Jump to content

The Truth About Benghazi


Shady

Recommended Posts

Fact Check: Libya attack

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.

But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.

http://www.washingto...s=rss_campaigns

That's from the Washingto Post. Now, from Politico...

And then, we can take a look at what the White House press secretary had to say on September 20th.

Q Can you — have you called it a terrorist attack before? Have you said that?

MR. CARNEY: I haven’t, but — I mean, people attacked our embassy. It’s an act of terror by definition.

Q Yes, I just hadn’t heard you –

MR. CARNEY: It doesn’t have to do with what date it occurred.

Q No, I just hadn’t heard the White House say that this was an act of terrorism or a terrorist attack. And I just –

MR. CARNEY: I don’t think the fact that we hadn’t is not — as our NCTC Director testified yesterday, a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area. We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

http://www.whitehous...iami-fl-9202012

So yes, as usual, Obama misrepresented the truth. He seems to have a problem with that these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth about Benghazi is that Romney was politicizing the death of American citizens. The labels used by the president's office are meaningless. Arguing about who said what when is an affront to those who died and their families. Romney, his campaign, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is that Obama wasn't there. Governments get their information on what's going on in little, out-of-the-way foreign countries from their embassies. Only their ambassador was dead and their consulate got burned up. I'm guessing that left a bit of a hole in the information system and for a while they were listening to someone in that country who didn't know what they were talking about. Who gives a crap anyway? It wasn't like they ever left any doubt about the level of dissaproval they felt for those who did it. To listen to you and Romney they wanted to give those people a hug and an apology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets just post the video and the time line of events.

[media=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIMnWGrh60M&feature=plcp][/media]

Now lets look at the record.

When did Mr. Obama first talk about the attack on Sept. 11 in Benghazi, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, as terrorism?

Mr. Obama applied the “terror” label to the attack in his first public statement on the events in Benghazi, delivered in the Rose Garden at the White House at 10:43 a.m. on Sept. 12, though the reference was indirect. “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,” he said. “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.”

Was that the only time Mr. Obama used the “terror” label?

No. The next day, Sept. 13, in a campaign appearance in Las Vegas, he used similar language. “And we want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/us/politics/questions-and-answers-on-the-benghazi-attack.html?_r=1

That is the record no amount of talking heads Shady will change that. Fact is Romney got caught not knowing anything about what he was talking about. Which happens a lot, he then got caught in a lie to cover it up. The man lies and he lies and he lies. Something like you Shady. Those are the facts so....“Please proceed, Governor.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the official line is to complain he didn't say "terrorism?" That doesn't make any sense. He never said he called it "terrorism." He said he called it an "act of terror". Which is what he called it. In reality.

But I am still at a loss as to why it matters. I know Republicans love the semantic arguments for some reason, but even when they make no sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really loved the way Hillary was made to fall for this one, and she should. It does seem like this consulate never existed regardless and was instead a CIA outpost. This was an operation, and was about to get blown wide open and they make Hillary take the fall to prevent something more embarrassing information to come out.

This is even more screwed up than believing this whole thing was started with a so called movie from a director who changed names several times. Or when the story changed to that the media and whitehouse denied that this was not a spontaneous attack , but planned.

Now knowing all allong that this was all brought to you by the same guys the CIA and Brit SAS helped arm with known Al-queda elements among them. But ignore all that, it's partisan hackery talk. Next thing you know they pull Bin Laden out of the freezer ONE LAST TIME for another cameo video appearance to scare the poo out of you again.

Crap who are the terrorists again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Romney should have done when it comes to Benghazi is give his condolences to his family, give full support to the government and military for their active operations, and make some generalized statement that it needs to be made sure something like this never happens again. Going after the president on this one, especially when they're currently engaged in this conflict, was a cowardly and despicable move. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Obama had called it a planned terrorist attack from the beginning then why did he lie for two weeks asserting it was a spontaneous reaction to a movie and not a planned terrorist attack?

Romney in the beginning rightly condemned the President for his "apology" to Islamic extremists for an irrelevant anti-Muslim movie.

Does anyone think Islamic extremists accepted the President's apology or do you think they see the President is a buffoon and are having a good laugh knowing he is lying to his own people?

The perception is the reality and Islamic extremists being extended an apology for their actions see it as a weakness and a signal to keep on going. There are no anti-hate laws in the world of Islamic extremism. They welcome the President lying to his people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Obama had called it a planned terrorist attack from the beginning then why did he lie for two weeks asserting it was a spontaneous reaction to a movie and not a planned terrorist attack?

He always called it a terrorist attack. They didn't realize the explicitly planned nature of it until they got new intelligence confirming that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He always called it a terrorist attack. They didn't realize the explicitly planned nature of it until they got new intelligence confirming that.

He asserted it was a spontaneous mob riot. He did not officially label it an act of terrorism until two weeks later.

If what you say is true then Hilary and Rice were lying then?

The President never did answer the question that Ladka asked him which was who pulled security from the embassy. Probably he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republicans couldn't even respond to a hurricane in their own backyard that they had tons of advanced warning about. There's not a chance in hell they respond any better to Benghazi than the Democrats did.

Good to see you finally admit the Democrats responded badly then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He always called it a terrorist attack. They didn't realize the explicitly planned nature of it until they got new intelligence confirming that.

A terrorist attacks is by definition premeditated. Obama himself, to say nothing of his surrogates, has been very inconsistent in describing the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Muslim-majority countries as terrorism. This has not been accidental, it's been done with the specific intent to protect the false image he's trying to sell the electorate about him being serious about security. He doesn't want Americans to realise that his political decision to maintain a "low profile" in Libya in order to not upset terrorists with a more visible American presence is what caused the vulnerability at the Benghazi consulate and allowed Christopher Stevens and the three other Americans to be murdered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Exegesisme
      2016 Election Should Debate For Real Solution On Real Issue​s
      By Exegesisme
      1 the moods of peoples may be driven by many transient factors, the social institutions have the duty to rule the moods of peoples into the efforts for a real solution of real issues.
      2 safety is always a fundamental concern for all existence, which should not be twisted to lose balance by momentum from any transient factors.
      3 a strategy of safety should always be considered as a whole solution on all issues of safety, any special issue of safety should be considered on its relative importance to the whole solution.
      4 for a whole solution of all issues of safety, I think all these factors should be considered on its importance.
      http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/suicide
      5 even only to the categories of homicide, suicide and accidents, there were 180,000 deaths in 2013 in USA. The 2016 election should debate how to decrease this number as most as possible, and should not be twisted to a few rare but striking events. If the attention is twisted, a solution may be good for one reason but bad for other reasons, then as a whole the solution may not make a proper contribution to the decrease of the whole number.
    • By Mighty AC
      It seems that Harper's office is in hot water for hiding information, yet again. During the investigations into senators Duffy, Harb, Brazeau and Wallin, which has had Harper tripping over his own lies, requests were made for 28 pages of emails relating to the fab four. However, Harper's office, in usual fashion, simply withheld 27 of the pages.
      The federal information commissioner will now ask a federal court to order the documents released.
      http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/09/14/news/information-commissioner-taking-pmo-court-over-withholding-senate-documents
      When discussing Harper's penchant for lying Preston Manning once said "words don't mean much to Stephen." When voters support a party and PM already proven to be a corrupt, lawbreaking, liar, aren't we basically sanctifying their immoral and illegal acts?
  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...