Anonymous wrote:He never called Benghazi an "act of terror" . He referred to an act of terror at the end of his speech.

Again, go listen to his interviews on the subject.

So irritating. Another poster posted this in another thread:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

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

The full context of these statements makes it clear that he was talking about the Benghazi attack. For instance, here is the entire paragraph of the first comment:

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.

He never called Benghazi an "act of terror" . He referred to an act of terror at the end of his speech.

Again, go listen to his interviews on the subject.

Anonymous wrote:Obama used typical politician CYA.

He referred to an "act of terror" but never called it that and continually left it open during interviews.

Wait, what? He "referred" to an act of terror? So did the words "act of terror" come out of his mouth?

If they came out of his mouth, then how did he not "call" it that? Isn't saying it "calling" it that?

Anonymous wrote:Obama used typical politician CYA.

He referred to an "act of terror" but never called it that and continually left it open during interviews.

What else was he talking about on Sept 12? Was there another item on the agenda?

You somehow are able to rearrange Hillary Clinton's speech when the caskets came back to suit your needs. Now you get to decide which actual words spoken by the President count and which do not. Unbelievable. You would have done well as a copy editor in Soviet Russia.

Obama used typical politician CYA.

He referred to an "act of terror" but never called it that and continually left it open during interviews.

The fact that they made up a lie and stuck with it didn't come out before the election.

you mean the republicans?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that they made up a lie and stuck with it didn't come out before the election.

What exactly is the lie?

Yes, please, CBL. Pick a "scandal" and stick with it.

Anonymous wrote:The fact that they made up a lie and stuck with it didn't come out before the election.

What exactly is the lie?

The fact that they made up a lie and stuck with it didn't come out before the election.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Benghazi ‘scandal’ is really about the worst example you can imagine of a partisan clown car driving through Washington. As the President said pretty succinctly, “the whole issue of talking points, frankly throughout this process, has been a sideshow.”

The additional information we’ve gotten over recent weeks points to a turf war and blame-shifting between the State Department and the CIA over who was responsible for what happened, a feud seemingly rooted in the fact that the location in question was in fact a CIA facility under State Department cover.

From the git-go, the Benghazi story has been the partisan hunger for a scandal - first to shift the presidential election and then later to try to recover from it - trying to find something, really anything in a tragic series of events to make into a scandal.

First it was apologizing to the terrorists. Then it was not using the t-word soon enough. Then it was President Obama in the Situation Room watching the attack unfold and calling off a rescue. Now, we’re down to whether the State Department and the CIA massaged talking points that an administration official was going to use on a Sunday show. The only real after the fact issue there’s ever been is why there wasn’t enough or whether there should have been more security at such a vulnerable location. But that’s not a politically juicy enough question to get attention because it’s very hard to connect it in a meaningful way to important political players.

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/theres_was_just_a_very.php?m=1)

Lying to the American people is serious. Doing it to shift an election is heinous.

None of you consider the fact that if there was nothing to hide, there would be no issue. However the deaths of four Americans on 9/11 of all days by terrorists was a failure and embarrassment to the Administration. Especially so close to election. So they lied to y'all, and still you defend the indefensible. And now, you are seeing how crooked they are. And we've hit the iceberg's tip

Oh please.

1. No one shifted the election. This all got covered prior to the election. Romney and Obama even debated it.
2. Nothing except your conspiracy theory backs up the idea that this was done to shift the election.
3. If you want someone actually admitting to trying to shift an election, go here: http://radio.foxnews.com/2009/08/22/ridge-on-record-as-disagreeing-with-bushco-on-raising-threat-levels-in-2005/#.UZI0JZVWB7E

There is your scandal. Go investigate that one.

This is the craziest non-issue, particularly odd when there are real policy issues that the republicans could be concentrating on.

I guess it means that they feel that the American people are even less likely to buy their bullshit on economic policy, denying rights to gays or women, healthcare etc.

Anonymous wrote:The Benghazi ‘scandal’ is really about the worst example you can imagine of a partisan clown car driving through Washington. As the President said pretty succinctly, “the whole issue of talking points, frankly throughout this process, has been a sideshow.”

The additional information we’ve gotten over recent weeks points to a turf war and blame-shifting between the State Department and the CIA over who was responsible for what happened, a feud seemingly rooted in the fact that the location in question was in fact a CIA facility under State Department cover.

From the git-go, the Benghazi story has been the partisan hunger for a scandal - first to shift the presidential election and then later to try to recover from it - trying to find something, really anything in a tragic series of events to make into a scandal.

First it was apologizing to the terrorists. Then it was not using the t-word soon enough. Then it was President Obama in the Situation Room watching the attack unfold and calling off a rescue. Now, we’re down to whether the State Department and the CIA massaged talking points that an administration official was going to use on a Sunday show. The only real after the fact issue there’s ever been is why there wasn’t enough or whether there should have been more security at such a vulnerable location. But that’s not a politically juicy enough question to get attention because it’s very hard to connect it in a meaningful way to important political players.

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/theres_was_just_a_very.php?m=1)

Lying to the American people is serious. Doing it to shift an election is heinous.

None of you consider the fact that if there was nothing to hide, there would be no issue. However the deaths of four Americans on 9/11 of all days by terrorists was a failure and embarrassment to the Administration. Especially so close to election. So they lied to y'all, and still you defend the indefensible. And now, you are seeing how crooked they are. And we've hit the iceberg's tip

Anonymous wrote:So is she now CBL?

We already have CL and C9BL.

So is she now CBL?

The Benghazi ‘scandal’ is really about the worst example you can imagine of a partisan clown car driving through Washington. As the President said pretty succinctly, “the whole issue of talking points, frankly throughout this process, has been a sideshow.”

The additional information we’ve gotten over recent weeks points to a turf war and blame-shifting between the State Department and the CIA over who was responsible for what happened, a feud seemingly rooted in the fact that the location in question was in fact a CIA facility under State Department cover.

From the git-go, the Benghazi story has been the partisan hunger for a scandal - first to shift the presidential election and then later to try to recover from it - trying to find something, really anything in a tragic series of events to make into a scandal.

First it was apologizing to the terrorists. Then it was not using the t-word soon enough. Then it was President Obama in the Situation Room watching the attack unfold and calling off a rescue. Now, we’re down to whether the State Department and the CIA massaged talking points that an administration official was going to use on a Sunday show. The only real after the fact issue there’s ever been is why there wasn’t enough or whether there should have been more security at such a vulnerable location. But that’s not a politically juicy enough question to get attention because it’s very hard to connect it in a meaningful way to important political players.

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/theres_was_just_a_very.php?m=1)