PROOF: Obama Refused to Call Benghazi 'Terror,' CBS Covered Up

Originally posted by Trustfund

Originally posted by jibeho
The redirection in this thread is amusing!!!! No outrage regarding CBS' censorship and manipulation ??? Glad you are all ready to be controlled by the Govt. Better rethink that strategy....

I'm failing to see the censorship or manipulation. All programs edit out segments of interviews to fulfill time slots. The Obama admin gave multiple press interviews, speeches, and press releases on the situation.

Obama did not know if it was an organized pre-planned attack at that point. Did you want him to assume it was without knowing the facts? That's not what a leader does.

Too Funny! That's when you edit out the small talk and questions regarding Obama's favorite taco, and whether he wears boxers or briefs. It was a feature interview and CBS somehow forgot to include the OPENING question. Wow!! Must have been based on Obama's Answer to said question... Ooops... someone in the control room made a mistake!! Is that the next excuse??

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Scottiesgem

 

Originally posted by Scottiesgem
Maybe Obama didn't know if they were terrorist attackers or civilian protesters as it was all mixed together!

Again, UNTRUE!

The above quote is my own opinion....


He (they) knew exactly what was going on in REAL-TIME.

I wasn't in the room with the President when his advisors were giving him the info....were you? There is NO way you can know for fact that He (they) knew exactly what was going on in REAL-TIME as you put it......even if he had a live feed in front of him it would still look like chaos, it was an attack!

Blessed Be
Gem

edit on 5-11-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)

reply to post by loam


Why does this matter, again? Who cares?

He said it was too early to tell... Doesnt matter what the man says, with the election around the corner everyone feels like getting caught up in meaningless semantic BS.

Fly off...

reply to post by Scottiesgem




About the real time question. This 100% debunks that it was not followed in real time. Not even an argument.

reply to post by Scottiesgem

Originally posted by Scottiesgem
There is NO way you can know for fact that He (they) knew exactly what was going on in REAL-TIME as you put it......even if he had a live feed in front of him it would still look like chaos, it was an attack!

I have said this elsewhere: It is patently ridiculous for anyone to assert the President didn't know, because if true, it would be an indication of incompetence on a scale never before seen in any previous White House!!!

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Thank you for the video link.......so at the conclusion the Ambassador talks about other "threads" along side the protest story which Lamb wouldn't straight out answer......the other threads can only be discussed in a closed session....way, way too many secrets....there lies the problem.

Blessed Be
Gem

THIS iS treason. WHAT has BEEN done by lying and covering up This sick sacrifice to the muslim brotherhood is a death penalty offense. HIS WAR CRIMES ARE AS BAD AS BUSHES

reply to post by Scottiesgem


Thank you for actually watching the video and maintaining an open mind. Star for you.

reply to post by jibeho


The part CBS was already asked and answered a million times. I fail to see how it is censorship, censorship would be editing out something Obama already didn't answer or address. Or if it was an actual damning statement.

All he said is that he didn't know.

Who cares what he calls it?

Plus, I'd rather have a president who analyzed everything and didn't rush into things....
would you rather have a president who labeled everything terrorism before knowing the facts, and bombed people on a whim?

reply to post by Ghost375


and an addition I feel deserves it's own post:
They got Conspiracy theorists upset that they didn't label people "Terrorists."
#ing brilliant.

'They' won. and they're playing us for fools.

reply to post by Ghost375


There is no dishonor in calling something what it actually is. This was terrorism. It wasn't labeled because it was politically inconvenient to do so at the time. It just doesn't fit with Obama's whole "we got Bin Laden and decimated Al Qaeda narrative.

Originally posted by Trustfund

Fact check - Mitt Romney accuses Barack Obama of failing to call the attack on the US embassy in Libya as an act of terror until 14 days after the attacks. But Obama did use the term in the Rose Garden the day after as we show.

edit on 5-11-2012 by Trustfund because: (no reason given)

Maybe you should inform abc news, the first paragraph on September 26, outright says that it is the 1st time the president referred to the attack as an act of terrorism. I guess abc news is like fox news now?

abcnews.go.com...

reply to post by Ghost375


If you think this is all about semantics, then you've completely missed the boat.

The issue is that the President and crew knew this was an intentional (not spontaneous) terrorist act...decided NOT to respond for domestic political re-election concerns...and LIED to the world about it for weeks after.

He (they) let our people DIE!

To him, you are government chattel.

That is evident in the handling of this event... That is evident in his droning strategy... And that is evident in his belief that the President (not an open court of law) gets to decide which Americans can live, be detained, or die in the pursuit of terrorists.

That's right! Obama is the man of the people!

I used to think Bush and crew epitomized the Orwellian reality. How wrong I was....

Bush was just the warm-up act.... Obama closed the deal...and the electorate followed like good little sheep because they're enamored by a CONCEPT that doesn't actually sit in the White House!!!

Baaaaaaaa Baaa Baaa Baaaaaaaa.



That's CHANGE you can believe in...

Originally posted by Ghost375
Who cares what he calls it?

Plus, I'd rather have a president who analyzed everything and didn't rush into things....
would you rather have a president who labeled everything terrorism before knowing the facts, and bombed people on a whim?

Well, that would be just a little too sensible now wouldn't it.....especially for the new ATS.

I think what our President did was bad enough, but what CBS did was stupid. I give the reporter a lot of credit for asking a rather tough question, for once. Could have been one of the big moments of the election The guys that cut up the video at CBS should be held responsible for their part in this unraveling scandal.

reply to post by Ghost375

Plus, I'd rather have a president who analyzed everything and didn't rush into things.... would you rather have a president who labeled everything terrorism before knowing the facts, and bombed people on a whim?

Sure, I want that too.

I just want a President that does it quickly, then makes a decision quickly and goes with it.

I am still wanting.

ETA: Oh yes, I also want a President that doesn't let his underlings lie to us about an incident, then push his carefully parsed Rose Garden words to indicate that he called the incident a terrorist act all along....when he really didn't.

reply to post by jibeho


I personally believe an exec at CBS saw the sun setting on the Soetoro regime, and wanted to unload anything that could potentially "come up" in future hearings. By dropping it before the election, they can attempt to salvage any of the credibility they believe they still have.