It never changes and it doesn't make any difference what the facts are....they are bound and determined to quack about this until the cows come home. They think it's the best way to prevent Hillary from becoming President.
It's just like them repeating over and over again that Obama wasn't born in the US, that Obama isn't an American, that Obama was born in Kenya....and Obama didn't call the attack on Benghazi a terrorist act. He did. The very next day. And members of his administration labeled it as such repeatedly in the days following the event.
But, the whackjobs don't let little things like facts interfere with their distorted and bizarre view of the world....
>>>>> On September 12, the day after the attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Obama said in comments in the Rose Garden that he had learned about the attack on the consulate the night before.
"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," 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."
On September 13, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice. He then added, "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."
Other administration officials, however, said in subsequent days that they were unaware of any credible intelligence suggesting that the attack had been planned in advance.
On September 13, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, said authorities "are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, (and) whether it was premeditated" until they had completed an investigation.
On September 16 [five days after the attack], Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said, "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."
And you left this part out Little Timmy-tard “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”
“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. ABC NEWS
On September 19 [a week after the attack], Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the ambassador and three other Americans "were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy."
White House spokesman Jay Carney sought to clear up any confusion on September 20.
"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials."
On September 25[two weeks after the attack: see the Washington Post article and Ramirez's cartoon below], on ABC's "The View," interviewer Joy Behar asked Obama about a remark made by his secretary of state. "I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?"
To that, Obama responded, "We're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. We don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world there's still a lot of threats out there." Obama added that "extremist militias" were suspected to have been involved.
Two days later, Carney responded bluntly to a question about why Obama had not labeled the incident a terrorist attack.
"I think you're misunderstanding something here," Carney said. "I'm the president's spokesman. When the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, in open testimony in Congress, answered a question by saying yes, by the definitions we go by -- this is me paraphrasing -- this was a terrorist attack -- I echoed that, because this president, this administration, everybody looks to the intelligence community for the assessments on this. And it has been since I said so, the president's position that this was a terrorist attack."
Originally Posted by timpage
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.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...31f9_blog.html
BTW, Little Timmy-tard, you still haven't cited where anyone in the intelligence field or the military reported on September 11 that the attack was prompted by a video.
nah, the morons will come up with some sort of spin trying to cover their ass ...
oh wait !
Originally Posted by CJ7