Was it terrorism or reaction to a video? Dumb question, Willard.

[No Elephants]

IMO, since Karl Rove told Bush to declara a fake war on "terror," too many crimes have been called acts of terrorism. However, attacking a U.S. embassy in Libya is an attack on the U.S., period.

If Libya sent its military to do it, then it was an act of war. If anyone else attacked the U.S. embassy in Libray, it was an act of terrorism.

Whether something is an act of terrorism or not does not depend on why someone wanted to attack the U.S. or whether the attack was spontaneous or planned years in advance, or whether Al Qaida was involved or not. Or whether someone was pissed off about a film made in the U.S. or not.

Originally, the President was correct in referring to acts of terrorism, whether he thought at the time that the movie figured into it or not.

If I murder someone, I murder someone. It's murder. It doesn't matter whether I murdered someone because they served me a bad meal or because they were sleeping with my husband or because they insulted my religion. My motive does not somehow change murder into a food criticism or a holy act.

Intentionally, or unwittingly, the Romney team made motive too important so that they could criticize the President. It's either stupid or deceptive.

But, why does media go along? Why doesn't someone in media point out what this post points out? Why do they let the Romney team frame this in a distorted way?

[Enthusiast]

1. The media sucks.

[No Elephants]

2. Ain't it da truth?