I received several quotes from siblinginbox, who got them from instapundit.com.
One of them I found interesting by the question not asked. Granted, I have not read the entire article, but am responding to the portion sent:

Actually, this is much more than an issue of semantics. Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the perpetrators. If he were serious about “bring[ing] to justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical. Instead, we now have the FBI sitting with its hands bound in Tripoli, unable to move forward with a serious investigation.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/30/no-obama-didnt-call-benghazi-act-of-terror-in-speech/

The proper question at this point, I believe would be, does the president intend to tie the hands of the FBI and let the perpetrators go free by his language? I can’t see this as a verbal slip. Especially not so with the history of this man.

Advertisements