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

reply to post by openminded2011


Really? Where were the hearings over fast and the furious or the other scandals during Obama's reign? You keep thinking that. Sooner you realize that Democrats and Republicans are the same the better off you will be. They both suck as a party and NEITHER party cares about the common man or the common good.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by openminded2011

 

Really? Where were the hearings over fast and the furious or the other scandals during Obama's reign? You keep thinking that. Sooner you realize that Democrats and Republicans are the same the better off you will be. They both suck as a party and NEITHER party cares about the common man or the common good.

There were some congressional hearings about the Fast 'n Furious program; however, the Republican chair did not allow the investigation to include witnesses who would speak to the same program during the Bush II administration. Hence I am lead to believe this was a mountain made out of a mole hill -- that or the Republicans aren't really interested in getting to the heart of the matter, but only want to make the Obama administration look bad.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

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.

He implied it was a terrorist attack in this speech, and that is what he addressed during the debate. Do you read the excerpts of his speech, which I provided? It would seem not. He called it an "attack" and then later, when he addressed the deaths of the four Americans, he talks about not shirking from the acts of terror, and that the perpetrators of this attack would be hunted down and justice meted out. You're getting your grundies in bunch because he didn't say precisely "this was a terrorist attack". He called it an attack and then later, while talking about the 4 dead Americans, referred to it as an act of terror. But this isn't good enough for you, because you are trying to make something out of nothing.

You do realize also that this "Diplomatic compound/mission" that was attacked was actually a CIA base and there was an ongoing CIA operation, so obviously Obama didn't want to talk too much about it. Not to mention that attacks against espionage agents isn't really an act of terrorism.


Moreover, it seems quite prudent not to harp on it being a terrorist attack, rather than an out-of-control demonstration, until one obtains all or most of the facts; given that this speech was given less than 36 hours after the attack, seems he addressed it appropriately.

You're making big deal out of his precise wording why exactly? Am curious: did you have a problem with George W. Bush and has administration claiming Iraq had WMD's and using that as a pretext to invade Iraq, when in fact there weren't WMD's? Here was an outright lie by a president. With Obama you're getting upset just because he didn't use precisely the phrase that you wanted him to. This is just lunacy and hair splitting on your part.

And if you have a problem with Obama saying in the debate that he said something a few weeks back, and in fact it was just a paraphrase of what he said before, then where is your outrage at all the outright lies that Roney and Ryan said during the debate? You got MAJOR double standard problems going on here.

Oct. 11, Joe Biden, during the vice presidential debate, asserted, “We weren’t told they wanted more security there.”

Proven lie.

The State Department was following the Benghazi assault in real time.

True, and they lied about this.

Three emails came from the compound that night. The first described the attack; the second came as the firing stopped; the third reported that Ansar al-Sharia was claiming credit.

This was confirmed by Reuters. They have lied about this.

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mentioned that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department's Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.

The third email, sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."


Yet they are still lying to us about this.

One last ditch effort eh?
I guess calling it an "Act of Terror" the day after wasn't enough.
Can you imagine if we played semantics with Romney?
Where to begin?

reply to post by jdub297


Pat Caddell Says: Media Have Become an "Enemy of the American people"

I voted for love of my country, the end of socialism, and a new day in America under Romney & Ryan (not really it happened)