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

[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.

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."

Pssst....Ah Moldsmile? In case you didn't get the memo....Obama mentioned it was a terrorist attack the day after it happened. Surely you saw the debate and Romney get field dressed over the innuendo, right?

 

[Amazed]

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."

Pssst....Ah Moldsmile? In case you didn't get the memo....Obama mentioned it was a terrorist attack the day after it happened. Surely you saw the debate and Romney get field dressed over the innuendo, right?

you twits on these boards are the only ones who still believe that.

Enjoy your last few days on the board corny, you are almost out of time.

 

[candycorn]

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."

Pssst....Ah Moldsmile? In case you didn't get the memo....Obama mentioned it was a terrorist attack the day after it happened. Surely you saw the debate and Romney get field dressed over the innuendo, right?

you twits on these boards are the only ones who still believe that.

Enjoy your last few days on the board corny, you are almost out of time.

See you in December under your new user-name. In truth, I'll probably offer you conditional amnesty to show you what a kind soul I am. You deserve pity.

 

[Rozman]

Because his people called it a protest over a video...

 

[HUGGY]

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?

I'm saying that the more I look at this "attack". The less I believe about the supposed narrative.

But to answer your question. Yes and yes. BUT I don't think he lied because of politics. I think he lied because of something tactical and in that context the truth is none of our business.

Call me crazy but nothing about that event adds up. When terrorists go after one guy..like the ambassador they don't send 120 people. It only takes two guys on a motorcycle. They pull up next to the car the ambassador is in and shoot the fuck out of it with automatic weapons. Here's what I think. I think the ambassador was not supposed to be there but either HE went there or was tricked to go there about something entirely different than what he thought. It was probably just bad luck. Anyway.. The arms deal theory makes the most sense. Sounds like an arms sale that was tipped off and went horribly wrong.

We will never know but I don't buy that so many guys attacked that "safe house" just to kill the ambassador.

For some reason Obama does not want the truth to come out and if our military and CIA interests are involved he has every right and a duty to cover up what happened.

Shit happens all the time we never know about. I bet we never hear about 1/10th of what the SEALS do.

We probably wouldn't have heard about this if the dumb ass ambassador hadn't got himself killed.

 

[Amazed]

Pssst....Ah Moldsmile? In case you didn't get the memo....Obama mentioned it was a terrorist attack the day after it happened. Surely you saw the debate and Romney get field dressed over the innuendo, right?

you twits on these boards are the only ones who still believe that.

Enjoy your last few days on the board corny, you are almost out of time.

See you in December under your new user-name. In truth, I'll probably offer you conditional amnesty to show you what a kind soul I am. You deserve pity.

Just not looking good for you, you just aren't woman enough to ever admit a mistake.

 

[candycorn]

you twits on these boards are the only ones who still believe that.

Enjoy your last few days on the board corny, you are almost out of time.

See you in December under your new user-name. In truth, I'll probably offer you conditional amnesty to show you what a kind soul I am. You deserve pity.

Just not looking good for you, you just aren't woman enough to ever admit a mistake.

Obama has had it electorally locked for about 3 months now or however long it's been. You haven't been able to read an electoral map in 90 days. Seriously, I may offer you a conditional amnesty; you'll have to earn it but there may be a way to salvage your user name. I'll let you know if you qualify.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

Get your facts straight or you will be hopelessly lost. It was not an attack on our embassy. It was an attack on a "safe house". Ambassadors don't need or use safe houses. His post was in Trippoli at the EMBASSY.

 

[blackhawk]

Why does the right insist Obama did not call it a terror attack when reality shows otherwise?


President Obama Speaks on the Attack on Benghazi - YouTube

Because he did not in the video he say's no acts of terror he is making a general statement about terrorism he is not specifically addressing the Benghazi attack or calling it a terrorist attack that might have been his intention but that is not what he did.

 

[Amazed]

See you in December under your new user-name. In truth, I'll probably offer you conditional amnesty to show you what a kind soul I am. You deserve pity.

Just not looking good for you, you just aren't woman enough to ever admit a mistake.

Obama has had it electorally locked for about 3 months now or however long it's been. You haven't been able to read an electoral map in 90 days. Seriously, I may offer you a conditional amnesty; you'll have to earn it but there may be a way to salvage your user name. I'll let you know if you qualify.

(smile) Sorry sis....nothing is looking good for you.

You are too stupid to understand that there are a shit load of "toss up" states....and everything is trending Right.

Va and Fl are gone to Romney, the ONLY state worth watching right now is Ohio....

 

[Amazed]

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.

Get your facts straight or you will be hopelessly lost. It was not an attack on our embassy. It was an attack on a "safe house". Ambassadors don't need or use safe houses. His post was in Trippoli at the EMBASSY.

He was in the "safe house" because he was in danger and they were trying to protect him....only they wouldn't use "real" security people...only Bammy can tell us why.

This shit is going to sink our traitor president.

 

[Freewill]

Another liberal story line. What a freakin crock of poop comes from the Obama defenders. To answer your question, the reason we believe it is because THAT IS WHAT HE SAID.

American Crossroads: "Act of Terror" - YouTube

 

[HUGGY]

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.

Get your facts straight or you will be hopelessly lost. It was not an attack on our embassy. It was an attack on a "safe house". Ambassadors don't need or use safe houses. His post was in Trippoli at the EMBASSY.

He was in the "safe house" because he was in danger and they were trying to protect him....only they wouldn't use "real" security people...only Bammy can tell us why.

This shit is going to sink our traitor president.

I don't believe it. I think he was in danger BECAUSE he was at that safe house. If they wanted him "safe" he should have had his ass on ice in the embassy in Trippoli.

 

[CMike]

Because he didn't.

 

[candycorn]

Just not looking good for you, you just aren't woman enough to ever admit a mistake.

Obama has had it electorally locked for about 3 months now or however long it's been. You haven't been able to read an electoral map in 90 days. Seriously, I may offer you a conditional amnesty; you'll have to earn it but there may be a way to salvage your user name. I'll let you know if you qualify.

(smile) Sorry sis....nothing is looking good for you.

You are too stupid to understand that there are a shit load of "toss up" states....and everything is trending Right.

Va and Fl are gone to Romney, the ONLY state worth watching right now is Ohio....

Well, we'll see in November I suppose. Obama is going to win; you just can't admit it. In truth, you're probably more disgusted with moderate Mitt than Obama. You bought into his "conservatism" only to be flipped off by his latest series of flip flops. That must suck.

 

[Obamanation]

Here let me show the lefties how dumb they are being on this topic...

My dog has a broken leg.

Pitt bulls can be mean.
_______________________

OK, now tell me, is my dog a pitt bull?


It must be right?

The worst thing is that foucsing on this tangent is taking away from the FACT that the Obama admin was caught lying about this issue on MANY MANY occasions in an attempt to cover up the truth. There was no demonstration, the video was irrelivant --- and even if they did believe there was a demontration spawned by the video at ONE TIME. It was more than evident after one day to EVERYONE that neither played a role. ---- No excuse to be lying to America TWO WEEKS LATER!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

That's your position????

GIFSoup

Is that red x a yes or a no?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rachel Maddow gave a brilliant explanation the other night as to why rightwingers now simply refuse to accept the facts if they don't like them.

 

[BreezeWood]

if the "terrorist" are not afraid of the retaliation for their act why are they not dancing in the street with loud speakers telling the Obama Administration to come get them ?

 

[flacaltenn]

Rachel Maddow gave a brilliant explanation the other night as to why rightwingers now simply refuse to accept the facts if they don't like them.

Does Rachael also have an explanation for why -- AFTER the Prez made that non-commital passing remark about "terror" attacks in general --- that THESE statements were coming out of the admin for a week afterwards????

Timeline of statements on Libya attack - Nation - The Boston Globe

Sept. 14

“We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned *attack.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney


Sept. 16

“Our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.”

US Ambassador to UN Susan Rice

So does Maddow think this is incompetence or just bad governance?


Words do mean something. To think so many lefty Kool-Aid drinkers think the REST OF US have a problem with "meaning" (as shown by the poll answers with your NAMES ON THE VOTES) --- just makes you look silly..

Obama did not say "THIS act of terror ---" on the 12th and 13th of Sept.

He said "No acts of terror .... " There's a big diff, when you pull out your lawyerly parsing thesaurus... English lessons ABOUND every time we elect a LAWYER as our leader. We learn to listen more carefully and debate the meaning of "is"...