Proof: Obama Refused to Call Benghazi Terror, CBS Covered Up

page: 1
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+15 more 
posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Proof: Obama Refused to Call Benghazi Terror, CBS Covered Up


www.breitbart.com

In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof--two days before the election, far too late to reach the media and the public--that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack "terrorism" from the beginning.
CBS unveiled additional footage from its 60 Minutes interview with President Obama, conducted on Sep. 12.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
cbs
politics blogs

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Did President Obama Call Benghazi Attack "An Act Of Terror" The Day After?

Obama Met With Panetta and Biden As Benghazi Terror Attack Unfolded
edit on 5-11-2012 by jdub297 because: link




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
If there were any doubts that the MSM is in Obama's pocket, or that Obama lied to the American public about the involvement of terrorists in Benghazi, this late release from CBS of an UN-broadcast conversation lays all doubts to rest.

Even though CBS recorded this interview hours after the "Rose Harden" statement, the "president" refused to refer to terrorists/terrorism after the interviewer's direct question, and a clear opportunity toi do so.

Oddly (?), CBS hid this from publication until 2 day before the election!

www.breitbart.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Do not be surprised.....Just the status qou for this POTUS



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I find myself very leery about this entire affair.

Is there any speculation about what motive would be behind hesitation to acknowledge this was an organized attack?

Is there any information about the peculiar security lapses (if that's what they were?)

What is the point of the whole 'media-government' collaboration? We can usually expect that most media which is subordinate to huge mult-national corporations, or cartels and conglomerates would be pliable to political expedience identified by their favorite political celebrities... we can expect that governments can to a certain extent, 'strong-arm' some media to acquiesce to their decrees about information and how or when it is disseminated...

But I still can't understand why? Who benefits from the misinformation, lies, propaganda, etcetera?

Why did we apparently get a message that this was about some cheesy anti-Islam production by 'expendable' personalities? Why were we apparently led to presume this political appointee (made ambassador posthumously) was doing some kind of "diplomatic" function - when indicators now show that may not be true?

Why would the Columbia Broadcasting Service risk the fallout (assuming there will be any meaningful fallout)?

And can we at least agree now, without hesitation, that commercial media is not a repository for journalism anymore?
edit on 5-11-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Corruption has no bounds!!

And yes, yes, yes, to your final question!

Are you really surprised?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
The simple answer is he wants to keep up the false narrative about his "successful foreign policy." This attack came at an inopportune time for the president.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


Well I would say that I hope that this reaches enough people in time to turn the tide but....

I don't want Romney either....



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Handlers would definitely advise the President to not label the attack terrorism because later the President could be implicated in a terrorist attack. And you ask ''What?!''

The entire Benghazi event does not make sense given the information that is public. Who thought the public would believe a Youtube video caused the attack? Seriously? That was the lamest cover story intended to dupe the 21st century technodweebs.

Who thought the public would turn their anger towards the SEALS that disobeyed orders to stay away? Seriously? Why would they be told to stand down?

I think in the end history is going to be shown to be much different. I think we will eventually find out that the attack was instigated, allowed to occur, and left alone so that it could become a hostage situation for Obama to solve. Then, after Obama sent in the SEAL team to save the hostages, the Media would paint Obama as some sort of amazing savior and strong President.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I believe that the attacks were planned, by our Government, but nobody was supposed to get killed.

The ambassador was to be held hostage, and the POTUS was to negotiate his release.

An OCTOBER SURPRISE that went bad.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I heard about this today. CBS ought to be ashamed of itself.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
From the article linked in the OP:


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, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell 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.


So he did not "refuse to call it terror" at all - he said it was "too early to tell" whether it was a "terrorism attack". (whether it was too early or not is another question for which there are ample threads here already)

for people so hung up on single words you guys like to play fast and lose when it suits you!!



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

This is significant because it came from the president's mouth in the CBS interview taped just hours AFTER the rose garden speech where Obama claimed in the second debate that it was an "act of terror".
More double-speak.
edit on 5-11-2012 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by XXX777
reply to post by jdub297
 


Handlers would definitely advise the President to not label the attack terrorism because later the President could be implicated in a terrorist attack. And you ask ''What?!''

The entire Benghazi event does not make sense given the information that is public. Who thought the public would believe a Youtube video caused the attack? Seriously? That was the lamest cover story intended to dupe the 21st century technodweebs.


I don't know, everyone seems to have bought the whole Bin Laden burial at sea scenario. Regarding the Benghazi conspiracy, I think the administration and the MSM overestimated the willingness of the intelligence community to be the fall guys and accept the blame for the death of an ambassador.
edit on 11/5/2012 by Sparky63 because: spelling



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Why media complicity with the White House?
My guess is to make the shock of his failure to be re-elected the more severe.
(insert your own guesses as to why they would want that)
Only then will they allow the real dirt on the stories of this and the response to Sandy come out.
We only have to wait a week to find out if I'm wrong or not.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Semantics arguments? That's all they've got?

For the record, Obama did call what happened in Benghazi an 'act of terror' during his Rose Garden speech. The problem is, he didn't use it in a sentence, like, for example, "The attack in Benghazi was an act of terror against America."

In reference to the Benghazi terrorist attack, Obama stated in his speech that "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."

So he called it a terrorist attack, albeit indirectly. Of course I must've missed the part where conspiracy theorists with poor comprehension skills failed to notice that part of the speech. Of course, even if he didn't use the magical words 'act of terror,' this is still a vapid argument over semantics dredged up by desperate loons who just. Can't. Let. Go. Of. A. Complete. Non. Story.

Whatever.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
This is no big secret. That footage was released a long time ago. I don't know why they are acting like its new footage when it's not.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Who cares what he called it?

Tbph, I would rather have a president who didn't call anything and everything "terrorism," and who analyzes every situation and doesn't rush to drop bombs...
How republicans are trying to spin this story is absurd.

They made conspiracy theorists upset for not labeling someone a terrorist....
#ing brilliant.

They won. And they're playing us for fools.
edit on 5-11-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by XXX777
reply to post by jdub297
 


Handlers would definitely advise the President to not label the attack terrorism because later the President could be implicated in a terrorist attack. And you ask ''What?!''

The entire Benghazi event does not make sense given the information that is public. Who thought the public would believe a Youtube video caused the attack? Seriously? That was the lamest cover story intended to dupe the 21st century technodweebs.


I don't know, everyone seems to have bought the whole Bin Laden burial at sea scenario. Regarding the Benghazi conspiracy, I think the administration and the MSM overestimated the willingness of the intelligence community to be the fall guys and accept the blame for the death of an ambassador.
edit on 11/5/2012 by Sparky63 because: spelling


Timing is everything.
They can no longer blame it on a video/movie because the Seals movie aired yesterday.

That burial at sea never made any sense, kinda like destroying the evidence.
Can't help but wonder, how do people bury their loved ones when they happen to live days away from the sea?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I'm with you on this, It just seems like a futile effort to cover this up, when there was no real reason to do so.

At the time there were many protests happening over that video, so I’m sure in the initial instance it was probably presumed to be the same thing.

I wasn’t aware that the ambassador was 'posthumously' set, but I did read he had a long history of assisting foreign affairs in countries like Libya. (If you ask me, he was there to assist 'covertly' a western influence on the incoming government)

CNBC are democratically bought, just like FOX NEWS is republican. Each party has their mouth piece.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Is there a difference between "refusing to call" or "not wanting to say, yet"?

Answer: Yes.
edit on 5-11-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join