PDA

View Full Version : Obama says he called it a terrorist act all along... Oh yeah??



huntinman
10-18-2012, 05:42 PM
you be the judge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znVqyfxfbRQ&sns=fb

gmhr1
10-18-2012, 06:04 PM
At the debate he claimed the day after he said it was a terror attack WRONG he did not say that in the rose garden the next day. According to the guy who asked that question at the debate, afterwards Obama was trying to explain to him why he waited so long. (LONG? the day after? he has lied so much he doesn't even know the truth. Even standing in front of those 4 coffins , hillary had the nerve to blame the video.

paul young
10-18-2012, 08:42 PM
[QUOTE=huntinman;1023894]you be the judge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znVqyfxfbRQ&sns=fb[/QUOTE


Read the 10th paragraph of the official transcript. He clearly did say it was an act of terror.-Paul

gmhr1
10-18-2012, 08:53 PM
This is what he said, 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.
He said there was an attack on bengazhi which he blames later that day for the video as did Susan Rice on 5 Sunday talk shows and Hillary clinton in front of the 4 coffins and the Pres on letterman and the view. He never said this attack was a "terror" attack until 2 weeks later
This is why Candy Crowley had to walk this back minutes after she opened her big mouth and stuck her foot in it.

huntinman
10-18-2012, 08:54 PM
[QUOTE=huntinman;1023894]you be the judge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znVqyfxfbRQ&sns=fb[/QUOTE


Read the 10th paragraph of the official transcript. He clearly did say it was an act of terror.-Paul

He was talking about 9/11/2001 But you libs can keep trying all you want... He is sinking faster than the Titanic... I don't think you're going to be able to save him, no matter how hard you try. But your loyalty is admirable.

dback
10-18-2012, 10:02 PM
But your loyalty is admirable.

No it isn't. Anyone putting the security and welfare of our nation secondary to having "their guy" in office simply for the satisfaction of winning that office, is akin to a Marine following illegal orders because he lacked the intestinal fortitude to stand up and be heard.

huntinman
10-18-2012, 10:25 PM
No it isn't. Anyone putting the security and welfare of our nation secondary to having "their guy" in office simply for the satisfaction of winning that office, is akin to a Marine following illegal orders because he lacked the intestinal fortitude to stand up and be heard.

I agree... Sarcasm...

gmhr1
10-18-2012, 10:32 PM
TODAY on the Jon Stewart show JUST A BUMP IN THE ROAD! Almost immediately after pool reports indicated that President Barack Obama called the deaths of U.S. Ambassador ChrisSteven and three other Americans in Benghazi “not optimal” during the taping of “The Daily Show,” social media exploded with outrage over the president’s remarks.
The backlash was almost instantaneous — and it was brutal.

dback
10-19-2012, 12:09 AM
I agree... Sarcasm...
Yep......and for the record, I didn't intend for it to sound like it was aimed at you.

paul young
10-19-2012, 09:56 AM
[QUOTE=paul young;1023971]

He was talking about 9/11/2001 But you libs can keep trying all you want... He is sinking faster than the Titanic... I don't think you're going to be able to save him, no matter how hard you try. But your loyalty is admirable.

The reference to 9/11/2001 was made 2 paragraphs earlier. You do understand the significance of ending a paragraph and starting another, i'm sure. if not;
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/606/1/

i'm not interested in saving him, and neither am i loyal to him except in the sense that he is the President of the United States.-Paul

paul young
10-19-2012, 10:00 AM
No it isn't. Anyone putting the security and welfare of our nation secondary to having "their guy" in office simply for the satisfaction of winning that office, is akin to a Marine following illegal orders because he lacked the intestinal fortitude to stand up and be heard.

He's not "my guy". You're speculating, and you're wrong. I was just setting the record straight.-Paul

huntinman
10-19-2012, 10:07 AM
He's not "my guy". You're speculating, and you're wrong. I was just setting the record straight.-Paul

You are "setting the record straight" in the same way the MSM is attempting to do to cover Obama's rear. It isn't working for them or you.

gmhr1
10-19-2012, 10:08 AM
Thats not the straight record ask candy when she had to go on anderson cooper as soon as the debates ended and back peddle as fast as she could.

paul young
10-19-2012, 10:14 AM
You are "setting the record straight" in the same way the MSM is attempting to do to cover Obama's rear. It isn't working for them or you.

I see you've changed your name to Diamondback. But i see you still ignore facts, so i think you're probably still Bill Davis......

paul young
10-19-2012, 10:17 AM
Thats not the straight record ask candy when she had to go on anderson cooper as soon as the debates ended and back peddle as fast as she could.

Candy is a talking head. I prefer to use the official, unedited transcript to form my opinions.-Paul

huntinman
10-19-2012, 10:30 AM
I see you've changed your name to Diamondback. But i see you still ignore facts, so i think you're probably still Bill Davis......

You're right, I'm still Bill Davis, which evidently means I have been paying more attention to the issue since Sep 11 than you have. You choose to stick to the liberal talking points and drink the kool-aid. I choose to to actually follow the the trail of evidence as it comes out. Obama and his crew have tied themselves in knots to avoid calling this event an act of terror no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise. Hell, he still calls the Fort Hood shootings "workplace violence" as opposed to terrorism.

Dustin D
10-19-2012, 12:04 PM
Easily, the most damning video yet.

No matter what.

Regardless, why all the talk of the video AFTER the Rose Garden?

I'm not really asking, won't change my vote, just saying.

dback
10-19-2012, 04:53 PM
He's not "my guy". You're speculating, and you're wrong. I was just setting the record straight.-Paul

Odd that in my six plus years here I've never once witnessed you come to the defense of a conservative.....under any circumstances. Possibly, in your opinion, there has never been a mischaracterization of former conservative Presidents......seriously Paul......you lean so far left you line your dog on the gallery so you only have to give 'over lefts'. Obama is now thanking some speech writer for inserting the word 'terrorist' in the text (in any context) to help cover for the FACT that he spent the next week blaming "Spontaneous Demonstration". **Where is the nimrod that made the "movie"???** I'm not sure but I am unaware of Obama DIRECTLY characterizing the death of the four Americans as a 'Terrorist Attack' to this day. But....what the hey Paul.....at least he did clarify the situation and say the loss of their lives was "not optimal".

Gerry Clinchy
10-19-2012, 05:26 PM
I was just setting the record straight.-Paul
Just following your lead on "setting the record straight."

O's Rose Garden speech said "acts of terror" ... in the plural. Was the plural supposed to also include the attack on the Cairo embassy? Could be, since the A-Q flag was raised over the Cairo embassy? That was also pre-meditated since the Egyptian govt gave the US staff the word to vacate the embassy. Yet the Cairo embassy released a statement (not sure if just before or just after the attack on the Cairo embassy) that the act there was in response to the video thing.

O seems to now be saying that the other embassy attacks in the region were a domino effect from the first attack in Cairo. So ... if the attack in Cairo was blamed on the video, it makes me think that they were going to lump the Benghazi attack in with that? Interestingly, the statement by the Cairo embassy (upon which Romney had commented) was later removed from the State Dept. website.

Makes me wonder if this whole set-up was even more complex than it appears. That words were used in such a way that they could back-pedal if the video ploy did not work. I believe (though am not sure) that the Cairo embassy statement preceded the Rose Garden speech. Then they had to remove it from the website because it would have interfered with the back-pedaling.

It is just as possible that it was pure luck that the words "acts of terror" were included in the Rose Garden speech; and they found a way to use that to their advantage later. Also possible that the phrase actually was hinting at what they already knew, or very strongly suspected, by the time of the Rose Garden speech, but didn't want to have to put it out there before the election if they could avoid doing so.

Uncle Bill
10-20-2012, 12:52 PM
The Fox Report of Brett Bair's last night really had the time line down as to what ACTUALLY happened. The administration and the sycophants that are in the tank for him just don't want to believe Obama could have been so stupid about all this.

First, not realizing the jihadists are building at a rate this oligarchy can't compete with...and then, because he wants the image that because he got Osama, he has the al-Qaeda on the run, he doesn't want to admit more protection is needed for these embassies. What an incredible fool.

Had this been a cover-up by anyone but Obama/Clinton...the Senate would be circulating impeachment papers. This type of ignorance and arrogance that believes they can pull the wool over the American's eyes is incredulous. Yet there are the many 'fools' that follow this totally inept and corrupt empty suit, and think he's worthy of their vote...again?

How can any 'thinking' journalist continue to fall on the sword for this loser? It's absolute insanity.

UB

PS

The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but the citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.

It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency, than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.
Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those that made him their President.

charly_t
10-20-2012, 01:22 PM
.................................................. .................................................. ...........

How can any 'thinking' journalist continue to fall on the sword for this loser? It's absolute insanity.

UB
.................................................. ..............................
[/B][/SIZE]

Do we have any of those ? :-(

Gerry Clinchy
10-22-2012, 12:37 AM
What a God-awful mess this is turning into ... now the intel people are saying that maybe the Benghazi attack wasn't all that well planned; and it might have had some relationship to the protest in Cairo, which, it appears, is still being attributed to the video ... even though the A-Q flag was a prominent element in that protest.

Then the WH accuses of endangering Libyans mentioned in State Dept documents (unclassified) that were made public by Issa. Issa shot back that they allowed the State Dept two weeks to review the docs & make redactions; and that Issa's committee, themselves, made some redactions ... and that nothing they released revealed the names of an Libyans who would not be expected to have contact with Americans (maybe some providing various kinds of common services or supplies?). Of course the accusation of endangerment of these Libyans is cited as being important because of A-Q dangers in Benghazi.

Is it possible that the details of this whole event have now become so mangled and obfuscated that we will never really know how badly it was bungled? It's over a month later, and the facts are still all snarled up. If the people in charge of all this stuff are this messed up, they sure do need somebody put in charge of this that can shape up the intel services ... or we are surely in deep doo-doo if this is the best these guys can do.

cotts135
10-22-2012, 08:12 AM
No it isn't. Anyone putting the security and welfare of our nation secondary to having "their guy" in office simply for the satisfaction of winning that office, is akin to a Marine following illegal orders because he lacked the intestinal fortitude to stand up and be heard.

Thank you. Couldn't have said it better myself.

cotts135
10-22-2012, 08:18 AM
You're right, I'm still Bill Davis, which evidently means I have been paying more attention to the issue since Sep 11 than you have. You choose to stick to the liberal talking points and drink the kool-aid. I choose to to actually follow the the trail of evidence as it comes out. Obama and his crew have tied themselves in knots to avoid calling this event an act of terror no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise. Hell, he still calls the Fort Hood shootings "workplace violence" as opposed to terrorism.

Of course you are aware that Terrorism is any act of violence that a Politician wants to say is terrorism. The term has become so political and is so broad now it is almost meaningless.

mudminnow
10-22-2012, 08:51 AM
Give BO a break he doesn't know what he said, he just read off the telemprompter. "i'm ron burgundy?"

MooseGooser
10-22-2012, 01:09 PM
The Fox Report of Brett Bair's last night really had the time line down as to what ACTUALLY happened. The administration and the sycophants that are in the tank for him just don't want to believe Obama could have been so stupid about all this.

First, not realizing the jihadists are building at a rate this oligarchy can't compete with...and then, because he wants the image that because he got Osama, he has the al-Qaeda on the run, he doesn't want to admit more protection is needed for these embassies. What an incredible fool.

Had this been a cover-up by anyone but Obama/Clinton...the Senate would be circulating impeachment papers. This type of ignorance and arrogance that believes they can pull the wool over the American's eyes is incredulous. Yet there are the many 'fools' that follow this totally inept and corrupt empty suit, and think he's worthy of their vote...again?

How can any 'thinking' journalist continue to fall on the sword for this loser? It's absolute insanity.

UB

PS

The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but the citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.

It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency, than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.
Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those that made him their President.



The bolden part of UB's post says it best!!
It is also incredible to me that the majority voted the guy into office in the first place..


We have a LONG uphill battle to correct no matter who gets elected..

It starts with education,,and what our country was founded by..

I wonder how many public schools actually teach the Constitution.
I think it should be the basis of any Civics class.

gman0046
10-22-2012, 06:01 PM
Gooser, you hit the nail on the head. All along I couldn't believe there were that many ignorant Americans that voted for the fraud Obongolo in 2008. The past four years have only proved their ignorance. A president who CAN'T run on his record.