Friday, May 17, 2013

Four Pinocchios: Obama now claims he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’ the day after it happened

The Facts 
Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements: 
“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.” 
— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12 
“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.” 
— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13 
“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.” 
— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13
[...]

The Pinocchio Test:

 
During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate. 
But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now. 
Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.
Read the Full story HERE.

If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here.
Please follow us on Twitter here.

7 comments:

RomneyMan said...

Semantics.

He clearly indicated that the event was such an act. They were talking about the Benghazi attach after all!

Anonymous said...

RomneyMan, you are joking, right? Sometimes sarcasm doesn't show in print.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

He is as serious as he ever is.

RomneyMan said...

No, sarcasm wasn't intended.

An attack had just occurred on a consulate. OB went on about ...no act of terror will....what else is he going to be talking about?!

Okay, consider this: Denver had just beaten New England. Someone says, immediately after, 'Denver played well....Denver earned the win..' The audience, I imagine, would presume he was talking about the Denver v New England game that had just occurred! lol
I agree that OB is a tool, but it's laughable how petty people can be.

Anonymous said...

RomneyMan, you apparently have not been keeping up on this particular part of the scandal. He even admitted to Kroft on 60 minutes that he intentionally avoided calling it terrorism.

And he went on for 2 weeks saying it was in response to the video--a clear lie and he knew it from day one.

So no. Obama did NOT tell the American people that we were attacked by terrorists on 9-11. Even though HE KNEW we were.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Sorry, you and Candy Crowley lose this one, Romneyman. The President did not call it an act of terror, and he talked the video talking points for weeks after. In fact, he went to the U.N. and talked the video, as well as lecturing us about how the great prophet Mohammed should be treated. Remember? This is one you aren't going to win. The administration worked too hard to sanitize terror from the menu to have it both ways.

AZ

RomneyMan said...

lol at these comments

Please proceed Governor.