Libya-Gate

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I don't recall Bush EVER referring to 9-11 as a 'bump in the road'. Right, he just invaded countries

Of course his wife didn't have to wait till her 40's to finally be proud of her country either. Michelle was proud of her country before and after Bush

Just sayin....

btw, did you know Michelle's husband is a Muslim?...jus askin, you and your echo...

[bigrun]

Chris Stevens' Death In Libya Shouldn't Be Politicized, Father Says.

The father of Christopher Stephens, the United States ambassador who was killed in the attack in Libya last month, said Saturday that it would be "abhorrent" for his son's death to be politicized in the presidential campaign.

In an interview with Bloomberg News, Jan Stevens said the attack on Benghazi and the ensuing investigation has no place in the upcoming election.

"The security matters are being adequately investigated," Stevens, who is getting briefings from the State Department on the investigation, said. "We don’t pretend to be experts in security. It has to be objectively examined. That’s where it belongs. It does not belong in the campaign arena."

Since the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Mitt Romney has been critical of President Obama's response to the tragedy, slamming the president for lapses in security at the American compound.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1965009.html

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by bigrun

btw, did you know Michelle's husband is a Muslim?...jus askin, you and your echo...

He's actually a christian who was inspired by a racist pastor who in turn is inspired by Louis Farakan, a leader in the chicago and American Muslim community. Mr. Farakan in turn puts out a weekly newsletter that features whites with devil horns. Though Obama did spend time in Indonesia and has described the call to Islam prayer chant as beautiful. To each is own I guess.

Did you know Michelle did not grow up poor? Was the daughter of a city worker who was a precinct captain, (part of the original Dailey Army) went to Princeton and Harvard law school, got a cooshy six figure medical job from Mayor Dailey II and still wasn't proud of her country till her early 40's?

[joeydb]

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Nice cartoon, if factual accuracy doesn't matter. Which is why it appeals to it's target audience, I guess

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nice cartoon, if factual accuracy doesn't matter. Which is why it appeals to it's target audience, I guess

It does give actual dates. I thought that was a good thing.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It does give actual dates. I thought that was a good thing.

Yes. It gives actual dates. But it doesn't give actual statements made on those dates. It is lying about what Obama said.

Can you post those quotes as the cartoon alleges, from the first five dates given in that sequence, that support the cartoon? Public statements, all, should be easy to find?

Start with Sept 11 - post any quote that the President said on that date, saying the attacks were due to the video. Sept 12 and 13, too.

The cartoon is lying baloney, Joey. Instead of getting your political "truth" from cartoons, or web sites, try watching the actual press conferences and public statements and listening to the president's words yourself.

[Danzig]

from factcheck.org, regarding the exchange between obama and romney, and what the admin had to say in the days after the embassy attack:

Terrorist Attack in Libya

There was a sharp exchange between the candidates on the issue of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi and the question of when the president acknowledged it was a terrorist attack. Obama said he called it an “act of terror” the day after the attack. Romney said that “it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

Obama is correct that he referred to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 speech in the Rose Garden. But after that Obama refused to characterize it as a terrorist attack while it was under investigation — even though other administration officials did.

Obama: The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime. …

Romney: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?

Obama: Please proceed governor.

Romney: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

Obama: Get the transcript.

The transcript does show that Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Sept. 12: “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.” That night, he said at a Las Vegas fundraiser: “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 employed the “act of terror” phrase a third time a day later at a campaign event in Colorado.

But Romney isn’t entirely wrong. Romney claimed Obama refused for two weeks after the Benghazi attack to call it a terrorist attack and, instead, blamed it on a spontaneous demonstration in response to an anti-Muslim video that earlier that day triggered a violent protest in Egypt.

The president did seem to suggest in his Rose Garden speech that a reason for the Benghazi attack was the video. Obama said: “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. None.”

It is also true that Obama refrained from characterizing the attack as an premeditated act of terrorism. The administration adopted a wait-and-see position, deflecting questions until the investigation into the attack could be completed. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, for example, was asked in a Sept. 17 press briefing if the administration considered the Benghazi attack an act of terror. She said: “Again, I’m not going to put labels on this until we have a complete investigation, okay?”

A day later, Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on “The Late Show with David Letterman.” The president said “here’s what happened” and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said “extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.” He also said, “As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we’ve denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it. That’s never an excuse for violence.”

Matt Olsen, head of the National Counterterrorism Center, testified on Sept. 19 that it was a “terrorist attack.” He also said the administration still lacked “specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.”

A day later, White House press secretary Jay Carney said it is “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” And on Sept. 21 — two days after Olsen’s testimony — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

Yet, when asked on ABC’s “The View” whether it was a terrorist attack, Obama refused to say. That was on Sept. 24. He said, “We’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that 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.”

The Romney campaign has accused the administration of misleading the public by claiming the anti-Muslim video was to blame for the attack in Benghazi, rather than admitting it was a failure to detect and prevent an act of terrorism on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. We cannot say if there was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public or whether, as the administration says, the conflicting statements in the weeks after the attack were the result of an evolving investigation. We’ll leave that for readers to decide.