U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

terrorism and terror have 2 different definitions..

Can you give an example of an "act of terror" that is not terrorism?

 

[timschochet]

I thought they said it was terrorism caused by the video

Obamas claim he called Benghazi an act of terrorism

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html



The Pinocchio Test

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said act of terror, since he did use those words though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.
But the presidents claim that he said act of terrorism is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.
Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administrations phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Is this really where you want to make your last stand? We saw how Mitt calling Obama out on this worked last time? Now, you think people are going to care about the "ism," especially since you already made a big issue out of it and the people didn't seem to care. Feel free to carry on.

I don't care much about that part of the story, but if you read the transcript, he had moved on from Libya and was talking about the original 9-11 when he said, "These acts of terror..." I mean, if he was calling it a terrorist attack right then and there, then why did Susan Rice blame it on the video days later and why did Obama tell the parents of the deceased that the video was to blame?

You know the answers to your questions GR, and so do the ones you are asking the questions to; they are being obtuse for reasons only they know.

I still don't see the contradiction. Why couldn't it be terrorism caused by the video?

 

[joffer]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

i think most of this is stupid, but i see a bit of a difference. when a president uses the word "terrorism" in today's vernacular, it's significant. most people hear that as an indication of an organized attack.

So an "act of terror" is NOT an organized attack? What would be an example of an "act of terror" that isn't organized?

a guy waking up one morning and deciding to shoot up the place where he works?

 

[sporthenry]

Secretary Gates made no comments on the guys who finally decided to disobey orders after losing crucial time waiting for the go ahead and repeatedly being told to stand down, The guys who left without permission and actually fought off attackers, rescued survivors, and brought them back to the annex.. If those guys would have been allowed to go sooner they may have been able to bring more people back alive. If they hadn't of disobeyed an order to stand down, there would be more people dead...

Should we start calling you General or Secretary? You seem to be much smarter than the ones in charge. You missed your calling, you should have made a career out of the military. Yep, lets send our forces into who knows what and put their lives in more danger.

3 guys disobeyed orders and got things done... THREE... And if they had left sooner, maybe all would have been brought back to the annex alive....

And if they had left sooner and died. Now what? If they had help, and left sooner and everyone lived, Ambassador rescued, no one died, then what? The reality is, help was called for and refused. A few guys took it in there own hands, disobeyed orders, and were successful.. That has to make you question the directive from above... The politicians are going to play damage control.. You have blinders on, you want to believe them because you're affiliated with them.. Can you admit that they might have screwed up here?

If by "screwed up" you mean, if they sent them in, they MIGHT have been able to save them then sure. But they also MIGHT have died, leaving less assets to protect the Annex and more people could have died. This is Monday Morning Quarterbacking equivalent to second guessing Harbaugh for not running the ball in the Super Bowl.That doesn't really prove "screwing up" in my opinion. They were the most senior officials and they've had to make these decisions their whole lives. Sometimes the decisions work, sometimes they don't and we have no idea if this would have even worked. So I'm not really sure what you are proving.

 

[Politician Spock]

I know people die and mistakes happen. I hate the loss of life and for it to have happened the that manner, in such a dreadful place. I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be to die that way. I feel for the families of those who died. But people die every day. It's a truth of our existence.

I wouldn't have had as much of problem with the way this administration handled the aftermath if someone would have just come out and said what needed to be said here. Give us the truth up front, don't make us drag it out of you. "There were mistakes made, things could have been handled better" ... "The buck stops with me"

The initial response here was completely undignified, and was almost certainly handled the way it was for political reasons, with the election coming up. That fact makes this situation 10x worse.The actual physical response to the threat both before and during the attack may have also been politically motivated, maybe we'll never know. That's a dreadful thought but could likely be the case. I certainly hope the truth will be dragged out even if they have to drag them kicking and screaming.

When you're in charge, you don't blame the people you've placed under you, that share the burden of your responsibilities. It shouldn't take a congressional hearing to get the answers we deserve or the response we've deserved from the start. The response we should have gotten in the first place, which apparently is only a response used when it fits your political agenda Mr Obama, is

I'm not going to argue on behalf of CH (or anyone else for that matter). His opinion is his, and my opinion is mine... and they are not the same opinion.

But I feel the need to respond to the bolded.

I know that every politician lies. Every politician got to where they are today via the benefit of lies they've made along the way. That is our government. It is what it is. Without the option for something better, it's the best we can do.

But it IS different when they got caught lying. While they are all liars, there's nothing we can really do about their lying, EXCEPT when they get caught.

It is also different given an Ambassador was killed. The more important a person is, the less room there is for error in how you manage the investigation and details of their death. That's not to say that when some private gets killed that it's okay to do a half assed job in managing the incident, but please tell me you see the difference between how the death of private is managed and the death of a general is managed. There's no room for error when managing the death of a general... and to some degree, how the death of this Ambassador has been handled has been pretty ####### poor from my perspective.

Having said that, I agree with the post earlier that there is no way that Benghazi is the worst thing that has occured in the Obama administration. The Republicans are giving it far too much attention than it deserves, but it is different and shouldn't be written off as one of those things that seems to occur in all administrators. It's pretty unique, comparatively speaking.

 

[timschochet]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

i think most of this is stupid, but i see a bit of a difference. when a president uses the word "terrorism" in today's vernacular, it's significant. most people hear that as an indication of an organized attack.

So an "act of terror" is NOT an organized attack? What would be an example of an "act of terror" that isn't organized?

a guy waking up one morning and deciding to shoot up the place where he works?

That's not an act of political terrorism. But I see your point.

OK, so defenders of Obama (and Obama himself) are claiming that when he used the phrase "act of terror" he was talking about terrorism, and critics of Obama are claiming that he wasn't. Well, so far as I can see, the critics could easily be correct here. But so what if they are?

 

[pantherclub]

this thread just went to a tard level of 5

 

[timschochet]

I know people die and mistakes happen. I hate the loss of life and for it to have happened the that manner, in such a dreadful place. I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be to die that way. I feel for the families of those who died. But people die every day. It's a truth of our existence.

I wouldn't have had as much of problem with the way this administration handled the aftermath if someone would have just come out and said what needed to be said here. Give us the truth up front, don't make us drag it out of you. "There were mistakes made, things could have been handled better" ... "The buck stops with me"

The initial response here was completely undignified, and was almost certainly handled the way it was for political reasons, with the election coming up. That fact makes this situation 10x worse.The actual physical response to the threat both before and during the attack may have also been politically motivated, maybe we'll never know. That's a dreadful thought but could likely be the case. I certainly hope the truth will be dragged out even if they have to drag them kicking and screaming.

When you're in charge, you don't blame the people you've placed under you, that share the burden of your responsibilities. It shouldn't take a congressional hearing to get the answers we deserve or the response we've deserved from the start. The response we should have gotten in the first place, which apparently is only a response used when it fits your political agenda Mr Obama, is

Good points. First off, I still have no evidence that the President was deliberately lying about the video. I strongly doubt we will ever now. Like you, I make the presumption that most politicians lie a lot of the time, so it's easy to assume he was, but I can't prove it. My opinion of Obama has always been mild admiration for him as a man (as much as I can admire any modern politician) combined with mild disapproval of his politics. This incident is not going to change my opinion of him, and I doubt it will change very many others, as well (the IRS and AP stories might, however.)

As for the death of the ambassador, to me it's not relevant, since the only dispute currently under discussion is how the Administration chose to interpret the death. If Obama and his people's actions had a direct impact on the death itself, that would be another story.

 

[timschochet]

this thread just went to a tard level of 5

Really? I think we're finally starting to have a constructive discussion.

 

[Slapdash]

this thread just went to a tard level of 5

 

[pittstownkiller]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

terrorism and terror have 2 different definitions..

Can you give an example of an "act of terror" that is not terrorism?

Do you really want to play this game Tim?

 

[pantherclub]

this thread just went to a tard level of 5

Really? I think we're finally starting to have a constructive discussion.

when you start (not you in particularly) to debate the semantics of terrorism and acts of terror and how the President is skirting around the words then yeah the thread dumbs itself down.

 

[pantherclub]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

terrorism and terror have 2 different definitions..

Can you give an example of an "act of terror" that is not terrorism?

Do you really want to play this game Tim?

exhibit "A"

 

[timschochet]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

terrorism and terror have 2 different definitions..

Can you give an example of an "act of terror" that is not terrorism?

Do you really want to play this game Tim?

Actually I don't. See my above post.

 

[FlapJacks]

I want to know why our troops were ordered to stand down. I want to know why the President went to sleep while an attack was initiated on our embassy.

I want to know why our government chose to concoct some BS story about that and tried to sell it to the world. I want to know why we didn't beef up secirity during a time when other countries, like Great Britain, were actually evacuating. I want to know why it takes acongressional investigation to get dodgy answers,at best.

 

[timschochet]

this thread just went to a tard level of 5

Really? I think we're finally starting to have a constructive discussion.

when you start (not you in particularly) to debate the semantics of terrorism and acts of terror and how the President is skirting around the words then yeah the thread dumbs itself down.

Yeah, but the more I think about it, they have a point. Terrorism implies a politically motivated action, while an act of terror could be what happened in Newtown.

Now that being said, it's still a rather absurd distinction in this case IMO, because if the death of the ambassador had been caused as a result of the video, that would still be a politically motivated action, and thus terrorism. So even if Obama did, for whatever reason, deliberately avoid the word "terrorism" initially and use "act of terror" instead, by blaming the action on the video he still implied that it was terrorism. So it's making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[FlapJacks]

1. "Acts of Terror" was a reference to 9/11/2001

2. If I throw a brick through your window, that is an act of terror, but not terrorism

3. If we have to re-parse a speech weeks later to discern a different meaning that that which was originally discerned in order to shape it to a new set of known facts, then the deliverer of the speech is a piss-poor communicator

 

[pantherclub]

this thread just went to a tard level of 5

Really? I think we're finally starting to have a constructive discussion.

when you start (not you in particularly) to debate the semantics of terrorism and acts of terror and how the President is skirting around the words then yeah the thread dumbs itself down.

Yeah, but the more I think about it, they have a point. Terrorism implies a politically motivated action, while an act of terror could be what happened in Newtown.

Now that being said, it's still a rather absurd distinction in this case IMO, because if the death of the ambassador had been caused as a result of the video, that would still be a politically motivated action, and thus terrorism. So even if Obama did, for whatever reason, deliberately avoid the word "terrorism" initially and use "act of terror" instead, by blaming the action on the video he still implied that it was terrorism. So it's making a mountain out of a molehill.

Why in the #### does that even matter?

Thats why people are laughing at the right for so desperately trying to cling to this and make something more then it is. They are really trying to get him on the terminology of Terrorism v. Acts of Terror. Good luck with that

 

[timschochet]

I want to know why our troops were ordered to stand down. I want to know why the President went to sleep while an attack was initiated on our embassy.

I want to know why our government chose to concoct some BS story about that and tried to sell it to the world. I want to know why we didn't beef up secirity during a time when other countries, like Great Britain, were actually evacuating. I want to know why it takes acongressional investigation to get dodgy answers,at best.

1. Do you have evidence that the troops were "ordered to stand down"?

2. Do you have evidence that the President went to sleep with knowledge of the attack that was happening at the same time?

3. Do you have evidence that the government chose to deliberately concoct what they knew to be a "BS" story?

4. Do you have evidence that we deliberately chose not to beef up security while anticipating attacks?

5. Do you have evidence that the answers to Congress by the Administration were "dodgy"?

If the answers to these questions are yes, and you can present them here in an objective, convincing fashion, then I agree with you; I will want to know the answers too. But if you're unable to provide such evidence (which I certainly haven't seen) then I can't, sorry.

 

[timschochet]

this thread just went to a tard level of 5

Really? I think we're finally starting to have a constructive discussion.

when you start (not you in particularly) to debate the semantics of terrorism and acts of terror and how the President is skirting around the words then yeah the thread dumbs itself down.

Yeah, but the more I think about it, they have a point. Terrorism implies a politically motivated action, while an act of terror could be what happened in Newtown.

Now that being said, it's still a rather absurd distinction in this case IMO, because if the death of the ambassador had been caused as a result of the video, that would still be a politically motivated action, and thus terrorism. So even if Obama did, for whatever reason, deliberately avoid the word "terrorism" initially and use "act of terror" instead, by blaming the action on the video he still implied that it was terrorism. So it's making a mountain out of a molehill.

Why in the #### does that even matter?

Thats why people are laughing at the right for so desperately trying to cling to this and make something more then it is. They are really trying to get him on the terminology of Terrorism v. Acts of Terror. Good luck with that

Well, like I wrote, I tend to agree with you.

 

[Politician Spock]

I know people die and mistakes happen. I hate the loss of life and for it to have happened the that manner, in such a dreadful place. I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be to die that way. I feel for the families of those who died. But people die every day. It's a truth of our existence.

I wouldn't have had as much of problem with the way this administration handled the aftermath if someone would have just come out and said what needed to be said here. Give us the truth up front, don't make us drag it out of you. "There were mistakes made, things could have been handled better" ... "The buck stops with me"

The initial response here was completely undignified, and was almost certainly handled the way it was for political reasons, with the election coming up. That fact makes this situation 10x worse.The actual physical response to the threat both before and during the attack may have also been politically motivated, maybe we'll never know. That's a dreadful thought but could likely be the case. I certainly hope the truth will be dragged out even if they have to drag them kicking and screaming.

When you're in charge, you don't blame the people you've placed under you, that share the burden of your responsibilities. It shouldn't take a congressional hearing to get the answers we deserve or the response we've deserved from the start. The response we should have gotten in the first place, which apparently is only a response used when it fits your political agenda Mr Obama, is

I don't think the president lied. I do think Clinton lied thought, but I admit it's a presumption based on it's easy to assume she is a liar given her history. I disagree with Obama, and I know he has had to lie to some degree to get where he is, but for the most part he is pretty honest in my opinion, when you compare him to someone like Hilary.

As for whether or not the death of an Ambassador is revelant, I don't think it's revevancy has anything to do with what is being disputed. It's relevant because he was an Ambassador, just like it's revelant that JFK got shot is Dallas when so many other gun shot deaths in Dallas are irrelevant. The more important a person is, the higher the expectations are that you investigate and manage the death correctly. It's just as relevant if they managed it perfectly as it is if they messed up. It's relevancy isn't determined by how it's managed. The relevancy determines the expectation of how you manage it.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Tim, do you believe the President downplayed the role of Al-Qaeda in the attack in Benghazi deliberately, for political purposes? Do you believe that the President ever related the attack in Benghazi to a video while he knew that was not the case. Those are really the two questions that need to be answered. Not sending in a rescue squad, or not having enough security, speaks to potential incompetence but more forgivable than a lie concocted for political expediency.

 

[timschochet]

I know people die and mistakes happen. I hate the loss of life and for it to have happened the that manner, in such a dreadful place. I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be to die that way. I feel for the families of those who died. But people die every day. It's a truth of our existence.

I wouldn't have had as much of problem with the way this administration handled the aftermath if someone would have just come out and said what needed to be said here. Give us the truth up front, don't make us drag it out of you. "There were mistakes made, things could have been handled better" ... "The buck stops with me"

The initial response here was completely undignified, and was almost certainly handled the way it was for political reasons, with the election coming up. That fact makes this situation 10x worse.The actual physical response to the threat both before and during the attack may have also been politically motivated, maybe we'll never know. That's a dreadful thought but could likely be the case. I certainly hope the truth will be dragged out even if they have to drag them kicking and screaming.

When you're in charge, you don't blame the people you've placed under you, that share the burden of your responsibilities. It shouldn't take a congressional hearing to get the answers we deserve or the response we've deserved from the start. The response we should have gotten in the first place, which apparently is only a response used when it fits your political agenda Mr Obama, is

In the case of JFK, government officials months later issued a full report (the Warren Commission) which conspiracy theorists have attacked ever since. Now if, some months from now, the Obama administration issues a formal report on Benghazi in which they blame the attack on the video, then that would be cause for outrage and strong criticism. But that's a very far cry from a few press conferences given during the first few weeks. To rip the Obama administration for what they said during the first few weeks seems so minor to me, and it's hardly reflective of whether or not they investigated and managed the death correctly.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, do you believe the President downplayed the role of Al-Qaeda in the attack in Benghazi deliberately, for political purposes? Do you believe that the President ever related the attack in Benghazi to a video while he knew that was not the case. Those are really the two questions that need to be answered. Not sending in a rescue squad, or not having enough security, speaks to potential incompetence but more forgivable than a lie concocted for political expediency.

Good questions- you're getting to the heart of the matter:

1. I believe it's very possible that Obama downplayed the role of al-Qaeda deliberately, for political purposes. I don't think we'll ever know this for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me. However, even if he did, I don't find it particularly significant. As I pointed out earlier, politicians tend to downplay certain events and overly focus on other events, and it happens all the time.

2. Personally I don't believe that Obama used the video deliberately knowing it was not the case. I think that he and the State Department and the CIA all believed that it WAS the case, and with good reason, because of all the protests around the world that occurred the same day, several of them with crowds chanting "Death to America!". I think any reasonable person would assume there was a connection. Could Obama have been deliberately lying? Of course it's possible, but I doubt it. Could the Obama administration have deliberately lied when they continued to mention the video several days later, when they had received information that contradicted it? This is more likely than the initial lying but I still doubt it. Sometimes it takes a long time for an administration to change messaging.

 

[Politician Spock]

I know people die and mistakes happen. I hate the loss of life and for it to have happened the that manner, in such a dreadful place. I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be to die that way. I feel for the families of those who died. But people die every day. It's a truth of our existence.

I wouldn't have had as much of problem with the way this administration handled the aftermath if someone would have just come out and said what needed to be said here. Give us the truth up front, don't make us drag it out of you. "There were mistakes made, things could have been handled better" ... "The buck stops with me"

The initial response here was completely undignified, and was almost certainly handled the way it was for political reasons, with the election coming up. That fact makes this situation 10x worse.The actual physical response to the threat both before and during the attack may have also been politically motivated, maybe we'll never know. That's a dreadful thought but could likely be the case. I certainly hope the truth will be dragged out even if they have to drag them kicking and screaming.

When you're in charge, you don't blame the people you've placed under you, that share the burden of your responsibilities. It shouldn't take a congressional hearing to get the answers we deserve or the response we've deserved from the start. The response we should have gotten in the first place, which apparently is only a response used when it fits your political agenda Mr Obama, is

If what was revealed last week regarding the ambassadors death also occured regarding JFK's death, the reaction of the public would have been far greater for JFK than it was for Ambassador Steven's last week. Because JFK is more relevant than Stevens.... even if the mismanagement of the incident were exactly the same.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

I want to know why our troops were ordered to stand down. I want to know why the President went to sleep while an attack was initiated on our embassy.

I want to know why our government chose to concoct some BS story about that and tried to sell it to the world. I want to know why we didn't beef up secirity during a time when other countries, like Great Britain, were actually evacuating. I want to know why it takes acongressional investigation to get dodgy answers,at best.

Actually.............they weren't.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/14/jason-chaffetz/rep-jason-chaffetz-says-special-forces-ready-save-/

I'm glad that you think you would have had all the answers immediately after it happened, but in the real world, investigations take time. What was said on TV was what was thought at the time. And we haven't had a congressional investigation for dodgy answers, we've had at least 7 for answers that you and your ilk don't want to hear.

Hope that helps.

 

[mad sweeney]

**** Cheney: Obama Involved In Benghazi 'Cover-Up'

HFS, and how many cover-ups were you involved in D*cck?

Yeah, that's like Hustler busting on someone for grammar and spelling. Physician heal thyself!

 

[mad sweeney]

1. "Acts of Terror" was a reference to 9/11/20012. If I throw a brick through your window, that is an act of terror, but not terrorism3. If we have to re-parse a speech weeks later to discern a different meaning that that which was originally discerned in order to shape it to a new set of known facts, then the deliverer of the speech is a piss-poor communicator

 

[sporthenry]

I want to know why our troops were ordered to stand down. I want to know why the President went to sleep while an attack was initiated on our embassy.

I want to know why our government chose to concoct some BS story about that and tried to sell it to the world. I want to know why we didn't beef up secirity during a time when other countries, like Great Britain, were actually evacuating. I want to know why it takes acongressional investigation to get dodgy answers,at best.

Actually.............they weren't.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/14/jason-chaffetz/rep-jason-chaffetz-says-special-forces-ready-save-/

I'm glad that you think you would have had all the answers immediately after it happened, but in the real world, investigations take time. What was said on TV was what was thought at the time. And we haven't had a congressional investigation for dodgy answers, we've had at least 7 for answers that you and your ilk don't want to hear.

Hope that helps.

If you don't like the answer, just keep asking questions til you find someone who gives you the answer you want to hear. Pickering expounded on this on Sunday.

CROWLEY: So, here's the bottom line question, were there military assets anywhere that could have saved these men, because the implication here is that there was, that possibly lives did not need to be lost had the military acted more quickly?

PICKERING: That group would have arrived after everybody had left the Benghazi airport, but a few. The airport was secured. There were 80 according to the testimony. Libyan armored -- armed vehicles and people there securing the airport, so there was no doubt about that.

CROWLEY: The airport in Benghazi?

PICKERING: The airport in Benghazi, which was the extensible reason for their going. They were actually extremely useful and helping to treating the wounded when they arrived in Tripoli.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Tim, do you believe the President downplayed the role of Al-Qaeda in the attack in Benghazi deliberately, for political purposes? Do you believe that the President ever related the attack in Benghazi to a video while he knew that was not the case. Those are really the two questions that need to be answered. Not sending in a rescue squad, or not having enough security, speaks to potential incompetence but more forgivable than a lie concocted for political expediency.

Good questions- you're getting to the heart of the matter: 1. I believe it's very possible that Obama downplayed the role of al-Qaeda deliberately, for political purposes. I don't think we'll ever know this for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me. However, even if he did, I don't find it particularly significant. As I pointed out earlier, politicians tend to downplay certain events and overly focus on other events, and it happens all the time. 2. Personally I don't believe that Obama used the video deliberately knowing it was not the case. I think that he and the State Department and the CIA all believed that it WAS the case, and with good reason, because of all the protests around the world that occurred the same day, several of them with crowds chanting "Death to America!". I think any reasonable person would assume there was a connection. Could Obama have been deliberately lying? Of course it's possible, but I doubt it. Could the Obama administration have deliberately lied when they continued to mention the video several days later, when they had received information that contradicted it? This is more likely than the initial lying but I still doubt it. Sometimes it takes a long time for an administration to change messaging.

I would not argue with your feelings, since neither of us know what Obama knew, but I do not share your conclusions; I would hope that you feel the same way towards the people who disagree with your POV.

 

[tommyboy]

Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

The Pinocchio Test

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Is this really where you want to make your last stand? We saw how Mitt calling Obama out on this worked last time? Now, you think people are going to care about the "ism," especially since you already made a big issue out of it and the people didn't seem to care. Feel free to carry on.

I don't care much about that part of the story, but if you read the transcript, he had moved on from Libya and was talking about the original 9-11 when he said, "These acts of terror..." I mean, if he was calling it a terrorist attack right then and there, then why did Susan Rice blame it on the video days later and why did Obama tell the parents of the deceased that the video was to blame?

That is fine and a fair argument. That one I can see where you are coming from. But to call him out for revisionist history for saying "terrorism" instead of "terror" is silly in my book and I imagine many others.

well to be fair, the Washington Post, that die hard conservative rag, gave Obama 4 Pinocchios today for this fabrication.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”

OBAM

A: “Right.”

KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”

OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

 

[adonis]

These guys just need to let it go the more this goes on, the less people will care and the sillier those pushing this will appear.

 

[Hang 10]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows.

You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

 

[adonis]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows.

You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make?

Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

 

[squistion]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows.

You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

No.

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

Anyone have any extra tinfoil hats? I think I lost mine.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows. You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

No.

Yes.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Anyone have any extra tinfoil hats? I think I lost mine.

They are ineffective now; too much actual corruption to deal with, to ward of mere conspiracies theories.

 

[tommyboy]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows.

You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make?

Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

if you haven't learned yet, the cover up is always worse than the crime.

 

[Hang 10]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows.

You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make?

Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

Oh, I absolutely agree that we should research what happened to prevent future mistakes.

Now, it may seem trivial to you BUT the differences between the way Obama uses "acts of terror" or "terrorist attack" matters because it's part of a pattern. He's not being forthright. We still haven't been given a sufficient answer why the administration ran with a bogus story. It matters because we aren't getting any real answers why mistakes were made.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Is this really where you want to make your last stand? We saw how Mitt calling Obama out on this worked last time? Now, you think people are going to care about the "ism," especially since you already made a big issue out of it and the people didn't seem to care. Feel free to carry on.

I don't care much about that part of the story, but if you read the transcript, he had moved on from Libya and was talking about the original 9-11 when he said, "These acts of terror..." I mean, if he was calling it a terrorist attack right then and there, then why did Susan Rice blame it on the video days later and why did Obama tell the parents of the deceased that the video was to blame?

That is fine and a fair argument. That one I can see where you are coming from. But to call him out for revisionist history for saying "terrorism" instead of "terror" is silly in my book and I imagine many others.

well to be fair, the Washington Post, that die hard conservative rag, gave Obama 4 Pinocchios today for this fabrication.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”

OBAMA: “Right.”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”

But he said the word Terror!!!

I know about 6 guys here that will pretend they didn't read this..

 

[adonis]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows.

You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make?

Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

Oh, I absolutely agree that we should research what happened to prevent future mistakes.

Now, it may seem trivial to you BUT the differences between the way Obama uses "acts of terror" or "terrorist attack" matters because it's part of a pattern. He's not being forthright. We still haven't been given a sufficient answer why the administration ran with a bogus story. It matters because we aren't getting any real answers why mistakes were made.

We're getting plenty of answers...to questions that matter. Your question here doesn't matter.

 

[adonis]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows.

You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make?

Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

if you haven't learned yet, the cover up is always worse than the crime.

The only crime here is how the republicans are politicizing this tragedy to inflict political damage on Hillary Clinton, and to use it to bolster their base leading up to elections coming up.

 

[squistion]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows. You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

No.

Yes.

Prove it. Taken in context, nothing suggests that interpretation.

 

[Hang 10]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows. You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

No.

Yes.

Prove it.

The Washpo agrees he's full of ####. What do you have? Panthersclub?

 

[Hang 10]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows.

You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make?

Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

Oh, I absolutely agree that we should research what happened to prevent future mistakes.

Now, it may seem trivial to you BUT the differences between the way Obama uses "acts of terror" or "terrorist attack" matters because it's part of a pattern. He's not being forthright. We still haven't been given a sufficient answer why the administration ran with a bogus story. It matters because we aren't getting any real answers why mistakes were made.

We're getting plenty of answers...to questions that matter. Your question here doesn't matter.

Answers like... "What difference does it make??"

 

[pantherclub]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows. You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

No.

Yes.

Prove it.

The Washpo agrees he's full of ####. What do have? Panthersclub?

English please

 

[adonis]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows.

You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make?

Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

Oh, I absolutely agree that we should research what happened to prevent future mistakes.

Now, it may seem trivial to you BUT the differences between the way Obama uses "acts of terror" or "terrorist attack" matters because it's part of a pattern. He's not being forthright. We still haven't been given a sufficient answer why the administration ran with a bogus story. It matters because we aren't getting any real answers why mistakes were made.

We're getting plenty of answers...to questions that matter. Your question here doesn't matter.

Answers like... "What difference does it make??"

We're getting answers to "questions that matter". Your question doesnt' matter.

One that matters is something like, oh, "Why was the security level so low around the ambassador leading up to the attack?" or "Why wasn't anyone sent in to help when the attack was under way?" or "Why were the ambassadors requests for additional security apparently not approved?"...those have answers.

Your question on the other hand, really isn't important for anything other than political purposes. The questions others are asking can be used to figure out what went wrong, and to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows. You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make? Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

Oh, I absolutely agree that we should research what happened to prevent future mistakes. Now, it may seem trivial to you BUT the differences between the way Obama uses "acts of terror" or "terrorist attack" matters because it's part of a pattern. He's not being forthright. We still haven't been given a sufficient answer why the administration ran with a bogus story. It matters because we aren't getting any real answers why mistakes were made.

We're getting plenty of answers...to questions that matter. Your question here doesn't matter.

Did you clip that from Hillary?

 

[pantherclub]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows. You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make? Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

Oh, I absolutely agree that we should research what happened to prevent future mistakes. Now, it may seem trivial to you BUT the differences between the way Obama uses "acts of terror" or "terrorist attack" matters because it's part of a pattern. He's not being forthright. We still haven't been given a sufficient answer why the administration ran with a bogus story. It matters because we aren't getting any real answers why mistakes were made.

We're getting plenty of answers...to questions that matter. Your question here doesn't matter.

Did you clip that from Hillary?

sick burn