No, I don't. I listened to it, and have read it. I can point to evidence in the text that shows he was talking about Benghazi when talking about acts of terror. But it's not what I wanted to hear, because I could care less if he called it an act of terror on Spt. 12th or not. It is far from being important or significant, and either way wouldn't imply some kind of cover up or controversy.
This is what you posted. I will underline and note places that show a logical reference. So Obama is talking about one instance of terror mentioning 9/11. By using the word "already" that would imply something else in addition to just the terror of 9/11 Please notice that right here the moment before he talks about acts of terror he mentions those who represent us around the globe clearly referencing those that were killed in Benghazi. Again it's important because it is right before he mentions acts of terror So right after he mentions acts of terror which most people will realize is a transition from one paragraph to the next, he then mentions specifically as if to emphasize he's talking about what happened in Benghazi. Exactly! The fact that he ties Benghazi in with the terrorist attack of 9/11 and refers to both of them with the same statement "acts of terror" hurts your argument rather than help it. So again people familiar with the standard use of the English language wouldn't argue that he wasn't referring to Benghazi. Like I said, it shouldn't matter either way because calling to an act of terror on the 12th isn't really very important.
"Already" refers to the mood of the country due to the 9/11 Anniversary. Deaths of high profile US citizens only adds to that mood. "as if".... now there's a certainty. He mentions 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq to merit the plural. He doesn't lump Benghazi in with them. It is kept separate. The important part is the spinning of the fairy tale about the wildly unpopular video off of YouTube. This is interesting and raises some good, hard questions. Most of you are going to be too busy worshiping at the altar of Watergate to bother watching but here it is.... http://mash.network.coull.com/activ...f-the-exceptional-good-guys-on-capitol-h ill/
It is certain to hose familiar with how the language works. all of which involved terrorist attacks. It isn't spin, and it was the intel provided by the preeminent intel agency of the U.S.
... and "as if" conveys possibility not certainty. You challenge MY understanding of the language... Yes, they all did involve terrorist attacks which makes it curious as to why he didn't say that. Their story projects and bunch of spontaneous street protesters who lost control rather than a large, coordinated effort which involved mortar fire and some 100+ participants...
I used "as if" because you were the only one not certain. Obama did say it was a terrorist attack, you just refuse to understand that. I guess we're at an impasse.
I just don't comment on the crazies. I couldn't watch the video from the computer I was on earlier. I'll watch it now. edit:: Okay I watched the video, and I can answer plenty of the questions he asked. Others were just stupid questions like those about Susan Rice. The origin of "mythology" that it was about a a video came from the CIA, and that's been proven. The cut to some of the security in the area came as a result of Republicans in congress, so yes I know about that too. The video comes off as desperate GOP trying hard to pretend like there's still a scandal to be had here, when we've already seen there isn't.
Before the Obama administration gave an inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred, documents and interviews with current and former intelligence officials show. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#ixzz2xkpEGqot Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Which doesn't change the fact that the administration received talking points from the intelligence community which indicated otherwise. If you are arguing that the large bureaucracy caused slow communication, I agree with you, but I'm fairly certain that wasn't what you were attempting for a "point."
Interesting - so I assume from you believe the CIA station chief to be a reliable source of information? If so, he also clearly stated there was no cover-up and politics did not play a role in any of this: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/michael-morrell-benghazi-cia-105290.html?hp=l4 “There are areas where the CIA’s performance and my own performance could have been better, but none of our actions were the result of political influence in the intelligence process. None.” ... Morell said he believed Rice, who is now national security adviser, would have had the talking points, as well as intelligence information from the days prior. However, he acknowledged that she did not have information sent by the CIA’s chief station on the ground, which concluded that the attack was possibly preplanned. ... Morell said that the information had not been disseminated outside of the CIA and that at the time, he did not find the arguments that it was a preplanned attack “compelling.” Morell said earlier in the hearing that when the information from the chief station was first sent to analysts, Morell said they were “sticking to their judgment” that it was a protest. “So I believed what my analysts said, that there was a protest. I also believed it to be a terrorist attack. You see, we never, we never saw those two things as mutually exclusive and so, I believed both of those at the same time,” Morell said.
imo.. I wouldn't consider anyone at the CIA "a reliable source of information" Their whole mantra is to deceive and misdirect. however here's a couple of quotes from more reliable people. One was second in command to Ambassador Stevens... the other is a General.
Leading Conservative Has Sobering News For The GOP On Benghazi: ‘This Thing Is Done’ House Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) said on Thursday that he is satisfied with how the military respond to the attack. “I think I’ve pretty well been satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened and how quickly it dissipated, we probably couldn’t have done more than we did,” McKeon told reporters at a roundtable discussion. “Now, we’ve made changes since then. We’ve got more Marine fast teams that we built up security around the world.”
Email Reveals Obama Advisor Urged Rice to Blame Video for Benghazi http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-emai...nghazi/#ooid=wzanFubTomyfoIVdLv434ca9YgqRTpqO
more: Benghazi Emails Show White House Effort to Protect Obama <http://freebeacon.com/national-security/benghazi-emails-show-white-house-effort-to-protect-obama/> BY: Adam Kredo April 29, 2014 1:10 pm Previously unreleased internal Obama administration emails show that a coordinated effort was made in the days following the Benghazi terror attacks to portray the incident as “rooted in [an] Internet video, and not [in] a broader failure or policy.” Emails<http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14> sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials reveal an effort to insulate President Barack Obama from the attacks that killed four Americans. Rhodes sent this email to top White House officials such as David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday news show appearances to discuss the attack. The “goal,” according to these emails, was “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.” Rice came under fierce criticism<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/29/gop-senators-demand-explanation-for-benghazi-talking-points/> following her appearances on television after she adhered to these talking points and blamed the attack on a little-watched Internet video. The newly released internal White House e-mails show that Rice’s orders came from top Obama administration communications officials. “[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it,” Rhodes wrote in the email, which was released on Tuesday by the advocacy group Judicial Watch. “We reject its message and its contents,” he wrote. “We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.” Rhodes also suggested that Rice tout Obama’s reputation as “steady and statesmanlike.” “I think that people have come to trust that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike,” he wrote. “There are always going to be challenges that emerge around the world, and time and again, he has shown that we can meet them.” Also contained in the 41 pages of documents obtained by Judicial Watch is a Sep. 12, 2012 email from Payton Knopf, the former deputy spokesman at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. In this communication, Knopf informs Rice that senior officials had already dubbed the Benghazi attack as “complex” and planned in advance. Despite this information, Rice still insisted that attacks were “spontaneous.” The newly released cache of emails also appear to confirm that the CIA altered its original talking points on the attacks in the following days. Then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell is identified as the person who heavily edited the critical fact sheet. “The first draft apparently seemed unsuitable … because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our embassy,” states one email. “Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy hand to editing them. He noted that he would be happy to work with [then deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton] Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that the emails show the White House was most concerned with insulating Obama. “Now we know the Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good,” Fitton said in a statement. “And these documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video.” “Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department,” Fitton said.
who is Ben Rhodes? from a year ago: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/ben_rhodes_obamas_fixer_behind_the_benghazi_cover-up.html
