 |
| Photo: Associated Press |
 |
Obama gave a lengthy response which never addressed the question. During his rebuttal Romney said, “I think it’s interesting, the president just said something which is that the day after the attack, he went into the Rose Garden and said that this is was an act of terror?
"It was not a spontaneous demonstration; is that what you’re saying?”
“Please proceed, governor,” Obama replied.
Romney looked at him with consternation as the president didn’t say whether he called the Libya attack an act of terrorism on September 12.
To much surprise, debate moderator Candy Crowley interjected herself into the conversation and said that the president did in fact call it a terrorist attack during the Rose Garden speech, thereby shielding the president from embarrassment over the question.
“He did in fact say it was an act of terror,” Candy Crowley said to Gov. Romney.
A review of the official transcript on the White House website and the video from the Rose Garden address shows that not once did the president call the Benghazi attack a "terror attack." He used the word "terror" exactly once, late in his address:
“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.” From the context, it was clear that his reference to "terror" was general. Not once did he apply that characterization to Benghazi.
“I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives,” said the president during his address.
Crowley's intervention on Obama's behalf was a blatant display of mainstream media bias. She incorrectly declared that Obama called Benghazi "an act of terror." As a member of the media and as the debate moderator, should not have protected the president nor thrown him a lifeline. She should not have inserted her own interpretation of Obama's September 12 remarks to suit his immediate need.
Crowley lied to protect the president, becoming another collaborator in the Obama-Libya coverup.
Update (12:09 am): Candy Crowley admits she got it wrong and that the President did not refer to Benghazi as a terror or terroist attack. She commented, "I think actually, you know, because right after that, I did turn to Romney and said you were totally correct but they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape and that there was this riot outside of the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn't. So he was right in the main, I just think that he picked the wrong word."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteObama's September 12 remarks were all about the Benghazi attack and the four Americans who were killed. So, when Obama referred to "acts of terror," he was clearly referring to the attack in Benghazi. It's silly to read it any other way.
ReplyDeleteNick Thomm probably posted this item. It was a bad idea. I would like to know if Al OK'd it.
This is not the way to capitalize on God's providential Benghazi gift. I bet God wanted you guys to accuse Obama of failed intelligence and ignoring pleas to bolster security.
[I deleted my initial comment because I misspelled Nick Thomm's name. Otherwise, it is exactly the same.]
Then on September 13, Obama went to Las Vegas, NV, for a campaign event. At the beginning of his remarks he talked about the four Americans killed in Libya. He then said this:
ReplyDelete"As for the ones we lost last night: I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. And 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."
This is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. No war the US has engaged in since 9/11 has been just because all the wars have failed to meet all four conditions of what constitutes a just war. Al and his Catholic listeners will strain over an Obama comment regarding Benghazi yet endorse wholeheartedly and without reservation the ongoing unjust wars, even war with Iran, which Romney has endorsed. BTW, before the 1998 embassy bombings the US ambassador to Kenya had her requests for increased security denied repeatedly.
ReplyDeleteIn our system of government, wars are declared by congress, and for good reason. None of America's wars since 9/11 were declared "wars" by congress, as per the US Constitution, and are therefore illegitimate regarding authority (see condition 1). According to Catholic MORAL theology, WAR is lawful ONLY when ALL FOUR of these CONDITIONS are met:
1. It is declared by legitimate authority;
2. It is just; that is, is waged for a just motive, such as re-establishing justice when offended, repairing an injury or defending oneself against aggression;
3. It is inevitable; that is, when all other peaceful means of obtaining justice and of obtaining redress have failed;
4. It is useful; insofar as it is likely that the advantages obtained will outweigh the damages suffered.
Al,
ReplyDeleteYou say that Obama was making a general statement about terror in his remarks on September 12 in the Rose Garden and September 13 in Las Vegas?
Let me tell you something, fella. It's not OK to bear false witness, even if the target is a guy who loves the idea of mothers killing their unborn babies. It's confession time for you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow Lardass's Brain Works
ReplyDeleteLet's see how Lardass's brain works by looking at Obama's remarks in Golden, Colorado on September 13, two days after the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans.
"Let me say at the outset that obviously our hearts are heavy this week -- we had a tough day a couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya. [Lardass's brain says: Obama is talking about the Benghazi attack.] Yesterday I had a chance to go over to the State Department to talk to friends and colleagues of those who were killed. And these were Americans who, like so many others, both in uniform and civilians, who serve in difficult and dangerous places all around the world to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans.
"And a lot of times their work goes unheralded, doesn’t get a lot of attention, but it is vitally important. We enjoy our security and our liberty because of the sacrifices that they make. And they do an outstanding job every single day without a lot of fanfare.
"So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. [Lardass's brain says: Obama is still talking about the Benghazi attack.] I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. [Lardass's brain says: Obama stopped talking about the Benghazi attack; he is now speaking in general terms.] 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."
By the way, Lardass does not refer to Al Kresta. The only way one would know that Lardass refers to Al Kresta is if I had explicitly said so. I would have had to say: "Lardass is Al Kresta." But I used Lardass as a generic term. Anyone who thought I was referring to Al Kresta made a mistake.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Al did not make this mistake, because he is able to parse words so finely.
Thank you for clearing that up mauman. I'm sick of people hearing what they want to hear, and twisting context. You are correct, he was talking in general. He did not call Benghazi a terrorist attack. I've watched that video several times. It is a tribute to those who died, and a general statement of what the states will not tolerate in terms of those with different beliefs hurting us, whether it is an act of terrorism or A RIOT OUT OF CONTROL. He lied, there is no ifs ands or buts about it. And not once have I heard an answer to the question, who and why were these four denied extra security when they asked for it? Obama has no shame.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right that I posted this Mauman. If the President was so certain from the beginning that it was a terror attack, then why did he send out his UN Ambassador 5 days later to tell any tv audience that would listen that it was a response to the Muhammad video? Why did he go on Univision, the View, David Letterman, and speak at the UN and refuse to say it was an act of terrorism? The truth is he knew from the beginning that is was an act of terrorism and didn't want to admit it for political reasons. This is plain for anyone with eyes to see. If you admit it's terror, you also have to answer for why the requests for more protection was denied. Now Clinton has fallen on her sword on that count. You forget how blatantly the President refused to say the word terrorism for 2 weeks. 2 WEEKS. The transcripts are below. Candy Crowley was right when she followed up saying that Romney's overall point was completely valid.
ReplyDeleteUnivision – September 20th
QUESTION:
We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?
OBAMA:
Well, we're still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don't want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests –
The View – September 25th
BEHAR:
And we are back with President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama.
OK, I want to talk about Libya for a second, because on 9/11 of this past year, our embassy was attacked there and we lost four people, including the ambassador. And it was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie, or anti- Mohammed, I guess, movie.
But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?
B. OBAMA:
Well, 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. Now, we don't have all the information yet and so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world, you know, there's still a lot of threats out there. That's why we have to maintain the strongest military in the world.
Obama Address to UN – September 25th
“In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others,” Obama told the United Nations. “That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world”
Nick Thomm
I watched the presidents' speech. To me he clearly use the words "Act of terror" and about the four persons' killed. It seems there is an agenda here. I can't believe you would support the "Republican Party" no matter if it is also guilty of killing, molesting and murder.
ReplyDeleteNick, Al, and KITA listeners,
ReplyDeletePresident Obama associated the Benghazi attack with terror three times in the two days following the attack: in the Rose Garden on September 12 with Hillary at his side; in Las Vegas, Nevada, on September 12; and in Golden, Colorado, on September 13.
Let's first consider the remarks Obama made in the Rose Garden on September 12. Al Kresta followed the lead of other right wing pundits (like Alana Goodman at Commentary Magazine) who say that since Obama referenced the 9/11 memorials, which took place the previous day, his reference to "acts of terrorism" does not refer to the Benghazi attack but is rather a general statement about terrorism. Here's how Al put it to one of the callers on Wednesday's show: "If you notice, it was all in the context of the celebration of 9/11."
Al is wrong. It wasn't "all in the context of the celebration of 9/11." If you read the transcript of Obama's Rose Garden remarks, you will see that the first seven paragraphs talk about the Benghazi attack and death of four Americans. He mentioned Ambassador Chris Stevens and Foreign Service officer Sean Smith. The other names were withheld until their families were notified.
Obama said the attack was "outrageous and shocking", that he was increasing security, that we respect all faiths, and that Libyans helped some of our diplomats to safety and carried Steven's body to the hospital.
He told us that Stevens built partnerships with the Libyan revolutionaries and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. He also said that the legacy of all four Americans will live on through the work they did.
Continued in next comment
Continuation of previous comment
ReplyDeleteNext comes the three key paragraphs, which Al read on the air. Here they are:
"Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
"As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
"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."
As I said, Al read these last three paragraphs on the air on Wednesday, except for the last two sentences in that last paragraph. Why did Al omit those last two sentences?
Al omitted those last two sentences because he wanted to deceive his listeners. If he had read the entire paragraph, then he would have had to include this sentence: "We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act."
Notice that Obama said "this terrible act." He's referring to the Benghazi attack. Since it is in the same paragraph as "acts of terror," the listener will connect "this terrible act" with "acts of terror." That's exactly what Al did not want you to do.
It was a dishonest thing for Al to do. But I've come to expect it from Hail Mary Radio.
So, in my opinion, Obama clearly linked the Benghazi attack with terror -- he was saying that the Benghazi attack was an act of terror just like 9/11, 2001, was an act of terror.
Continued in next comment
Continuation of previous comment
ReplyDeleteBut maybe you are not convinced. So let's take a look at the remarks Obama made in Colorado on September 13. In those remarks, Obama made no reference to the original 9/11. They were only about Benghazi.
Here's what Obama said in Colorado regarding the Benghazi attack:
"Let me say at the outset that obviously our hearts are heavy this week -- we had a tough day a couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya. Yesterday I had a chance to go over to the State Department to talk to friends and colleagues of those who were killed. And these were Americans who, like so many others, both in uniform and civilians, who serve in difficult and dangerous places all around the world to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans.
"And a lot of times their work goes unheralded, doesn’t get a lot of attention, but it is vitally important. We enjoy our security and our liberty because of the sacrifices that they make. And they do an outstanding job every single day without a lot of fanfare.
"So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. 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."
As you can see, Obama made no reference to 9/11, 2001. So Al can't use that as an excuse to say that Obama's "act of terror" reference is a general statement about terrorism.
If you can come up with some other excuse, Al, I'm certainly willing to listen.
Mauman, in your hang-up on the semantics of the words of Sept. 12-13, you completely disregard my question. Even if I grant you (which I don't) that those comments were directly about Benghazi, how do you explain the next two weeks in which it is painfully obvious that the President decides to talk about the stupid Mohammad video which had been on Youtube for months every chance he gets, while refusing to use the word "terror" or "terrorism". To follow your logic, he said right off the bat that it was terrorism, and then spent 2 weeks backing off of that stance. Why? The intelligence community knew it. The State Department knew it. In fact it was only when Sec. Clinton decided to state unequivically that is was an act of terrorism that the President changed his tune.
ReplyDeleteThe debate on foreign policy tonight will tell us a lot.
KITA,
ReplyDeleteWhy did Obama stop saying it was a terrorist attack for two weeks following his initial remarks? I don't know, which is the same thing Al said on Wednesday's show. Maybe Obama realized it could damage him politically. That is, perhaps he thought the country would conclude that he had failed in his efforts to fight terrorism. Or maybe there's some other reason. I don't know.
But KITA, do you really think Obama is soft on terror? Those drone strikes of his kill a lot of people, many of them innocent.
Also, you must surely know that the most recent information may support the administration's original account. The latest information says that the Benghazi attackers were watching the Cairo protests on TV and then used the protests as an opportunity to attack the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Now I'm a skeptic by nature, so I'm taking that with a grain of salt. I just want to get this whole thing sorted out.
Like you, I hope the issue is brought up in tonight's debate. If we find out that the Obama administration has lied to us, I want heads to roll.