Obama STILL hasn't called assault on Libyan Consulate a 'terrorist attack'

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

Why. did. the. president. give. a. speech. in. the. Rose. Garden. on. Sept. 12th?

To express condolences for those killed, falsely try to blame the Benghazi attack and assassination of the U.S. Ambassador on a video that had nothing to do with it, and try to continue his lie that Al Qaeda had been defeated.

[Willsson]

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

Why. did. the. president. give. a. speech. in. the. Rose. Garden. on. Sept. 12th?

Does bamboozle or hoodwink ring a bell. No matter how hard you try, the reference to terrorism at the end of Obama's Rose Garden speech was NOT a reference to Sept11 - 2012. It was a general statement meant to cover his own butt.

Or, if he had called it an act of terrorism, then why did his lackey Susan Rice call the violence a result of a YouTube?

Three years later and die hards still don't recognize the Obie tactics.

[jt800]

Gee.....I wonder why, if Obama said it was a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden on September 12th, the Huffington Post found it important to mention in a news article that the White House FINALLY ADMITTED that it was a terrorist attack?

Anyone know why this story would be important enough to report if the White House had already admitted it???

October 9th, 2012 - The Huffington Post:

State Department: Libya Consulate Attack Not Preceded By Protest

WASHINGTON — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by jt800

Gee.....I wonder why, if Obama said it was a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden on September 12th, the Huffington Post found it important to mention in a news article that the White House FINALLY ADMITTED that it was a terrorist attack?

And why, if Obama believed on Sept. 12 that the attacks were by terrorists who planned them to coincide with the anniversary of the 9/11/2001 attacks, did he then tell us over and over for the following two weeks that they were merely a "protest gone bad" by people whose only gripe was that they didn't like a video someone made? Doesn't that constitute "a lie"?

Or as one pundit put it, our consulate was attacked and our Ambassador assassinated, by movie critics.

Oh come ON.

It's rather appalling just how stupid and gullible liberals think we are, to put out such ridiculous stories and expect we will believe them.

[Ferd]

Even if we stipulate that Obama used the words "Acts of terror" that still does not explain why the PRESIDENT went on Dave Letterman and said this attack was a reprisal for the infamous Muhammad Video.

NOR does it explain why he sent his U. N. Ambassador to FIVE Sunday shows to tell America that this attack in Lybia was reprisal for the video.

THIS IS THE ISSUE.

Mr. Obama and all our fine C-D liberal friends are revising history.

Mr. Obama got caught lying to the American people on a very important issue.