Transcript Truthers: Conservatives Deny Obama Called Libya Attack An "Act Of Terror"

[Timshel]

No... He clearly said "No ACTS of terror" not "act" ..and there is a big difference. "No acts of terror" is undefined, and doesn't specify this was an act of terror. He never specifies this was an act of terrorism. He does NOT "immediately reference" the 4 dead, he mentions them in an entirely different sentence, and he does so several times in his speech, since his speech is largely due to their deaths. He speaks of the attacks several times as well, and not once did he ever state they were "terrorist attacks" or the perpetrators "terrorists."

All we have to do here, is use common sense. I know that's hard for Yurt and some of you pinheads, but most of us don't have that problem.

He COULDN'T have meant it was an act of terrorism and also a spontaneous uprising. These are two entirely different animals! His speech indicates he thought it was a spontaneous uprising and not a terrorist attack. His administration's actions the following two weeks, also indicates they thought it was a spontaneous uprising and not a terrorist attack. It is only NOW, after the fact, after being called out on this, you run to the one usage of the word "terror" in his speech, and try to CLAIM he meant it was a terrorist attack. He NEVER defined this specific attack as an "act of terror" and never called it a "terrorist attack." As of the debate, he was STILL reluctant to call it a "terrorist attack." And I will bet, if someone asked Jay Carney today, "was this a terrorist attack?" Mr. Carney would dance around the question and REFUSE to call it that.

He never mentioned spontaneous uprising, spontaneous, uprising, spontaneity or rising. But he did say "up" a couple times. I guess that is close enough for you to indicate he thought it was a "spontaneous uprising." But "acts of terror" is not close enough to indicate he tought it was an "act of terror," "act of terrorism," "terrorist attack," or that the perpetrators were "terrorists."

And again, nobody gives a shit if they use your preferred terminology except fools and tools. You don't know a thing about common sense or possess any.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No.

His opinion merely changed as more information became available.

Well there is a problem with the timeline then. You are claiming he said it was an 'act of terror' on 9/12, the day after it happened. Yet you want to also claim that his opinion changed over the course of the next two weeks, while his administration was insisting this was not a terrorist attack, but a spontaneous demonstration gone awry. If Obama changed opinion, that's fine, but he couldn't magically change what he said in a speech the day after, could he?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

He never mentioned spontaneous uprising, spontaneous, uprising, spontaneity or rising. But he did say "up" a couple times. I guess that is close enough for you to indicate he thought it was a "spontaneous uprising." But "acts of terror" is not close enough to indicate he tought it was an "act of terror," "act of terrorism," "terrorist attack," or that the perpetrators were "terrorists."

And again, nobody gives a shit if they use your preferred terminology except fools and tools. You don't know a thing about common sense or possess any.

No, he didn't mention spontaneous uprising in that speech, but his administration officials REPEATEDLY mentioned it, and his officials in Libya had already issued a condemnation of the video that supposedly started all of this. He also used the opportunity to condemn the video producers for "denigrating the religion of others" in his speech.

It's not about "terminology" at all, it's about what he said and meant on 9/12, and that he and his administration lied and attempted to cover up the fact that this was a terrorist attack for two weeks. It's about your blatantly dishonest attempts to claim he said something he simply didn't say, and claim he took a position he didn't take, and still hasn't really taken to this day. If you wish to believe that nobody gives a shit about that, so be it... I think you are boneheadedly WRONG about that.

 

[Timshel]

No, he didn't mention spontaneous uprising in that speech, but his administration officials REPEATEDLY mentioned it, and his officials in Libya had already issued a condemnation of the video that supposedly started all of this. He also used the opportunity to condemn the video producers for "denigrating the religion of others" in his speech.

Again, I would assume he meant to include them but he does not state that or mention them anywhere in the speech. Meanwhile, you completely ignore the clear implications of acts of terror and the reference to the 4 dead.

It's not about "terminology" at all, it's about what he said and meant on 9/12, and that he and his administration lied and attempted to cover up the fact that this was a terrorist attack for two weeks. It's about your blatantly dishonest attempts to claim he said something he simply didn't say, and claim he took a position he didn't take, and still hasn't really taken to this day. If you wish to believe that nobody gives a shit about that, so be it... I think you are boneheadedly WRONG about that.

You are disoriented from the spin.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Again, I would assume he meant to include them but he does not state that or mention them anywhere in the speech. Meanwhile, you completely ignore the clear implications of acts of terror and the reference to the 4 dead.

Well it's natural that he would reference the 4 dead, because that was the whole purpose of the speech. If there hadn't been 4 dead, there probably wouldn't have been a speech. No one has claimed he didn't talk about the 4 dead. And he did use the phrase "acts of terror" when he said they wouldn't shake our resolve, but he didn't specify what was an act of terror. He said this just after he condemned those who "denigrate the religion of others" so maybe he considered that an act of terror that wouldn't shake our resolve? I don't know, he never did clarify. He mentioned the attacks numerous times in his speech, and never called them "terrorist attacks" or the people who did the attacks, "terrorists." As of the debate, he was still reluctant to use these terms to describe the attack or attackers.

And it seems to me, if he DID think this was a terrorist attack, he wouldn't have sent his administration out there for two weeks to lie and claim it was a spontaneous uprising over a video. What did he do that for, if he knew it wasn't true? Do you have an explanation for this, or are we supposed to just pretend that never happened?

You are disoriented from the spin.

I'm not the least bit disoriented, you seem to be. You're the one desperately claiming he said something he couldn't have possibly said, and took a position he couldn't have logically taken. I'm the one with feet firmly planted in reality, pointing this out to your spinning ass. If anyone is disoriented, it's YOU, pinhead!

 

[evince]

Here's how others have described your behavior:

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.
The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud - in his letters to Wilhelm Fliess, '"Draft H" deals with projection as a mechanism of defence' - and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud; for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as Freudian Projection."

without a fucking doubt this is the fanciest version of the Pee Wee debate I have yet to see

 

[evince]

 

[evince]

No... He was commenting on the deaths of 4 people due to a 'spontaneous uprising' caused by a YouTube video. He NEVER defined it as a terrorist attack.

see what I mean.

Now did he apologise to the terrorists like robmoney said in the very first 24 hours of an ongoing case that is still being investigated by our international investigation services?


why did he apoligise like your unpresidented claims by a candidate who has breached a LONG LONG and very intelligent barrier NO other candidate in history ever breached if he didnt think it was terrror?


You see your dispicable lies about this president un unfounded and unpresidented.



What robmoney did that day was roundly condemed by many many people who included people on the right.


Robmoney used an ongoing tragedy and investigation as a TOOL for his political asperations.


How can Obama talk about this situation without risking things in the investigation and any CONNECTED investigations on other possible attacks in the future.


Robmomey is placing politics over the countries DEFENSE.


and you like a good little meatsack are running arround here LYING about Obama to help robmoney achieve this.


You have no moral code within the braincase that contains your lie infused mind.


Your a person who now lives on nothing but lies.

Yet you show not one iota of shame or guilt for your actions.


yeap your a fucking meatsack

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

yeap your a fucking meatsack

 

[PostmodernProphet]

why did he apoligise like your unpresidented claims by a candidate who has breached a LONG LONG and very intelligent barrier NO other candidate in history ever breached if he didnt think it was terrror?

concentrating on the non-insulting portion of your post.....I think most people would have phrased the question as "why did he apologize if he DID think it was terror?".....since he apologized, doesn't it logically follow that he DIDN'T think it was terrorists?.......

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

concentrating on the non-insulting portion of your post.....I think most people would have phrased the question as "why did he apologize if he DID think it was terror?".....since he apologized, doesn't it logically follow that he DIDN'T think it was terrorists?.......

You're talking to people who think it's a 'reasonable' argument, that on 9/12, Obama thought it was BOTH a spontaneous uprising over a video AND a terror attack, because he said "acts of terror" in a speech.

 

[evince]

dear meatsack american,



NO ONE knew the facts yet

 

[hazlnut]

Glad people are reading this thread and learning the facts.

 

[Damocles]

dear meatsack american,



NO ONE knew the facts yet

Ignoring the fact that way less than 24 hours the CIA had passed a report up the line saying that this was a terrorist attack from Al Qaeda affiliates and that it had nothing to do with the protest that wasn't happening anywhere in Benghazi...

Seriously, they knew. Hence Hillary's report that the State Dept. never believed it was due to protests. And yes, when your Ambassador is being killed the President gets some first hand reports without the usual filters.

 

[zappasguitar]

Well it's natural that he would reference the 4 dead, because that was the whole purpose of the speech. If there hadn't been 4 dead, there probably wouldn't have been a speech. No one has claimed he didn't talk about the 4 dead. And he did use the phrase "acts of terror" when he said they wouldn't shake our resolve, but he didn't specify what was an act of terror. He said this just after he condemned those who "denigrate the religion of others" so maybe he considered that an act of terror that wouldn't shake our resolve? I don't know, he never did clarify. He mentioned the attacks numerous times in his speech, and never called them "terrorist attacks" or the people who did the attacks, "terrorists." As of the debate, he was still reluctant to use these terms to describe the attack or attackers.

So you don't believe an attack that kills 4 Americans qualifies as an act of terrorism?

Your entire case rests on your OPINION that since Obama didn't SPECIFICALLY mention the Benghazi attack when he referred to "acts of terrorism" on the 12th, then he MUST have believed it wasn't a terrorist attack.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, unfortunately your opinion proves nothing.

And it seems to me, if he DID think this was a terrorist attack, he wouldn't have sent his administration out there for two weeks to lie and claim it was a spontaneous uprising over a video. What did he do that for, if he knew it wasn't true? Do you have an explanation for this, or are we supposed to just pretend that never happened?

The latest intelligence suggests it was at least in part, a SPONTANEOUS UPRISING.

Damn sorry about you not having all the latest intel.

I'm not the least bit disoriented, you seem to be. You're the one desperately claiming he said something he couldn't have possibly said, and took a position he couldn't have logically taken. I'm the one with feet firmly planted in reality, pointing this out to your spinning ass. If anyone is disoriented, it's YOU, pinhead!

The fact remains that the day after the attack, during a speech condemning the 4 deaths, Obama did in fact refer to acts of terrorism...if an attack that causes the deaths of 4 innocent people doesn't constitute a terrorist attack, then please tell me what does?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

So you don't believe an attack that kills 4 Americans qualifies as an act of terrorism? The fact remains that the day after the attack, during a speech condemning the 4 deaths, Obama did in fact refer to acts of terrorism...if an attack that causes the deaths of 4 innocent people doesn't constitute a terrorist attack, then please tell me what does?

To an Obama-hating rightie, whose first priority is to make Obama a one-term president, the cruel death of 4 Americans is a political opportunity.

Nothing more.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So you don't believe an attack that kills 4 Americans qualifies as an act of terrorism?

Oh, I believe it, and if I had been giving the speech, I would have clearly said it. Obama failed to do so.

Your entire case rests on your OPINION that since Obama didn't SPECIFICALLY mention the Benghazi attack when he referred to "acts of terrorism" on the 12th, then he MUST have believed it wasn't a terrorist attack.

Well he couldn't have believed it was BOTH a spontaneous uprising AND a terrorist attack, could he? One is certainly not the other. If he DID think it was a terrorist attack, why didn't he say so? Why did he indicate for two weeks, it wasn't a terrorist attack, but rather a spontaneous protest over a video?

You are of course entitled to your opinion, unfortunately your opinion proves nothing.

The latest intelligence suggests it was at least in part, a SPONTANEOUS UPRISING.

Damn sorry about you not having all the latest intel.

Like I said before, the State Department and Administration are now wanting to run back to this story that it was about a spontaneous uprising over a video. It just simply can not be BOTH! Do you not comprehend that in your little pea brain? A generic spontaneous uprising and protest is NOT a fucking coordinated and planned terrorist attack! One is an APPLE and one is an ORANGE! They are not, and CAN NOT be the same! What's happened here is, they LIED about this and got caught, had to admit that it WAS a terrorist attack, but now that political ramifications have resulted, they want to go back and make their LIE legitimate! SORRY! Doesn't work like that!

The fact remains that the day after the attack, during a speech condemning the 4 deaths, Obama did in fact refer to acts of terrorism...if an attack that causes the deaths of 4 innocent people doesn't constitute a terrorist attack, then please tell me what does?

According to Obama, a spontaneous uprising over a video, causes the deaths of 4 people! That's the story you are running back to, isn't it? Can you possibly explain to us how a "spontaneous uprising" is equivalent in any way, to a "terrorist attack?" These are two entirely DIFFERENT things! It's like trying to claim the attacks on 9/11 were spontaneous, and the terrorists were simply protesters gone wild! It's INSANE... but look who the hell is yammering it!

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Obama failed to do so.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

\\((|))// ...It's either supposed to be a pussy, or wanderingbear's mouth... I can't tell which.

 

[Phantasmal]

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/cutting-through-fog-benghazi-brief-qa#disqus_thread