Posted on 10/17/2012 11:19:18 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The dispute over how the Obama administration has characterized the lethal attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, last month boiled over once again in the debate on Tuesday night between President Obama and Mitt Romney. But questions about what happened in the attack, and disputes over who said what about it, have left many people confused. Here are some of the facts as they are now known:
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.
The next day, Sept. 13, in a campaign appearance in Las Vegas, he used similar language.
The “act of terror” references attracted relatively little notice at the time, and later they appeared to have been forgotten even by some administration officials.
Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said on Sept. 14 about the Benghazi attack, “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”
On Sept. 19, Matthew G. Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said about the killings in Benghazi during a Senate hearing, “Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.” The next day, asked about Mr. Olsen’s testimony, Mr. Carney declared, “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Duck and cover, new lie same as the old lie, spin the top, ...
When I want to clear the record the NYT is the last place I’ll go.
ny slimes lying... it is all that they can do... satan is the lord of the lie and nyt is his newspaper.
LLS
I think a chart with these columns would be helpful:
date/speaker/oblique reference to terror/ terror/ stupid film
NYT: “Obama applied the “terror” label to the attack in his first public statement.”
http://www.johnspeedie.com/healy/bull.wav
I’ve been re-reading 1984 lately. When I read it as a kid, the part about re-writing history seemed a bit bizarre. Now days I see it happening right in front of me, and what is worse, I see that in short order people forget what they saw and accept what the press tells them they saw.
Since historians typically start with press accounts, you know that history is going to get it wrong. We are watching history altered right before our very eyes.
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.
Sorry Scott, but no he did not apply the "terror" label to the attack. He said "no acts of terror" will shake our resolve, etc. in the context of the American people remembering what had happened on that day 11 years ago. That comment was not addressing this attack. THEN he started talking about this attack and he used words like "murder" and "reprehensible" and "terrible act". But he called the perpetrators "murderers" rather than "terrorists" and he vowed to "bring them to justice". He also condemned those who insult other religions but then said that is no excuse for this act, thereby carrying water for the BS line from the islamists that the acts which just happeneded to occur on the anniversary of 9/11 were some kind of reaction to a youtube video posted months ago.
Now that America has bee undermined, the world is doomed to a prolonged period of darkness.
Romney's issue was, in his words, "This -- the administration -- the administration -- (applause) -- indicated that this was a -- a reaction to a -- to a video and was a spontaneous reaction."
New York Times - providing quality kitty box liner for over 100 years!
So I guess Obama didn’t think the terrorist explanation wasn’t credible enough to have his mouthpieces go on the talking heads shows and not mention it once??? The neglect of Obama not to specifically tie the terrorist comment to the murders of four American citizens is deporable when he or his henchmen attempt to hide behind the comment that was so general it could have meant 9/11/01. Obama is a fraud, pure and simple. The most dangerous fraud this country has ever seen. I would rather the Mafia operate the government than Obama. At least you knew where you stood. Obama is a closet Muslim and I will never be convinced otherwise. His actions from the second he took the oath to now have been in support of that opinion. The Quaran directs Muslims to lie in order to defeat your enemy. Isn’t that enough to convince you of his true beliefs. He’s an expert at lying and the media loves it. They think he has a great gift of gab.
Oh, thank God for the New York Slimes coming around to set the record straight. LOL.
Give it up, assclowns.
I read the transcript, watched the video, and disagree... but, even if he did, then why did he send Susan Rice out the following Sunday, 4 days later, on all the Sunday talk shows, and blame the entire event on a public demonstration that got out of hand based on that stupid video? Had her do the same thing at the U.N.? Broadcast the same thing all over Pakistan, fomenting public demonstrations there? What was his motive for that? Did he not have a handle on what his underlings were saying? Did he not brief them? Where was he?
Oh, yeah, he was in Las Vegas at a fundraiser; didn't have time to lead the country. I forget his absences in both the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate - not wanting to get blamed for his voting record.
And it was one hundred years ago when the New York Times was still a credible source of information.
Their coverage of RMS Titanic was accurate and timely especially considering the technology of that era. That century-ago occurrence may very have been the last time that the Times deserved the moniker of a newspaper of record. Since that time, it's been a reliably hard-left, anti-American organ.
Titanic Sinks! Republican Opposition to Fighting Global Warming Linked
B. Obama at LV campaign rally the day after Amb Stevens assassination.
You're right, Barry, it IS all about you.
Titanic Sinks! Republican Opposition to Fighting Global Warming Linked
Very well said and, much to the Times discredit, indeed quite accurate. I think the unraveling of the paper's integrity started when Adolph Ochs yielded increasing control to his in-laws, the Sulzberger clan.
The new York times is now on record as aiding and abetting the coverup concerning Benghazi. I wonder if advertisers will turn a blind eye to the new York times if the time’s unwillingness to investigate the Benghazi coverup results in a terrorist attack? I know I wouldn’t support any company that would advertise in the new York times if that happened. That would be putting blood on my hands. There must be lots of soap and paper towels at the new York times because they evidently don’t care how much blood gets on their hands.
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.