Proof: Obama Refused to Call Benghazi Terror, CBS Covered Up

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Is there a difference between "refusing to call" or "not wanting to say, yet"?

Answer: Yes.

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

There is also a big difference between claiming that you immediately called it a terrorist attack and the fact that he did not do that at all. The fact is that he bold face lied to the entire nation during the presidential debates and maintained the lie even after being called on it. Now the truth is out and he can lie about it no more. The commander in chief has egg on his face over something that could have been put to bed almost immediately by admitting that he made a mistake.

reply to post by SpaDe_


I think thats interpretation.

Other members have said he referred to it as a terrorist attack...

also, this is the President, who's debating live on TV and running for the Presidential election. I dont think he'd outwardly LIE to the people, on LIVE TV when the truth is so easily available and known to him.

Its like me going on TV and saying the sky is pink and being serious....

could people be looking for any reason to be critical of Obama maybe?

reply to post by Agit8dChop


So your telling me that just because he is the president that he would not lie on national television? I think because he is president he would lie on national television, and he did. This report from CBS proves it.

So were you a believer when GWB stood there and said "We have credible intel that there are WMD's in Iraq"?

reply to post by jdub297


This thread is utterly ludicrous. The CBS interview only supports Obama's position that he didn't mislead anyone. He specifically said that more information was coming in and that he wanted to be cautious before making any categorical statements about the nature of the attack. He also clearly says that he believes this attack was substantively different from the other embassy protests and that he suspects it involved more dangerous assailants.

I have another question though. Do you people think it was a mere coincidence that this attack (on an ambassador and consulate) occurred on the same day as widespread major protests throughout the rest of North Africa? Do you really think this attack had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the video protests occurring elsewhere? It was just a bad day for U.S. embassies?

reply to post by SpaDe_


thats not what im saying...

I did believe GW in 2001/2002 but i was a young niave ankle biter, although my boss told me quite clearly
'' There are no weapons there, we'll go in, everyone will surrender '' < taught me a lesson cause I said to him
'' the world wont tolerate a leader openly lying like that ''

guess I was wrong..

.. what im saying about Obama is, he knows full well what ever happened would come out, he also knows full well that the election is on and Romney will use everything and anything.

So why lie or try and smudge the fact of what this was, giving Romney such a simple and effective piece of ammo? It doesnt make sense even a child knows when to lie and when not too.

Someone earlier said Obama did refer to this as a terrorist act in the first day or two something like
'' we will not tolerate acts of terrorism such as this '' < I'll need to find the exact quote.

See, If Obama knew this was a terrorist attack from the moment it occured, so did romney.
Why would Obama go on national TV, during an elections final stages and say the exacty opposite? ... to cover his ass? surely he knew that it would be caught and presented on TV immediately by his haters..

It doesnt make sense to lie about it... your all tooking hooey!

reply to post by Agit8dChop


Ok I'll give you a +1 for the GWB bs lie, but what you cannot deny is the timing of this release. It was held until a point when it would do little to no damage to his campaign. He knew damn well that he lied, and he knew that it would come out. I am willing to bet even at a later date it will also come out that he or someone well connected to him asked very persuasively for this information to be held until it wouldn't damage his campaign.

So, can I ask you

what is the difference between

1. A terrorist act where a group of youth storm a consulate and kill an ambassador
2. A group of protestors getting angry, storming a consulate and killing an ambassador

Also,

Were there not mass protests/rallies occuring in multiple countries in direct relation to that video tape?

In the first day or 2 of this attack, what was it that identified what hapened in Libya as a terrorist attack in comparison to the other protests?

From another thread:

Obama made some off the cuff remark about how 'no act of terror would shake the resolve of this country' or something along that line ... which wasn't even close to indicating this attack was a terrorist attack.
heck, he went on several talk shows and dodged the question repeatedly but that isn't what this topic is about, so ... i thought we were sharing information here ?

I challenge anybody who reads these two paragraphs exactly drawn from his speech on 9/12 verbatim to point out to me anywhere where he mentions the author of the movie.

”As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe”.

“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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

Oh one more sentence in the speech:

”And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.”

Well I may have busted my challenge. In Obama’s 5 min 30 plus second speech, these two sentences might be what people are talking about when they say Obama blamed the video:

“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.”

Yep that must be it…
That’s it. Please read a transcript or watch the video. Here’s a link: www.dailykos.com... Yes a liberal website, but pick whatever site you would like. They didn’t change the speech. Also I want to say before somebody says that “No acts of terror” is not the same as terrorism to read a dictionary. www.thefreedictionary.com... . Check out d and e…

1. Terror-
a. Intense, overpowering fear. See Synonyms at fear.
b. One that instills intense fear: a rabid dog that became the terror of the neighborhood.
c. The ability to instill intense fear: the terror of jackboots pounding down the street.
d. Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.
e. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) terrorism

Pretty self-explanatory, but if someone is going for the” Obama called it a terrible act not a terrorist act”: www.thefreedictionary.com... . Notably letter c and the adjective.

1. terrible
a. very serious or extreme a terrible cough
b. Informal of poor quality; unpleasant or bad a terrible meal a terrible play
c. causing terror
d. causing awe the terrible nature of God
2. Adj. terrible - causing fear or dread or terror; "the awful war"; "an awful risk"; "dire news"; "a career or vengeance so direful that London was shocked"; "the dread presence of the headmaster"; "polio is no longer the dreaded disease it once was"; "a dreadful storm"; "a fearful howling"; "horrendous explosions shook the city"; "a terrible curse"

But I digress...

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Also,

Were there not mass protests/rallies occuring in multiple countries in direct relation to that video tape?

In the first day or 2 of this attack, what was it that identified what hapened in Libya as a terrorist attack in comparison to the other protests?

The most recent intelligence STILL says the attack was related to the Cairo protest, validating exactly what Obama said in this interview. That makes it pretty understandable why there would be serious confusion among U.S. intelligence agencies about the source/motive of the attack:

“Right now, there isn’t any intelligence that the attackers preplanned their assault days or weeks in advance,” said the intelligence official. “The bulk of available information supports the early assessment that the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”

www.nytimes.com...

According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place.

www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by buckrogerstime


Your source in this article is, "an anonymous American intelligence official." The New York Times is an incredibly liberal and biased source, every bit as biased as Fox if not more.

There were numerous streams of information, all indicating that there was no mob protest, just a sudden attack by scores of heavily armed men;

The CIA station chief's report within 24 hours.
The live, real time reporting of the attack to the State Department from the consulate.
Even press reports! For example, the BBC World Service was reporting live from the scene that the consulage was attacked by about well-armed 80 men from the radical islamist group Ansar al-Shariah.


Yes it was opportunistic and just a huge coincidence that the attacks occurred on the anniversary of 911.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


This is what makes it different.

The question won’t go away: Did President Obama and administration officials mislead the public when they initially claimed that the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began “spontaneously” in response to an anti-Muslim video?

The question surfaced again on Oct. 25 — more than six weeks after the incident — when government emails showed the White House and the State Department were told even as the attack was going on that Ansar al-Sharia, a little-known militant group, had claimed credit for it.

We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come — both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.

But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.

What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:

There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.

Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.

Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”

Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

Fact Check



Emphasis mine

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by buckrogerstime

 

Your source in this article is, "an anonymous American intelligence official." The New York Times is an incredibly liberal and biased source, every bit as biased as Fox if not more.

All media sources can be biased. Not to get all Katie Couric on you, but maybe you can tell me two or three websites/newspapers that you think would act as a legitimate source? The New York Times has been one of the most reputable papers in the world for the last century. The author of the article I cited has won the Pulitzer Prize twice and covered international relations and national security for 25 years. What have you done?

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

There were numerous streams of information, all indicating that there was no mob protest, just a sudden attack by scores of heavily armed men;

I literally just posted at least one "stream of information" indicating that eyewitnesses had claimed the attackers referenced the protests. Literally just posted it. You were responding to it, remember?

No one is saying the attack didn't happen or that there was in fact some protest at the compound. U.S. intelligence only indicates there would be a good reason for mass confusion about the nature/motive of the attack, especially considering the other MASSIVE PROTESTS throughout North Africa occurring simultaneously and the attackers' own deliberate efforts to make it seem like a response to the video. And, in fact, the CBS interview in the OP shows Obama explicitly stating that he doesn't think the attack is necessarily consistent with the other protests and, on the same day, he stated it was an "act of terror." Sounds like Obama agrees with you if anything.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

Yes it was opportunistic and just a huge coincidence that the attacks occurred on the anniversary of 911.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the exact same day that an embassy is attacked in Libya, the embassy in the country right next to Libya also has 3,000 protesters storming its walls? If you think that IS in fact a coincidence, can you understand why the events might appear to be directly related until further investigation was done?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
From the article linked in the OP:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

So he did not "refuse to call it terror" at all - he said it was "too early to tell" whether it was a "terrorism attack". (whether it was too early or not is another question for which there are ample threads here already)

for people so hung up on single words you guys like to play fast and lose when it suits you!!

This only becomes an issue when you add in the Presidential debate where Obama insisted he called it a terrorist attack from day 1. This is proof he lied in the debate, although the proof was already there without this. As to him not calling it a terrorist attack here and saying it was too early to tell, I believe they had UAV's watching the event, so it should not be too early. I only really take issue with the Presidential debate lie though.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Is there a difference between "refusing to call" or "not wanting to say, yet"?

Answer: Yes.

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

No, not willing to say and refusing to say are the same thing. There is no difference.

Originally posted by buckrogerstime
reply to post by jdub297

 

This thread is utterly ludicrous. The CBS interview only supports Obama's position that he didn't mislead anyone. He specifically said that more information was coming in and that he wanted to be cautious before making any categorical statements about the nature of the attack. He also clearly says that he believes this attack was substantively different from the other embassy protests and that he suspects it involved more dangerous assailants.

I have another question though. Do you people think it was a mere coincidence that this attack (on an ambassador and consulate) occurred on the same day as widespread major protests throughout the rest of North Africa? Do you really think this attack had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the video protests occurring elsewhere? It was just a bad day for U.S. embassies?

What day did this occur? That should help answer that question.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
So, can I ask you

what is the difference between

1. A terrorist act where a group of youth storm a consulate and kill an ambassador
2. A group of protestors getting angry, storming a consulate and killing an ambassador

Also,

Were there not mass protests/rallies occuring in multiple countries in direct relation to that video tape?

In the first day or 2 of this attack, what was it that identified what hapened in Libya as a terrorist attack in comparison to the other protests?

You need to ask the difference? In 2. we have a group who meet to protest, and their agenda changes due to group mentality. In 1. we have no protest, the sole purpose is to storm and kill.

Do you think there is a difference between ...
1. A group of KKK members storming the house of a black family to kill them ...
and
2. A group of black people protesting a KKK leaders house and being inflamed at the scene and a riot ensues?

I hope so, as one is premeditated murder and one is a crime of passion.

This is exactly why early voting is not a good idea.
I wonder how many early voters that have already cast their vote for Obama are just now wanting a do over?

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

What day did this occur? That should help answer that question.

Woah, I hadn't thought of that. They both happened on Sept. 11th! Two breaches of U.S. embassies in neighboring North African countries on Sept. 11! I'm almost starting to think the two events may have had something to do with one another.