Media Hiding Libya Debacle BOMBSHELL: Obama Denied In CBS Interview that Benghazi Was 'Terror'

Reaganite Republican ^ | 05 November 2012 | Reaganite Republican

[Reaganite Republican]

Guess that makes Dear Leader, Candy Crowley, 

and most of the MSM blatant, in-your-face LIARS...

________________________________________________________________________________

Ace of Spades (higlights mine):

Obama did an interview with CBS' Steve Kroft on the night of September 12th and the first question is about why he didn't call it terrorism in his Rose Garden statement that day.

...that directly contradicts Obama's pre-planned statement during the second debate with Romney. You know, the one where hacktastic Candy Crowely (sic) vouched for Obama's lie...

________________________________________________________________________________

[CBS video source here]

Let there be no doubt, my friends: Obama's hubris, misguided FP agenda, and managerial incompetence is what screwed up Benghazi, and he's has been bus-chucking and lying about it for weeks while the media attempt to drag his political corpse over the finish line- that's just about all there is to it.

Video/more at Reaganite Republican

[Reaganite Republican]

*** PING ***

[I want the USA back]

He is ducking responsibility for the deaths caused by his deliberate refusal to send help. He sacrificied Americans on the altar of political correctness, so as to not annoy his co-religionists.

[himno hero]

Well worded.

What is horrific is he did it watching in real time and then failed to act..... later calling it a “bump in the road” (.... to his caliphate).

That came from what we used to call the White House, before he raised the black flag of Al Q in the Rose Garden.

[Jim Noble]

What happened in Benghazi was not a terrorist attack.

[patriotspride]

They are releasing this now, when few will see it, so they can say.

Well we did let people know about this before election day........

[rikkir]

“What happened in Benghazi was not a terrorist attack.”

I more solidly believe that this was a staged kidnapping that went terribly wrong.
It was their idea for an October Surprise, to make the messiah look good for saving the Ambassador. Of course the deal would have included sending the Blind Sheik home, and putting more weapons in the hands of the Syrian “freedom fighters”. The MSM would have reported none of that, only that our “glorious leader” Killed Osama, and saved an Ambassador, and vanquished our “enemy”. All hail Obozo! /sarc!

Tin Foil hat removed now!!

[lodi90]

“I more solidly believe that this was a staged kidnapping that went terribly wrong.
It was their idea for an October Surprise, to make the messiah look good for saving the Ambassador. “

Barry couldn’t score in a bathhouse at midnight. He waited six months and required DNA proof before they went after OBL. This fantasy that he would stage the kidnapping of a Ambassador a month before the election is just ridiculous. Too many risks involved for the ditherer in chief to try such a stunt. Sorry.

[lodi90]

“I more solidly believe that this was a staged kidnapping that went terribly wrong.
It was their idea for an October Surprise, to make the messiah look good for saving the Ambassador. “

Barry couldn’t score in a bathhouse at midnight. He waited six months and required DNA proof before they went after OBL. This fantasy that he would stage the kidnapping of a Ambassador a month before the election is just ridiculous. Too many risks involved for the ditherer in chief to try such a stunt. Sorry.

[carlo3b]

Any scenario is possible, and some even more nefarious, but as I have watched this man operate during the past 4 years, it is equally possible and even more probable that he froze up when faced with a real crises, and turned what he is deep down in his BLACK SOUL.. A COWARD!

[carlo3b]

What happened in Benghazi was not a terrorist attack.

Of course it wasn't a terrorist attack, under the new DOJ guidelines, it was Workplace Violence! .. DUH!..

The President isn't required to intervene in business matters.. can we just move on now..

[Southack]

Ambassador Stevens was Chief of Mission in Libya. The CIA was the Chief of Station.

The textbook says that you *only* send the Chief of Mission to a hostile liaison when you don’t trust the Chief of Station.

[Jim Noble]

Of course it wasn't a terrorist attack, under the new DOJ guidelines, it was Workplace Violence! .. DUH!..

this was a highly successful military operation, involving at least two companies, artillery support, a feint to draw away defenders from the actual target, and some type of central command and control.

Tactically, it was entirely successful. Strategically, it was successful beyond the imagination of its designers.

Calling this operation a "terrorist attack" misunderstands it completely. It was nothing of the sort.

[carlo3b]

Tactically, it was entirely successful. Strategically, it was successful beyond the imagination of its designers.

Are you suggesting that this was the OCT surprise, that deflected the attention away from other damaging injurious stories, like, Fast and FUBAR, and the Economy, or lying Job numbers, on and on and on? Or what are you saying?

[Jim Noble]

No, this had nothing to do with our elections.

Tactically, the objective was to seize the contents of the “warehouse” building at the so-called “annex”. That succeeded.

Strategically, the objective was to show the US as weak. We helped to make this a huge success, as well.

[carlo3b]

Tactically, the objective was to seize the contents of the “warehouse” building at the so-called “annex”. That succeeded. Strategically, the objective was to show the US as weak. We helped to make this a huge success, as well.

Great observation, I never thought of that..

That just goes to show ya, what you'd miss without FReepers.. :)