Posted on 10/14/2012 1:43:47 PM PDT by Snuph
For several days, and again on this week's Sunday morning shows, President Barack Obama's spokespeople, both at the White House and at the Obama campaign, have claimed that he called the Benghazi attack "terrorism" from the outset, in his Sep. 12 address from the Rose Garden. The media have pushed back, noting that the White House rejected terrorism as an explanation in the days that followed. But there is an even simpler reason to reject the Obama camp's explanation: it is a demonstrable lie, as a reading of Obama's actual remarks instantly reveals. Obama mentioned the word "terror" once in his Sep. 12 statement: "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." But the context of that statement suggests strongly that President Obama was referring to terror in general, not specifically to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi or the violent demonstrations at the U.S. embassy in Cairo. Furthermore, Obama's reference to "terror" came near the end of his statement. His initial description of the attacks, at the start of his statement, portrayed them as an excessive response to the anti-Islam video upon which the Obama relied for days and weeks thereafter: "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 for this type of senseless violence."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Maybe the talking points haven’t reached Minitru yet. They’ll get in line with the new lie as soon as they get them.
They just keep on coming.
So far they have been pretty successful manipulating the US media to go along ... but not the international media.
We are in a total news black out right now.
Thank you for defying it and posting the Benghazi story, as told by the administration. The fastest breaking pieces show up first on lucianne.com and hotair.com these days. Lucianne readers stick to no nonsense stories on this and with few fluff posts. Can’t help but wish we were doing more of the same. Thanks.
They are trying to coverup their original coverup. You bet Hillary was surprised by this attack. I’ll bet she was stunned. She thought that she was going to get away with allowing man portable anti-aircraft missiles to fall into the hands of terrorists because her and Obama were duped into thinking it was an “Arab Spring”. She realized that she was going to get caught. They gambled that they could cover it up, and that only makes them look worse. It’s the end of the Democrat party.
Pre-meditated, parsed response with a heavy emphasis attack on amendment 1. The attack on amendment 1 by sharia law sycophants was amplified by several lackeys and propagandists over the course of several days.
All they had to do was send them a copy of our governing document with amendment 1 highlighted and charge them for the paper it was printed on. /sarcasm of socialists
TREASON - aid and comfort
The reason for the lies:
Obama told us all that Al-Qaeda was rendered impotent after he took out OBL. Libya proved him totally wrong.
Obama supported the Arab Spring, which allowed the takeover of Libya and Egypt’s governance by radicals. Obama took the wrong side.
Clinton failed to provide the requested security because she wanted it to appear as if her diplomatic efforts had resulted in all sweetness and light in the Arab world and providing extra security would show that we were expecting the worst.
The CIA safe house (annex) was overrun and evacuated leaving who knows why kinds of intel behind for the radicals to capitalize on. This was a major intel breach-hugh and very series.
So you have the three entities who were in charge here going whole hog to cover their rear ends.
The whole house of cards is tumbling down. It’s an unmitigated disaster.
Same as the OLD lie.
I think you got it.
Does anyone know if Ambassador Stevens was gay. Just read something on another site.
What about the UN speech?
U.S. President Speaks to U.N. About YouTube Video
14 days after Sept. 11th!
Isn’t it worse for Obama if we accept that he knew it was terroris and called it terrorism on Sept 12th - because then he has to admit that he and his adminstration were lying in the days that followed.
Their first instinct is to lie (when the truth would have ultimately served them better).
Then, they lie to cover the lies told.
Then, another layer of lies.
Lying (in place if dignity and self-respect), it's in the DEMOCRAT DNA.
.
Isn’t it worse for Obama if we accept that he knew it was terrorism and called it terrorism on Sept 12th - because then he has to admit that he and his adminstration were lying in the days that followed.
How it was allowed to happen rages on and on.. a better question is why was it allowed to happen.
In years past John Christopher Stevens, known as Chris, was described as "a 20-year Arabic-speaking veteran of the State Department who has been a senior diplomat in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, and had postings in Damascus, Cairo and other Middle Eastern locales . . . [he has] a broad knowledge of the Arab world . . . [and] has a good deal of cross-cultural comfort . . . [professionally he] has an unflappable, but not nerdy personality. . . He listens to people. He’s the quintessential diplomat."
Seems to me that Stevens surely knew a lot given his contacts and savvy. Did he know too much? Was he threatening to tell all about how radical Islam's successes were greater than one would expect in an "Arab Spring" -- more like an Arab Sprint for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Was he denied security sure that Al Qaeda would kill him and all around him.. was Obama and/or the Clintons the beacon this time that guided the victims, Stevens and three others, to their deaths? Ron Brown, a man who knew too much and was going to talk was aboard an Air Force plane with many others when it was guided into a hillside by a beacon, some say.
I am not the first to make this connection.. but it does have me thinking.. those Muslim Brotherhood Islamists were guests of Obama's, praised by Hillary!, and recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer dollars -- and are getting stronger by the day. They are getting help from Washington?
If he thought it was terrorism, why did he say the future does not belong to those who slander Islam ? Is he saying the future belongs to the terrorists ? Or is he saying the terrorists were slandering Islam ?
He was saying the future belongs to the terrorists. Obama believes this is what the U.S. deserves. Obama is a muslim who has done too much illegal drugs. He has few rational thoughts and no conscience left.
I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt at that time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.