I'm still at a loss as to why it matters at all whether Obama thought the Benghazi thing was a terrorist attack or not.
It doesn't. That's nto the criticism (or shouldn't be).
Here's how it is described:
1. In Libya, a terror group plans a coordinated assault on the consulate in Benghazi because they perceive the security there to be weak. 9/11 is chosen as the date for symbolic reasons.
2. Independently, and later, imams in Cairo begin complaining about a YouTube video that insults Mohammed. People begin to organize protests. 9/11 is chosen as the date for the same symbolic reasons as the terrorists in Libya chose. But there is no evidence of cooperation between the two groups.
3. On 9/10, the American consulate in Cairo, fearing the Egyptian protests will become violent, issues a statement condemning the YouTube video and calling for calm.
4. On 9/11, the planned protests in Cairo go froward with vandalism and some violence. At the same time, in Libya, the assault kills four Americans, including the Ambassador.
5. Romney condemns the consulate's statement, claiming it shows how the Obama Administration tends to blame Americans for the actions of Islamic radicals, rather than placing the blame on the radicals.
6. The White House states that the Cairo consulate's statement was unauthorized (seen as a weak retraction) and condemns the radicals, the makers of the YouTube video, and also condemns Romney for politicizing the issue.
7. In the Rose Garden, Obama says the attacks in Benghazi were caused by terrorists (true) and made an oblique reference to the YouTube video. (False.) (you can see the Rose Garden remarks
here.*)
8. Subsequently, the US government asks YouTube to remove the video. YouTube refuses.
The issue, in a nutshell, is the GOP claim that the Administration has a habit of trying to associate a portion of the responsibility for terror attacks to America's own behavior. If Obama truly had no information, then he simply assumed that the attacks were in response to the video, and that supports the Republican argument that Obama has a "Blame America" assumption. If he really didn't know, then he should not have mentioned the video.
Whether you think this argument has any weight probably depends on your predisposition. If you like Obama, you're probably inclined to think he had bad information, or that his assumption that the video was a motivation was reasonable. If you don't like Obama, you're probably inclined to think that the Consulate statement, the Rose Garden statement, and the subsequent request to YouTube to remove the video all evidence an attitude by the Obama Administration that America is partially to blame for Islamic terror, and that if we just didn't offend the radicals they'd leave us alone. If you're undecided, you probably think this is a really stupid nit-picky issue.
For me, the more pressing issue is Embassy security. But I'm pretty sure this issue is going to equally besmirch both the Obama Administration who ignored State Department calls for more security and the budget-hawk Republicans in Congress (like Ryan) who tried to cut funding for Embassy security. So the parties merely dance around that issue.
* In his Rose Garden remarks, he doesn't actually call the attacks a terror act, though it is heavily implied. Nor does he directly blame the YouTube video. Here are the salient excerpts:
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.
* * *
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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this
terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
