Why did the President not call it an act of terror in his opening statement? Three-fourths of the way through his comments, he calls it "terrible." Why did he persist in talking about the video as cause for the eruption almost a week later when much more intel had surfaced and had been analyzed?
Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi We know why it is so important, don't we? Maybe Hillary will address it during her inauguration.
Apparently, if it was said on TV multiple times by multiple people...it didn't happen and has been "debunked" as false. That's what I'm gathering from several posters in this thread specifically, and D&D in general.
Back and to the left...back and to the left... giddy has it figured out and will repeat it until it becomes part of the Benghazi lexicon.
You got that! No one will take on the actual language that was used.... as I've challenged them to. They are too in-love with their own interpretation... and falsely accuse me of a slanted interpretation.
I actually find it rather insulting and disgusting that the right wing is more angry at Obama instead of the actual peices of **** that killed our fellow Americans.
Right...not sure how it could be "slanted". I saw the news and watched Susan Rice say it repeatedly that it was the video; I saw Clinton and Obama pandering to the Muslim community in the days following the attacks, and I saw the producer of the video get vilified by all the news stations. If it was terrorism (which it was), call it that and find the people who did it.
Ah, excuse me... there's a meeting of the "Back-slapping Cadre of Liberals" going on. I'm not a member or even an invited guest!
The actual language that was used has been taken on. What you want people to do is to ignore the actual meaning of what was actually said and instead confine their comments to the kind of literal non-inferential, translation of what was said in order to fit your own peculiar view of what you believe happened rather than face the truth about what happened, and what was said.
You did no such thing, nor did anyone else except me. I looked at what was "actually said." If the President wanted to call the events at Benghazi an "act of terror," he would have done it in his opening remark.... not 8-10 paragraphs down the page and in an indirect fashion as he did by calling them "terrible." You cannot ignore that. Of course you call it insignificant because you don't like what it implies. My analysis is OBJECTIVE. In communicating this kind of message, you put the essential message up front not buried toward the back.
yes you did. And that's why you failed to understand meaning of what was actually said. The literal definition of words said is not the majority of communication amongst adults. Instead we use inferences, body language etc. Now you are trying to make other people leave out the meaning of what was actually said as well, but nobody else is willing to do that. You lose. You are wrong. I know your wrong because when he did in fact say it in the speech is more than likely exactly when he meant to say it. Calling it an act of terror was not the essential message. It was one of several messages. The more essential message was bringing justice to those that did it. Your analysis may be objective but it's also limiting to the level of a first a grader. In second and third grade they begin teaching inferences and drawing conclusions. To remove that is to reduce what the President said to a first grade level. I'm not going to participate in that. We don't all have to play by your lack of understanding of how communication works.
You allow for an unlimited lack of accountability. You just overlay the message you want to hear and call it inference. My that is freeing! The president said what he said. You heard what you wanted to hear. I believe it was crafted to accomplish that.
