Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
September 17, 2014, 07:04:31 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama refused to call Benghazi a "terror attack" in new CBS footage released.  (Read 481 times)
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8619


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« on: November 05, 2012, 12:23:53 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/11/05/Proof-Obama-Refused-to-Call-Benghazi-Terror-CBS-Covered-Up





In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof--two days before the election, far too late to reach the media and the public--that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack "terrorism" from the beginning.
 
CBS unveiled additional footage from its 60 Minutes interview with President Obama, conducted on Sep. 12 immediately after Obama had made his statement about the attacks in the Rose Garden, in which Obama quite clearly refuses to call the Benghazi an act of terror when asked a direct question by reporter Steve Kroft:
 




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, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?
 
OBAMA: Well itís too early to tell 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.
 
CBS News held onto this footage for more than six weeks, failing to release it even when questions were raised during the Second Presidential Debate as to whether Obama had, in fact, referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror before blaming it falsely on demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. The moderator, CNN's Candy Crowley, intervened on Obama's behalf, falsely declaring he had indeed called the attack an act of terror in his Rose Garden statement, and creating the impression that Romney was wrong.
 
That exchange turned what would have been an outright win for Romney in the debate into a narrow win or possibly a loss--and it discouraged him from bringing up the issue again in the next debate or on the campaign trail. CBS News could have set the record straight, but held onto this footage, releasing it just before the election--perhaps to avoid the later charge of having suppressed it altogether.
 
Fox News' Bret Baier, who has been following the timeline of events closely, noted in his analysis this morning:
 

These are two crucial answers in the big picture.  Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.
 
Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden.
 
How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?
 
There are many questions, and here are a few more.
 
Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama's claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning? 
 
Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on CBS.com contain the additional "60 Minutes" interview material from Sept. 12? 
 
Why wasn't it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that "60 Minutes" tape -- why didn't they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously? 
 
Whatever your politics, there are a lot of loose ends here, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of strange political maneuvers that don't add up.
 
Actually, the conclusion to be drawn is quite simple: CBS News, in an effort to assist President Obama's re-election campaign, corruptly concealed information about two critical issues--namely, a terror attack and the president's dishonesty about it. When the players in the Libya scandal face investigation, so, too, should CBS News and those in the mainstream media who have wantonly assisted the administration's shameless lies.
 










Report to moderator   Logged
Princess L
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 10260


I stop for turtles


« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2012, 01:16:38 PM »

Report to moderator   Logged

:
Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20003


Decepticons! Scramble!


« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2012, 01:17:17 PM »


Holy death crickets.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41399


« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2012, 01:21:17 PM »

Trying to run out the clock.
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 83145


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2012, 03:15:30 PM »

it worked
Report to moderator   Logged

tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19162


Psalms 150


« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2012, 03:28:26 PM »

Its still very well possible that the attack was organized and carried out by people who saw the video as a "last straw" so to speak . And even if that's not the case, it seems they timed the attack to coincide with the riots over the video anyways.     What exactly is wrong with the president making a statement that the attacks will be avenged and those responsible brought to justice? Is there some profoundly important reason why the semantics of that statement should have included the exact words "terrorist attack"?   Lol
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41399


« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2012, 04:04:40 PM »

Its still very well possible that the attack was organized and carried out by people who saw the video as a "last straw" so to speak . And even if that's not the case, it seems they timed the attack to coincide with the riots over the video anyways.     What exactly is wrong with the president making a statement that the attacks will be avenged and those responsible brought to justice? Is there some profoundly important reason why the semantics of that statement should have included the exact words "terrorist attack"?   Lol

The video had nothing to do with the attack.  Nobody is disputing that at this point. 

What is wrong with the president's statement, and especially the statements of his representatives like Susan Rice, is they were misleading and in some instances completely untrue. 
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19162


Psalms 150


« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2012, 04:11:52 PM »

You have absolutely no idea wht relation the attacks had to the video. The attack happened during the same time period when riots over the video were happening. The people who carried out the attack undoubtedly felt similar about the video asbrhe protestors did, being that they are fundamentalists muslims as well. Maybe the attack was planned and carried out without a single word being Said about the video, but even if that's the case its likely those involved had thoughts about t from time to time during the planning and execution.  Aggain, what's wrong withbconce.Jung the attack and saying those responaible will he brought to justice? Lmao
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41399


« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2012, 04:14:16 PM »

You have absolutely no idea wht relation the attacks had to the video. The attack happened during the same time period when riots over the video were happening. The people who carried out the attack undoubtedly felt similar about the video asbrhe protestors did, being that they are fundamentalists muslims as well. Maybe the attack was planned and carried out without a single word being Said about the video, but even if that's the case its likely those involved had thoughts about t from time to time during the planning and execution.  Aggain, what's wrong withbconce.Jung the attack and saying those responaible will he brought to justice? Lmao

Actually yes I do, because the White House and everyone else now all agree it had nothing to do with the video.  There were no protests or riots, so tying the attack to the video really makes no sense.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19162


Psalms 150


« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2012, 04:17:57 PM »

Lmao. There were no protests or riots. Really. Were you watching the news that day? Lmao.  These were Muslims who carried out the attack, absolutely guaranteed part of their motivation had to do with the video. I understand your real enthralled with this talking point however hahah.  What's wrong with condemning the attacks and saying those responsible will be brought to justice? Lollolol.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41399


« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2012, 04:24:45 PM »

Lmao. There were no protests or riots. Really. Were you watching the news that day? Lmao.  These were Muslims who carried out the attack, absolutely guaranteed part of their motivation had to do with the video. I understand your real enthralled with this talking point however hahah.  What's wrong with condemning the attacks and saying those responsible will be brought to justice? Lollolol.   

No, there were no protests. 

State Department: No video protest at the Benghazi consulate
Posted By Josh Rogin  Tuesday, October 9, 2012 -

Prior to the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi late in the evening on Sept. 11, there was no protest outside the compound, a senior State Department official confirmed today, contradicting initial administration statements suggesting that the attack was an opportunistic reaction to unrest caused by an anti-Islam video.

In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, two senior State Department officials gave a detailed accounting of the events that lead to the death of Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The officials said that prior to the massive attack on the Benghazi compound by dozens of militants carrying heavy weaponry, there was no unrest outside the walls of the compound and no protest that anyone inside the compound was aware of.

In fact, Stevens hosted a series of meetings on the compound throughout the day, ending with a meeting with a Turkish diplomat that began at 7:30 in the evening, and all was quiet in the area.

"The ambassador walked guests out at 8:30 or so; there was nobody on the street. Then at 9:40 they saw on the security cameras that there were armed men invading the compound," a senior State Department official said. "Everything is calm at 8:30 pm, there is nothing unusual. There had been nothing unusual during the day outside."

The official was asked about why senior officials said in the immediate aftermath of the attack that it was related to the anti-Islam video and the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier in the day.

"But putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video," U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said Sept. 16 on NBC's Meet the Press.

"That was not our conclusion," the State Department official said. "We don't necessarily have a conclusion [about that]."

Rice has since attributed those statements to information given to the administration by intelligence officials.

On Wednesday, the House Oversight Committee will hold its much-anticipated hearing on the administration's actions leading up to and following the attack. The hearing, entitled, "The Security Failures of Benghazi," will feature testimony from Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb, Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, who was stationed in Libya before the attacks, and Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was leading a security team in Libya until August.

The officials on the call did not respond directly to allegations made by Nordstrom and Wood that the State Department rejected repeated requests to increase security in Libya, but they defended the security in Benghazi and said that Stevens was traveling with five diplomatic security agents, two more than his regular contingent of three, in light of the increased threat environment.

"There had been no attacks like that anywhere in Libya in the time that we had been there. So it was unprecedented," the official said. "In fact, there hasn't been an attack like that in recent diplomatic history."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/09/state_department_no_video_protest_at_the_benghazi_consulate
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19162


Psalms 150


« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2012, 04:32:26 PM »

Lol no protests "OUTSIDE THE BENGHAZI CONSULATE" hahah ....   Come on beach bum!  Why, when in every other major Sean city in the world thee were protestpea rioting, was it quiet in benghazi before the attack??  Could it be that the people in bengazi who would have been protesting we're getting ready for an attack on the consulate?? Lol come on dude you post that there were no protests going on that day... There were protests in evey major Sean city on the planet that day...  The one where thee weren't protests there was an attack instead...  Unrelated? Lmao.  No, the peopl in bengazi' instead of protesting, just fucking attacked hahah
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 83145


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2012, 10:53:17 PM »

according to FOX news today - the bad guys were there to rescue people illegally imprisoned there.   

not really a video thing.
Report to moderator   Logged

tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19162


Psalms 150


« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2012, 11:10:56 PM »

Fox news said it - must be true


Lol


Even if that was the case, look at the timing of the attack. Same time as the riots were going on. 

No matter what, the riots over the video and the attack were at least related in that regard,  and this comments about the video when talking about the events that day are completely understandable.

After all were. Talking about a video about cuplpent Muslims that caused Muslims to riot violently about and the attack qa alsoMuslims neong violent.     
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!