Why does the right insist Obama did not call it a terror attack?

[NYcarbineer]

In other words you cannot deny that it could have been both.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Dude, you owe me a keyboard.

There's a reason you're a leftist, and it isn't because you're super smart.

"So you cannot deny that it could be fire and water...."

ROFL

Funniest post of the week.

Why did Romney lie and say the President never called the attack an act of terror?

You mean why did Obama lie? Because he only cares about being reelected. That's why he went to Las Vegas while terrorists killed our Ambassador - of course he denied that they were terrorists, and apologized to them.

So Muslims could never carry out an act of terror because they believed someone insulted their religion?

That's your position????

 

[BlindBoo]

The usual Smugly mindless wall of words notwithstanding, it is hysterically funny to see Smugs saying such utterly stupid shit and yet still claiming to be able to judge the intelligence of lots of other people.

Separate facts:

1. The hideously atrocious "video" was offensive and, worse yet, poorly made. Indeed, it could have been a cause for perfectly expect-able Muslim "outwage." But that doesn't mean it was a cause of any such behavior. It certainly does not mean that it had anything to do with the attack in Benghazi.

2. The attack in Benghazi WAS the handiwork of some terrorist group(s).

The FACT is (according to Carney, even) it was self-evident that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist action.

But it is ALSO a FACT that DESPITE this self-evident knowledge, the Obama Administration CHOSE to claim that it was a reaction to the stupid video.

NONE of Smugly's spin, NYCarbuncle's ridiculously unpersuasive spin, or the Obama fluffer apologists' claims even come close to addressing that total disconnect.

Why DID the Administration chose to tell a fairy tale -- especially when they knew better immediately?

Ya ...whatever. I think there was a lot more going on in Bengahzi than a simple "safe house" and the president has no obligation to tell anyone the whole truth. The real tragedy is that our ambassador was caught up in it and murdered. It is a dangerous place in dangerous times. We do not need to spill our guts about what really was going on there to suit the hack morons that are desperate to get their Morman/cult leader elected.

The President has no obligation to tell the American people the whole truth? So you're defending his right to lie to us purely for political reasons? To tell us that the attack was the result of a YouTube video causing a spontaneous riot to break out when he knew within 24 hours that was not the case? To send out his Secretary of State, his Press Secretary and his UN Ambassador to further perpetuate that same lie for well over a week? To stand before us in a nationally televised debate and lie when he says he called the attack on our Ambassador a terrorist attack on September 12th when he was still refusing to label it THAT for two weeks AFTER the attack on The View, David Letterman and in front of the UN? To have his Vice President lie and tell us that this Administration didn't even KNOW that more security was repeatedly requested by our Ambassador to Libya?

I'm curious, Huggy...if Barack Obama gets a "pass" to lie about THIS...what exactly does he have to be truthful with us about? Anything?

The attackers have access to the same information as the US public. Do you really want them to know what the investigation has uncovered so far?

 

[Katzndogz]

There's no investigation. It took 3 weeks for investigators to get on the ground in Libya. The investigators investigated for 12 hours and left.

 

[koshergrl]

Yup. CNN reporters found Stevens' journal.

 

[koshergrl]

There's no investigation because they know (and knew when it happened) exactly who was responsible, and how it went down.

Hell, Stevens knew before he died that it was going to happen. So did the marines.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So Muslims could never carry out an act of terror because they believed someone insulted their religion?

That's your position????

GIFSoup

 

[Conservative]

The usual Smugly mindless wall of words notwithstanding, it is hysterically funny to see Smugs saying such utterly stupid shit and yet still claiming to be able to judge the intelligence of lots of other people.

Separate facts:

1. The hideously atrocious "video" was offensive and, worse yet, poorly made. Indeed, it could have been a cause for perfectly expect-able Muslim "outwage." But that doesn't mean it was a cause of any such behavior. It certainly does not mean that it had anything to do with the attack in Benghazi.

2. The attack in Benghazi WAS the handiwork of some terrorist group(s).

The FACT is (according to Carney, even) it was self-evident that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist action.

But it is ALSO a FACT that DESPITE this self-evident knowledge, the Obama Administration CHOSE to claim that it was a reaction to the stupid video.

NONE of Smugly's spin, NYCarbuncle's ridiculously unpersuasive spin, or the Obama fluffer apologists' claims even come close to addressing that total disconnect.

Why DID the Administration chose to tell a fairy tale -- especially when they knew better immediately?

Ya ...whatever. I think there was a lot more going on in Bengahzi than a simple "safe house" and the president has no obligation to tell anyone the whole truth. The real tragedy is that our ambassador was caught up in it and murdered. It is a dangerous place in dangerous times. We do not need to spill our guts about what really was going on there to suit the hack morons that are desperate to get their Morman/cult leader elected.

The President has no obligation to tell the American people the whole truth? So you're defending his right to lie to us purely for political reasons? To tell us that the attack was the result of a YouTube video causing a spontaneous riot to break out when he knew within 24 hours that was not the case? To send out his Secretary of State, his Press Secretary and his UN Ambassador to further perpetuate that same lie for well over a week? To stand before us in a nationally televised debate and lie when he says he called the attack on our Ambassador a terrorist attack on September 12th when he was still refusing to label it THAT for two weeks AFTER the attack on The View, David Letterman and in front of the UN? To have his Vice President lie and tell us that this Administration didn't even KNOW that more security was repeatedly requested by our Ambassador to Libya?

I'm curious, Huggy...if Barack Obama gets a "pass" to lie about THIS...what exactly does he have to be truthful with us about? Anything?

Obama has a (D) after his name. That is all people like Huggy need to know in order to give them a pass on anything. Of course, if the President had an (R) after his name, people like Huggy would be the first ones inline screaming for impeachment.

 

[Liability]

Ya ...whatever. I think there was a lot more going on in Bengahzi than a simple "safe house" and the president has no obligation to tell anyone the whole truth. The real tragedy is that our ambassador was caught up in it and murdered. It is a dangerous place in dangerous times. We do not need to spill our guts about what really was going on there to suit the hack morons that are desperate to get their Morman/cult leader elected.

The President has no obligation to tell the American people the whole truth? So you're defending his right to lie to us purely for political reasons? To tell us that the attack was the result of a YouTube video causing a spontaneous riot to break out when he knew within 24 hours that was not the case? To send out his Secretary of State, his Press Secretary and his UN Ambassador to further perpetuate that same lie for well over a week? To stand before us in a nationally televised debate and lie when he says he called the attack on our Ambassador a terrorist attack on September 12th when he was still refusing to label it THAT for two weeks AFTER the attack on The View, David Letterman and in front of the UN? To have his Vice President lie and tell us that this Administration didn't even KNOW that more security was repeatedly requested by our Ambassador to Libya?

I'm curious, Huggy...if Barack Obama gets a "pass" to lie about THIS...what exactly does he have to be truthful with us about? Anything?

The attackers have access to the same information as the US public. Do you really want them to know what the investigation has uncovered so far?

^ Laughable Obama fluffer's double standards are applied with EASE when it suits his fluffer purposes.

Fluffer's new rule is: do not share any information with the American people that you wouldn't want al qaeda to know.

Check.

You asshole.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ya ...whatever. I think there was a lot more going on in Bengahzi than a simple "safe house" and the president has no obligation to tell anyone the whole truth. The real tragedy is that our ambassador was caught up in it and murdered. It is a dangerous place in dangerous times. We do not need to spill our guts about what really was going on there to suit the hack morons that are desperate to get their Morman/cult leader elected.

The President has no obligation to tell the American people the whole truth? So you're defending his right to lie to us purely for political reasons? To tell us that the attack was the result of a YouTube video causing a spontaneous riot to break out when he knew within 24 hours that was not the case? To send out his Secretary of State, his Press Secretary and his UN Ambassador to further perpetuate that same lie for well over a week? To stand before us in a nationally televised debate and lie when he says he called the attack on our Ambassador a terrorist attack on September 12th when he was still refusing to label it THAT for two weeks AFTER the attack on The View, David Letterman and in front of the UN? To have his Vice President lie and tell us that this Administration didn't even KNOW that more security was repeatedly requested by our Ambassador to Libya?

I'm curious, Huggy...if Barack Obama gets a "pass" to lie about THIS...what exactly does he have to be truthful with us about? Anything?

The attackers have access to the same information as the US public. Do you really want them to know what the investigation has uncovered so far?

You think that the "attackers" don't know that it was a terrorist attack? This is the stupidest rationale for lying to the American people EVER!

 

[BlindBoo]

The President has no obligation to tell the American people the whole truth? So you're defending his right to lie to us purely for political reasons? To tell us that the attack was the result of a YouTube video causing a spontaneous riot to break out when he knew within 24 hours that was not the case? To send out his Secretary of State, his Press Secretary and his UN Ambassador to further perpetuate that same lie for well over a week? To stand before us in a nationally televised debate and lie when he says he called the attack on our Ambassador a terrorist attack on September 12th when he was still refusing to label it THAT for two weeks AFTER the attack on The View, David Letterman and in front of the UN? To have his Vice President lie and tell us that this Administration didn't even KNOW that more security was repeatedly requested by our Ambassador to Libya?

I'm curious, Huggy...if Barack Obama gets a "pass" to lie about THIS...what exactly does he have to be truthful with us about? Anything?

The attackers have access to the same information as the US public. Do you really want them to know what the investigation has uncovered so far?

You think that the "attackers" don't know that it was a terrorist attack? This is the stupidest rationale for lying to the American people EVER!

I can see it now. Achmed says to Mohammad "Look at those stupid Americans, they think it was all caused by a video!"

Mohammad: "Yeah, those stupid Ameri.....um, hey, what is that up in the sky coming towards us......

Boom.

 

[BlindBoo]

The President has no obligation to tell the American people the whole truth? So you're defending his right to lie to us purely for political reasons? To tell us that the attack was the result of a YouTube video causing a spontaneous riot to break out when he knew within 24 hours that was not the case? To send out his Secretary of State, his Press Secretary and his UN Ambassador to further perpetuate that same lie for well over a week? To stand before us in a nationally televised debate and lie when he says he called the attack on our Ambassador a terrorist attack on September 12th when he was still refusing to label it THAT for two weeks AFTER the attack on The View, David Letterman and in front of the UN? To have his Vice President lie and tell us that this Administration didn't even KNOW that more security was repeatedly requested by our Ambassador to Libya?

I'm curious, Huggy...if Barack Obama gets a "pass" to lie about THIS...what exactly does he have to be truthful with us about? Anything?

The attackers have access to the same information as the US public. Do you really want them to know what the investigation has uncovered so far?

^ Laughable Obama fluffer's double standards are applied with EASE when it suits his fluffer purposes.

Fluffer's new rule is: do not share any information with the American people that you wouldn't want al qaeda to know.

Check.

You asshole.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs]Jane you Ignorant slut - YouTube[/ame]

Fuck off dick breath.

 

[kaz]

Poo Poo is an idiot, what he says is irrelevant. But I don't get the Right on this.

1) How is a direct attack on an American embassy "terrorism." It's not, it's an attack on the US and should be treated as such.

2) By labeling it "terrorism" it becomes a joint, ineffective operation with the Libyan government who provide at least tacit support to the attackers and little comes of it. By labeling it as what it is, we tell the Libyan government to help us or get out of the way because we're going after anyone who declares war on the US and if they are protecting them, they are them.

I opposed our attacking Libya in the first place because I didn't want to be in this predictable position. Surprise, we are in the predictable position.. However, anyone who attacks the US should be sent to meet whatever God they believe in. I don't understand why the Right want to let them all off the hook by treating it as a matter beyond the control of the Libyan government rather then the clear justification it is for us to follow up.

 

[candycorn]

Note to all diplomats:

If, in the future, you're under attack by an angry mob....please do us a favor and ask them why they are attacking you so we can stop the pseudo-intellectual pissing match that is certain to follow.

Thanks,

Your Commander in Chief whomever he/she may be from the future.

 

[candycorn]

The attackers have access to the same information as the US public. Do you really want them to know what the investigation has uncovered so far?

^ Laughable Obama fluffer's double standards are applied with EASE when it suits his fluffer purposes.

Fluffer's new rule is: do not share any information with the American people that you wouldn't want al qaeda to know.

Check.

You asshole.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs]Jane you Ignorant slut - YouTube[/ame]

Fuck off dick breath.

It's about as crazy as any discussion ever..."Fuck off dick breath" is about the only response worthy.

 

[BlindBoo]

Poo Poo is an idiot, what he says is irrelevant. But I don't get the Right on this.

1) How is a direct attack on an American embassy "terrorism." It's not, it's an attack on the US and should be treated as such.

2) By labeling it "terrorism" it becomes a joint, ineffective operation with the Libyan government who provide at least tacit support to the attackers and little comes of it. By labeling it as what it is, we tell the Libyan government to help us or get out of the way because we're going after anyone who declares war on the US and if they are protecting them, they are them.

I opposed our attacking Libya in the first place because I didn't want to be in this predictable position. Surprise, we are in the predictable position.. However, anyone who attacks the US should be sent to meet whatever God they believe in. I don't understand why the Right want to let them all off the hook by treating it as a matter beyond the control of the Libyan government rather then the clear justification it is for us to follow up.

Fuck off Kazamie. You know damn well that the President is going to go after these fuckers who attacked and killed our people. As he said 4 years ago (and I'm paraphasing dickweed), if we have actionable intel on who did it and where they are and the host country cannot or will not act, we will.

 

[BlindBoo]

^ Laughable Obama fluffer's double standards are applied with EASE when it suits his fluffer purposes.

Fluffer's new rule is: do not share any information with the American people that you wouldn't want al qaeda to know.

Check.

You asshole.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs]Jane you Ignorant slut - YouTube[/ame]

Fuck off dick breath.

It's about as crazy as any discussion ever..."Fuck off dick breath" is about the only response worthy.

Yeah this one and that uncensored dude are unhinged.

 

[Liability]

Jane you Ignorant slut - YouTube

Fuck off dick breath.

It's about as crazy as any discussion ever..."Fuck off dick breath" is about the only response worthy.

Yeah this one and that uncensored dude are unhinged.

cornycane and BlandPoo agree with each other.

Of course, they are both rather trite mindless lib hack fuckwits, so their mutual agreement is not exactly news.

More tellingly, they are also (as usual) both wrong.

Suck a bag of dicks you idiots.

 

[Liability]

The attackers have access to the same information as the US public. Do you really want them to know what the investigation has uncovered so far?

^ Laughable Obama fluffer's double standards are applied with EASE when it suits his fluffer purposes.

Fluffer's new rule is: do not share any information with the American people that you wouldn't want al qaeda to know.

Check.

You asshole.

* * * *

Fuck off dick breath.

So sorry that noting your usual double standard nettled you so easily.

 

[Oldstyle]

Note to all diplomats:

If, in the future, you're under attack by an angry mob....please do us a favor and ask them why they are attacking you so we can stop the pseudo-intellectual pissing match that is certain to follow.

Thanks,

Your Commander in Chief whomever he/she may be from the future.

Pssst...Ah, Candy? In case you didn't get the memo...you progressives are no longer claiming it was an "angry mob". That whole narrative had to be abandoned when too many people testified under oath that it was an attack by well armed terrorists and you guys were looking WAY stupid. The NEW progressive narrative is..."It's under investigation, we will have no comment until after the election and anyone who demands one is politicizing the situation."

 

[HUGGY]

. I think there was a lot more going on in Bengahzi than a simple "safe house" and the president has no obligation to tell anyone the whole truth.

Does he have the obligation to put out a false narrative ?

If need be.