No, Obama Didn’t Call Benghazi “Act of Terror” in Speech (9/30)

[Matthew]

No, Obama Didn’t Call Benghazi “Act of Terror” in Speech (9/30)
Cmmentary ^ | 9/30/12 | Alana Goodman
No, Obama Didn

Quote:

“Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the President called it an act of terror the day after it happened,” David Axelrod told CNN’s Candy Crowley this morning, referring to a speech Obama made in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12.

Axelrod’s claim has been pushed by journalists over the past few days, most notably Josh Gerstein at Politico, in a blog post headlined “Obama talked of Libya attack as ‘terror’ 2 weeks ago”:

'snip'

If Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a “terrible act,” a “brutal” act, “senseless violence,” and called the attackers “killers,” not terrorists. It’s also important to consider the context. For a week after this speech, the White House would not call it a terrorist attack. The official position was that Libya was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film, not a premeditated or preplanned act.

[The Infidel]

The only "terror" he talked about that day was 9-11-01... not what had happened the night before.

He vowed to get to bottom of it, but no.. he didnt call it an act of terror.

[asterism]

Quote:

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya

Rose Garden

10:43 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

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.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

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.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

END

Copied in its entirely because speeches by the President are public domain.

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya | The White House

[BlindBoo]

Quote: Originally Posted by Matthew

No, Obama Didn’t Call Benghazi “Act of Terror” in Speech (9/30)
Cmmentary ^ | 9/30/12 | Alana Goodman
No, Obama Didn

Quote:

“Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the President called it an act of terror the day after it happened,” David Axelrod told CNN’s Candy Crowley this morning, referring to a speech Obama made in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12.

Axelrod’s claim has been pushed by journalists over the past few days, most notably Josh Gerstein at Politico, in a blog post headlined “Obama talked of Libya attack as ‘terror’ 2 weeks ago”:

'snip'

If Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a “terrible act,” a “brutal” act, “senseless violence,” and called the attackers “killers,” not terrorists. It’s also important to consider the context. For a week after this speech, the White House would not call it a terrorist attack. The official position was that Libya was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film, not a premeditated or preplanned act.

Sure he did and did so again in Co. the very next day.

"So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America," he said.

Remarks by the President in Golden, CO | The White House

[Conservative]

Quote: Originally Posted by BlindBoo

Quote: Originally Posted by Matthew

No, Obama Didn’t Call Benghazi “Act of Terror” in Speech (9/30)
Cmmentary ^ | 9/30/12 | Alana Goodman
No, Obama Didn

Quote:

“Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the President called it an act of terror the day after it happened,” David Axelrod told CNN’s Candy Crowley this morning, referring to a speech Obama made in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12.

Axelrod’s claim has been pushed by journalists over the past few days, most notably Josh Gerstein at Politico, in a blog post headlined “Obama talked of Libya attack as ‘terror’ 2 weeks ago”:

'snip'

If Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a “terrible act,” a “brutal” act, “senseless violence,” and called the attackers “killers,” not terrorists. It’s also important to consider the context. For a week after this speech, the White House would not call it a terrorist attack. The official position was that Libya was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film, not a premeditated or preplanned act.

Sure he did and did so again in Co. the very next day.

"So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America," he said.

Remarks by the President in Golden, CO | The White House

Funny... I don't see the words 'The Benghazi attack was an' in front of 'act of terror'.

Do you? (squints) Perhaps you could highlight those words for me???

[Wiseacre]

Doesn't explicitly say it was an act of terror, or that the video was the cause, but he implies it. Which is pretty much par for the course, he always couches his remarks in words and phrases that lead you to believe something that he never actually said directly.

[Claudette]

Quote: Originally Posted by Wiseacre

Doesn't explicitly say it was an act of terror, or that the video was the cause, but he implies it. Which is pretty much par for the course, he always couches his remarks in words and phrases that lead you to believe something that he never actually said directly.

LOL The hallmark of a good shyster.

[hazlnut]

Quote: Originally Posted by Matthew

No, Obama Didn’t Call Benghazi “Act of Terror” in Speech (9/30)

Check the transcript.
Check the transcript.Check the transcript.
Check the transcript.
Check the transcript.
Check the transcript.
Check the transcript.
Check the transcript.
Check the transcript.


Check the transcript.

[Conservative]

Quote: Originally Posted by hazlnut

Quote: Originally Posted by Matthew

No, Obama Didn’t Call Benghazi “Act of Terror” in Speech (9/30)

Check the transcript.
Check the transcript.Check the transcript.
Check the transcript.
Check the transcript.
Check the transcript.
Check the transcript.
Check the transcript.
Check the transcript.


Check the transcript.

We did.

The words 'The attack in Benghazi were an act of terror' do not appear.

[BBCAmerica]

Typical republican double talk. He was talking about the Benghazi attacks in the speech just before he said "act of terror" and what followed those words was more on Benghazi. Yet when he mentions acts of terror, the Benghazi attacks are not what he was talking about. In mid sentence he decided to talk about something else for 2 words then go back to Benghazi. Classic. Just friggin classic. I believe he wasn't talking about Benghazi like I believe Romney's tax plan will work solely of the strength that he says it will. Facts? What facts?

[Rocko]

Liberals saying he did are unfucking-real. lol

[Vel]

Quote: Originally Posted by BBCAmerica

Typical republican double talk. He was talking about the Benghazi attacks in the speech just before he said "act of terror" and what followed those words was more on Benghazi. Yet when he mentions acts of terror, the Benghazi attacks are not what he was talking about. In mid sentence he decided to talk about something else for 2 words then go back to Benghazi. Classic. Just friggin classic. I believe he wasn't talking about Benghazi like I believe Romney's tax plan will work solely of the strength that he says it will. Facts? What facts?

How is it if you're saying that Obama said it was an act or terror on the 12th, that he couldn't say it was a terrorist attack on The View?

"Why?" - YouTube

"Why?" - YouTube

[Darkwind]

Quote: Originally Posted by BBCAmerica

Typical republican double talk. He was talking about the Benghazi attacks in the speech just before he said "act of terror" and what followed those words was more on Benghazi. Yet when he mentions acts of terror, the Benghazi attacks are not what he was talking about. In mid sentence he decided to talk about something else for 2 words then go back to Benghazi. Classic. Just friggin classic. I believe he wasn't talking about Benghazi like I believe Romney's tax plan will work solely of the strength that he says it will. Facts? What facts?

yet, I seem to recall some fucking moron liberals stating something about no 'declaration of war' when going into Iraq, even though the use of force authorization gave Bush the right to do so.......Or is it that Bush and Republicans MUST use exact phrasing, while Obama and liberals were giving the people the 'gist' of his thoughts?

Get a grip people. The President did NOT declare this as an act of terrorists until Sept 20th.

Why is it so hard for you people to just act like men and say, "Yeah, he didn't say that."

[Amazed]

Quote: Originally Posted by BlindBoo

Quote: Originally Posted by Matthew

No, Obama Didn’t Call Benghazi “Act of Terror” in Speech (9/30)
Cmmentary ^ | 9/30/12 | Alana Goodman
No, Obama Didn

Quote:

“Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the President called it an act of terror the day after it happened,” David Axelrod told CNN’s Candy Crowley this morning, referring to a speech Obama made in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12.

Axelrod’s claim has been pushed by journalists over the past few days, most notably Josh Gerstein at Politico, in a blog post headlined “Obama talked of Libya attack as ‘terror’ 2 weeks ago”:

'snip'

If Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a “terrible act,” a “brutal” act, “senseless violence,” and called the attackers “killers,” not terrorists. It’s also important to consider the context. For a week after this speech, the White House would not call it a terrorist attack. The official position was that Libya was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film, not a premeditated or preplanned act.

Sure he did and did so again in Co. the very next day.

"So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America," he said.

Remarks by the President in Golden, CO | The White House

(smile) No he didn't, as Candy Crowley and the good folks at CNN pointed out this morning.

He started in the very next day blaming it on the video and calling it a "spontaneous" attack caused by said video.

Grow up and accept the facts.

[mascale]

The President of the United States went to the Rose Garden, and started laying the foundation for a national reponse to the embassy ambush, within a few hours of the event!

Obama Called Libya Attack Terrorism Long Before Romney | ThinkProgress

No Republican has ever wanted a response to even Osama bin laden's attack. The actual perpetrators went off one way. Bush-Cheney sent off the troops into opposite directions, in some "Keystone Kops" kind of response.

There is actually a transcript of who said what, about the ambush.

Notice that Romney-Ryan never once, even mention an "abmush(?)!" Here are Two Stupid Guys, again wanting to show themselves to be, "Way Too Stupid!"

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Now on Lands of Many Nations: Anyone wonders again about the suitcases full of money that identifies Republicans, with a business background!")