Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Shady

The Truth About Benghazi

Recommended Posts

It was an act of terror, no matter what the motive. It was an attack on America no matter the motive. Obama called it an act of terror the day after it happened. Only later did he and the rest of the world learn the true nature of that act of terror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was an act of terror, no matter what the motive. It was an attack on America no matter the motive. Obama called it an act of terror the day after it happened. Only later did he and the rest of the world learn the true nature of that act of terror.

I guess that's why Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Jay Carney, and Hillary Clinton (to name a few) administration officials, in subsequent weeks, refused to describe it as an act of terror in direct contradiction to Obama's statement on September 12. More importantly, and absurdly, Obama's September 12 statement in the Rose Garden contradicted itself; in many breaths blaming the attack on the "Innocence of Muslims" video (clearly implying it was a spontaneous eruption of rage), and then in one final breath, the very last sentence of his statement, describing it as an "act of terror". So which was it, a spontaneous eruption of rage in response to the video or a premeditated terrorist attack?

Edited by kraychik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was an act of terror, no matter what the motive. It was an attack on America no matter the motive. Obama called it an act of terror the day after it happened. Only later did he and the rest of the world learn the true nature of that act of terror.

Didn't the Obama admin condemn the film and arrest the film maker for 'parole violations'? Seems an odd reaction to a terror attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the Obama admin condemn the film and arrest the film maker for 'parole violations'? Seems an odd reaction to a terror attack.

It certainly seemed like he was politically targeted. Still, he left himself open. As the saying goes, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time".

EDIT - It was if he was being offered up as a form of tribute to the Islamists. It was Obama's way of saying to the Muslim Brotherhood (who dre is still unsure about with respect to its Islamism), "See? I am carrying out your wishes! Do not be mad at us."

Edited by kraychik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly seemed like he was politically targeted. Still, he left himself open. As the saying goes, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time".

Oh, I agree. But, if the Obama admin was actually thinking 'terrorist attack', why all the bowing and scraping? My response would have been the middle finger with options open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libya happened on Obamas watch. He could've done more and he didn't. He shouldn't reacted faster and he didn't. the end.

So lets look at the record. Democrats an Libya 4 deaths not in America, Republicans and 9/11 4000 deaths on USA soil. You wanna tell me more about what happened on whose watch?

Oh yah I forgot you only apply your standards to Democrats, Republicans get a free ride in your world just like Shady.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets look at the record. Democrats an Libya 4 deaths not in America, Republicans and 9/11 4000 deaths on USA soil. You wanna tell me more about what happened on whose watch?

Oh yah I forgot you only apply your standards to Democrats, Republicans get a free ride in your world just like Shady.

They're not comparable incidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that's why Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Jay Carney, and Hillary Clinton (to name a few) administration officials, in subsequent weeks, refused to describe it as an act of terror in direct contradiction to Obama's statement on September 12. More importantly, and absurdly, Obama's September 12 statement in the Rose Garden contradicted itself; in many breaths blaming the attack on the "Innocence of Muslims" video (clearly implying it was a spontaneous eruption of rage), and then in one final breath, the very last sentence of his statement, describing it as an "act of terror". So which was it, a spontaneous eruption of rage in response to the video or a premeditated terrorist attack?

He called it an act of terrorism the day AFTER IT HAPPENED, he called it an act of terrorism the day after that as well. YOU DON"T GET TO REWRITE FACTS! Those are the facts if you don't like them, then you can live in crazy people land, but those are the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He called it an act of terrorism the day AFTER IT HAPPENED, he called it an act of terrorism the day after that as well. YOU DON"T GET TO REWRITE FACTS! Those are the facts if you don't like them, then you can live in crazy people land, but those are the facts.

Obama also described it as a spontaneous eruption of rage in the very same September 12 address, so Obama contradicted himself in his initial response. Subsequently, there were many subsequent instances over the next two weeks, from not only Obama himself, but from Carney, Clinton, and Rice, where there refused to describe the attack as terrorism. The issue here is over the schizophrenic response of the administration towards this terrorist attack, as well as the political decisions made that left the American consulate in Benghazi vulnerable to the attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama also described it as a spontaneous eruption of rage in the very same September 12 address, so Obama contradicted himself in his initial response. Subsequently, there were many subsequent instances over the next two weeks, from not only Obama himself, but from Carney, Clinton, and Rice, where there refused to describe the attack as terrorism. The issue here is over the schizophrenic response of the administration towards this terrorist attack, as well as the political decisions made that left the American consulate in Benghazi vulnerable to the attack.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Did he or did he not call it a terrorist act on the next day and the day after? You tell me?

Again 4 deaths to terrorism is horrible however it is less Americans dead from terrorism then Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and Reagan. Just to be clear. If we want to talk about Obama's record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you are talking about. Did he or did he not call it a terrorist act on the next day and the day after? You tell me?

Again 4 deaths to terrorism is horrible however it is less Americans dead from terrorism then Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and Reagan. Just to be clear. If we want to talk about Obama's record.

I know you have no idea what I'm talking about, because you refuse that Obama contradicted himself in his initial September 12 address. Either it was a terrorist attacks or it was a spontaneous eruption of rage in response to the YouTube video, you cannot have it both ways. Obama asserted both in his September 12 statement, and actually put much more time into talking about the video than anything else. Moreover, he and his team subsequently contradicted the assertion that it was terrorism over the next two weeks, refusing the answer straightforward questions such as "...I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism, was it? What do you say?" asked by none other than the esteemed Joy Behar of The View. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over, but the contradictions are endless and the political objectives behind them are transparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument is over semantics .... 'act of terror' and 'act of terrorism' really means the same. Politicians love to debate the semantics of what they meant when they said whatever it is they said, without debating what is really going on with whatever they are talking about.

Was it a consulate or a CIA outpost? Those are the questions I would like answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument is over semantics .... 'act of terror' and 'act of terrorism' really means the same. Politicians love to debate the semantics of what they meant when they said whatever it is they said, without debating what is really going on with whatever they are talking about.

Was it a consulate or a CIA outpost? Those are the questions I would like answered.

This isn't even slightly about semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't even slightly about semantics.

Oh come on, the argument is did he say 'act of terror' or 'act of terrorism' and when did he say it. Just as the argument here for the past couple pages.

They mean the same damn thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on, the argument is did he say 'act of terror' or 'act of terrorism' and when did he say it. Just as the argument here for the past couple pages.

They mean the same damn thing.

Who made that argument? Nobody. Try reading the thread, or paying attention to the news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who made that argument?

Shady? First post.

Sorry what else did you say.,.....um...

Nobody. Try reading the thread, or paying attention to the news.

Oh yeah.

Shady is a nobody? Man, thats mean.

Try reading the thread, or pay attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably in danger posting their secrets. I think they're watching me and tracking me. Should I hide under the blanket?

What you're in danger of is getting dumped into everyone's ignore list. Your posts are often as screwy as Oleg's was, but he was a lot more entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I agree. But, if the Obama admin was actually thinking 'terrorist attack', why all the bowing and scraping? My response would have been the middle finger with options open.

Unfortunately that middle finger is what inspires people to kill Americans. So maybe they decided that howevermuch temporary personal satisfaction it would give them they ought to act like statesmen instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not comparable incidents.

In essence, they are. The tenor of this silly argument is that the Democrats have been too busy appeasing Islamists and the Islamic world to focus on defending America. Well, the primary job of every government in history is to keep the barbarians from getting over the wall. The Republicans failed far worse than the Democrats, who lost a consulate in part of the world which, when you get right down to it, isn't very important to anyone. The Republicans failed worse than any American government in modern history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So maybe they decided that howevermuch temporary personal satisfaction it would give them they ought to act like statesmen instead.

Impossible. Statesmanship is not lying to your citizenry.

What was the "spontaneous mob reaction" claim all about? If they didn't have the intelligence info why were they perpetrating this lie and apologizing for a you tube video?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In essence, they are. The tenor of this silly argument is that the Democrats have been too busy appeasing Islamists and the Islamic world to focus on defending America. Well, the primary job of every government in history is to keep the barbarians from getting over the wall. The Republicans failed far worse than the Democrats, who lost a consulate in part of the world which, when you get right down to it, isn't very important to anyone. The Republicans failed worse than any American government in modern history.

It ain't over yet. We're still heading for more fallout from Obama's policies of appeasement. Islamic extremists are single minded about destroying western civilization they are not to be appeased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you are talking about. Did he or did he not call it a terrorist act on the next day and the day after? You tell me?

Again 4 deaths to terrorism is horrible however it is less Americans dead from terrorism then Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and Reagan. Just to be clear. If we want to talk about Obama's record.

Let's agree that he did use the word terrorism. His administration turned down requests for upgraded security for the anniversary of 9/11! For weeks they instead blamed the attack on a silly video which was released in May, not September. Such poor judgement on both issues speaks for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It ain't over yet. We're still heading for more fallout from Obama's policies of appeasement.

By "appeasement", do you mean "drone strikes from the sky"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...