It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Did President Obama Call Benghazi Attack "An Act Of Terror" The Day After?

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:29 AM

Ben Swann takes a look at whether or not President Obama did in fact call the Benghazi attack an "act of terror" the very next day.
edit on 013131p://2926 by mike dangerously because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:37 AM
A question about the attack in Benghazi turns into a game of semantics between Obama and Romney.They don't care about why the Sate Department decided not to increase security.It's all about them and how many people they can con into believing their vote counts.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:47 AM
reply to post by mike dangerously

Personally, I view these 2 wordings in a different light from one another.

"An act of terror" to me feels of a broad generalization to the situation at hand and yet leaves the door wide open for different interpretations....such as an "act of terror" due to the video that the administration kept hammering on for 2 weeks.
In other words, if not for this video, there would not have been any need for any retaliation, which in turn, would not have led to this attack.

As opposed to a "terrorist attack"....

Which, by all accounts to date, is the more appropriate wording, being as this was a pre-planned attack on a specific target. Which should be taken extremely serious. And there should not be any delay or second guessing on seeking the attackers that killed these 4 Americans.

Basically, it's a word game, IMO.....

Unfortunately, Obama has been a disappointment when it comes to Foreign Affairs.
He is a weak leader.....

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 02:29 AM
Like I said in another thread.

So, um. . .

Hillary Clinton takes the blame.
Susan Rice goes on 5 news shows a week afterwards and says it's the video not terrorists.
Obama goes on Letterman, The View, The UN and blames the video, not terrorists
Jay Carney says it's the video and not terrorists.

A month later, the world realises that is was terrorists.

And Obama says, "I've been saying that all along!"

And all the dems are supporting this?


posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 02:29 AM
reply to post by snarky412
It's just a word game like you said.I am under the impression that both so-called parties just want this to go away.So,they will downplay it as much as they can.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 02:30 AM
reply to post by beezzer

Exactly! Nauseating....

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:34 AM
reply to post by beezzer

Well said, Beezzer. I am at this point not committing to either candidate. I did vote for Obama last time. I've not been impressed. I didn't expect miracles, but I did expect a level of dedication and commitment and gravity that so far, he has failed to demonstrate during a presidency we all knew was going to be tough.

Actually on many state ballots there is a write-in candidate named, honestly, Santa Claus I'm halfway tempted to vote for. It is funny but when I showed his video to my 8 year old she critiqued it mercilessly, as she did the presidential and vice presidential debates. Her dad and I might have gone a bit too far instilling the value of critical thinking and analysis in her.

Getting back to the subject, no, I do not believe for one moment that Obama's broad unspecific mention of the word "terror" in his speech in any way means what he now claims. It's absurd and really stretching to think this absolves him in any way for the failures of his administration in this matter.

I also wanted to kick that ninny undecided voter that was questioned in the audience (in the CNN) broadcast, who said that basically out of respect for the commander in chief we should not question Obama's handling of the whole mess. Sheeplethink at its most outrageous was on display there. My blood usually does boil when it comes time for the comments from the peanut gallery. It's rare they find people who are actually capable of comprehending what they heard and articulating a coherent response.

I also thought Candy Crowley did an abysmal job as a moderator. Her bias was clearly on display and she did a horrible job making sure each candidate got their fair share of talking time. Obama went on and on several times. But Romney gets flak for being "unlikable" by many people because he was trying to assert his right to a fair share of talking time.

Sorry I think I just ranted here. Now despite the tone of my post, I again assert I'm NOT in Romney's camp either. I have got my eye on him, too.
edit on 18-10-2012 by SheeplFlavoredAgain because: Typos

new topics

top topics


log in