The Benghazi Cover-Up Myth: No "Stand Down" Order Issued

[Chadeaux]

Chad:

Post #26 - above. "No acts of terror." Again, this has nothing to do with the mythical Benghazi Stand Down Order.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

It is the speech you mentioned.

It is about Behghazi.

What did I miss? Oh, I didn't LIE. Sorry, won't do it.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

Treasure Hunter:

Our President did not scream it wasn't a terrorist attack. He called it just that the next morning.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Just more spin......

The Washington Post
May 14, 2013

THE FACT CHECKER

Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’


“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

— President Obama, remarks at a news conference

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?

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

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.

The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.

Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”OBAMA: “Right.”KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

(You can view this segment of the interview below. A key question is what the president meant when he said “right.” Was this agreement with Kroft or just verbal acknowledgment? It is a bit in the eye of the beholder, but we lean toward agreement that he avoided using “terrorism.” For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.)

Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

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.”

(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)

Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say? ”OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is 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 so we are still gathering.”

So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.

In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carneysaid on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”

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.


http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f...b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

 

[JunkShopFiddler]

And i think it's sad that the right has used the deaths of these four Americans to try to further it's anti Obama agenda.

Still don't get it? Hmmmmm. No one is using the deaths for any anti-Obama gain. We are not even pointing out the deaths, we are pointing out the apathy on the part of those the honored dead trusted to do everything they could to support them. Savior Barrack and holy mother Hillary did nothing...period...Anyone who tries to defend such a blatant and sickening betrayal of trust is not a trustworthy person themselves, and that includes Libs and Conserves!

 

[thrillathahunt]

You want to talk about an agenda? In his attempt to re-shape America to his image of what it should be, he has forced Americans to purchase pro-abortion health insurance under penalty of law, intimidated the Supreme Court, directed the IRS to threaten conservative groups, and has attempted to undermine Judeo-Christian values that has been the cornerstone of this great republic since it's beginning!

 

[Old Bookaroo]

thrillathahunt:

"Judeo-Christian values?" How were Jewish people treated back in Colonial times? "Judeo-Christian values" is a construction some people try to impose on history to make themselves feel better about the fact that Jews are not Christians.

Funny how seldom one reads or hears Jewish folks use that term.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Old Bookaroo]

JunkShopFiddler:

Everything was done to support them. That's the point. If no help was sent - if no shot was fired in the defense of the compound - how could one of those brave men killed there have been part of a rescue mission?

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[NHBandit]

JunkShopFiddler:

Everything was done to support them.

BS ! I'm an Air Force veteran. If "everything" was done to support them there would have been a smoking pile of rubble where the terrorists had once stood. We dropped the ball. Period. YOUR president should be man enough to say so instead of making lame excuses and trying to cover up what really happened. You guys who defend that behavior are no better. You can keep right on ignoring me Bookie but it won't stop me from calling you on it every time you post nonsense (which is nearly all the time)... Have a day.

 

[Limitool]

JunkShopFiddler:

I continue to wonder why people hold such firm beliefs without knowing the facts. Is their hatred of our President so great they are willfully blinded to the truth? Seems to me the least these four American heroes deserve is for the facts to emerge and be considered.

That's what Pat Tillman's family wanted. I don't think they got it. I see no good purpose in repeating those serious errors.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

"Is their hatred of our President so great they are willfully blinded to the truth?" Has it ever occurred to you that we don't hate anyone? It's NOT about hating a person but reacting to the deeds and/or lack of them as leader of our country. How do you instantly go to hate. Hell... I've raised 8 children and yes some of them really pissed me off at times... but I hung a Christmas stocking up for them all....

 

[Chadeaux]

thrillathahunt:

"Judeo-Christian values?" How were Jewish people treated back in Colonial times? "Judeo-Christian values" is a construction some people try to impose on history to make themselves feel better about the fact that Jews are not Christians.

Funny how seldom one reads or hears Jewish folks use that term.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Probably stepping over the line here, but how off topic do you see your post as being?

Explanation of why your assumption is wrong:

1. Judeo-Christian comes from the understanding that Christianity is ROOTED in the ancient Jewish religion. Before Jesus, there were only the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures and they were the exclusive purview of the Jews. The laws they received (you know, things like the "Ten Commandments" and much more) were contained in those scriptures.
2. The Christian religion is based on the "concepts" contained in the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures (Old Testament) which Jesus adhered to until his death. However, as he concluded a "new covenant" with his followers (just prior to his death) they were not under the Jewish laws anymore. The spirit of that law was extended and expounded upon during Jesus' ministry.
3. The term "Christian" actually was a derogatory term which they later adopted as opposed to "the way".

Hence we have the phrase "Judeo-Christian values" ... those values held dear by the Jews and later the Christians.

 

[packerbacker]

The first, and might I add, the only responders to that attack were not ordered there by o-bama or anyone high up in his administration. If the truth were known, those folks would likely have told them not to respond either. The guys that did respond did so to try and protect fellow citizens from attack, something the administration DID NOT DO. Apparently they should have just decided there wasn't enough time to respond and just stayed where they were. I have no idea how anyone can know how long an attack or battle will last. If these guys were still able to fend off the attackers to this day, would it be too late to help? Nobody was even preparing to go in to help although there were real men chomping at the bit to get called upon to go. The administration nor our military leaders responded. If you want to be an o-bama general, you better do what o-bama tells you to do. The guys that DID respond fell back on their military training, their guts, their sense of honor and a courage that eludes our present "leaders".

 

[Old Bookaroo]

packerbacker:

With all due respect, based on your post you haven't looked into this at all.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[jerseyben]

The first, and might I add, the only responders to that attack were not ordered there by o-bama or anyone high up in his administration. If the truth were known, those folks would likely have told them not to respond either. The guys that did respond did so to try and protect fellow citizens from attack, something the administration DID NOT DO. Apparently they should have just decided there wasn't enough time to respond and just stayed where they were. I have no idea how anyone can know how long an attack or battle will last. If these guys were still able to fend off the attackers to this day, would it be too late to help? Nobody was even preparing to go in to help although there were real men chomping at the bit to get called upon to go. The administration nor our military leaders responded. If you want to be an o-bama general, you better do what o-bama tells you to do. The guys that DID respond fell back on their military training, their guts, their sense of honor and a courage that eludes our present "leaders".

This is the kind of response that someone who only pays attention to headlines would give.

Are you guys really ignoring the fact that the media has admitted to blowing this story out of proportion and reporting false information?

 

[Chadeaux]

Are you guys really ignoring the fact that the media has admitted to blowing this story out of proportion and reporting false information?

Source PLEASE!

 

[packerbacker]

Yes OB, I've seen where our "military" has claimed there weren't any assets readily available to respond to this attack. Like I said, if you want to remain a o-bama general, you better be a puppet general. I've also read how the ambassador himself said he had sufficient security. I didn't know ambassadors could assess their security needs. First, I'd have to ask why there weren't assets available to help? Isn't it the job of our administration to assess security needs and prepare for responding to situations like this? C'mon, it's not like this embassy was surrounded by Buddhist Monks, the administration failed in yet another of its duties.

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

Yes OB, I've seen where our "military" has claimed there weren't any assets readily available to respond to this attack. Like I said, if you want to remain a o-bama general, you better be a puppet general. I've also read how the ambassador himself said he had sufficient security. I didn't know ambassadors could assess their security needs. First, I'd have to ask why there weren't assets available to help? Isn't it the job of our administration to assess security needs and prepare for responding to situations like this? C'mon, it's not like this embassy was surrounded by Buddhist Monks, the administration failed in yet another of its duties.

Buddhist monks didn't stop the VC from taking the embassy in Saigon...nor was the response from the us "instant".
TET 69 SAIGON

"But it still took six hours for the Marines to win back total control of the compound. The scene afterwards was like a picture of hell. Embassy staff, covered in blood, were being treated by doctors. Humble clerks had changed their pens for guns. There were dead bodies everywhere--some American, but mostly Viet Cong. They lay in heaps on the lawn, staining the green grass red with their blood. They were draped across the concrete flowerpots, among the peaceful palms. Chunks of stone and concrete were strewn about and the once beautiful white walls of the embassy were now full of bullet holes."

 

[packerbacker]

pip, you left out the paragraph just above the one you did post. Allow me. Note where it says "they were forced to take cover when the US reinforcements arrived".
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"But the Viet Cong only managed to get as far as the compound before their leaders were all gunned down by the guards. With their commanders gone, the other guerrillas wandered aimlessly around the embassy grounds until they were forced to take cover when the US reinforcements arrived. It was that close."[/FONT]

 

[NHBandit]

Buddhist monks didn't stop the VC from taking the embassy in Saigon...nor was the response from the us "instant".
TET 69 SAIGON

"But it still took six hours for the Marines to win back total control of the compound. The scene afterwards was like a picture of hell. Embassy staff, covered in blood, were being treated by doctors. Humble clerks had changed their pens for guns. There were dead bodies everywhere--some American, but mostly Viet Cong. They lay in heaps on the lawn, staining the green grass red with their blood. They were draped across the concrete flowerpots, among the peaceful palms. Chunks of stone and concrete were strewn about and the once beautiful white walls of the embassy were now full of bullet holes."

pssst. the technology we have today is slightly better than what we had in 1969. Just sayin...

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

didn't forget...hoped some people would read the article.

the point is..no standing army is capable of "instant response"...
it takes time to arm and respond...even if you are on the spot...refer to pearl harbor...all those weapons were useless until the ammo bunkers were opened.
and even then the response was inadequate...
it took months to respond to the Japanese attack effectively. just because we can communicate at mega speed...does not mean hearts and minds follow.

 

[NHBandit]

didn't forget...hoped some people would read the article.

the point is..no standing army is capable of "instant response"...
it takes time to arm and respond...even if you are on the spot...refer to pearl harbor...all those weapons were useless until the ammo bunkers were opened.
and even then the response was inadequate...
it took months to respond to the Japanese attack effectively. just because we can communicate at mega speed...does not mean hearts and minds follow.

This may come as a shock but I agree party with this. Buttt.. OB is claiming that the President and the military knew from the start that this was a terrorist attack despite what they SAID at the time. However other reports are that they erred on the side of caution because they thought it was a random riot in response to a movie. You can't have it both ways man. I repeat my earlier comments. As an Air Force veteran I want to know why there wasn't a smoking pile of rubble where the terrorists were standing even if it took a few hours to get the jets in the air... My thing was AC-130 gunships. One of those would have been a nice response, playing "you light up my life" at full volume... And yeah.. I know C-130s aren't jets..

 

[Old Bookaroo]

packbacker:

I don't understand why you insult the US Military - including the generals who, in my personal opinion, have done an outstanding job in remarkably difficult circumstances.

As for the availability of military assets and the wisdom of sending them in, here's an expert:

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates forcefully defended the Obama administration on Sunday against charges that it did not do enough to prevent the tragedy in Benghazi, telling CBS' "Face the Nation" that some critics of the administration have a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces."

Gates, a Republican who was appointed by then-President George W. Bush in 2006 and agreed to stay through more than two years of President Obama's first term, repeatedly declined to criticize the policymakers who devised a response to the September 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

"Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were," said Gates, now the chancellor of the College of William and Mary.

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible." he explained.

Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to "scare them with the noise or something," Gates said, ignored the "number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi's arsenals."
"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.
Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, "send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous."

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," he said. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."
…
Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability - CBS News

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo