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

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 
And why, in the world, should I care what the president calls the attack? It was an attack, plain and simple. Maybe the President also recognizes the stupidity in placing additional labels on it? I think we've overused the term enough since Dubya, don't you?




posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
If he calls it a terror attack the he has to acknowledge that he aided terrorists in ousting Quaddafi.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by buckrogerstime
 


Keep gradually altering the narrative. Try to confuse people with many different versions, just similar enough to cloud memory. See what you can make stick. Delay, obfuscate, deny, ask for time to check facts. Accuse your detractors of what you are doing. Lie boldly and with confidence. Ridicule sources and the people who provide them.

My goodness the flies are thick in here.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by buckrogerstime

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

What day did this occur? That should help answer that question.


Woah, I hadn't thought of that. They both happened on Sept. 11th! Two breaches of U.S. embassies in neighboring North African countries on Sept. 11! I'm almost starting to think the two events may have had something to do with one another.


Any other big terrorist attacks happen on Sept. 11 in the somewhat recent past? Maybe something big that would inspire an attack on it's anniversary?



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sek82
reply to post by jdub297
 
And why, in the world, should I care what the president calls the attack? It was an attack, plain and simple. Maybe the President also recognizes the stupidity in placing additional labels on it? I think we've overused the term enough since Dubya, don't you?


Then why in the debates did he say it was a terrorist attack and said he called it so from the beginning? Suddenly your argument has no validity.

The question is not what he chose to call it, it is his attempt to rewrite history. He did not call it a terror attack for a long time, then he wants to claim he did all along. If he wants to say it was not a terrorist attack since day 1 and stayed consistent we wouldn't have this argument.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Any other big terrorist attacks happen on Sept. 11 in the somewhat recent past? Maybe something big that would inspire an attack on it's anniversary?


Woah, I hadn't thought of that. They both happened on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks! Two breaches of U.S. embassies in neighboring North African countries on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks! I'm almost starting to think the two events may have had something to do with one another.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by buckrogerstime

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Any other big terrorist attacks happen on Sept. 11 in the somewhat recent past? Maybe something big that would inspire an attack on it's anniversary?


Woah, I hadn't thought of that. They both happened on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks! Two breaches of U.S. embassies in neighboring North African countries on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks! I'm almost starting to think the two events may have had something to do with one another.


Then you are thinking the wrong way. If a girl has her 21st birthday and 2 different men buy her a drink would you think the 2 guys were in cahoots? That is what you are suggesting. If you want to think that to keep your partisan framework solid be my guest.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by buckrogerstime
 


Ridicule sources and the people who provide them.

My goodness the flies are thick in here.



I think you may have mixed up our posts. Didn't you just ridicule my source (the New York Times, one of the most reputable newspapers in the world) and then fail to provide any source for your own claims or even name a type of source that you would consider "unbiased"? Remember that? It just happened.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Then you are thinking the wrong way. If a girl has her 21st birthday and 2 different men buy her a drink would you think the 2 guys were in cahoots? That is what you are suggesting. If you want to think that to keep your partisan framework solid be my guest.


This is a terrible analogy, but let's run with it:
What if the girl hadn't had anyone buy her a drink in 11 years?
And then two different men bought her a drink and talked to her in the same way?
And then in the next two days, 36 more men bought her a drink and talked to her in the same way?
And what if bystanders at the bar said the second man said he knew the first man?
And what if the most recent U.S. intelligence continued to confirm that the second man got the idea to buy the girl a drink from watching the first man do it?

Can we please stop using this analogy now?

Your general theory here is irrefutable though. I agree. It could NOT be a coincidence that this attack occurred on the same day as an attack from more than a decade ago. At the same time, it MUST have been a mere coincidence that this attack occurred on the exact same day as an attack on another U.S. embassy in North Africa.
edit on 6-11-2012 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-11-2012 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Man, the conservatives are desperate if this is all they have on Obama. The horse is dead, continue flogging it, no-one cares. Whos cares what he said, or didn't say. It matters not. I'm no fan of Obama but it's crap like this that makes me hope he wins just to spite the right wing.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by buckrogerstime

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Then you are thinking the wrong way. If a girl has her 21st birthday and 2 different men buy her a drink would you think the 2 guys were in cahoots? That is what you are suggesting. If you want to think that to keep your partisan framework solid be my guest.


This is a terrible analogy, but let's run with it:
What if the girl hadn't had anyone buy her a drink in 11 years?
And then two different men bought her a drink and talked to her in the same way?
And then in the next two days, 36 more men bought her a drink and talked to her in the same way?
And what if bystanders at the bar said the second man said he knew the first man?
And what if the most recent U.S. intelligence continued to confirm that the second man got the idea to buy the girl a drink from watching the first man do it?

Can we please stop using this analogy now?

Your general theory here is irrefutable though. I agree. It could NOT be a coincidence that this attack occurred on the same day as an attack from more than a decade ago. At the same time, it MUST have been a mere coincidence that this attack occurred on the exact same day as an attack on another U.S. embassy in North Africa.
edit on 6-11-2012 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-11-2012 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)


As I already stated the two attacks have a previous attack in common, not themselves. Can you show me bystanders at the bar linking the two men, i.e., show me these two attacks occured by the same group or were coordinated together. Source it please and I will read.

ETA: What was the timeline on the attacks? Which occured first, how many of the other attacks occured AFTER the US envoy was murdered?
edit on 6-11-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

As I already stated the two attacks have a previous attack in common, not themselves. Can you show me bystanders at the bar linking the two men, i.e., show me these two attacks occured by the same group or were coordinated together. Source it please and I will read.

ETA: What was the timeline on the attacks? Which occured first, how many of the other attacks occured AFTER the US envoy was murdered?
edit on 6-11-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)


Close, but not quite right. It's now clear that the Libya attack was by Ansar al-Shariah and had no direct relationship to the Cairo protest. However, I'm contending that it was reasonable - and inevitable - that mass confusion would conflate the two events at the time, since 1) bystanders stated Ansar al-Shariah said their attack was motivated by the video; 2) U.S. intelligence still believes the attack occurred on that day because Ansar al-Shariah was trying to take advantage of the chaos in Cairo; and 3) dozens of protests at U.S. embassies worldwide occurred over the next two days. Considering those three factors, it's obvious why the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Dept, and the White House would want to pursue an investigation before deciding whether to characterize it as a spontaneous protest or terrorist attack. It would have been irresponsible to do anything else.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

All that being said, there were reasons to suspect this attack was categorically distinct from the other embassy protests, which is precisely what Obama said in the CBS interview from the OP the day after the attack.
edit on 6-11-2012 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by buckrogerstime
 


The short answer is no. I am not going to bother since you already admit now, after claiming the two were linked, that the attacks were not linked. This tells me anything I say that proves your position false falls on deaf ears. As I said, the short answer is your analysis is completely wrong. Very nice of you to keep linking the attacks though even knowing they were not linked and you admit you know they were not linked. Keep that partisan attitude up!



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by buckrogerstime
 


The short answer is no. I am not going to bother since you already admit now, after claiming the two were linked, that the attacks were not linked. This tells me anything I say that proves your position false falls on deaf ears. As I said, the short answer is your analysis is completely wrong. Very nice of you to keep linking the attacks though even knowing they were not linked and you admit you know they were not linked. Keep that partisan attitude up!


What in the world? The two attacks were linked because the Libya attack was timed to coincide with the Cairo protest and the Libya attackers stated to bystanders that they were protesting the video. I just provided two articles as citations. The attacks were linked.

I am not saying the same people were behind both attacks. I am saying that, on the day of the attack and for the next several days, reasonable people could justifiably believe that the two protests were directly connected, especially because they were in fact connected in at least two ways. Subsequent investigations have now shown they were only indirectly related, but they were still related. The attack in Libya was a result of the protest in Egypt.

It takes a little bit of nuance and thoughtfulness to understand this situation, so I don't blame you for giving up.
edit on 6-11-2012 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by buckrogerstime
 


You mean sources that say the US says maybe the attack was not planned?

www.reuters.com...

In the CBS video Obama says...

You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start.


Libyan President said it WAS pre-planned. There is NO intelligence saying it was not, all the US is saying is we can't confirm it was pre-planned .. and they contradict that too such as Obama in the video. This is because they are intentionally being deceitful. What they mean by not pre-planned is they are saying they can not confirm the attack was necessarily scheduled for that particular day, but that it was a planned event, it was not spur of the moment. The fact they claim they had no knowledge it was going to happen period means the fact they did not know it was going down that day is meaningless. That makes your sources meaningless.

ETA: We are off topic now anyway. The point is Obama never claimed it was a terrorist act, he stuck with that theme here refusing to call it that, and then in the debate said he called it a terrorist act from day 1. He lied in the debates. End of story.
edit on 6-11-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by buckrogerstime
I am not saying the same people were behind both attacks.

It takes a little bit of nuance and thoughtfulness to understand this situation, so I don't blame you for giving up.


That's funny because I remember you saying this ....


Originally posted by buckrogerstime
And then two different men bought her a drink and talked to her in the same way?
And what if bystanders at the bar said the second man said he knew the first man?


You are almost as good at obfuscating and saying different things while all the while acting as if you are consistent. Now I know why you like the man. Peas in a pod as they say.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Why this tempest in a teapot over the precise wording used by the president and when he said it? Here are excerpts of Obama's Rose Garden speech on 9/12/2012:



Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.


...yadda, yadda, yadda... and then:


No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.


transcript of Obama's Rose Garden speech

So he called what happened in Benghazi and attack, and then near the end of his speech when reiterating on the mourning for the four killed Americans, he says "no acts of terror will shake the resolve of this great nation." So, taken in context. he is calling this a terrorist attack. So what's the big deal?

And then in the CBS interview obama says, when asked if these were, indeed, terrorist attacks:


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.


What is wrong with this answer? At the time, less than 36 hours after the attack, nobody was sure what had gone on. Was it a planned terrorist attack or some demonstration that got out of hand? Who knew for sure at the time? What's wrong with not shooting at the hip, and being careful with one's words before saying this was definitely a terrorist attack?

To split hairs over his exact words shows just what a lot of nothing you Benghazi conspiracists have at this point. To continue carrying on about it just shows how ridiculous and clueless you are.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

That's funny because I remember you saying this ....

Originally posted by buckrogerstime
And then two different men bought her a drink and talked to her in the same way?
And what if bystanders at the bar said the second man said he knew the first man?

You are almost as good at obfuscating and saying different things while all the while acting as if you are consistent. Now I know why you like the man. Peas in a pod as they say.


I didn't find the analogy particularly helpful, but here is what I meant:
After 11 years, two U.S. embassies were breached in neighboring North African countries on the same day.
Ansar al-Sharia told bystanders that their attack was motivated by the video that had been the subject of major protests in Egypt.

Again, all I'm trying to establish here is that it was reasonable for the U.S. to believe the two events were connected - since they were connected in at least two ways - and that further investigation would be needed to determine whether the attack in Libya was motivated by the video or by some other issue.

I'm repeating myself now and going to sleep. Night.

edit on 6-11-2012 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by jdub297
 


Why this tempest in a teapot over the precise wording used by the president and when he said it? Here are excerpts of Obama's Rose Garden speech on 9/12/2012:



Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.


...yadda, yadda, yadda... and then:


No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.


transcript of Obama's Rose Garden speech

So he called what happened in Benghazi and attack, and then near the end of his speech when reiterating on the mourning for the four killed Americans, he says "no acts of terror will shake the resolve of this great nation." So, taken in context. he is calling this a terrorist attack. So what's the big deal?


No, the acts of terror was in reference to 9/11, Benghazi was called a terrible act. By itself this more or less makes what Obama said in the debates a lie.


And then in the CBS interview obama says, when asked if these were, indeed, terrorist attacks:


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.


What is wrong with this answer? At the time, less than 36 hours after the attack, nobody was sure what had gone on. Was it a planned terrorist attack or some demonstration that got out of hand? Who knew for sure at the time? What's wrong with not shooting at the hip, and being careful with one's words before saying this was definitely a terrorist attack?

To split hairs over his exact words shows just what a lot of nothing you Benghazi conspiracists have at this point. To continue carrying on about it just shows how ridiculous and clueless you are.


There is nothing wrong with that answer. The problem does not arise until the Presidential debate where Obama wanted to rewrite history saying he was clear from day 1 this was a terrorist attack. I have no problem with what Obama said in the Garden or on CBS. He clearly did not call it an act of terror and on CBS made an effort to NOT call it an act of terror. I have no problem with that. In the debate he said he ALWAYS called it an act of terror.

Now depending on what information comes out on the attack and just what Obama knew .. his early comments may haunt him as well. As far as I am concerned we are not at that stage yet, and we may never get there.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Republicans:


911 has been covered up for 11 years. We will NEVER know what happened that day, and who was complicit in it. Thats because a REPUBLICAN was at the helm when it happened. If it had been a democrat, you would have had hearings and trials for years, but because it was YOUR boy, not even a whimper.





top topics
 
31
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join