Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I proven to you, with the transcript, that the president called Benghazi an act of terror on September 12th.
You can go birther, and deny that, or, you can concede I'm correct, and we can move on based in FACT,
not having to accept your denial as an alternative to the fact.
Like I told you before, "act of terror" does not mean "terrorist attack." I beg of you to understand the English language before debating me further.
Play it again, Sam!
"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence."
"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."
Please explain the contradiction to me. Explain why Susan Rice was sent out to lie to the American people, blaming it on a video. For 14 days after, the White House hushed all mention of the possibility of it being an 'act of terror.'
You do realize that this is what the armed terrorists shouted from their trucks as they reached the complex they attacked and bombarded....according to an eye witness that lived next door to the complex....they shouted from their trucks that they were upset about the video as they drove up....
.
6/14/02 - US consulate in Pakistan - 12 killed and 51 injured
2/28/03 - Diplomatic compound in Saudi Arabia - 17 killed
6/30/04 - US Embassy in Uzbekistan - 2 killed
12/6/04 - US consulate on Saudi Arabia - 5 killed and 10 injured
3/2/06 - US consulate in Pakistan - 4 killed, including a US diplomate
9/12/06 - US Embassy in Syria - 1 dead and 13 wounded
1/12/07 - US Embassy in Greece - rocket grenade - no injuries
3/18/08 - US Embassy in Yemen - motar attack missed embassy and hit a girls school
7/9/08 - US consolate in turkey - 3 policemen killed
9/17/08 - US Embassy in Yemen, 7 killed and 16 injured
All under Bush
Of course they knew immediately this was a terrorist attack, acts of terror occurred immediately..........so duh....what they did not know immediately is why the attacks occurred and for what real reason, other than what they shouted from their windows, OR they knew these terrorists were acting out against the supposedly secret CIA operation there, or were Gaddafi supporters of the past, or were AlQaeda type terrorists....I don't expect to be told the truth on who did it and the "why", in just 24-72 hours after it happened, I'm certain things are much more complex than what anyone initially thought they ' knew'....which was what story? that they needed more evidence before they where committed to what really happened?
Panetta and Ham testified that they knew immediately that this was a terror attack.
btw, SEVERAL people involved in the attack have been detained/released and or arrested in the case...no trials and convictions yet though....
So now you find yourself in the position of explaining Obama sending Susan Rice out to five Sunday network talk shows to spin the story differently.
Insert 'Mission Impossible' theme music...
.
which was what story? that they needed more evidence before they where committed to what really happened?
Running interference again for NYc?
He is a big boy and do the 'Mission Impossible' thingy.
.
6/14/02 - US consulate in Pakistan - 12 killed and 51 injured
2/28/03 - Diplomatic compound in Saudi Arabia - 17 killed
6/30/04 - US Embassy in Uzbekistan - 2 killed
12/6/04 - US consulate on Saudi Arabia - 5 killed and 10 injured
3/2/06 - US consulate in Pakistan - 4 killed, including a US diplomate
9/12/06 - US Embassy in Syria - 1 dead and 13 wounded
1/12/07 - US Embassy in Greece - rocket grenade - no injuries
3/18/08 - US Embassy in Yemen - motar attack missed embassy and hit a girls school
7/9/08 - US consolate in turkey - 3 policemen killed
9/17/08 - US Embassy in Yemen, 7 killed and 16 injured
All under Bush
So now you find yourself in the position of explaining Obama sending Susan Rice out to five Sunday network talk shows to spin the story differently.
Insert 'Mission Impossible' theme music...
.
which was what story? that they needed more evidence before they where committed to what really happened?
Panetta and Ham testified that they knew immediately that this was a terror attack.
You are rehashing ground already covered within this thread. Did 4 Americans die in those? An AMBASSADOR that was begging only to be DENIED extra security?6/14/02 - US consulate in Pakistan - 12 killed and 51 injured
2/28/03 - Diplomatic compound in Saudi Arabia - 17 killed
6/30/04 - US Embassy in Uzbekistan - 2 killed
12/6/04 - US consulate on Saudi Arabia - 5 killed and 10 injured
3/2/06 - US consulate in Pakistan - 4 killed, including a US diplomate
9/12/06 - US Embassy in Syria - 1 dead and 13 wounded
1/12/07 - US Embassy in Greece - rocket grenade - no injuries
3/18/08 - US Embassy in Yemen - motar attack missed embassy and hit a girls school
7/9/08 - US consolate in turkey - 3 policemen killed
9/17/08 - US Embassy in Yemen, 7 killed and 16 injured
All under Bush
Like I told you before, "act of terror" does not mean "terrorist attack." I beg of you to understand the English language before debating me further.
Play it again, Sam!
"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence."
"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."
Please explain the contradiction to me. Explain why Susan Rice was sent out to lie to the American people, blaming it on a video. For 14 days after, the White House hushed all mention of the possibility of it being an 'act of terror.'
You do realize that this is what the armed terrorists shouted from their trucks as they reached the complex they attacked and bombarded....according to an eye witness that lived next door to the complex....they shouted from their trucks that they were upset about the video as they drove up....
.
I recall pointing that out back in 2012, it was reported, by CBSnews I think. A small bit of crucial information that has been conveniently ignored by the 'it had nothing to do with the video' crowd.
The usual suspects on the right have never wanted the video to have anything to do with it because they vigorously defended the man who made the video.
Like I told you before, "act of terror" does not mean "terrorist attack." I beg of you to understand the English language before debating me further.
'
It doesn't? So when Bush called 9/11 an act of terror he was denying it was a terrorist attack?
Can you describe an act of terror involving armed men killing civilians for a political/ideological cause that was not a terrorist attack?
Or vice versa?
Acts of terror can be as insignificant as a threat of violence, not an act of violence. You can point a gun in someone's face and never pull the trigger, thus it's an 'act of terror' not a 'terrorist attack.' Bin Laden planned the attack, hence 'act of terror.' The men who flew the planes into the buildings? That's a 'terrorist attack.'
Kapische?
Ah the nuances of the English lexicon.
Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes, or in their offices; secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. 9-11-2001 Pres. George W. Bush
While I believe President Obama did mention in the same context on the 12th President Bush did it still remains that several Americans have died in attacks on Embassies and Consulates over the years due to several factors , among them , not providing enough funding for protection for those men and women who put themselves in harms way for this nation and using these good people as political pawns for the same reason. It's a real shame the focus is not on the people who lost their lives for this nation rather than the political aspects of this.
Well, we are focusing on the cause of their lives being lost. That, being that they played politics and abandoned them to their fate.
A series of errors, beginning with the fact they were denied extra security that was clearly being requested.
Then they deliberately abandoned them and the lied to the American people, including the families of the slain.
All for political expediency.
Not sure what you mean we should focus on the victims, and not the reality of this tragedy. Should we just stare at their pictures and remain silent?
Not sure what you want exactly.
Obama: "Drink the Kool Aid, my Children. The attack on 9/11 that killed 4 American bumps in the road was over a video"
When did Obama say that Benghazi was a video protest & not an attack? Got a link?
Oh my goodness gracious.
You cannot possibly be this ill informed?
(pops the tape in the VCR, presses play)
It doesn't? So when Bush called 9/11 an act of terror he was denying it was a terrorist attack?
Can you describe an act of terror involving armed men killing civilians for a political/ideological cause that was not a terrorist attack?
Or vice versa?
Acts of terror can be as insignificant as a threat of violence, not an act of violence. You can point a gun in someone's face and never pull the trigger, thus it's an 'act of terror' not a 'terrorist attack.' Bin Laden planned the attack, hence 'act of terror.' The men who flew the planes into the buildings? That's a 'terrorist attack.'
Kapische?
Ah the nuances of the English lexicon.
You idiot. As was posted, Bush called the actual flying of the planes into the buildings an act of terror.
Which of you is full of shit? You or Bush?
Note the eye witness account and all the times the President said it WAS a terrorist attack under the GUISE of being upset about the video...the video was used as an EXCUSE for the terrorism by the terrorist group....David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reported that 20-year-old neighbor Mohamed Bishari witnessed the attack. According to Bishari, it was launched without warning or protest and was led by the Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia (different from the group called Ansar al-Sharia based in Yemen designated by the U.N. and the U.S. Department of State as a terrorist organization[123]). Kirkpatrick reported that Ansar al-Sharia said they were launching the assault in retaliation for the release of the anti-Islamic video, Innocence of Muslims.[124][125] It was further reported that Ahmed Abu Khattala was called a ringleader of the attack by both witnesses and authorities, though he insisted he did not play a part in the aggression at the American compound. Witnesses, Benghazi residents, and Western news reports have described him as a leader of Ansar al-Sharia, though he stated he was close to the group but not an official part of it. He further stated he was the commander of an Islamist brigade, Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah, some of whose members had joined Ansar al-Sharia.[126]
The imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades, a pro-al-Qaeda militia calling for the release of The Blind Sheik, was implicated in the attack by Noman Benotman of the Quilliam Foundation.[1][127][128] CNN,[1] the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,[129] Commentary Magazine[128] and The Daily Telegraph[127] have listed this group as a chief suspect. USA Today reported that protests in Cairo which preceded the attack on Benghazi were intended to protest the imprisonment of Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman and announced as early as August 30.[130][131] Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi had called for release of the Blind Sheikh in his inaugural address.[131]
In the days and weeks following the attack, President Obama and other administration officials noted that the video had sparked violent incidents at a number of U.S. diplomatic facilities and stated it was also a prime catalyst for the Benghazi attack. Two days after the attack, CNN reporter Sarah Aarthun quoted an anonymous senior U.S. administration official: "It was not an innocent mob. The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."[132] In his September 18 appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman, President Obama said that "extremists and terrorists used (the anti-Muslim YouTube video) as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies."[133] In his Univision Town Hall appearance on September 20, President Obama said that the "natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."[134] 2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
sigh........
Note the State Department debunked that myth, Care4. The AFRICOM General also testified that the attack was not due in part to the video. As I pointed out earlier, there was preexisting instability in the area as well, even the President of Libya made it clear that the attack had been planned months in advance.
It was a terrorist attack completely unmotivated by the video. I love how you guys are making up all these reasons.
which was what story? that they needed more evidence before they where committed to what really happened?
Running interference again for NYc?
He is a big boy and do the 'Mission Impossible' thingy.
.
Do you have evidence that Susan Rice, speaking for the administration, retracted the President's calling it an act of terror?
When did Obama say that Benghazi was a video protest & not an attack? Got a link?
Oh my goodness gracious.
You cannot possibly be this ill informed?
(pops the tape in the VCR, presses play)
Is English your second language? Or are you really that stupid? In that video clip neither Hillary nor Obama blamed the Benghazi attack on the anti Islamic video. Hilliary clearly said Benghazi was a "heavy assault". She then blamed rage & violence at other US embassies on that video. Also Benghazi was a CIA operation disguised as an embassy.
Obama & Hilliary clearly said it was a terrorist attack on Benghazi.
(pops the tape in the VCR, presses play)
[youtube]RDdrpXGrA2M[/youtube]
"Nobody knows", "this is old news", "this is propaganda"
Is this how you ignore the truth? With that? Are you nuts?
I'm quite sane, but thanks for the personal attack. Since you have no way of knowing what was in the hearts and minds of those who attacked and murdered our personnel I'll posit they did so because Bush in his 'wisdom' used the word "Crusade" shortly after the WTC attack, or that he challenged "evil doers" to "bring it on". AND THEY DID!
None of what I suggested is propaganda, they're facts easily seen with a simple Google search. Though I suppose you've been conditioned to ignore anything on the Internet as one more liberal source of left wing propaganda (which I why I believe you're a fool).
If you were sane at all, you would admit the White House played a direct role in altering the talking points. When I called you nuts, it was a statement of fact, not an insult. You proved to me just now how certifiably insane you must be, that you would be scared of acknowledging the facts.
But once again, you liberals cannot refrain from bringing up Bush. Do this all you want to, but the truth is immutable. Bush has nothing to do with this. Obama does.
And as for these so called 'facts'; please, post the links to your Google search queries. I'd love to see where you got your 'facts' from. Refusal to do so is a direct admission of defeat.
Note the eye witness account and all the times the President said it WAS a terrorist attack under the GUISE of being upset about the video...the video was used as an EXCUSE for the terrorism by the terrorist group....
sigh........
Note the State Department debunked that myth, Care4. The AFRICOM General also testified that the attack was not due in part to the video. As I pointed out earlier, there was preexisting instability in the area as well, even the President of Libya made it clear that the attack had been planned months in advance.
It was a terrorist attack completely unmotivated by the video. I love how you guys are making up all these reasons.
You have no evidence that it was completely unmotivated by the video. You would need evidence from the perpetrators themselves to prove that.
This is what is so comical about you people's position. You have assumed as fact, and made it essential to your argument, something that cannot be demonstrated to be fact.
You cannot show factually that the perpetrators were 'completely unmotivated' by the video.
Acts of terror can be as insignificant as a threat of violence, not an act of violence. You can point a gun in someone's face and never pull the trigger, thus it's an 'act of terror' not a 'terrorist attack.' Bin Laden planned the attack, hence 'act of terror.' The men who flew the planes into the buildings? That's a 'terrorist attack.'
Kapische?
Ah the nuances of the English lexicon.
You idiot. As was posted, Bush called the actual flying of the planes into the buildings an act of terror.
Which of you is full of shit? You or Bush?
As with paperview, you are now resorting to ad hominem. A clear sign you cannot make it though a debate without resorting to playground antics. The one 'full of shit' here is you.
Obama's claim he called Benghazi an 'act of terrorism' - The Washington Post
I'm quite sane, but thanks for the personal attack. Since you have no way of knowing what was in the hearts and minds of those who attacked and murdered our personnel I'll posit they did so because Bush in his 'wisdom' used the word "Crusade" shortly after the WTC attack, or that he challenged "evil doers" to "bring it on". AND THEY DID!
None of what I suggested is propaganda, they're facts easily seen with a simple Google search. Though I suppose you've been conditioned to ignore anything on the Internet as one more liberal source of left wing propaganda (which I why I believe you're a fool).
If you were sane at all, you would admit the White House played a direct role in altering the talking points. When I called you nuts, it was a statement of fact, not an insult. You proved to me just now how certifiably insane you must be, that you would be scared of acknowledging the facts.
But once again, you liberals cannot refrain from bringing up Bush. Do this all you want to, but the truth is immutable. Bush has nothing to do with this. Obama does.
And as for these so called 'facts'; please, post the links to your Google search queries. I'd love to see where you got your 'facts' from. Refusal to do so is a direct admission of defeat.
LOL, I'm not about to research facts which are common knowledge, my dim witted adversary; that you live in a bubble of ignorance is not of my doing.
Note the State Department debunked that myth, Care4. The AFRICOM General also testified that the attack was not due in part to the video. As I pointed out earlier, there was preexisting instability in the area as well, even the President of Libya made it clear that the attack had been planned months in advance.
It was a terrorist attack completely unmotivated by the video. I love how you guys are making up all these reasons.
You have no evidence that it was completely unmotivated by the video. You would need evidence from the perpetrators themselves to prove that.
This is what is so comical about you people's position. You have assumed as fact, and made it essential to your argument, something that cannot be demonstrated to be fact.
You cannot show factually that the perpetrators were 'completely unmotivated' by the video.
Actually, I do. Were you ignoring all of those links I posted?
