Or put it this way: Obama says it was an act of terrorism … and then goes to a party in Vegas? That’s their new story?
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 17, 2012
From the transcript at the Rose Garden, Sept.12th: (link fixed)
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
Emphasis mine, Ms. Crowley.
Skip, the discussion was about a video for the first two weeks. The mention of terrorism only became operative last night.
He lied for two weeks and blamed a video, and he stood before the American people and lied bluntly to their faces and the moderator backed up his lies.
Rose
Picked up his lies ON CUE.
He told Candy to ‘check the transcript’, on cue, a rehearsed setup. This was prepared for by Candy the cow and Obamao. Watch the video, clear as day.
The Demos and the Chicago hit squad are revisionists extraordinaire. and the gullible water carriers swallow it up without guilt.
All Romney had to say was….”then why did you tell the American people that the attack was the result of a (non-existent) protest of a lo quality film?”
He froze.
Stonewalling against the patently obvious never works: there are no fifty shades of grey or gray, according to taste, available. What really is the point of trying to defend the indefensible? You just end up looking politically inept and/or dishonest. Dumb-ass politics.
I’d say that this was Obama’s John Turner “I had no option” moment: and although Mulroney showed skill with a stiletto in a way that Mitt did not, once the comment is out of the proponent’s mouth, the damage is done. Obama’s comments in the Rose Garden were nothing more than throw-away travel insurance — “I’ll pay $18.00 so I can sleep during my week on the Mexican Riviera, but heaven help me if I ever have to use it.”
Why would Obama not just say something like,
“You know, our initial assessment has proven to be somewhat inaccurate. We now understand that the Benghazi incident was a pre-planned terrorist attack, and you can count on us to impose serious consequences on the perpetrators.”?
A little finesse (as in, Oliver Goldsmith’s “She Stoops to Conquer”) would have ended the thing, just as a little finesse would have allowed the media to slide by Romney’s pulling Obama’s pants down in public on September 12, 2012. Instead, he and his supporters in the media have opted for fester — and they’re seriously at the point now of provoking a vengeance vote like 1984 in this country.
The fact remains that for 2 weeks obummer kept referring to the stupid video on the View, Letterman, the UN and his ambassador to the UN went on 5 TV shows to say the same things, knowing full well that there was NO demonstration and that it was an act of TERRORISM. The State Dept was watching it in real time in an operations centre. How can there be any doubt that the president, vice president, secretary of state, UN ambassador, press secretary all lied to the American people for two weeks.
@ Slap Shot at October 17, 2012 5:05 AM
The EU/UN killed our Ambassador …
CORRECTION: Ansar al-Sharia is believed to have killed Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Last night’s debate remindes me of a cold war era hockey game between Canada and the USSR where all the officials are from Eastern Bloc Countries.
Stonewalling against the patently obvious never works: there are no fifty shades of grey or gray, according to taste, available. What really is the point of trying to defend the indefensible? You just end up looking politically inept and/or dishonest. Dumb-ass politics.
I’d say that this was Obama’s John Turner “I had no option” moment: and although Mulroney showed skill with a stiletto in a way that Mitt did not, once the comment is out of the proponent’s mouth, the damage is done. Obama’s comments in the Rose Garden were nothing more than throw-away travel insurance — “I’ll pay $18.00 so I can sleep during my week on the Mexican Riviera, but heaven help me if I ever have to use it.”
Why would Obama not just say something like,
“You know, our initial assessment has proven to be somewhat inaccurate. We now understand that the Benghazi incident was a pre-planned terrorist attack, and you can count on us to impose serious consequences on the perpetrators.”?
A little finesse (as in, Oliver Goldsmith’s “She Stoops to Conquer”) would have ended the thing, just as a little finesse would have allowed the media to slide by Romney’s pulling Obama’s pants down in public on September 12, 2012. Instead, he and his supporters in the media have opted for fester — and they’re seriously at the point now of provoking a vengeance vote like 1984 in this country.
“Skip, the discussion was about a video for the first two weeks. The mention of terrorism only became operative last night.
Posted by: WalterF at October 17, 2012 9:30 AM Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.”
Aware, WalterF. There is another take on the “terrorism” discussion:
NRO’s Patrick Brennan on why Obama’s “acts of terror” reference in the Rose Garden on September 12 wasn’t really a reference to Benghazi:
His only mention of “terror”:
“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. Today we mourn four more …
One could take that as a reference to acts which include the tragedy in Benghazi, obviously, but there was clearly no effort made to label it an act of terrorism. One reason why this might be: According to U.S. law, acts of terrorism are premeditated. The Obama administration’s line for days following Obama’s Rose Garden statement suggested that the attack wasn’t premeditated.”
But regardless of technical definitions, the phraseology is synonymous in colloquial use. If you are talking or discussing “acts of terror” you are discussing terrorism.
In the opening line, he could just as easily said: ” “No acts of terrorism will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,…”, or ” “No terrorism will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,…”, and it all would have been the same thing.
Tomato, Tomahto.
conservative joe, read and listen to the news. Candy admitted she was in error.
The original Rick, exactly. Candy Crowley reminds me of Helen Thomas.
If it was an act of terrorism or just terror, if you will, why then was Rice dispatched to spin the ‘video riot’ storey for the nest 2 weeks?
These two things don’t line up.
At best, it’s unclear whether Obama was referring to the Libyan attack or to 9/11 when he used the phrase “…acts of terror”
It seemed like a setup, regardless and Romney looked stunned and was caught off guard – he wasn’t as prepared as the Liar-in-Chief.
The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
Except of course Our
Muslim friends . Who will inherit the Earth. Mean while Christians , Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, are mere nothings.
Simply – You’re stupid if you buy the POTUS story and timeline of this issue. Moronic even.