Image 01 Image 03

Some Additional Facts About “Acts of Terror”

Some Additional Facts About “Acts of Terror”

In the debate’s most (in)famous moment Tuesday night, Obama asserted that on September 12 he called the violence in Libya that occurred on September 11 an act of terror.  But his claim is belied by this report, published in the Washington Post September 13. At the time, it represented the best of what was being spun about the causes.

The report centers on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton but clearly suggests that the administration blamed the riots in 20 Muslim countries on the film itself.  As reported, the administration considered the Benghazi attack to be spontaneous and therefore indistinguishable from what was going on in the other 19 countries.  Benghazi, like Cairo, was a reaction, not an affirmative act.

Acts of terror” is the generic term Obama invoked in his Rose Garden speech September 12.  So if his debate assertion was true—that those words referred to the Benghazi attack—then why was his secretary of state still blaming the film two and three days afterward?  Why wasn’t he correcting her either publicly or privately?  And why did he then go to the United Nations and cite the film as a catalyst for the violence?

What follows are some block quotes from the Post story that appear to underline Obama’s disingenuousness (nicest word I could think of) on Tuesday night:

Protests inspired by an anti-Islam film targeted more U.S. facilities in the Muslim world Thursday, testing the will and capacity of foreign governments to protect Americans and the ability of the Obama administration to cool the growing anger….

Two days after the deaths of J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans in an outbreak of violence in the Libyan city of Benghazi, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took the lead in trying to distance the U.S. government from the movie, calling the film “disgusting and reprehensible” and condemning the violent response to it.

“The U.S. government had absolutely nothing to do with this video,” Clinton said at a meeting in Washington with a delegation from Morocco. “We absolutely reject its content and messages. But there is no justification — none at all — for responding to this video with violence.” …

At the State Department, Nuland said Clinton “wanted to speak so strongly and so directly” because the government was concerned “that people in the region don’t understand our culture and society, that [the video] was, in fact, a private effort, that it has nothing to do with the U.S. government, that we don’t do these kinds of videos, and that, in fact, as a government, we found it disgusting and reprehensible.” …

In a State Department reception Thursday night to celebrate the Eid holiday marking the end of Ramadan, Clinton told gathered Muslim diplomats and others, “When all of us who are people of faith — and I am one — feel the pain of insults, of misunderstanding, of denigration to what we cherish, we must expect ourselves and others not to resort to violence.”

Google, which owns YouTube, said it had acted on its own to stop access to the video in Egypt and Libya….

Obama (whose administration tried to get Google to pull the video) and Clinton are cynical politicians.  I’m not shocked–shocked!–by their lying.  But I do object to having my intelligence insulted so baldly.

Of course, with the mainstream press volunteering duty as their pulling guards (see: Candy Crowley), they can be excused for expecting to get away with it.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


They can spin it all they want. Those four Americans are still dead.

That is what voters will remember.

Any sentient being knows the truth here. Which is a real problem for Obama.

We were treated to the outrage of having this regime slime the 1st Amendment for weeks, and them fingering the feckless guy they associated with the video for the jihadist killers…and by extension everyone else who appeared in the trailer.

Now they are trying to airbrush our memories, but it won’t work.

What’s worse is that Crowley claimed during her “fact check” that Obama had claimed it to be an “act of terror” in the Rose Garden, and then evolved the story to the YouTube video of the next 2 weeks or so … which is completely wrong.
Then she started to claim it the other way around on the day after, but it was still an “act of terror” or something.

Jay Carney gave the clearest indication that the President did not intend to indentify Benghazi as what the average person would call an act of terror when he spoke in the Rose Garden on September 12th. During the flight to Las Vegas later that day he was asked

Q Jay, does the U.S. — does the White House believe that the attack in Benghazi was planned and premeditated?

MR. CARNEY: It’s too early for us to make that judgment. I think — I know that this is being investigated, and we’re working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time.

If you’re not willing to say that it was planned and/or premeditated you’re not willing to say that it was a terrorist attack, that is an “act of terror.”

President Obama’s speechwriters inserted some boilerplate they felt would sooth the populace while giving the White House the flexibility to claim they were always calling it an “act of terror” if events called for it, as they subsequently have.

    Pasturized in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2012 at 11:09 am

    I’m afraid my MSNBC Guide to Dog Whistle phrases includes “come clean” as insinuating that the President, as a person of color, is hygenically challenged. Expect Toure and Mr. Matthews heads to explode.

Mendacity, Mendacity…Thy name is Obama.

The Boy & Girl Whores, Harlots & Sluts of the MSM-Lapdawgery are as mendacious and enabling as the Chicago Thugs of the White House & Administration. Detestable, loathsome, nausea & rage inducing. Unforgivable.

Baa=Daa-Bing. Like dat.

When Mitt’s sworn into the highest office, Candyland Crowley should no longer be allowed thru WH doors.

The clearest sound bite to me, is when Joy on “The View” stated her surprise that Hillary was now calling this an act of terror. Was it an act of terror Mr. President? Obama says they are still checking, they don’t know.

Nothing adds up, except he used the term “terror” generically on 9/12 in the Rose Garden, then tried to make it go away by downplaying it. Worst, he approved Rice to go on all networks with the clear evidence that it was a spontaneous reaction to that evil video. So he can’t also claim they spent two weeks being careful. They spent two weeks lying, and HOPING they could CHANGE the history, given enough time and media support.

It can’t be forgotten how aggressively the media went after Romney to help cover for their chosen one’s revealed nakedness. “Look Away, Look Away”

If this were “Clue”:

Mr. Obama
with the smoking gun
in the Rose Garden


Mr. Obama
with enough rope to hang himself
on the debate floor

1. Romney had the right idea but he botched the way he said it. It’s that simple. Too bad, so sad.

2. I want to believe that today’s betting odds and polls are defective, I want to believe that the country will fire Obama in a landslide, but I observe Real Conservatives™ obsessively hairsplitting and whining about the last debate.

Winners don’t behave that way.

The generic “acts of terror” comments in the Rose Garden came, not insignificantly, after some remarks about how it was the anniversary of the 2001 attack.

DINORightMarie | October 18, 2012 at 11:28 am

American Crossroads just released a commercial on this, collapsing the video timeline of Carney, Hillary, Rice, Obama…..etc. Then Candy “I think ‘moderator’ means I get to debate too” Crowley interjects herself, and shuts down the debate issue.

Well done – and quite the expose of the blatant lie Obama tried to pull off in front of 65.5 million people last Tuesday.

Anyone who payed any attention during the story process knows it was replete with lies & BS. That is what Obamaism is. Meantime an innocent dupe sits in jail to protect the corrupt king.

And of course, who can forget the President hounded by that rightwing echo chamber dweller Joy Bahar on 9/25 who asked whether Benghazi was an “act of terrorism.”

Or, as Ralph Kramden used to say, “hamana-hamana-hamana.”

Five days after his own Press Secretary said it was “self-evident” that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack the President doesn’t want to acknowledge it as an “act of terrorism.” How could that be if he thought it was an “act of terror” all along?

Despite Crowley providing cover-fire, Obama still failed to meet his objective. That would suggest a very weak position for both Obama and JournoLists. Perhaps people are paying attention and are successfully overcoming efforts to manipulate their perception.

Henry Hawkins | October 18, 2012 at 1:30 pm

Largely irrelevant. What’s changed is that a fifth of the nation’s population has twice seen Romney on stage in debate, noted the lack of horns or tail, understood his plans for a first term, while Obama flailed on defense and said nothing about his plans for the next term. The bases are set 45/45 or so. Independents are slowly but surely coming around to Romney.

Barring some Game Changing Event*, this is going to Romney decisively.

*The Obama administration is more than willing to manufacture some game changing event and it puts a twitch in my gut. They get people killed (Fast & Furious, Libya) when they think they’re doing great, and I fear desperation will provoke a very bad decision.

I just don’t understand why the Admin continues to lie…it is not going well for them. They remind me of a small child with jam on his face clinging to a story about the dog in hopes that it might just work.

State had a real-time comm link with the embassy. The IT guy Smith was in a gamer chat room when the attack began.

They even managed to get a drone with video over the site during the last hour.

Are we really to believe that State doesn’t have live-streamed redundant copies of communications with our embassies? Or that real-time communications from the attack didn’t quickly pass up the chain of command to the NSA & the President?

Not only does this not pass the smell test, it doesn’t pass the laugh test, except it not a laughing matter.

Just as in Fast & Furious, when an American is killed by their incompetence and/or insane clown posse policies the Admin lies and points fingers away from themselves while the lapdog media snuffle in the weeds looking for a squirrel.

It’s beyond disgusting, it’s criminal.

    Browndog in reply to bjm. | October 18, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    I just don’t understand why the Admin continues to lie

    What makes you think he thinks he’s lying?

    Substitute the word “Video” with “America”.

    If an evil American hadn’t made a video–and the evil American Constitution allowed it–the muslims would not have been forced into jihad.

    Hell, the embassy in Cairo damn near said it outright on Twitter before any riots took place.