Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
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. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence."
-Barack Obama
A "It's not justified but understandable" statement to me.
The statement in red in it's context had no purpose nor relevance to Benghazi whatsoever at all.
What was it's intention? What was the impetus?
Wrong...."understanding" an excuse for AQ or any other torturous event of violence is NOT ACCEPTABLE
WHY..?
Because in understanding, the President ...SEE'S IT , Ratify's and agree's alongside THEIR WAY
And Then..
Contradicts with reproof and admonishment....The President contradicts self, understanding contradicts censor.
Only libs can change "No act of terror" into "This act of terror" with a straight face.
All you guys have is cut and paste, because 0bama never called it a terrorists act. He referred to it as a "shocking act," or "an attack," and referred to the perps as "attackers" and "killers" not a terrorist attack, not terrorists.
By definition, by them attacking our consulate, it was an act of terror, even Jay Carney has said that, bit 0bama did not called it that. you cannot find one sentence in the Rose Garden speech where 0bama said Benghazi was a terrorist attack. 0bama was careful never to call the attackers 'terrorists, or the attack a "terrorist attack".
It is obvious that Romney asserted that the President had not characterized it as an act of terror. He arguable had. So Romney agreed to the Presidents semantics.
They obviously avoided the declaration with precision as a terrorist act for a period of time. Why? They have not and likely will not say. I expect they do not want to discuss in detail what was going on in the Benghazi consulate and its annex. And I expect they waited until they were sure what was compromised before they opened their mouth. See Eisenhower and the U2.
There it is in the link you provided, acknowledging that the attack on the consulate was by a group separate from any demonstration based on the video.
Susan Rice: And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible.
As for it being "premeditated and preplanned terrorist attack", I heard Catherine Herridge of Fox News just yesterday (Oct 19th) report that there are new intelligence reports indicating that the timing of the attack was based off of the events in Cairo.
He goes on to talk about how we have to be more careful about our freedom of speech and how it's not right to blaspheme Islam.
He DOES NOT say the attack on our Ambassador was a terrorist attack.
He instead cautions everyone that Americans did not produce the film, etc.
In the UN speech he did not call the attack in Libya a terrorist attack, but he also did not blame the Libyan attack on the video.
You do understand that there were violent demonstrations, that were not terrorist attacks, at U.S. embassies elsewhere in the world that were based on the video?
Can you find any quotes where Obama put the words Libya or Benghazi and terror or terrorists in the same sentence. I'm not sure he ever put them in the same paragraph. For that matter, has he used the 't' word --- terrorists.
You can Infer that he all along has meant Libya was a terrorist attack. He can either say, of course that's what he meant, or you're crazy, he never Said specifically that it was a terrorist attack.
I guess in the future in Obama should start referencing people's social security numbers so we
that we can be sure who he is talking about.
At the time was there another group of four Americans who had just been killed that he might have been referring to?
Only libs can change "No act of terror" into "This act of terror" with a straight face.
All you guys have is cut and paste, because 0bama never called it a terrorists act. He referred to it as a "shocking act," or "an attack," and referred to the perps as "attackers" and "killers" not a terrorist attack, not terrorists.
By definition, by them attacking our consulate, it was an act of terror, even Jay Carney has said that, bit 0bama did not called it that. you cannot find one sentence in the Rose Garden speech where 0bama said Benghazi was a terrorist attack. 0bama was careful never to call the attackers 'terrorists, or the attack a "terrorist attack".
Let me say at the outset that obviously our hearts are heavy this week -- we had a tough day a couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya. Yesterday I had a chance to go over to the State Department to talk to friends and colleagues of those who were killed. And these were Americans who, like so many others, both in uniform and civilians, who serve in difficult and dangerous places all around the world to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans.
And a lot of times their work goes unheralded, doesn’t get a lot of attention, but it is vitally important. We enjoy our security and our liberty because of the sacrifices that they make. And they do an outstanding job every single day without a lot of fanfare. (Applause.)
So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. (Applause.) 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. (Applause.)
It’s a reminder that the freedoms we enjoy -– sometimes even the freedoms we take for granted -– they’re only sustained because there are people like those who were killed, who are willing to stand up for those freedoms; who are willing to fight for those freedoms; in some cases, to lay down their lives for those freedoms. So tonight, let’s think of them and thank them.
As for the ones we lost last night: I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. (Applause.) 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. (Applause.)
We will not be deterred. We will keep going. We will keep going because the world needs us. We are the one indispensable power in the world. And if we are going to see peace and security for our children and our grandchildren, then that means that this generation of Americans has to lead. We’re going to have to keep doing the work -- no matter how hard it seems sometimes.
Where's the part where he referenced 'act of terror'? Did it disappear or are we talking about a different speech?
Inquiring minds.
He was talking about the first 9/11 too. Look you only have him saying the word "terror" once, it was ten paragraphs down into his speech. If he wanted to call the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack, or the people who did it, terrorists, he had eight chances, but he never did.
Let me say at the outset that obviously our hearts are heavy this week -- we had a tough day a couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya. Yesterday I had a chance to go over to the State Department to talk to friends and colleagues of those who were killed. And these were Americans who, like so many others, both in uniform and civilians, who serve in difficult and dangerous places all around the world to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans.
And a lot of times their work goes unheralded, doesn’t get a lot of attention, but it is vitally important. We enjoy our security and our liberty because of the sacrifices that they make. And they do an outstanding job every single day without a lot of fanfare. (Applause.)
So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. (Applause.) 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. (Applause.)
It’s a reminder that the freedoms we enjoy -– sometimes even the freedoms we take for granted -– they’re only sustained because there are people like those who were killed, who are willing to stand up for those freedoms; who are willing to fight for those freedoms; in some cases, to lay down their lives for those freedoms. So tonight, let’s think of them and thank them.
As for the ones we lost last night: I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. (Applause.) 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. (Applause.)
We will not be deterred. We will keep going. We will keep going because the world needs us. We are the one indispensable power in the world. And if we are going to see peace and security for our children and our grandchildren, then that means that this generation of Americans has to lead. We’re going to have to keep doing the work -- no matter how hard it seems sometimes.
Even there, he dances all around it, never actually calling the "attackers," or killers" "terrorists." he just cannot bring himself to do it.
Once again "no act of terror" is not "this act of terror."
He really likes that vague reference of "no act of terror" is noncommittal, and is great political double speak that never really says anything, but allows people to assume it might, if they want it to.
If only 0bama was as direct when denouncing freaking murdering terrorists, as he is when denouncing Republicans.
Obama has absolutely NO schooling in the human experience and NO worthy standards for conducting himself....in short Obama has NO ethic and does not understand what the word means.
Obama comprehends a relative value for terrorism by understanding the act.
NOT COMPREHENDING OR UNDERSTANDING "ANY" VALUE OR WORTH FOR TERRORISM IS THE WHOLE WORLDS POSITION.
THEREFORE OBAMA IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE ENTIRE WORLD INCLUDING NON VIOLENT MUSLIMS.
It is obvious that Romney asserted that the President had not characterized it as an act of terror. He arguable had. So Romney agreed to the Presidents semantics.
They obviously avoided the declaration with precision as a terrorist act for a period of time. Why? They have not and likely will not say. I expect they do not want to discuss in detail what was going on in the Benghazi consulate and its annex. And I expect they waited until they were sure what was compromised before they opened their mouth. See Eisenhower and the U2.
No, Romney did not say characterize, he said 0bama never said the words "terrorist act", and 0bama did not say "terrorist act" or "terrorist attack". 0bama said "terrible act," "shocking attack," etc... but never "terrorist attack." How can you say he was calling it a terrorist attack when even the word "terror" was only spoken once?
when the 0bama administration want to call something a "terrorist attack" this is how they do it, not by dancing around with politcal double speak:
Hours later, the White House released a statement condemning the "terrorist attack."
"The United States condemns in the strongest terms the terrorist attack today in Beirut that killed Lebanese Internal Security Forces Information Bureau Director Wissam al-Hassan and at least seven others, and wounded dozens more," said national security council spokesman Tommy Vietor
Last edited by Wapasha; 10-20-2012 at 02:16 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
