Comments
1 - 4 of 4 Comments Last updated May 14, 2013

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

http://preview.tinyurl.com/cwmohlv

By Sally Zelikovsky

Hey, liberals! Obama thinks you are stupid. Yeah, he really does. He knew Benghazi was terrorism before he didn't know it was terrorism.

Addressing a question about Benghazi in his press conference Monday, May 13, 2013, Obama's "logic" really made an impression:

"The Day after it happened I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism."

"What we have been very clear about throughout, was that immediately after this event had happened we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were. It happened at the same time we had seen attacks on the US Embassy in Cairo as a result of this film."

"Nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days."

"Suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. There's no "there" there.

"Talking points pretty much matched the assessment I was receiving at that time in my presidential briefing...."

Obama claims to have known the day after the attacks that they were an act of terrorism.(He's claiming that his Rose Garden comments about terrorism in general amount to a statement that the attacks were terror-related, but this is not the case. However, for the sake of, ahem, clarity, let's assume it is.) So, thus far, we have:

Day After. Obama. Terrorism.

But, immediately after it happened he wasn't clear who did it, how it occurred and the motivation. So:

Immediately After. Obama. Unclear.

Obama knew it was terrorism the day after, but immediately after, it wasn't clear. When exactly does "immediately after the attack" begin and end before it becomes the "day after"? Isn't the "day after" it happened pretty much the same as "immediately after" it happened? And how do those 7 hours of sleep factor into this unclear/clear timeline? Could it be he knew it was terrorism before he didn't know it was terrorism? And did his Rose Garden statement take place during the period "immediately after" it happened or the "day after"?

What difference at this point does it make? Let's move on.

Leaving behind Obama's initial certitude about Benghazi having been a terror attack, not only did he not know what had happened because it wasn't clear, but he goes on to make the sweeping statement that nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days. Those first few days must, ipso facto, include "immediately after" when he knew it was terror, so it would seem that nobody, including the president, knew what was happening during those first few days, even though at one point in the immediate period following the attack, the President did know. Wow. I think I just blew my own mind. Anyway:

First Few Days. Nobody Understood.

Except for a brief moment immediately after the attack when Obama knew it was terrorism, all of this "it was unclear" and "nobody understood" is in direct conflict with Greg Hicks' testimony that personnel in the field as far from Benghazi as Tripoli, knew almost instantaneously that terrorism was involved. Even Ansar al Sharia -- a known terrorist group that took credit for the attack as it was unfolding -- did so in order to ensure there would be no doubt that this was...a terror attack.

Is this getting any clearer?

So, even though everyone on the ground in Libya knew what was happening and this was communicated throughout the duration of the attack to Washington, and even though there was no mention by the Prime Minister or Ambassador Stevens or anyone else we are aware of, about a video spurring protests that got out of hand, Obama still claims that nobody understood anything.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

p2

Then, magically, five days later

-even though personnel in Libya claim everyone on the ground and in Washington knew it was terror-related, and

-even though the day after the attack Obama knew it was terror-related, and

-even though immediately after the attack it was not clear to Obama, and

-even though during the first few days after the attack nobody understood what was going on...

Susan Rice used talking points on the Sunday morning television shows to promote the notion that the attacks were spurred on by a protest against an anti-Muslim video that got out of hand. And we know that every appearance Obama and Hillary made thereafter, conclusively stated that the video -- and not the terrorists -- was to blame for Benghazi. That would include when Obama appeared on TV with Steve Croft, when he and Hillary did the State Department television announcement for Pakistan and when they spoke so touchingly at Andrews Air Force base over the caskets of the Forgotten Four.

After reading through the talking points memos it's clear that everyone knew it was terrorism from the get-go, and we now know that the CIA's original talking points were altered to reflect the video fairy tale and remove all references to terrorism. After reading the original CIA talking points which clearly lay out that the Benghazi attack was terror-related -- something we can all do with our own two eyes -- does Obama still maintain that the "nobodies" he claims didn't understand anything the first few days after the attack, are still unclear? Or is it now clear to them that Benghazi was a terror attack?

Does it really make any difference? After all, it happened so long ago.

Obama said the talking points are a side show...so he either cannot read or is hoping you won't read them. He says it's all recently been spun and that there's no "there" there.

Conservatives have been convinced since day one, that the cause of the attacks was terrorism. Obama is talking to his liberal supporters hoping they will buy his convoluted logic and not rely on their own (frankly, calling his logic "logic" is insulting to logic).

When toiling with proofs in high school geometry and being thoroughly flummoxed, our teacher used to tell us: "If you can't convince them, confuse them."

Liberals: Obama wants to confuse you, because he can't convince you. That should be enough to tell even those with the lightest of intellects that there really is a "there" there.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Further:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/cx7ozhh

Washington Post Factchecker Destroys Obama's Claim he Called Libya 'Terrorism'

by John Nolte

Monday, during his appearance before the media with British Prime Minister David Cameron, President Obama was again caught lying to coverup his lying and covering-up in the aftermath of a successful terror attack in Libya that cost four American lives. Obama actually claimed before the world that,“The day after [Libya] happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

That is a bald-faced lie. In fact it is such a bald-faced lie that Washington Post factchecker Glenn Kessler awarded the President the full-boat of four Pinnochios:

--[T]he president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.--

The lying from this Administration about Libya never stops. And it is not some mid-level administration official doing the lying, nor is it some political flak.

The President is doing the lying and doing so before all of the media in the most brazen and craven way imaginable.
xoxgur

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
May 14, 2013
 
youtube.com/watch... …………… Get Lucky Sometimes

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 23 min xxxrayted 30,191
Where are all the original legacy posters? 44 min They cannot kill ... 23
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 1 hr hypocrite 2,269
Do you agree with Obama's plan to fundamentally... 1 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 195
ISIS beheads James Foley 2 hr Lou 83
Poor, Poor Sarah Palin 2 hr Duke for Mayor 13
Debate: Ferguson - Columbus, OH 2 hr Duke for Mayor 64

Search the Columbus Forum:
•••
•••
Columbus Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••