reply to post by milominderbinder
How sad for you to live in such a little shell.
Everybody knew it was SOME SORT of a terrorist attack pretty much right away. That's why Obama clearly and plainly said as much the very next
day in the Rose Garden.
He didn't "clearly and plainly" attribute Benghazi to terrorists. He spoke of heroes buried at Arlington, 9/11/2001, and promulgated lies and
"I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security
at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must
all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
Already, a reference to the horrinle video! "All necessary resources," after repeatedky denying
additional security to Stae and
This was not "senseless violence," but a premeditated attack.
Full Transcript of Obama's
"Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families
who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of
Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned
the news of this attack in Benghazi. "
None of the fallen in Benghazi were at Arlington yet, or at Walter Reed. clearly, he is referring to the past and ongoing loss of lives he's
contributed to; not Benghazi.
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.
Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that
justice is done for this terrible act."
"No acts of terror," does not refer to Benghazi; it follows in context the discussion of past attacks. Nothing here speaks of Benghazi "clearly and
"We will not waiver?" "Our commitment?"
What about a commitment to security and safety before
our Ambassador is murdered?
But what about the changing explanations?
What about the lack of security, such that reporters could stroll the crime scene and pick up evidence un-challenged?
Then...during the next couple of weeks they investigated thoroughly to ensure that they knew the full story before making any more statements.
This doesn't explain Carney, Rice and Obama going worldwide espousing a "spontaneous" protest about some obscure video untill they could no longer
deny the fact that there was no protest, the attack was coordinated, and it was directed against the Ambassador and U.S. property..
So...what's the problem?
Ignorance and denial.
This whole "Benghazi!!" thing is just pure hype and is indicative of how weak Romney is as a candidate.
Mitt Romney did not lie to the world about this. Mitt Romney did not report the dozen or so email messages on September 11, 2012, or the drone video
or the Libtan gov't confirmation that this was a premeditated terrorist attack and NOT a "spontaneous" protest that goy out of hand.
edit on 24-10-2012 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)