Posted on 10/19/2012 10:32:59 AM PDT by Red Steel
Obama lies like a persian rug.
He said it was terrorism before he said it wasn’t terrorism.
So we don’t need to know what Obama knew and when did he know it...now he needs to explain WHY?
And the issue is very clear. Help rebels overthrow dictators in the region and HOPE they do not band together with islamic militants. Hope is not a strategy...
Gay baseball owners aren’t Republican.
This must be part of Hillary’s Revenge.
Could be the new "Woodward & Bernstien"?
RUSH IS DETAILING THIS VERY ARTICLE!
Why did the story change?
Because the control between Obama
and the Mullahs and al Qaeda and and Putin go BOTH ways.
And the undocumented pRes_ _ent obeys those to whom he bows.
Why did the story change?
Because the PREWRITTEN SCRIPT was no longer ‘operable’.
Afterward the Obama Administration "disavowed" those tweets.
That was the first time the Administration decided to blame a video then when called on it stepped away but after the murder of 4 in Benghazi, used it again to proclaim "Hate in America" to fault.
An act of terror is NOT an act of terrorism. Big difference. Every time my dad took off his strap terrorized me! He wasn’t a terrorist - just a good dad.
Love the graphics!
me too, thats why I stolez it
I don’t believe their, i.e. the Obama cabal, hope is that so called rebels do not band/bond with militants. I believe the Obama cabal wants to firmly establish a militant government under Sharia control. Little by little on Europe and the USA Sharia law is to be established. As for me I much,much more prefer the risk of Mormon beliefs than the possiobility Sharia law.
I believe this is wrong.
Here, he said these two things on on the 12th.
Here's the first quote:
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 to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
Okay, the word terrorism is not located in this paragraph. What is mentioned is "the denigration of a religious belief". Hmmm, why would you mention this, if you weren't blaming the deaths on a response to some act of denigration, say a particular now famous video, and a spontaneous reaction to it? Why would you say denigration didn't justify something, if you weren't linking the two acts, denigration with senseless acts/brutal violence?
The president is lying. McKlatchy's staff is either lying or they haven't the mental faculties to discern meaning.
Here's the second quote:
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
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. 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.
Here are three important points to take away from this two paragraph quote.
1. Note how he broke into a new concept with the last half of the first paragraph, and the first part of the second. He does mention our foreign diplomats before and after this new concept, but standing on it's own, who he sets up the statement to be about, it does not reference our lost diplomats. This is very crafty here. It absolves him from being held to state this event was an act of terrorism. He uses the word in general terms, but not directly tied to our men who died. Remember that!
2. Note how he says we will not waver in our commitment toward the end. He wants justice done... for terrorism? No, for this terrible act. This is his second chance to call this terrorism. He doesn't.
3. Check out the blue text. I've heard of Justice being achieved, completed, or realized. I don't hear of it being done. A project can be 'done' at any stage of it's progression. You can start a project and quit. It's done. It's over. It won't be completed, but the project is done. You can stop in the middle or just before it is completed. None the less, the project's done. It's over.
This guy probably did mean justice would be achieved, but he didn't say that. He, like the Clintons and their minions, constantly use weasel words. It leaves him/them an open door to walk thorough. "No, if you look carefully, I implied we would try. I never said we'd achieve justice. I simply said Justice would be done."
Ah thanks Bill..., er Hillary..., er Lanny..., er James..., er Barack.
Last but not least folks, please consider this.
Why was the video and spontaneous reaction to it so vital to Obama's attempt to cover his ass? Why was he so reluctant to abandon his attempt to tie this to a video and a spontaneous reaction for two weeks?
HE... Let me repeat that, "HE" knew that the diplomats had been demanding more security. His only way to avoid being tied to their deaths was to affix the deaths of these diplomats to a spontaneous act of violence? Why? Because he couldn't be held to account, if it was something he couldn't have foreseen.
Thankfully, we now know there was an open line to Libya. They knew in real time there was not spontaneous reaction to some video made months before.
When he tied this to spontaneous violence which he knew from the first evening didn't take place, he telegraphed that he alone had refused to send more security to Libya.
Checkmate!
source for statement:
AND I do not think that video had any purpose other than to stir up global Muslim reaction for some global UN probably, response to make it a crime against humanity to speak ill of Islam. And Obama became the prophet to make that happen. Then found it useful to use same video to cover up having been caught with his pants down in Libya, by ignoring, and refusing to plant US signature of security.. inside Libya. It is useful to remember Hillary's initial angry reaction.
He does not want US to know that we have armed AlQaeda to the teeth, so his army of rebels can move on to Syria. The Gorelick wall has been rebuilt to serve liberal politicians. But once the State Department career employees let the ‘cat’ out of the bag, that everybody in WDC and around this world that had the need to know, knew instantly that Benghazi was a terrorist attack the lies could no longer be hidden. I do not believe for a minute this is over. WE have armed Obama’s rebels and they are in this for the long haul.
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.