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

[Charles_Main]

Because he didn't. He repeatedly blamed it on a video.

For the second time in this thread alone, here is the President, calling the attack an act of terror, on 9-12

President Obama Speaks on the Attack on Benghazi - YouTube

So now please go to the top of the thread and answer the poll for yourself.

He was not specific enough.

Saying , "No act of terror will blah blah..." is not the same as saying, " This was an act of terror", is it?

If it was that statement alone. It would not be an issue.

But we have 2 weeks, in which Obama himself went on the View, and Letterman, and before the UN, and his people went all over TV, and they did not say it was Terror, They said we don't know we think it was a Mob Action, Even though we all know the CIA and State knew on day one. There was NO FUCKING MOB.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Admitting there is such a thing as islamic jihadist terrorism would offend muslims , only creating more of the bloodthirsty little darlings............................Lol

 

[Charles_Main]

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

Perhaps because after the Rose Garden Speech. Where he only indirectly talked in general Terms about terrorism. He and his admin went on a full court press to convince us all it was a Mob Action, even though they clearly knew there was no Mob.

A better question is why does the Left insist on Defending Obama.

So did this happen or not?

President Obama Speaks on the Attack on Benghazi - YouTube

Of course, and Obama does not directly call it terrorism in that. And then as I said he spends the next 2 weeks Claiming it was likely just a Mob that got out of hand.

Which of course you want to Dismiss.

Even the Moderator in the Debate walked her statement back and said Romney was right on the Broader Point.

 

[WillowTree]

What did he say six different times at the UN? Anybody know?

 

[Skull Pilot]

For the second time in this thread alone, here is the President, calling the attack an act of terror, on 9-12

President Obama Speaks on the Attack on Benghazi - YouTube

So now please go to the top of the thread and answer the poll for yourself.

He was not specific enough.

Saying , "No act of terror will blah blah..." is not the same as saying, " This was an act of terror", is it?

If it was that statement alone. It would not be an issue.

But we have 2 weeks, in which Obama himself went on the View, and Letterman, and before the UN, and his people went all over TV, and they did not say it was Terror, They said we don't know we think it was a Mob Action, Even though we all know the CIA and State knew on day one. There was NO FUCKING MOB.

I know and all his lackeys parroted the video thing.

But the statement oompah loompah is talking about was not a specific one regarding a singular attack it was rather a generic statement about all terror attacks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's funniest about this is that the 'nuts on the right honestly believe that they can concoct some harebrained misrepresentation of what the President said,

when he called the attack an act of terror,

and that concoction will actually be believed by normal Americans.

 

[emptystep]

Hey Willow, Fox news reports new species.

is it your position that he did not let the US Ambassador to the UN go on five major networks and blame it on a mob? Is that right?

Are you calling it a cover-up? Please be specific in what you are alleging. Several people on this board are throwing around accusations but when pressed don't really know what they are trying to say other than they hope there is something to gain by making an attack that killed four of our own political.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Perhaps because after the Rose Garden Speech. Where he only indirectly talked in general Terms about terrorism. He and his admin went on a full court press to convince us all it was a Mob Action, even though they clearly knew there was no Mob.

A better question is why does the Left insist on Defending Obama.

So did this happen or not?

President Obama Speaks on the Attack on Benghazi - YouTube

Of course, and Obama does not directly call it terrorism in that. And then as I said he spends the next 2 weeks Claiming it was likely just a Mob that got out of hand.

Which of course you want to Dismiss.

Even the Moderator in the Debate walked her statement back and said Romney was right on the Broader Point.

He refers to it as an "Act of terror" - I don't really see how you could get more direct. Do you want him to tack a note to your dumb head?

 

[SniperFire]

True - or not true?

Nope, he didn't blame it on acts of terror at first.

Actually, for the third time in this thread, here he is, calling it an act of terror, the day after:

President Obama Speaks on the Attack on Benghazi - YouTube

And that just didn't happen, right? Even though it did happen and there's video proof - it didn't happen because Pick A Number Romney says so, right? Ever thought of working for Mitt Romney? I'm sure he'd love your attitude that he can dictate factual reality in the face of facts to the contrary, you'd be a perfect corporate yes-man.

Wrong again.

Even the NY Times article NYCarboneer posted says 'the reference was indirect. '

He did not call the Bengazi attack an act of terror.

He said for weeks it was a spontaneous outrage about a video - lying to the American people about it LONG after knowing the truth.

 

[Charles_Main]

He was not specific enough.

Saying , "No act of terror will blah blah..." is not the same as saying, " This was an act of terror", is it?

If it was that statement alone. It would not be an issue.

But we have 2 weeks, in which Obama himself went on the View, and Letterman, and before the UN, and his people went all over TV, and they did not say it was Terror, They said we don't know we think it was a Mob Action, Even though we all know the CIA and State knew on day one. There was NO FUCKING MOB.

I know and all his lackeys parroted the video thing.

But the statement oompah loompah is talking about was not a specific one regarding a singular attack it was rather a generic statement about all terror attacks.

Yep, I saw that speech, and he was clearly not directly saying this was Terrorism. He was just basically saying if it is it wont go UN-punished.

I would give him a pass if not for the Consented Deliberate Administration effort over the next 2 weeks, To mislead us all.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What did he say six different times at the UN? Anybody know?

Did he say anything that ROmney would later claim he did not say?


You righties quite literally want to take the Presidents words, get rid of the ones that aren't convenient to you, and keep the ones that are. That's called being a hack.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Ohpoopoo, why did Ambassador Rice along with many others including the press secretary continue to claim it was a protest over a video if in fact it was a terrorist attack?

Why, when questioned by the ladies on the view on whether it was a terrorist attack did Obama not verify the fact he called it an act of terror?


Are you really as stupid and your handle implies?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If it was that statement alone. It would not be an issue.

But we have 2 weeks, in which Obama himself went on the View, and Letterman, and before the UN, and his people went all over TV, and they did not say it was Terror, They said we don't know we think it was a Mob Action, Even though we all know the CIA and State knew on day one. There was NO FUCKING MOB.

I know and all his lackeys parroted the video thing.

But the statement oompah loompah is talking about was not a specific one regarding a singular attack it was rather a generic statement about all terror attacks.

Yep, I saw that speech, and he was clearly not directly saying this was Terrorism. He was just basically saying if it is it wont go UN-punished.

I would give him a pass if not for the Consented Deliberate Administration effort over the next 2 weeks, To mislead us all.

He called it an act of terror.

I fail to see how he could be more direct. Maybe next time he should head butt you right before he says it and scream "LISTEN MORON" - would that be direct enough?

 

[Charles_Main]

Nope, he didn't blame it on acts of terror at first.

Actually, for the third time in this thread, here he is, calling it an act of terror, the day after:

President Obama Speaks on the Attack on Benghazi - YouTube

And that just didn't happen, right? Even though it did happen and there's video proof - it didn't happen because Pick A Number Romney says so, right? Ever thought of working for Mitt Romney? I'm sure he'd love your attitude that he can dictate factual reality in the face of facts to the contrary, you'd be a perfect corporate yes-man.

Wrong again.

Even the NY Times article NYCarboneer posted says 'the reference was indirect. '

He did not call the Bengazi attack an act of terror.

He said for weeks it was a spontaneous outrage about a video - lying to the American people about it LONG after knowing the truth.

It worse than he just lied to us.

The Video is offensive I agree with that, But had been out for a few months at the time and had not caused a Reaction. By picking that Video as the thing to Blame, Obama and this Admin Publicized the Video. Far more people, Including Muslims around the world, Learned about and saw the Video after we started Blaming it for a Terrorist Attack, than had seen it before this all happened.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Ohpoopoo, why did Ambassador Rice along with many others including the press secretary continue to claim it was a protest over a video if in fact it was a terrorist attack?

Why, when questioned by the ladies on the view on whether it was a terrorist attack did Obama not verify the fact he called it an act of terror?


Are you really as stupid and your handle implies?

"It took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror"

True - or not true?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So did this happen or not?

President Obama Speaks on the Attack on Benghazi - YouTube

Of course, and Obama does not directly call it terrorism in that. And then as I said he spends the next 2 weeks Claiming it was likely just a Mob that got out of hand.

Which of course you want to Dismiss.

Even the Moderator in the Debate walked her statement back and said Romney was right on the Broader Point.

He refers to it as an "Act of terror" - I don't really see how you could get more direct. Do you want him to tack a note to your dumb head?

He said "No act of terror will......"

he did not say spcifically that this was a terrorist attack.

For a guy that's supposed to be so articulate he was very vague.

My high school English teacher would not let me get away with that lack of clarity in a sentence so why should I hold the so called smartest president ever to a lower standard?

 

[NYcarbineer]

He was talking about 9/11.

You know that.

Why did he send his minions out to deceive the American people and blame this on a video?

No he wasn't.

Why did anyone think the video might have caused the attack?

Gee, I don't know, maybe it was this sort of thing:


"...the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video...."

You think???? EH?????

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/us/politics/questions-and-answers-on-the-benghazi-attack.html?_r=0

oh,, NOW conveniently we have bystanders, and someone taking dictation.

See, this is how hysterical the Right is over this. There is no evidence that can convince them of anything they don't want to believe.

The Right was SO certain that Romney was going to nail Obama on Libya, and Romney was foolish enough to believe the right's lies instead of finding out the facts himself,

and the whole thing blew up in their faces.

This will be the new birther myth, until these 'nuts get bored with it.

 

[Charles_Main]

I know and all his lackeys parroted the video thing.

But the statement oompah loompah is talking about was not a specific one regarding a singular attack it was rather a generic statement about all terror attacks.

Yep, I saw that speech, and he was clearly not directly saying this was Terrorism. He was just basically saying if it is it wont go UN-punished.

I would give him a pass if not for the Consented Deliberate Administration effort over the next 2 weeks, To mislead us all.

He called it an act of terror.

I fail to see how he could be more direct. Maybe next time he should head butt you right before he says it and scream "LISTEN MORON" - would that be direct enough?

You are the Moron bud, Everyone even Left wing Press agrees the Rose Garden Reference was not Direct, and you Continue to ignore the preceding 2 weeks of lies by this Admin.

Epic Fail.

 

[midcan5]

The actual answer is they live in a bubble of a right wing propaganda machine that controls and presents their thoughts and they do that willingly based on some principle embedded in them. Slaves to the machinery of corporate money and power, they believe. Oh and they watch Fox. See first sig link too.

Huxley nailed them. "What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley wrote in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984 Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us...This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right." Neil Postman 'Amusing Ourselves to Death'

 

[WillowTree]

Hey Willow, Fox news reports new species.

is it your position that he did not let the US Ambassador to the UN go on five major networks and blame it on a mob? Is that right?

Are you calling it a cover-up? Please be specific in what you are alleging. Several people on this board are throwing around accusations but when pressed don't really know what they are trying to say other than they hope there is something to gain by making an attack that killed four of our own political.

answer my question. It's a simple enough question.