Mudcat Café message #3403511 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #146940   Message #3403511
Posted By: GUEST,Lighter
12-Sep-12 - 04:00 PM
Thread Name: porn+FL Rev koran burner=ambassador killed
Subject: RE: porn+FL Rev koran burner=ambassador killed
The reporter's question, at least as quoted, is itself a provocation.

As far as I know, the phrase "act of war" has no legal standing. A nation may take any affront - real or imagined - to be an "act of war" and respond any way it sees fit. Then the ball is in another court, of course.

But the public, I believe, thinks an "act of war" is something clearly defined by some international code of law and that must be answered with military force. Since the death of the ambassador and his staff was caused by an attack on U.S. territory (the consulate grounds), it was *in that sense* no different from the 9/11 attacks, which Pres. Bush declared, with justification, "an act of war."

If Obama had said, "Yes, it's an act of war," that would mean he'd be giving orders to retaliate against the government of Libya, which (unlike Afghanistan in 2001)is more or less an American ally. It would be absurd. What's more, FOX could then slam him for mishandling whatever happened next, including getting America into another war as the result of "leading from behind" in Libya last year.

But if Obama had said straight out, "No, it is not an act of war" FOX could then replay Bush's "act of war" sound bite, show the burning consulate in split screen with the collapsing WTC, and "prove" to people who think war is cool just how stupid and spineless the current President is for denying that an attack on American territory and citizens is an "act of war."

They can do it anyway: "Obama won't call it an act of war (even though YOU know it is)!" Cue split-screen.

The President's actual statement shows he can keep his head when people around him are losing theirs and blaming him for it because that's how they make a living.