Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

The Inconvenient Truth About Benghazi

Posted by   + Show Post

What happened in Benghazi last Sept. 11 and 12 was terrible in every way. The genesis of the scandal? It looks to me like this:

The Obama White House sees every event as a political event. Really, every event, even an attack on a consulate and the killing of an ambassador.

Because of that, it could not tolerate the idea that the armed assault on the Benghazi consulate was a premeditated act of Islamist terrorism. That would carry a whole world of unhappy political implications, and demand certain actions. And the American presidential election was only eight weeks away. They wanted this problem to go away, or at least to bleed the meaning from it.

image

Gregory Hicks, a State Department foreign service officer and former deputy chief of mission/charge d'affairs in Libya, during Wednesday's congressional hearing on Benghazi.


Because the White House could not tolerate the idea of Benghazi as a planned and deliberate terrorist assault, it had to be made into something else. So they said it was a spontaneous street demonstration over an anti-Muhammad YouTube video made by a nutty California con man. After all, that had happened earlier in the day, in Cairo. It sounded plausible. And maybe they believed it at first. Maybe they wanted to believe it. But the message was out: Provocative video plus primitive street Arabs equals sparky explosion. Not our fault. Blame the producer! Who was promptly jailed.

If what happened in Benghazi was not a planned and prolonged terrorist assault, if it was merely a street demonstration gone bad, the administration could not take military action to protect Americans there. You take military action in response to a planned and coordinated attack by armed combatants. You don't if it's an essentially meaningless street demonstration that came and went.

Why couldn't the administration tolerate the idea that Benghazi was a planned terrorist event? Because they didn't want this attack dominating the headline with an election coming. It would open the administration to criticism of its intervention in Libya. President Obama had supported overthrowing Moammar Gadhafi and put U.S. force behind the Libyan rebels. Now Libyans were killing our diplomats. Was our policy wrong? More importantly, the administration's efforts against al Qaeda would suddenly come under scrutiny and questioning. The president, after the killing of Osama bin Laden, had taken to suggesting al Qaeda was over. Al Qaeda was done. But if an al Qaeda offshoot in Libya was killing our diplomats, the age of terrorism was not over.

The Obama White House didn't want any story that might harm, get in the way of or lessen the extent of the president's coming victory. The White House probably anticipated that Mitt Romney would soon attempt to make points with Benghazi. And indeed he did pounce, too quickly, the very next morning, giving a statement that was at once aggressive and forgettable, as was his wont.

The president's Republican challenger was looking for gain and didn't find it. But here's the thing. More is expected from the president than mere politics. That's why we tend to re-elect them. A sitting president is supposed to be bigger, weightier, more serious than his rival.

This week's testimony from Messrs. Hicks, Thompson and Nordstrom was clarifying, to say the least.

Mr. Hicks, deputy chief of mission at the time of the attack, said the YouTube video was never an event in Libya, and no one in Benghazi or Tripoli saw what was happening as a spontaneous street protest. Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, sent an email on Sept. 12 saying: "The group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists." Mr. Hicks himself said he spoke to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at 2 a.m. Benghazi time the day after the attack and told her it was a planned attack, not a street protest.

Still, the administration stuck to its story and sent out Susan Rice—the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., someone with no direct connection to the event—to go on the Sunday talk shows and insist it was all about a video. They sent someone who could function as a mouther of talking points, someone who was told what to say and could be relied upon to say it. Mr. Hicks said that when he saw what Ms. Rice said his jaw dropped.

All of this is bad enough. Far worse is the implied question that hung over the House hearing, and that cries out for further investigation. That is the idea that if the administration was to play down the nature of the attack it would have to play down the response—that is, if you want something to be a nonstory you have to have a nonresponse. So you don't launch a military rescue operation, you don't scramble jets, and you have a rationalization—they're too far away, they'll never make it in time. This was probably true, but why not take the chance when American lives are at stake?

Mr. Hicks told the compelling story of his talk with the leader of a special operations team that wanted to fly to Benghazi from Tripoli to help. The team leader was told to stand down, and he was enraged. Mark Thompson wanted an emergency support team sent to the consulate and was confounded when his superiors in Washington would not agree.

Was all this incompetence? Or was it politics disguised as the fog of war? Who called these shots and made these decisions? Who decided to do nothing?

From the day of the attack until this week, the White House spin was too clever by half. In the weeks and months after the attack White House spokesmen said they were investigating the story, an internal review was under way. When the story blew open again, last week, they said it was too far in the past: "Benghazi happened a long time ago." Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, really said that.

Think of that. They can't give answers when the story's fresh because it just happened, they're looking into it. Eight months later they don't have anything to say because it all happened so long ago.

Think of how low your opinion of the American people has to be to think you can get away, forever, with that.

Will this story ever be completely told? Maybe not. But it's not going to go away, either. It's a prime example of the stupidity of all-politics-all-the-time. You make some bad moves for political reasons. And then you suffer politically because you made bad moves.

by on May. 12, 2013 at 2:07 AM
Replies (21-30):
jcrew6
by Jenney on May. 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM
1 mom liked this

I want the truth.  Lets follow Obama in the days/weeks after the Benghazi attack...  Compliments of the Wa PO.....  Obama had PLENTY of opportunities to be honest with the American People and families involved in the attack.  He didn't.  He failed.  He tried to remain "present".  Fail.  

Because Obama failed and lied and allowed his admin to lie, he is not deserving of the office of the presidency.  

The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?

The Facts

Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“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.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“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.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”
Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.

The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.

Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

. A key question is what the president meant when he said “right.” Was this agreement with Kroft or just verbal acknowledgment? It is a bit in the eye of the beholder, but we lean toward agreement that he avoided using “terrorism.” For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.)

Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)

Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”
OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.

In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Quoting denise3680:



Quoting jcrew6:

Actually, first he made references to the protest about religious difference. Then he brought up his visit to troop gravesites, then he made a general statement on acts of terror.  But,in the rose garden he never specifically said~ Benghazi was an act of terror.  Meanwhile, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton were making more references to a movie than they were to a planned terroristic attack.   But now, ohhh wait...  back to Obama? yea, he promised justice. Justice equates to blame game and coverup in your world?  Obama and his admin have failed the American people.  

Quoting denise3680:

Did the President not come out into the Rosae garden the very next morning and call it an act of terrorism?  I do beleive he did.  So whatever breakdown was going on was on the State Department.  Failed the American people?  Really?  Come on:/  Noone knows if this could have been prevented even with the extra security in place.  The Libyan security tucked tail and left also, are they to blame also?  Yes, someone should get introuble for the failure of communication on the part of safety, but it is known that every 9/11 since the towers came down has been high alert status.  It was always a possibility that something could happen to one of our American Embassies or facilities somewhere in the world, noone knew where.  What information could have been told, before everything was known, that wouldmake a difference?  Noone is saying this is not a major deal, but what exactly is the information needed to get past this and do the things that need to be done to get this country back in order.  I feel if they spent this much time on fixing the economy and domestic affairs, we would have some progress:/



Ok, so that happened and was said, but what exactly are you guys wanting in this?  Is it really the truth or Obama to be impeached?  It seems that no matter what is revealed it will never be enough unless you get that one very thing.  There are plenty of other people that are in charge or have say so in this situation but it appears many on this board are only focusing on one thing and ignoring everything else.  The information I gave came from many news and article sources, I have read much of the transcripts and many if not all fingers point to the State Department and their lack of doing whatever needed to be done, if that is true what they are saying.  All the information is not known but many have already come to their own conclusions:/  I am tired of fighting this fight.  You guys will never see everything I am done:/




denise3680
by Gold Member on May. 14, 2013 at 10:14 AM

 


Quoting jcrew6:

I want the truth.  Lets follow Obama in the days/weeks after the Benghazi attack...  Compliments of the Wa PO.....  Obama had PLENTY of opportunities to be honest with the American People and families involved in the attack.  He didn't.  He failed.  He tried to remain "present".  Fail.  

Because Obama failed and lied and allowed his admin to lie, he is not deserving of the office of the presidency.  

 

The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?

 

 

The Facts

 

Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“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.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“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.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”
Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.

 

The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.

Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

 

. A key question is what the president meant when he said “right.” Was this agreement with Kroft or just verbal acknowledgment? It is a bit in the eye of the beholder, but we lean toward agreement that he avoided using “terrorism.” For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.)

 

Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

 

(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)

Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”
OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

 

So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.

In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Quoting denise3680:

 

 

Quoting jcrew6:

Actually, first he made references to the protest about religious difference. Then he brought up his visit to troop gravesites, then he made a general statement on acts of terror.  But,in the rose garden he never specifically said~ Benghazi was an act of terror.  Meanwhile, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton were making more references to a movie than they were to a planned terroristic attack.   But now, ohhh wait...  back to Obama? yea, he promised justice. Justice equates to blame game and coverup in your world?  Obama and his admin have failed the American people.  

Quoting denise3680:

Did the President not come out into the Rosae garden the very next morning and call it an act of terrorism?  I do beleive he did.  So whatever breakdown was going on was on the State Department.  Failed the American people?  Really?  Come on:/  Noone knows if this could have been prevented even with the extra security in place.  The Libyan security tucked tail and left also, are they to blame also?  Yes, someone should get introuble for the failure of communication on the part of safety, but it is known that every 9/11 since the towers came down has been high alert status.  It was always a possibility that something could happen to one of our American Embassies or facilities somewhere in the world, noone knew where.  What information could have been told, before everything was known, that wouldmake a difference?  Noone is saying this is not a major deal, but what exactly is the information needed to get past this and do the things that need to be done to get this country back in order.  I feel if they spent this much time on fixing the economy and domestic affairs, we would have some progress:/

 

 

Ok, so that happened and was said, but what exactly are you guys wanting in this?  Is it really the truth or Obama to be impeached?  It seems that no matter what is revealed it will never be enough unless you get that one very thing.  There are plenty of other people that are in charge or have say so in this situation but it appears many on this board are only focusing on one thing and ignoring everything else.  The information I gave came from many news and article sources, I have read much of the transcripts and many if not all fingers point to the State Department and their lack of doing whatever needed to be done, if that is true what they are saying.  All the information is not known but many have already come to their own conclusions:/  I am tired of fighting this fight.  You guys will never see everything I am done:/

 

 

 

I see where you are going with this and I understand your line of thinking, I was part of those discussions when this thread was active so I know what was being said, but thanks for the update.  So you wanted him to come out and call it an act of terrorism and then do what?  I agree and have said in other threads like this, that when I fist heard about this attack, I thought terrorism, but then wanted to get as much information as possible to come to a conclusion.  So until everything that the American public should or can know is out I will wait this one out. 

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on May. 14, 2013 at 10:33 AM

When the thread was active? This is a new thread from Sunday, two days ago. People are replying to it, and it's two days old, so it definitely is active.

What's your point about the age of the thread? Are you - like Carney - saying that "Benghazi was a long time ago" - even the whole truth hasn't come out till last Wednesday, six days ago, or if you count the partial story on the CBS Sunday report, 10 days ago?

The "terrorism" part is out, as well as the purposeful denials of security, plus the willful deception of the nature of the attack after the Libyan president's statement that it was terrorism, delaying the FBI investigation of the scene, plus the stand down orders of the military by WH.

I'm sure other things will come out - but what has come out is disastrous. These things definitely can be mentioned, even if you choose  not to.

Are you a spokeswoman and apologist for the administration?


Quoting denise3680:



Quoting jcrew6:

I want the truth.  Lets follow Obama in the days/weeks after the Benghazi attack...  Compliments of the Wa PO.....  Obama had PLENTY of opportunities to be honest with the American People and families involved in the attack.  He didn't.  He failed.  He tried to remain "present".  Fail.  

Because Obama failed and lied and allowed his admin to lie, he is not deserving of the office of the presidency.  


The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?



The Facts


Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“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.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“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.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”
Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.


The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.

Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”


. A key question is what the president meant when he said “right.” Was this agreement with Kroft or just verbal acknowledgment? It is a bit in the eye of the beholder, but we lean toward agreement that he avoided using “terrorism.” For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.)


Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”


(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)

Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”
OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”


So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.

In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Quoting denise3680:



Quoting jcrew6:

Actually, first he made references to the protest about religious difference. Then he brought up his visit to troop gravesites, then he made a general statement on acts of terror.  But,in the rose garden he never specifically said~ Benghazi was an act of terror.  Meanwhile, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton were making more references to a movie than they were to a planned terroristic attack.   But now, ohhh wait...  back to Obama? yea, he promised justice. Justice equates to blame game and coverup in your world?  Obama and his admin have failed the American people.  

Quoting denise3680:

Did the President not come out into the Rosae garden the very next morning and call it an act of terrorism?  I do beleive he did.  So whatever breakdown was going on was on the State Department.  Failed the American people?  Really?  Come on:/  Noone knows if this could have been prevented even with the extra security in place.  The Libyan security tucked tail and left also, are they to blame also?  Yes, someone should get introuble for the failure of communication on the part of safety, but it is known that every 9/11 since the towers came down has been high alert status.  It was always a possibility that something could happen to one of our American Embassies or facilities somewhere in the world, noone knew where.  What information could have been told, before everything was known, that wouldmake a difference?  Noone is saying this is not a major deal, but what exactly is the information needed to get past this and do the things that need to be done to get this country back in order.  I feel if they spent this much time on fixing the economy and domestic affairs, we would have some progress:/



Ok, so that happened and was said, but what exactly are you guys wanting in this?  Is it really the truth or Obama to be impeached?  It seems that no matter what is revealed it will never be enough unless you get that one very thing.  There are plenty of other people that are in charge or have say so in this situation but it appears many on this board are only focusing on one thing and ignoring everything else.  The information I gave came from many news and article sources, I have read much of the transcripts and many if not all fingers point to the State Department and their lack of doing whatever needed to be done, if that is true what they are saying.  All the information is not known but many have already come to their own conclusions:/  I am tired of fighting this fight.  You guys will never see everything I am done:/




I see where you are going with this and I understand your line of thinking, I was part of those discussions when this thread was active so I know what was being said, but thanks for the update.  So you wanted him to come out and call it an act of terrorism and then do what?  I agree and have said in other threads like this, that when I fist heard about this attack, I thought terrorism, but then wanted to get as much information as possible to come to a conclusion.  So until everything that the American public should or can know is out I will wait this one out. 



denise3680
by Gold Member on May. 14, 2013 at 11:00 AM
1 mom liked this

 


Quoting SallyMJ:

When the thread was active? This is a new thread from Sunday, two days ago. People are replying to it, and it's two days old, so it definitely is active.

What's your point about the age of the thread? Are you - like Carney - saying that "Benghazi was a long time ago" - even the whole truth hasn't come out till last Wednesday, six days ago, or if you count the partial story on the CBS Sunday report, 10 days ago?

The "terrorism" part is out, as well as the purposeful denials of security, plus the willful deception of the nature of the attack after the Libyan president's statement that it was terrorism, delaying the FBI investigation of the scene, plus the stand down orders of the military by WH.

I'm sure other things will come out - but what has come out is disastrous. These things definitely can be mentioned, even if you choose  not to.

Are you a spokeswoman and apologist for the administration?

 

Quoting denise3680:

 

 

Quoting jcrew6:

I want the truth.  Lets follow Obama in the days/weeks after the Benghazi attack...  Compliments of the Wa PO.....  Obama had PLENTY of opportunities to be honest with the American People and families involved in the attack.  He didn't.  He failed.  He tried to remain "present".  Fail.  

Because Obama failed and lied and allowed his admin to lie, he is not deserving of the office of the presidency.  

 

The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?

 

 

The Facts

 

Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“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.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“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.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”
Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.

 

The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.

Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

 

. A key question is what the president meant when he said “right.” Was this agreement with Kroft or just verbal acknowledgment? It is a bit in the eye of the beholder, but we lean toward agreement that he avoided using “terrorism.” For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.)

 

Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

 

(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)

Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”
OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

 

So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.

In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Quoting denise3680:

 

 

Quoting jcrew6:

Actually, first he made references to the protest about religious difference. Then he brought up his visit to troop gravesites, then he made a general statement on acts of terror.  But,in the rose garden he never specifically said~ Benghazi was an act of terror.  Meanwhile, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton were making more references to a movie than they were to a planned terroristic attack.   But now, ohhh wait...  back to Obama? yea, he promised justice. Justice equates to blame game and coverup in your world?  Obama and his admin have failed the American people.  

Quoting denise3680:

Did the President not come out into the Rosae garden the very next morning and call it an act of terrorism?  I do beleive he did.  So whatever breakdown was going on was on the State Department.  Failed the American people?  Really?  Come on:/  Noone knows if this could have been prevented even with the extra security in place.  The Libyan security tucked tail and left also, are they to blame also?  Yes, someone should get introuble for the failure of communication on the part of safety, but it is known that every 9/11 since the towers came down has been high alert status.  It was always a possibility that something could happen to one of our American Embassies or facilities somewhere in the world, noone knew where.  What information could have been told, before everything was known, that wouldmake a difference?  Noone is saying this is not a major deal, but what exactly is the information needed to get past this and do the things that need to be done to get this country back in order.  I feel if they spent this much time on fixing the economy and domestic affairs, we would have some progress:/

 

 

Ok, so that happened and was said, but what exactly are you guys wanting in this?  Is it really the truth or Obama to be impeached?  It seems that no matter what is revealed it will never be enough unless you get that one very thing.  There are plenty of other people that are in charge or have say so in this situation but it appears many on this board are only focusing on one thing and ignoring everything else.  The information I gave came from many news and article sources, I have read much of the transcripts and many if not all fingers point to the State Department and their lack of doing whatever needed to be done, if that is true what they are saying.  All the information is not known but many have already come to their own conclusions:/  I am tired of fighting this fight.  You guys will never see everything I am done:/

 

 

 

I see where you are going with this and I understand your line of thinking, I was part of those discussions when this thread was active so I know what was being said, but thanks for the update.  So you wanted him to come out and call it an act of terrorism and then do what?  I agree and have said in other threads like this, that when I fist heard about this attack, I thought terrorism, but then wanted to get as much information as possible to come to a conclusion.  So until everything that the American public should or can know is out I will wait this one out. 

 

 

I have highlighted what I am refering to, but of course little mis knowit all has to say her two cents but has no clue what the hell she is talking about:/   Go play somehwere else, I will wait until Jcrew, the person I am talking to answers, you are ridiculous:/ 

 

Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on May. 14, 2013 at 11:14 AM

 

She is an Obamabot like you, I can't believe that you two aren't fast friends.

Quoting SallyMJ:

When the thread was active? This is a new thread from Sunday, two days ago. People are replying to it, and it's two days old, so it definitely is active.

What's your point about the age of the thread? Are you - like Carney - saying that "Benghazi was a long time ago" - even the whole truth hasn't come out till last Wednesday, six days ago, or if you count the partial story on the CBS Sunday report, 10 days ago?

The "terrorism" part is out, as well as the purposeful denials of security, plus the willful deception of the nature of the attack after the Libyan president's statement that it was terrorism, delaying the FBI investigation of the scene, plus the stand down orders of the military by WH.

I'm sure other things will come out - but what has come out is disastrous. These things definitely can be mentioned, even if you choose  not to.

Are you a spokeswoman and apologist for the administration?

 

Quoting denise3680:

 

 

Quoting jcrew6:

I want the truth.  Lets follow Obama in the days/weeks after the Benghazi attack...  Compliments of the Wa PO.....  Obama had PLENTY of opportunities to be honest with the American People and families involved in the attack.  He didn't.  He failed.  He tried to remain "present".  Fail.  

Because Obama failed and lied and allowed his admin to lie, he is not deserving of the office of the presidency.  

 

The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?

 

 

The Facts

 

Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“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.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“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.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”
Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.

 

The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.

Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

 

. A key question is what the president meant when he said “right.” Was this agreement with Kroft or just verbal acknowledgment? It is a bit in the eye of the beholder, but we lean toward agreement that he avoided using “terrorism.” For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.)

 

Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

 

(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)

Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”
OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

 

So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.

In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Quoting denise3680:

 

 

Quoting jcrew6:

Actually, first he made references to the protest about religious difference. Then he brought up his visit to troop gravesites, then he made a general statement on acts of terror.  But,in the rose garden he never specifically said~ Benghazi was an act of terror.  Meanwhile, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton were making more references to a movie than they were to a planned terroristic attack.   But now, ohhh wait...  back to Obama? yea, he promised justice. Justice equates to blame game and coverup in your world?  Obama and his admin have failed the American people.  

Quoting denise3680:

Did the President not come out into the Rosae garden the very next morning and call it an act of terrorism?  I do beleive he did.  So whatever breakdown was going on was on the State Department.  Failed the American people?  Really?  Come on:/  Noone knows if this could have been prevented even with the extra security in place.  The Libyan security tucked tail and left also, are they to blame also?  Yes, someone should get introuble for the failure of communication on the part of safety, but it is known that every 9/11 since the towers came down has been high alert status.  It was always a possibility that something could happen to one of our American Embassies or facilities somewhere in the world, noone knew where.  What information could have been told, before everything was known, that wouldmake a difference?  Noone is saying this is not a major deal, but what exactly is the information needed to get past this and do the things that need to be done to get this country back in order.  I feel if they spent this much time on fixing the economy and domestic affairs, we would have some progress:/

 

 

Ok, so that happened and was said, but what exactly are you guys wanting in this?  Is it really the truth or Obama to be impeached?  It seems that no matter what is revealed it will never be enough unless you get that one very thing.  There are plenty of other people that are in charge or have say so in this situation but it appears many on this board are only focusing on one thing and ignoring everything else.  The information I gave came from many news and article sources, I have read much of the transcripts and many if not all fingers point to the State Department and their lack of doing whatever needed to be done, if that is true what they are saying.  All the information is not known but many have already come to their own conclusions:/  I am tired of fighting this fight.  You guys will never see everything I am done:/

 

 

 

I see where you are going with this and I understand your line of thinking, I was part of those discussions when this thread was active so I know what was being said, but thanks for the update.  So you wanted him to come out and call it an act of terrorism and then do what?  I agree and have said in other threads like this, that when I fist heard about this attack, I thought terrorism, but then wanted to get as much information as possible to come to a conclusion.  So until everything that the American public should or can know is out I will wait this one out. 

 

 


 

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on May. 14, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Since you know everything since the beginning of time.

God should take a hint from you - I'm sure you could teach him a lot.


Quoting denise3680:



Quoting SallyMJ:

When the thread was active? This is a new thread from Sunday, two days ago. People are replying to it, and it's two days old, so it definitely is active.

What's your point about the age of the thread? Are you - like Carney - saying that "Benghazi was a long time ago" - even the whole truth hasn't come out till last Wednesday, six days ago, or if you count the partial story on the CBS Sunday report, 10 days ago?

The "terrorism" part is out, as well as the purposeful denials of security, plus the willful deception of the nature of the attack after the Libyan president's statement that it was terrorism, delaying the FBI investigation of the scene, plus the stand down orders of the military by WH.

I'm sure other things will come out - but what has come out is disastrous. These things definitely can be mentioned, even if you choose  not to.

Are you a spokeswoman and apologist for the administration?


Quoting denise3680:



Quoting jcrew6:

I want the truth.  Lets follow Obama in the days/weeks after the Benghazi attack...  Compliments of the Wa PO.....  Obama had PLENTY of opportunities to be honest with the American People and families involved in the attack.  He didn't.  He failed.  He tried to remain "present".  Fail.  

Because Obama failed and lied and allowed his admin to lie, he is not deserving of the office of the presidency.  


The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?



The Facts


Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“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.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“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.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”
Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.


The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.

Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”


. A key question is what the president meant when he said “right.” Was this agreement with Kroft or just verbal acknowledgment? It is a bit in the eye of the beholder, but we lean toward agreement that he avoided using “terrorism.” For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.)


Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”


(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)

Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”
OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”


So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.

In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Quoting denise3680:



Quoting jcrew6:

Actually, first he made references to the protest about religious difference. Then he brought up his visit to troop gravesites, then he made a general statement on acts of terror.  But,in the rose garden he never specifically said~ Benghazi was an act of terror.  Meanwhile, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton were making more references to a movie than they were to a planned terroristic attack.   But now, ohhh wait...  back to Obama? yea, he promised justice. Justice equates to blame game and coverup in your world?  Obama and his admin have failed the American people.  

Quoting denise3680:

Did the President not come out into the Rosae garden the very next morning and call it an act of terrorism?  I do beleive he did.  So whatever breakdown was going on was on the State Department.  Failed the American people?  Really?  Come on:/  Noone knows if this could have been prevented even with the extra security in place.  The Libyan security tucked tail and left also, are they to blame also?  Yes, someone should get introuble for the failure of communication on the part of safety, but it is known that every 9/11 since the towers came down has been high alert status.  It was always a possibility that something could happen to one of our American Embassies or facilities somewhere in the world, noone knew where.  What information could have been told, before everything was known, that wouldmake a difference?  Noone is saying this is not a major deal, but what exactly is the information needed to get past this and do the things that need to be done to get this country back in order.  I feel if they spent this much time on fixing the economy and domestic affairs, we would have some progress:/



Ok, so that happened and was said, but what exactly are you guys wanting in this?  Is it really the truth or Obama to be impeached?  It seems that no matter what is revealed it will never be enough unless you get that one very thing.  There are plenty of other people that are in charge or have say so in this situation but it appears many on this board are only focusing on one thing and ignoring everything else.  The information I gave came from many news and article sources, I have read much of the transcripts and many if not all fingers point to the State Department and their lack of doing whatever needed to be done, if that is true what they are saying.  All the information is not known but many have already come to their own conclusions:/  I am tired of fighting this fight.  You guys will never see everything I am done:/




I see where you are going with this and I understand your line of thinking, I was part of those discussions when this thread was active so I know what was being said, but thanks for the update.  So you wanted him to come out and call it an act of terrorism and then do what?  I agree and have said in other threads like this, that when I fist heard about this attack, I thought terrorism, but then wanted to get as much information as possible to come to a conclusion.  So until everything that the American public should or can know is out I will wait this one out. 



I have highlighted what I am refering to, but of course little mis knowit all has to say her two cents but has no clue what the hell she is talking about:/   Go play somehwere else, I will wait until Jcrew, the person I am talking to answers, you are ridiculous:/ 




SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on May. 14, 2013 at 4:04 PM
1 mom liked this

I know - it's a curious thing. I wonder myself. 


Quoting Billiejeens:


She is an Obamabot like you, I can't believe that you two aren't fast friends.

Quoting SallyMJ:

When the thread was active? This is a new thread from Sunday, two days ago. People are replying to it, and it's two days old, so it definitely is active.

What's your point about the age of the thread? Are you - like Carney - saying that "Benghazi was a long time ago" - even the whole truth hasn't come out till last Wednesday, six days ago, or if you count the partial story on the CBS Sunday report, 10 days ago?

The "terrorism" part is out, as well as the purposeful denials of security, plus the willful deception of the nature of the attack after the Libyan president's statement that it was terrorism, delaying the FBI investigation of the scene, plus the stand down orders of the military by WH.

I'm sure other things will come out - but what has come out is disastrous. These things definitely can be mentioned, even if you choose  not to.

Are you a spokeswoman and apologist for the administration?


Quoting denise3680:



Quoting jcrew6:

I want the truth.  Lets follow Obama in the days/weeks after the Benghazi attack...  Compliments of the Wa PO.....  Obama had PLENTY of opportunities to be honest with the American People and families involved in the attack.  He didn't.  He failed.  He tried to remain "present".  Fail.  

Because Obama failed and lied and allowed his admin to lie, he is not deserving of the office of the presidency.  


The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?



The Facts


Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“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.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“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.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”
Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.


The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.

Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”


. A key question is what the president meant when he said “right.” Was this agreement with Kroft or just verbal acknowledgment? It is a bit in the eye of the beholder, but we lean toward agreement that he avoided using “terrorism.” For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.)


Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”


(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)

Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”
OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”


So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.

In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Quoting denise3680:



Quoting jcrew6:

Actually, first he made references to the protest about religious difference. Then he brought up his visit to troop gravesites, then he made a general statement on acts of terror.  But,in the rose garden he never specifically said~ Benghazi was an act of terror.  Meanwhile, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton were making more references to a movie than they were to a planned terroristic attack.   But now, ohhh wait...  back to Obama? yea, he promised justice. Justice equates to blame game and coverup in your world?  Obama and his admin have failed the American people.  

Quoting denise3680:

Did the President not come out into the Rosae garden the very next morning and call it an act of terrorism?  I do beleive he did.  So whatever breakdown was going on was on the State Department.  Failed the American people?  Really?  Come on:/  Noone knows if this could have been prevented even with the extra security in place.  The Libyan security tucked tail and left also, are they to blame also?  Yes, someone should get introuble for the failure of communication on the part of safety, but it is known that every 9/11 since the towers came down has been high alert status.  It was always a possibility that something could happen to one of our American Embassies or facilities somewhere in the world, noone knew where.  What information could have been told, before everything was known, that wouldmake a difference?  Noone is saying this is not a major deal, but what exactly is the information needed to get past this and do the things that need to be done to get this country back in order.  I feel if they spent this much time on fixing the economy and domestic affairs, we would have some progress:/



Ok, so that happened and was said, but what exactly are you guys wanting in this?  Is it really the truth or Obama to be impeached?  It seems that no matter what is revealed it will never be enough unless you get that one very thing.  There are plenty of other people that are in charge or have say so in this situation but it appears many on this board are only focusing on one thing and ignoring everything else.  The information I gave came from many news and article sources, I have read much of the transcripts and many if not all fingers point to the State Department and their lack of doing whatever needed to be done, if that is true what they are saying.  All the information is not known but many have already come to their own conclusions:/  I am tired of fighting this fight.  You guys will never see everything I am done:/




I see where you are going with this and I understand your line of thinking, I was part of those discussions when this thread was active so I know what was being said, but thanks for the update.  So you wanted him to come out and call it an act of terrorism and then do what?  I agree and have said in other threads like this, that when I fist heard about this attack, I thought terrorism, but then wanted to get as much information as possible to come to a conclusion.  So until everything that the American public should or can know is out I will wait this one out. 







jcrew6
by Jenney on May. 15, 2013 at 12:30 AM
2 moms liked this


The problem with your line of thinking, Obama and his admin have on more than one occasion had a opportunity to be transparent and responsible.  Not just Benghazi.  However, he and his admin. failed to be honest, transparent, and accountable,  

Quoting denise3680:



Quoting jcrew6:

I want the truth.  Lets follow Obama in the days/weeks after the Benghazi attack...  Compliments of the Wa PO.....  Obama had PLENTY of opportunities to be honest with the American People and families involved in the attack.  He didn't.  He failed.  He tried to remain "present".  Fail.  

Because Obama failed and lied and allowed his admin to lie, he is not deserving of the office of the presidency.  


The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?



The Facts


Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“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.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“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.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”
Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.


The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.

Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”


. A key question is what the president meant when he said “right.” Was this agreement with Kroft or just verbal acknowledgment? It is a bit in the eye of the beholder, but we lean toward agreement that he avoided using “terrorism.” For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.)


Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”


(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)

Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”
OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”


So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.

In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Quoting denise3680:



Quoting jcrew6:

Actually, first he made references to the protest about religious difference. Then he brought up his visit to troop gravesites, then he made a general statement on acts of terror.  But,in the rose garden he never specifically said~ Benghazi was an act of terror.  Meanwhile, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton were making more references to a movie than they were to a planned terroristic attack.   But now, ohhh wait...  back to Obama? yea, he promised justice. Justice equates to blame game and coverup in your world?  Obama and his admin have failed the American people.  

Quoting denise3680:

Did the President not come out into the Rosae garden the very next morning and call it an act of terrorism?  I do beleive he did.  So whatever breakdown was going on was on the State Department.  Failed the American people?  Really?  Come on:/  Noone knows if this could have been prevented even with the extra security in place.  The Libyan security tucked tail and left also, are they to blame also?  Yes, someone should get introuble for the failure of communication on the part of safety, but it is known that every 9/11 since the towers came down has been high alert status.  It was always a possibility that something could happen to one of our American Embassies or facilities somewhere in the world, noone knew where.  What information could have been told, before everything was known, that wouldmake a difference?  Noone is saying this is not a major deal, but what exactly is the information needed to get past this and do the things that need to be done to get this country back in order.  I feel if they spent this much time on fixing the economy and domestic affairs, we would have some progress:/



Ok, so that happened and was said, but what exactly are you guys wanting in this?  Is it really the truth or Obama to be impeached?  It seems that no matter what is revealed it will never be enough unless you get that one very thing.  There are plenty of other people that are in charge or have say so in this situation but it appears many on this board are only focusing on one thing and ignoring everything else.  The information I gave came from many news and article sources, I have read much of the transcripts and many if not all fingers point to the State Department and their lack of doing whatever needed to be done, if that is true what they are saying.  All the information is not known but many have already come to their own conclusions:/  I am tired of fighting this fight.  You guys will never see everything I am done:/




I see where you are going with this and I understand your line of thinking, I was part of those discussions when this thread was active so I know what was being said, but thanks for the update.  So you wanted him to come out and call it an act of terrorism and then do what?  I agree and have said in other threads like this, that when I fist heard about this attack, I thought terrorism, but then wanted to get as much information as possible to come to a conclusion.  So until everything that the American public should or can know is out I will wait this one out. 



motherslove82
by Bronze Member on May. 15, 2013 at 12:50 AM
3 moms liked this
He said "acts of terror will not stand" then flew to Vegas to party and raise funds while he sent Susan Rice to tell the world it was about a YouTube video. The lies and cover ups need to stop.

Quoting denise3680:

Did the President not come out into the Rosae garden the very next morning and call it an act of terrorism?  I do beleive he did.  So whatever breakdown was going on was on the State Department.  Failed the American people?  Really?  Come on:/  Noone knows if this could have been prevented even with the extra security in place.  The Libyan security tucked tail and left also, are they to blame also?  Yes, someone should get introuble for the failure of communication on the part of safety, but it is known that every 9/11 since the towers came down has been high alert status.  It was always a possibility that something could happen to one of our American Embassies or facilities somewhere in the world, noone knew where.  What information could have been told, before everything was known, that wouldmake a difference?  Noone is saying this is not a major deal, but what exactly is the information needed to get past this and do the things that need to be done to get this country back in order.  I feel if they spent this much time on fixing the economy and domestic affairs, we would have some progress:/

autodidact
by Silver Member on May. 15, 2013 at 1:00 AM

actually, he did, @ 58 seconds. what else would be be talking about on Sept 12? 


Quoting jcrew6:

Actually, first he made references to the protest about religious difference. Then he brought up his visit to troop gravesites, then he made a general statement on acts of terror.  But,in the rose garden he never specifically said~ Benghazi was an act of terror.  Meanwhile, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton were making more references to a movie than they were to a planned terroristic attack.   But now, ohhh wait...  back to Obama? yea, he promised justice. Justice equates to blame game and coverup in your world?  Obama and his admin have failed the American people.  

Quoting denise3680:

Did the President not come out into the Rosae garden the very next morning and call it an act of terrorism?  I do beleive he did.  So whatever breakdown was going on was on the State Department.  Failed the American people?  Really?  Come on:/  Noone knows if this could have been prevented even with the extra security in place.  The Libyan security tucked tail and left also, are they to blame also?  Yes, someone should get introuble for the failure of communication on the part of safety, but it is known that every 9/11 since the towers came down has been high alert status.  It was always a possibility that something could happen to one of our American Embassies or facilities somewhere in the world, noone knew where.  What information could have been told, before everything was known, that wouldmake a difference?  Noone is saying this is not a major deal, but what exactly is the information needed to get past this and do the things that need to be done to get this country back in order.  I feel if they spent this much time on fixing the economy and domestic affairs, we would have some progress:/





Autodidact, Unrepentant Heathen

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)