Fox And Issa Claim There's A Difference Between An "Act Of Terror" And A Terrorist At

[idb]

In the Rose Garden speech President Obama was making a general statement about terrorism not a direct statement about the Benghazi attack being a terrorist attack. For the sake of argument let's say Obama was calling the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden speech why did Susan Rice then go on the Sunday talk shows a mere few days later and say the attack was in response to video?

Perhaps she was simply wrong.
Maybe the administration were using poor information, or making assumptions or reading too much Huffington Post, or.......

I'll make an admission right now to the world..."I've been wrong before"...probably.
There, I've said it.

 

[PredFan]

In the Rose Garden speech President Obama was making a general statement about terrorism not a direct statement about the Benghazi attack being a terrorist attack. For the sake of argument let's say Obama was calling the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden speech why did Susan Rice then go on the Sunday talk shows a mere few days later and say the attack was in response to video?

And then Obama went to Cairo two weeks later and blamed the video again.

Hillary Clinton went around blaming the video.

Obama said yesterday, at the speech with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, that it was because of the video.

He's a liar, he has been a liar from day one.

 

[Intense]

The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the "safe house" in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed "safe".

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.

Mr Stevens had been on a visit to Germany, Austria and Sweden and had just returned to Libya when the Benghazi trip took place with the US embassy's security staff deciding that the trip could be undertaken safely.

Eight Americans, some from the military, were wounded in the attack which claimed the lives of Mr Stevens, Sean Smith, an information officer, and two US Marines. All staff from Benghazi have now been moved to the capital, Tripoli, and those whose work is deemed to be non-essential may be flown out of Libya. Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination - World Politics - World - The Independent

From Annie 9/14/2012
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...media-sitting-on-information.html#post5984917

 

[Intense]

2012

September 12 -- President Barack Obama

"The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

September 12 -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

"We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is no justification for this; none."

September 12 -- White House spokesman Jay Carney, in response to questions about whether the attack was planned

"It's too early for us to make that judgment. I think -- I know that this is being investigated, and we're working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time."

September 12 -- Obama, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, again uses the "act of terror" line

"No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."

He repeats the line again the next day in Golden, Colorado. "I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished."

September 13 -- Jay Carney

"The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States."

September 13 -- A senior U.S. official tells CNN that the Benghazi violence was a "clearly planned attack"

"It was not an innocent mob," the official said. "The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective, but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."

September 13 -- State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland

"Well, as we said yesterday when we were on background, we are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans. So I know that's going to be frustrating for you, but we really want to make sure that we do this right and we don't jump to conclusions. That said, obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating."

September 14 -- Jay Carney

"We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent."

September 16 -- Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CNN's "State of the Union" with Candy Crowley

"There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government, and it's one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It's been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against Western facilities including our embassies and consulates."

On CBS' "Face the Nation," Rice also said that, "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

What the Obama administration has said about the Libya attack - CNN.com

Fox And Issa Claim There's A Difference Between An "Act Of Terror" And A Terrorist Attack.

I think the difference in the wording contributes to the effect.

This Quote from President Ambiguous for example...... "The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation." He is softening the blow here. This is something one might expect in from of an audience of UN Delegates where the object is to insure that no one is offended or put on the spot. Words are not chosen arbitrarily at this level. They are specific and by design.

 

[idb]

2012

September 12 -- President Barack Obama

"The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

September 12 -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

"We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is no justification for this; none."

September 12 -- White House spokesman Jay Carney, in response to questions about whether the attack was planned

"It's too early for us to make that judgment. I think -- I know that this is being investigated, and we're working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time."

September 12 -- Obama, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, again uses the "act of terror" line

"No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."

He repeats the line again the next day in Golden, Colorado. "I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished."

September 13 -- Jay Carney

"The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States."

September 13 -- A senior U.S. official tells CNN that the Benghazi violence was a "clearly planned attack"

"It was not an innocent mob," the official said. "The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective, but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."

September 13 -- State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland

"Well, as we said yesterday when we were on background, we are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans. So I know that's going to be frustrating for you, but we really want to make sure that we do this right and we don't jump to conclusions. That said, obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating."

September 14 -- Jay Carney

"We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent."

September 16 -- Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CNN's "State of the Union" with Candy Crowley

"There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government, and it's one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It's been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against Western facilities including our embassies and consulates."

On CBS' "Face the Nation," Rice also said that, "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

What the Obama administration has said about the Libya attack - CNN.com

Fox And Issa Claim There's A Difference Between An "Act Of Terror" And A Terrorist Attack.

I think the difference in the wording contributes to the effect.

This Quote from President Ambiguous for example...... "The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation." He is softening the blow here. This is something one might expect in from of an audience of UN Delegates where the object is to insure that no one is offended or put on the spot. Words are not chosen arbitrarily at this level. They are specific and by design.

And just look at the consequent reaction by those that don't think he used the right words.
No wonder he hedged his bets.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

No one is going to let you slide by on that lame shit. Your president ran a misinformation campaign on the American people to cover his ass during an election. There is no doubt of it.

Just stop trying to pretend otherwise.

 

[idb]

Muslim fury: LIVE anti-US protest timeline (PHOTOS) ? RT News

 

[Pogo]

What a crazed world is that of political hackery.

A month ago when the Boston Marathon got bombed these same voices were clamoring "Terrorism!" willy-nilly on the Tsarnaev brothers, even in the absence of any reasoning at all to support that description. We didn't need no steenking basis; we just call 'em all terrorists because they're Muslim.

But this week suddenly the definition of terrorism becomes relevant again, even crucial, and now we need lists of who used what adjective at what time of which day when the freaking moon was in Gemini in square with Uranus.

Can't keep up with this shit. I guess which side you stand on depends on whether it will score you political snark points or not.

 

[idb]

No one is going to let you slide by on that lame shit. Your president ran a misinformation campaign on the American people to cover his ass during an election. There is no doubt of it.

Just stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Oh, I know...this is going to run and run......it's incredibly important that we get to the bottom of it.
I would have thought we were approaching the bottom some time ago but clearly we're still descending.
I wonder how far down we can go?

 

[deltex1]

Fox And Issa Claim There's A Difference Between An "Act Of Terror" And A Terrorist Attack

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Fox News have come to the same conclusion -- describing the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya as an "act of terror" is different, and somehow less accurate, than describing them as a terrorist attack.

On September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attacks, Obama delivered a speech in the Rose Garden in which he referred to the attacks as an "act of terror," saying: "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." The following day, Obama twice referred to the attacks as an act of terror, once in Colorado and once in Las Vegas.

During an appearance on Fox News' America Live, Issa accused Obama of minimizing the attacks by referring to them as an "act of terror," saying: "An act of terror is different than a terrorist attack. The truth is, this was a terrorist attack."

Issa is such a pathetic idiot.

People are seeing right through his little dog and pony show, and he's getting desperate to stay relevant.

Fool.

If a terrorist chops down a tree in the forest and no one sees him do it...is it an act of terror??

 

[bodecea]

No one is going to let you slide by on that lame shit. Your president ran a misinformation campaign on the American people to cover his ass during an election. There is no doubt of it.

Just stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Who is YOUR President?

 

[tinydancer]

Muslim fury: LIVE anti-US protest timeline (PHOTOS) ? RT News

Tell us you really truly don't believe the fairy tale "the video made them kill them".

 

[bodecea]

And what evidence do you have that proves the video that inspired protests,riots and deaths throughout the Muslim world was not the movtivating factor in the attacks on the American Consulate and the CIA Annex?

No no ...
You've got it all wrong.
You are suppose to swallow THEIR talking points without evidence.
You atre to assume that what they say is correct. They've never been wrong before, now have they?

No, it's you who has it wrong, you spread your legs wide and wait for whatever lie the admin wants to shove up your ass, and then you roll over and say "thank you sir, may I have another!"


You're a good little collectivist drone propagandist. In other words you are incapable of thinking for yourself. I doubt you can wipe yourself....

Interesting to watch all the sexual analogies from the Right.

 

[Pogo]

No no ...
You've got it all wrong.
You are suppose to swallow THEIR talking points without evidence.
You atre to assume that what they say is correct. They've never been wrong before, now have they?

No, it's you who has it wrong, you spread your legs wide and wait for whatever lie the admin wants to shove up your ass, and then you roll over and say "thank you sir, may I have another!"


You're a good little collectivist drone propagandist. In other words you are incapable of thinking for yourself. I doubt you can wipe yourself....

Interesting to watch all the sexual analogies from the Right.

... and scatological.

Here's how absurd this song and dance is: Joe Citizen comes home to find his house burned down and his family perished in the fire. The fireman on the scene says it looks like it was started by electrical wiring; later it turns out to have been a gas leak. But rather than being concerned with the lives of his family or with the property, Joe's entire focus now is on the fireman and why he initially said electrical wiring.

Supreme Wacko.

 

[idb]

Muslim fury: LIVE anti-US protest timeline (PHOTOS) ? RT News

Tell us you really truly don't believe the fairy tale "the video made them kill them".

That's not what I'm representing at all.
There were clearly widespread protests about the video.
Looking at the summary of comments posted by Intense I can't see where anyone said that it was the video, but that there have been protests and attacks and it may have been used by some as a cover.

Despite saying that, I still can't understand why it matters...the administration said that whatever the reason for the attack there could be no justification for it.

 

[tinydancer]

What a crazed world is that of political hackery.

A month ago when the Boston Marathon got bombed these same voices were clamoring "Terrorism!" willy-nilly on the Tsarnaev brothers, even in the absence of any reasoning at all to support that description. We didn't need no steenking basis; we just call 'em all terrorists because they're Muslim.

But this week suddenly the definition of terrorism becomes relevant again, even crucial, and now we need lists of who used what adjective at what time of which day when the freaking moon was in Gemini in square with Uranus.

Can't keep up with this shit. I guess which side you stand on depends on whether it will score you political snark points or not.

And the Boston Marathon bombing brought about left wing speculation that considering it was "tax day" the bombing must have been done by Tea Partiers.

And according to David Axelrod even President Obama thought the bombings could be related to "tax day".

Political hackery is bi partisan.

In explaining why President Obama didn't call the Boston bombings a "terrorist attack," former adviser David Axelrod said, "I'm sure what was going through the president's mind is -- we really don't know who did this -- it was tax day":

"The word has taken on a different meaning since 9/11," Axelrod said of the phrase "terrorist attack."

"You use those words and it means something very specific in people's mind. And I'm sure what was going through the president's mind is -- we really don't know who did this -- it was tax day. Was it someone who was pro--you know, you just don't know. And so I think his attitude is, let's not put any inference into this, let's just make clear that we're going to get the people responsible."

Even if you don't like the WS as a source the video of the interview is at the link:

Axelrod: Obama Thinks Boston Bombings Could Be Related to 'Tax Day' | The Weekly Standard

 

[Pogo]

What a crazed world is that of political hackery.

A month ago when the Boston Marathon got bombed these same voices were clamoring "Terrorism!" willy-nilly on the Tsarnaev brothers, even in the absence of any reasoning at all to support that description. We didn't need no steenking basis; we just call 'em all terrorists because they're Muslim.

But this week suddenly the definition of terrorism becomes relevant again, even crucial, and now we need lists of who used what adjective at what time of which day when the freaking moon was in Gemini in square with Uranus.

Can't keep up with this shit. I guess which side you stand on depends on whether it will score you political snark points or not.

And the Boston Marathon bombing brought about left wing speculation that considering it was "tax day" the bombing must have been done by Tea Partiers.

And according to David Axelrod even President Obama thought the bombings could be related to "tax day".

Political hackery is bi partisan.

In explaining why President Obama didn't call the Boston bombings a "terrorist attack," former adviser David Axelrod said, "I'm sure what was going through the president's mind is -- we really don't know who did this -- it was tax day":

"The word has taken on a different meaning since 9/11," Axelrod said of the phrase "terrorist attack."

"You use those words and it means something very specific in people's mind. And I'm sure what was going through the president's mind is -- we really don't know who did this -- it was tax day. Was it someone who was pro--you know, you just don't know. And so I think his attitude is, let's not put any inference into this, let's just make clear that we're going to get the people responsible."

Even if you don't like the WS as a source the video of the interview is at the link:

Axelrod: Obama Thinks Boston Bombings Could Be Related to 'Tax Day' | The Weekly Standard

I see we're digging deep into the barrel ::scrape scrape::. This is the first time I've heard anyone anywhere suggest "tax day" as a motive --- which still makes no sense; a marathon run has nothing to do with taxes. OTOH there were innumerable posts and threads right here referring to the Tsarnaevs as "terrorists" on the basis of absolutely nothing. Anyone digging for "tax day" was no doubt trying to find any shred of significance to the event regarding time or place to come up with some reason. Without that, it ain't terrorism, but that didn't even slow down the wags on this board who are still at it even now.

And yet, I note again, when the topic is Benghazi, suddenly the qualifications for "terrorism" become important.

No, this ain't selling.

Think about it: the point you're trying to make is that in the case of Boston O'bama was looking for a reason to call it terrorism, while in the case of Benghazi he was doing the opposite.

That's playing it both ways.

Given the quote above, I don't see anybody owning "tax day" as a motive. I see Axelrod cautioning away from that conclusion.

 

[idb]

What a crazed world is that of political hackery.

A month ago when the Boston Marathon got bombed these same voices were clamoring "Terrorism!" willy-nilly on the Tsarnaev brothers, even in the absence of any reasoning at all to support that description. We didn't need no steenking basis; we just call 'em all terrorists because they're Muslim.

But this week suddenly the definition of terrorism becomes relevant again, even crucial, and now we need lists of who used what adjective at what time of which day when the freaking moon was in Gemini in square with Uranus.

Can't keep up with this shit. I guess which side you stand on depends on whether it will score you political snark points or not.

And the Boston Marathon bombing brought about left wing speculation that considering it was "tax day" the bombing must have been done by Tea Partiers.

And according to David Axelrod even President Obama thought the bombings could be related to "tax day".

Political hackery is bi partisan.

In explaining why President Obama didn't call the Boston bombings a "terrorist attack," former adviser David Axelrod said, "I'm sure what was going through the president's mind is -- we really don't know who did this -- it was tax day":

"The word has taken on a different meaning since 9/11," Axelrod said of the phrase "terrorist attack."

"You use those words and it means something very specific in people's mind. And I'm sure what was going through the president's mind is -- we really don't know who did this -- it was tax day. Was it someone who was pro--you know, you just don't know. And so I think his attitude is, let's not put any inference into this, let's just make clear that we're going to get the people responsible."

Even if you don't like the WS as a source the video of the interview is at the link:

Axelrod: Obama Thinks Boston Bombings Could Be Related to 'Tax Day' | The Weekly Standard

I see we're digging deep into the barrel ::scrape scrape::. This is the first time I've heard anyone anywhere suggest "tax day" as a motive --- which still makes no sense; a marathon run has nothing to do with taxes. OTOH there were innumerable posts and threads right here referring to the Tsarnaevs as "terrorists" on the basis of absolutely nothing. Anyone digging for "tax day" was no doubt trying to find any shred of significance to the event regarding time or place to come up with some reason. Without that, it ain't terrorism, but that didn't even slow down the wags on this board who are still at it even now.

And yet, I note again, when the topic is Benghazi, suddenly the qualifications for "terrorism" become important.

No, this ain't selling.

Think about it: the point you're trying to make is that in the case of Boston O'bama was looking for a reason to call it terrorism, while in the case of Benghazi he was doing the opposite.

That's playing it both ways.

I think that the argument would have been that, if the Communists weren't in the Whitehouse, there would be no taxes and so no Tax Day and so no bombing in Boston.
Ergo, the Boston bombing was clearly Obama's fault.

 

[Pogo]

And the Boston Marathon bombing brought about left wing speculation that considering it was "tax day" the bombing must have been done by Tea Partiers.

And according to David Axelrod even President Obama thought the bombings could be related to "tax day".

Political hackery is bi partisan.

In explaining why President Obama didn't call the Boston bombings a "terrorist attack," former adviser David Axelrod said, "I'm sure what was going through the president's mind is -- we really don't know who did this -- it was tax day":

"The word has taken on a different meaning since 9/11," Axelrod said of the phrase "terrorist attack."

"You use those words and it means something very specific in people's mind. And I'm sure what was going through the president's mind is -- we really don't know who did this -- it was tax day. Was it someone who was pro--you know, you just don't know. And so I think his attitude is, let's not put any inference into this, let's just make clear that we're going to get the people responsible."

Even if you don't like the WS as a source the video of the interview is at the link:

Axelrod: Obama Thinks Boston Bombings Could Be Related to 'Tax Day' | The Weekly Standard

I see we're digging deep into the barrel ::scrape scrape::. This is the first time I've heard anyone anywhere suggest "tax day" as a motive --- which still makes no sense; a marathon run has nothing to do with taxes. OTOH there were innumerable posts and threads right here referring to the Tsarnaevs as "terrorists" on the basis of absolutely nothing. Anyone digging for "tax day" was no doubt trying to find any shred of significance to the event regarding time or place to come up with some reason. Without that, it ain't terrorism, but that didn't even slow down the wags on this board who are still at it even now.

And yet, I note again, when the topic is Benghazi, suddenly the qualifications for "terrorism" become important.

No, this ain't selling.

Think about it: the point you're trying to make is that in the case of Boston O'bama was looking for a reason to call it terrorism, while in the case of Benghazi he was doing the opposite.

That's playing it both ways.

I think that the argument would have been that, if the Communists weren't in the Whitehouse, there would be no taxes and so no Tax Day and so no bombing in Bostson.
Ergo, the Boston bombing was blearly Obama's fault.

Idb, you're doing a disturbingly fine job of thinking like the wackos do to figure them out

I just visited TD's link, and listened to the interview, and despite the sensationalist headline, that's not what Axelrod said at all.

::scrape::scrape::scrape::

 

[idb]

I see we're digging deep into the barrel ::scrape scrape::. This is the first time I've heard anyone anywhere suggest "tax day" as a motive --- which still makes no sense; a marathon run has nothing to do with taxes. OTOH there were innumerable posts and threads right here referring to the Tsarnaevs as "terrorists" on the basis of absolutely nothing. Anyone digging for "tax day" was no doubt trying to find any shred of significance to the event regarding time or place to come up with some reason. Without that, it ain't terrorism, but that didn't even slow down the wags on this board who are still at it even now.

And yet, I note again, when the topic is Benghazi, suddenly the qualifications for "terrorism" become important.

No, this ain't selling.

Think about it: the point you're trying to make is that in the case of Boston O'bama was looking for a reason to call it terrorism, while in the case of Benghazi he was doing the opposite.

That's playing it both ways.

I think that the argument would have been that, if the Communists weren't in the Whitehouse, there would be no taxes and so no Tax Day and so no bombing in Bostson.
Ergo, the Boston bombing was blearly Obama's fault.

Idb, you're doing a disturbingly fine job of thinking like the wackos do to figure them out

I just visited TD's link, and listened to the interview, and despite the sensationalist headline, that's not what Axelrod said at all.

::scrape::scrape::scrape::

It's fun.
Just imagine you're trying to write a Roald Dahl story....giant flying peach ahoy!!!