I brought it up because mcmark "claimed" that President Obama properly identified it as an act of terrorism; I don't thiink he did. I think he danced around it. Below is the section of Obama's speech where he for the one and only time uses the word "terror"... "Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi. As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. 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 Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." Notice he says "acts of terror." He has been talking about 9/11 and Iraq and Afghanistan.... Then he transitions to "Today we mourn four more Americans" and he refers to a "terrible" act which lead to their death-- not "terrorism" or "an act of terror" as you want to see. Feel free to disagree, of course, but I think this was crafted this way intentionally. I also want to point up that the single use of the word terror came up about 3/4ths of the way through the President's remarks. In journalism they call that burying the lead and it is bad form. You put the most important stuff up FRONT.
I don't even know what that means about giddy, but okay. People are allowed to have feelings about topics, unless your obvious faith in this administration has now stripped you of those as well.
Yes, of course people are allowed to have their own feelings. They're just not allowed to have their own facts. Several reports have come to the same conclusion about this incident so I'm wary of anyone who still feels the need to question the events. Unless of course they have their own agenda and other reasons not to accept the findings.
Thanks for clarifying. It is a fact though, that Clinton, Susan Rice, Obama, among others immediately tried to tie it to the video. I remember watching the speeches on TV and can find transcripts of such online. Whether they were trying to cover up some huge conspiracy...I think it's doubtful. Did the bungle through an obvious terror attack and give an incorrect story so it would not appear their guard was down on the anniversary of 9/11 during an election year? That sounds more likely to me.
What do you think about the fact that the event at Benghazi was not, in fact, called an "act of terrorism" on September 12 by President Obama in the Rose Garden? The word "terror" was not even used until the President had recalled vocally the tragedies of 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then he transitioned back to Benghazi and called the deaths at Benghazi "terrible" not "acts of terror." Go figure... slippery dude that President!
I guess then that you're confirming that your comprehension is only at the most literal state of development, and you aren't able to make inferences, draw conclusions, or make connections. Furthermore, on the 12th nothing was known for certain as to why the attacks happened. It would have been irresponsible for the President or anyone else to definitively state any cause for the attacks until it was certain why they happened. Perhaps you would like your leaders to make literal strong accusations and statements even if all the facts aren't known at the time, but most people would want a more thoughtful leader.
IT was in fact called a terrorist act. Only someone who doesn't understand how the language works would not comprehend that from the speech given.
... but blaming it on the amateur video man was "responsible?" Must be cool to be able to act in a way that contradicts what you preach about. I used to think you were better than stooping to this base insults. I guess not.
He mentioned that because that was what the intel told him. The only thing he said that was definite was that they would bring justice to those that did it. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but I will call out someone who doesn't understand how language works when their position in a debate is derived from being ignorant when using transitions, inferences, conclusions etc.
Did we just go from this BEING a COVERUP to what did the President said or not said? When will we get to what did the President really intent no matter what he said (... i think we are already there for some folks)
I think that the "fact" you point out is about semantics and word games. There is no scandal whatsoever about Benghazi, no matter how DESPERATELY you want there to be.
Didn't Ambassador Stevens decide that the local militias would provide security? Weren't these the same militias that turned against Stevens? Borrowing from the wiki page on the incident: On August 6, 2013, it was reported that the U.S. had filed criminal charges against several individuals, including militia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala, for alleged involvement in the attacks.[14] To date, a few arrests have been made (none by the FBI); no one has been prosecuted. I'm not completely absolving the Obama administration on this, but Ambassador Stevens, r.i.p. (and you can jump me for this, I could care less) deserves a good portion of the blame. Put your trust in a bunch of trigger-happy scumbags with dubious allegiance? Gooooood idea. And Obama called it "an act of terror". Period. Save your energy for when Hillary runs for President. You'll be bringing up Benghazi all day, all night. If GWB had been President during the incident (and let's not say "it never would have happened in that case, because terrorists fear Republicans and don't fear Democrats") I doubt the conservatives here would be splitting hairs on semantics. Or even mentioning it, for that matter.
Just stop it. Overturn my literal analysis and we'll talk. In the meantime, stop making these empty accusations. In the Rose Garden remarks, Obama never distinctly called the Behghazi incident a "terror act" or "terrorism." A week later on late night TV, he was still chatting about the YT video being the primary motivator in the deaths of those Americans. You don't read; you skim.
So now it is merely a "mention?" It was the ONLY thing mentioned publicly at that point. Is that the only intel that existed? I doubt it. There were over 100 people involved in attacking the US embassy with two mortars set up. Yeah, that sounds spontaneous....
You are talking about crap that's been gone over and debunked. The intel said it was because of the movie. You can apply facts that were known afterwards all you want. The fact that there were more than 100 people involved might be why it made sense that they believed it was an angry mob. Most traditional terrorist attacks wouldn't necessarily involve hundreds of people at once attacking. But an angry mob might easily involve 100 or more people.
Given how, pardon the pun, "liberally" the word terrorism has come to be used in recent years, is that really what matters in this incident? Whether or not someone said initially that it was or wasn't terrorism?
I'm not going to reduce a conversation to your narrow completely literal, and below rudimentary use of the English language. Either you can start addressing the implications, inferences, references, conclusions, transitions, etc. or you can stop trying to make a point.
The implications, inferences, references, conclusion, transitions et al spring directly from literally what was said. Libya was a hot spot. There had to be lots of intel. Blaming the movie was a convenient choice... a top of the pile selection which did not pan out as truth.
