mindestens für die nächsten Minuten beschädigt.
Was hatte nun Romney exakt behauptet? Man kann es dem Transkript entnehmen. Allerdings ist an dieser Stelle die Debatte sehr lebhaft; es gehen Sprachfetzen hin und her. Wenn es Sie interessiert - Sie finden diese ganze Passage unten als Anhang.
Entscheidend für die Frage, ob Romney gelogen hat, ist dieser Wortwechsel:
OBAMA: The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror. (...)
ROMNEY: (...) I think it's interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.
MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you're saying?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.
MR. ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
OBAMA: Am Tag nach dem Angriff, Herr Gouverneur, stand ich im Rosengarten [des Weißen Hauses; Zettel], und ich sagte dem amerikanischen Volk und der Welt, daß wir herausfinden würden, was genau geschah, daß dies ein Terrorakt war. (..)
ROMNEY: (...) Ich denke, es ist interessant, was der Präsident da eben sagte, nämlich daß er am Tag nach dem Angriff in den Rosengarten ging und sagte, daß dies ein Terrorakt gewesen sei. Sie sagten am Tag nach dem Angriff im Rosengarten, daß es ein Terrorakt gewesen sei. Es sei keine spontane Demonstration gewesen.
OBAMA: Fahren Sie bitte fort.
ROMNEY: Ist das Ihre Behauptung?
OBAMA: Fahren Sie bitte fort, Herr Gouverneur.
ROMNEY: Ich mochte sicherstellen, daß wir das festhalten, denn der Präsident brauchte 14 Tage, bis er den Angriff in Bengasi einen Terrorakt nannte.
Und was sagte nun Obama am 12. September im Rosengarten des Weißen Hauses? Das Transkript kann man zum Beispiel hier lesen:
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.Dieser Abschnitt der Rede macht deutlich, daß Obama den Angriff auf das Konsulat als "sinnlose Gewalt" im Zusammenhang mit dem Vorwurf der Verunglimpfung des Islam (nämlich durch den Film "The innocence of muslims") sieht. Von einem terroristischen Hintergrund spricht er in diesem Zusammenhang nicht.
Seit unserer Gründung sind die Vereinigten Staaten eine Nation, die alle Glaubensrichtungen respektiert. Wir weisen alle Bemühungen zurück, den religiösen Glauben anderer zu verunglimpfen. Aber es gibt absolut keine Rechtfertigung für diese Art von sinnloser Gewalt. Keine. Die Welt muß zusammenstehen und diese brutalen Akte eindeutig zurückweisen
Später kommt er auf 9/11 zu sprechen und sagt dann:
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.Hier also erst ist von "keinem Terrorakt" die Rede, der jemals den Charakter des amerikanischen Volks ändern werde. Obama spricht an dieser Stelle der Rede allgemein. Daß er - wie er es gegenüber Romney behauptete - dem amerikanischen Volk und der Welt gesagt habe, "daß dies ein Terrorakt war" stimmt schlicht nicht.
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.
Lassen Sie uns als Amerikaner niemals vergessen, daß unsere Freiheit nur erhalten bleibt, weil es Menschen gibt, die bereit sind, für sie zu kämpfen, für sie einzustehen und in manchen Fällen ihr Leben für sie hinzugeben. Unser Land ist nur so stark wie der Charakter unseres Volkes und der Dienst derer - Zivilisten wie Militärs -, die uns rund um die Erde vertreten.
Kein Terrorakt wird jemals die Entschlossenheit dieser großen Nation erschüttern, diesen Charakter ändern oder das Licht der Werte verdunkeln, für die wir stehen.
Es gibt in der gesamten Rede keinen Hinweis darauf, daß Obama diesen Angriff richtig bewertete: Nämlich als einen von langer Hand vorbereiteten Kampfeinsatz einer Terrortruppe gegen das Konsulat, der mit der Aufregung über den Film nichts zu tun hatte.
Am 27. September dokumentierte in der Washington Post Glenn Kessler die Äußerungen der Regierung Obama zu dem Angriff in Bengasi. Er faßte das Ergebnis so zusammen:
For political reasons, it certainly was in the White House's interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. (...)
President Obama himself resisted using the "t" word, even as late as Tuesday, while keeping the focus on the video in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly.
Aus politischen Gründen lag es gewiß im Interesse des Weißen Hauses, den Vorfall nicht als einen terroristischen Angriff darzustellen, besonders nicht als einen am Jahrestag der Angriffs vom 11. September.
Stattdessen stellte die Regierung das heraus, was letzten Endes eine bewußt gelegte falsche Spur (a red herring) war - Empörung in der arabischen Welt über ein auf YouTube gepostetes antimoslemisches Video. (...)
Präsident Obama selbst vermied es selbst noch am Dienstag [dem 25. September, also zwei Wochen nach dem Vorfall; Zettel] in seiner Rede vor den Vereinigten Nationen strikt, das "T"-Wort zu verwenden. Stattdessen stellte er weiter das Video in den Mittelpunkt.
In der Sache hatte also Romney in der vergangenen Nacht vollkommen Recht: Weder in der Rede im Rosengarten noch danach hat die Regierung und hat Obama selbst den Vorfall als das bezeichnet, was er war, nämlich ein geplanter Kampfeinsatz von Terroristen.
Die Wahrheit wurde erstmals offiziell mitgeteilt, als - so Kessler - der Leiter des Nationalen Zentrums für für Terrorismusbekämpfung (National Counterterrorism Center) im Kongreß befragt wurde und auf einen direkten Vorhalt hin den terroristischen Charakter des Vorfalls einräumte.
Obama hat am 12. September nicht von Terrorismus und nicht von einer terroristischen Organisation gesprochen, sondern allgemein und ohne direkten Bezug zu dem Vorfall ein einziges Mal das Wort "act of terror" verwendet; man kann das statt mit "Terrorakt" auch mit "Terrorisierung" übersetzen oder mit "Terrorhandlung".
Zwischen dem Ausdruck "act of terror" und dem Wort "terrorism" (Terrorismus) liege eine "world of difference" (lägen Welten), schrieb Kessler am 27. September und verwies dazu auf seine langjährige Erfahrung mit der Sprache der Diplomatie.
Und heute schreibt derselbe Autor in der Washington Post:
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said.
But the president did not say “terrorism”— and Romney got tripped up when he repeated the “act of terror” phrasing.
Otherwise, Romney’s broader point is accurate — that it took the administration days to concede that the assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.
"Kein Terrorakt wird jemals die Entschlossenheit dieser großen Nation erschüttern, diesen Charakter ändern oder das Licht der Werte verdunkeln, für die wir stehen", sagte Obama.
Aber der Präsident sagte nicht "Terrorismus" - und Romney geriet aus dem Konzept, als er die Formulierung "Terrorakt" wiederholte.
Ansonsten war die generelle Aussage Romneys zutreffend - daß die Regierung Tage brauchte, um einzuräumen, daß der Angriff auf die US-Vertretung in Bengasi ein "Akt des Terrorismus" war, der offenbar keinen Bezug zu den anfänglichen Berichten über Empörung wegen eines Videos hatte, das den Propheten Mohammed verunglimpft.
Romney hat nicht gelogen; in keiner Weise. Es war Obama, der den Inhalt seiner Rede am 12. September nachträglich anders dargestellt hat, als sie gelautet hatte und damals offensichtlich verstanden werden sollte.
Aber Romney war einen Augenblick unaufmerksam. Er hatte sagen wollen, daß Obama in dieser Rede den terroristischen Charakter des Angriffs verschwiegen hatte, bezog sich aber auf das Wort "act of terror"; und das kam nun tatsächlich in der Rede vor, wenn auch nur in einem allgemeinen Zusammenhang.
Die schlechteste Figur bei diesem Wortwechsel machte die Moderatorin Candy Crowley.
Der Debatte lag eine von beiden Wahlkampfteams getroffene Vereinbarung zugrunde, über die ich gestern im Vorbericht zu der Debatte informiert habe:
Nachdem ein Bürger seine Frage an einen der Kandidaten gerichtet und dieser geantwortet hat, darf Crowley nicht nachhaken. Ihre Befugnisse sind darauf beschränkt, Frager aufzurufen und darauf zu achten, daß ein Kandidat nicht die Zwei-Minuten-Frist überschreitet, die er für eine Antwort hat. (...)Sie hat sich nicht daran gehalten. Sie hat im Gegenteil massiv in die Debatte eingegriffen, als sie Obama gegen Romney Recht gab. Es war in meinem Live-Bericht über die Debatte zu lesen:
Das alles ist in der Vereinbarung zwischen den beiden Wahlkampfteams festgelegt; dem Memorandum of Unterstanding, das Sie hier im Original lesen können. Ob Crowley sich immer strikt an diese Regeln hält, gilt allerdings als weniger sicher.
Es geht dann darum, ob Obama den Angriff in seiner ersten Erklärung zu diesem Thema einen "Terrorakt" genannt habe. Romney bestreitet das; Crowley verläßt ihre Rolle als Moderatorin und springt Obama bei. Obama reagiert mit "Sagen Sie das laut!". An dieser Stelle gibt es den einzigen Beifall während der Veranstaltung. Romney gerät kurz ins Stottern.Den genauen Wortlaut dieser Passage können Sie im Anhang lesen.
Anhang: Der vollständige Text des Wortwechsels zum Angriff in Bengasi.
MS. CROWLEY: — I want you to talk to Kerry Ladka, who has a — wants to switch a topic for us.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK. Hi, Cara (ph).
Q: Good evening, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm sorry, what's your name?
Q: It's Kerry, Kerry Ladka.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Great to see you here.
Q: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me, first of all, talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren't just representatives of the United States; they're my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm's way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody's more concerned about their safety and security than I am.
So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn't happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I've said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.
Now, Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that's not how a commander in chief operates. You don't turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it's happening.
And people — not everybody agrees with some of the decisions I've made. But when it comes to our national security, I mean what I say. I said I'd end the war in Libya — in Iraq, and I did. I said that we'd go after al-Qaida and bin Laden. We have. I said we'd transition out of Afghanistan and start making sure that Afghans are responsible for their own security. That's what I'm doing.
And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there, because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, I got to move us along. Governor?
MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Kerry, for your question. It's an important one. And — and I — I think the president just said correctly that — that the buck does stop at his desk, and — and he takes responsibility for — for that — for that — the failure in providing those security resources, and those terrible things may well happen from time to time.
I — I'm — I feel very deeply sympathetic for the families of those who lost loved ones. Today there's a memorial service for one of those that was lost in this tragedy. We — we think of their families and care for them deeply.
There were other issues associated with this — with this tragedy.
There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading or instead whether we just didn't know what happened, I think you have to ask yourself why didn't we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations went on TV to say that this was a demonstration. How could of we not known?
But I find more troubling than this that on — on the day following the assassination of the United States ambassador — the first time that's happened since 1979 — when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didn't know what happened, that the president the day after that happened flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, another political event, I think these — these actions taken by a president and a leader have symbolic significance, and perhaps even material significance, in that you'd hoped that during that time we could call in the people who were actually eyewitnesses. We've read their accounts now about what happened. It was very clear this was not a demonstration. This was an attack by terrorists.
And this calls into question the president's whole policy in the Middle East. Look what's happening in Syria, in Egypt, now in Libya. Consider the distance between ourselves and Israel, where the president said that — that he was going to put daylight between us and Israel. We have Iran four years closer to a nuclear bomb. Syria — Syria's not just the tragedy of 30,000 civilians being killed by a military, but also a strategic — strategically significant player for America. The president's policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour and pursue a strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes.
MS. CROWLEY: Because we're closing in, I want to still get a lot of people in. I want to ask you something, Mr. President, and then have the governor just quickly. Your secretary of state, as I'm sure you know, has said that she takes full responsibility for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
Does the buck stop with your secretary of state as far as what went on here?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I'm the president. And I'm always responsible. And that's why nobody is more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I did (sic).
The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror. And I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime. And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.
And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president. That's not what I do as commander in chief.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to reply just quickly to this, please.
MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I — I certainly do. I certainly do. I — I think it's interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.
MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you're saying?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.
MR. ROMNEY: I — I — I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript.
MS. CROWLEY: It — he did in fact, sir.
So let me — let me call it an act of terrorism — (inaudible) —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)
MS. CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
MR. ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration — (applause) — indicated that this was a — a reaction to a — to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.
MS. CROWLEY: They did.
MR. ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and — and to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday the — your — your secretary or —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy —
MR. ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and — and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, I'm — I'm happy to —
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me — I —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy.
MS. CROWLEY: I know you — absolutely. But I want — I want to move you on.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK, I'm happy to do that too.
MS. CROWLEY: And also, people can go to the transcripts and —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I just want to make sure that —
MS. CROWLEY: — figure out what was said and when.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — you know, all these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some — their questions answered.
Zettel
© Zettel. Für Kommentare bitte hier klicken.
