Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 67

Thread: Benghazi lies finally come to light for everyone to see

  1. -41
    GoFins!'s Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    492
    vCash:
    1096
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Bumpus View Post
    Wow - jared is taller and a lot younger than I pictured him.
    Last edited by GoFins!; 05-14-2013 at 02:36 PM.
    “I’m somewhat disappointed that more African Americans don’t think for themselves and just go with whatever they’re supposed to say and think."


    - Dr. Benjamin Carson
    Quote Quote  

  2. -42
    GoFins!'s Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    492
    vCash:
    1096
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    Fact is: Obama mentioned 'act of terror' less than 24 hours after the Benghazi attacks happened and he never mentioned video.
    That is certainly a different timeline than everyone else is talking about.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...x7Fmn4uE#t=67s
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...x7Fmn4uE#t=96s

    There might be a lot less confusion had he and his press secretary been on the same page from the start. Obama's comments about terrorism make him appear to be a lone wolf - a voice independent from the administration, not it's leader.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201...-terror/194063
    Quote Quote  

  3. -43
    GoFins!'s Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    492
    vCash:
    1096
    Thanks / No Thanks

    "Obama taking revisionist history too far"

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...31f9_blog.html

    Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’

    “The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”
    — President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013

    Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.
    Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

    Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?

    The Facts
    Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:
    “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.”
    — Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

    “We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”
    — Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

    “I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”
    — Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

    Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:
    Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”

    Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.

    The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.

    Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

    Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.
    For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

    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.”
    OBAMA: “Right.”

    KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”

    OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know 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.”

    (You can view this segment of the interview below. A key question is what the president meant when he said “right.” Was this agreement with Kroft or just verbal acknowledgment? It is a bit in the eye of the beholder, but we lean toward agreement that he avoided using “terrorism.” For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.)

    Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

    QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”

    OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is 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.”

    (It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)
    Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrori
    st attack:

    QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

    OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

    So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.
    In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”
    Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

    She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

    Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”

    The Pinocchio Test
    During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

    But the 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.
    Four Pinocchios
    Quote Quote  

  4. -44
    jared81's Avatar
    Waterlogged

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,850
    vCash:
    1097
    Loc:
    orlando
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    Same place where? Not sure what you are talking about. But that's nothing new.
    Fact is: Obama mentioned 'act of terror' less than 24 hours after the Benghazi attacks happened and he never mentioned video. Since the phrase 'act of terror' is synonym with 'act of terrorism' your hatred is leading you the wrong way.

    BTW, if you are trying to make the phrase Obama Zombie a phrase of shame or trying to use it in a negative way it won't work with me. I am not even a fan of Obama anymore. I was in 2008. But he certainly is the lesser of the two evils which were presented in the last two elections. And I get a kick out of the right trying to make crap up.
    Awesome. Do you get your talking points directly from the administration or from media matters? Gofins all ready slapped down your argument. But the fact is, Obama multiple times stopped short from calling it terrorism (the view, univison and 60 minutes) The only speech where he mentioned terrorism was a broad speech in the rose garden where he was mentioning the 9/11 attacks.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -45
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2004
    Posts:
    12,815
    vCash:
    6960
    Loc:
    Boca Raton
    Thanks / No Thanks
    What's it like to be angry all the time?
    Quote Quote  

  6. -46
    jared81's Avatar
    Waterlogged

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,850
    vCash:
    1097
    Loc:
    orlando
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by DeathStar View Post
    What's it like to be angry all the time?
    I normally don't respond to you, just as the other members in the POFO don't respond. Who is angry? The conservatives who don't agree with your king Obama? Here's a helpful hint in posting, have a point. When someone starts a thread, ask valid questions or make a statement about the topic. I would think someone like you who spends all his day on different football forums would know better. I realize you are all upset that Obama is being drug through the mud and it must be tough that you can't clearly state your thoughts in paragraph form. What a sucky life for you.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -47
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    Perennial All-Pro

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    3,486
    vCash:
    7033
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by jared81 View Post
    Awesome. Do you get your talking points directly from the administration or from media matters? Gofins all ready slapped down your argument. But the fact is, Obama multiple times stopped short from calling it terrorism (the view, univison and 60 minutes) The only speech where he mentioned terrorism was a broad speech in the rose garden where he was mentioning the 9/11 attacks.
    Na. He didn't slap anything down. He simply posted a blog opinion from the Washington Post attempting to minimize the phrase "act of terror" and distancing it from the phrase 'act of terrorism' and 'terrorism'. But if it makes you happy and feeds your hatred for that "despicable piece of ****" (your words) so be it.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    Quote Quote  

  8. -48
    GoFins!'s Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    492
    vCash:
    1096
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by GoFins! View Post
    http://mediamatters.org/research/201...-terror/194063

    Sept. 12: Obama Said Of Benghazi: "No Acts Of Terror Will Ever Shake The Resolve Of This Great Nation." On September 12, the day after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, President Obama gave a speech in the Rose Garden. 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. 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." [WhiteHouse.gov, 9/12/12]

    Sept. 12: In Nevada, Obama Said Of Benghazi: "No Act Of Terror Will Dim The Light" Of American Values. Later on September 12, Obama again labeled the Benghazi attacks an "act of terror." He told a crowd in Las Vegas, Nevada, "As for the ones we lost last night: I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. And we want to send a message all around the world -- anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America." [WhiteHouse.gov, 9/12/12]

    Sept. 13: Obama Again Referred To The Benghazi Attack As An "Act Of Terror" In Colorado. Campaigning in Golden, Colorado, on September 13, Obama again classified the Benghazi attack as an "act of terror." He told the crowd, "So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished." [WhiteHouse.gov, 9/13/12]
    There are claims that these speeches were about 9/11/01 and terrorism in general, and that references to Benghazi were made in passing.

    If they were "acts of terror" on 9/12 and 9/13, then why couldn't he or his Press Secretary refer to them as acts of terror, or terrorism, later? Nothing explains why the deception of the video was used if they knew they were unrelated acts of terror right away.

    You can't be right, then wrong for a long time, then not sure, then claim you were right all along. Was the back and forth due to an active attempt to deceive or just incompetence?
    Last edited by GoFins!; 05-14-2013 at 10:51 PM.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -49
    LANGER72's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2006
    Posts:
    7,966
    vCash:
    21311
    Loc:
    Munchkin Land / Emerald C
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/m...143339866.html



    And there it is.

    The majority of the article is John McCain bitching about losing the '08 election...i mean, complaining about needing an investigation.

    Even for American politics, the hypocrisy of the complaints is epic.

    An investigation is needed. There is no hypocrisy. The characters in this epic are different, their political leanings are not important. This is a huge cover up.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -50
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,674
    vCash:
    3403
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks


    Much ado about nothing. You all whine and cry and bitch about media spinning things to get a quick headline, yet embrace it as the solid truth the moment it fits into what you want to see. So much for the liberal media, eh? I don't particularly like the source, but this link has the full E-mail that was sent out. Not some snippets that various "news sources" pull to make partisans jizz their panties. Ignore the meat of it and just read the E-mail itself. It's the same nonsense that happened with that "Climate-gate" bull**** a few months back.

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05...enghazi-leaks/

    This is especially interesting coming from you finomenal. You're the one who has said several times that nothing is what it seems, that you need to not trust what you are told, etc. You're doing just that here. People are so thirsty for a scandal that they'll dig wherever they can to find one...

    EDIT: And before I'm accused of it, no this isn't a defense of Obama. This is a defense of truth, facts, and honesty...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Feedback on BENGHAZI
    By cuzinvinny in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 10-17-2012, 06:43 PM
  2. Video of F-15 ruins in Libya after US fighter jet crashes near Benghazi
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-24-2011, 02:35 PM
  3. Lies, Damned Lies, and Convention Speeches
    By finataxia24 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-05-2004, 01:44 AM
  4. Is Wannstedt finally seeing the light?
    By Noodle Arm in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 08-04-2004, 12:50 AM
  5. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics: Miami v Chargers Revisited
    By xiidaen in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-29-2003, 01:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •