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

[Red James Cash]

the point is..no standing army is capable of "instant response"...

Guess you never heard of the minute men pip.Nor do you realize the numbers involved in the battles of Lexington and concord.77 men stood at lexington green,by the time the British reached concord there were roughly 500 minute men opposing them,by the time the British started back to charlestown,there were thousands.By the time the British were almost back to charlestown there were 11,000 to 14,000 minute men and militia companies harassing them.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[packerbacker]

Don't you think that Gates has a dog in the fight if he was a Secretary of Defense? As such he might have said, "You know what, given the facts that the radical Muslims around Benghazi hate Americans, and they don't consider embassies as safe havens for anyone, don't you think we should beef up security there, especially around 9-11? Actually we should have our military poised to respond quickly to any attack on embassies we have in Muslim countries world wide" Just sayin' I didn't go to Harvard but once in a while I get a revelation.

 

[NHBandit]

Guess you never heard of the minute men pip.Nor do you realize the numbers involved in the battles of Lexington and concord.77 men stood at lexington green,by the time the British reached concord there were roughly 500 minute men opposing them,by the time the British started back to charlestown,there were thousands.By the time the British were almost back to charlestown there were 11,000 to 14,000 minute men and militia companies harassing them.

Capt. Isaac Davis' Company [Revolutionary War] - Genealogy Wise Sgt. Seth Brooks was my grandfather several generations back. Sorry Red but some of these guys will never "get it"...

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

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

We will NOT go quietly into the night!

 

[Red James Cash]

Sgt. Seth Brooks was my grandfather several generations back. Sorry Red but some of these guys will never "get it"

I know NHB,it kills me the amount of people who think that it was just a little skirmish when it couldnt be further from the truth.

 

[NHBandit]

This would have been the correct response at Benghazi. NOT excuses... Like I said Pip.. technology is a bit better than it was in 1969.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Red James cash:

The problem with your example is the Minute Men were not a "standing army."

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Old Bookaroo]

packerbacker:

The diplomatic facility in Benghazi wasn't an "embassy" and didn't meet the safety standards for American embassies around the world (established after too many attacks on them).

I think former Secretary Gates knows what he is talking about.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[pat-tekker-cat]

I know NHB,it kills me the amount of people who think that it was just a little skirmish when it couldnt be further from the truth.

Some probably believe they were shooting blanks, too!

 

[Red James Cash]

Hate to tell you book,minute men units were part of militia units.Militia units were the colonials standing army of the day in colonial america.Minute men companies made up about a quarter of the militia.

 

[NHBandit]

Red James cash:

The problem with your example is the Minute Men were not a "standing army."

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Clearly once again you're commenting on something you know nothing about while doing nothing to find out the facts. How would you define a "standing army" ? A group of men paid for their service and who train regularly maybe ? You must have missed this part in the link I posted concerning my g,g,g,g,g,g grandfather.. I am not surprised. In fact I doubt very much that you read it at all. This is how you operate.. QUOTE "The names of the men in Capt. Isaac Davis' company are the men that went to the bridge and were in the Concord fight, April 19, 1775. Later some of the older members claimed the number was thirty-eight [38]. There never was any list of this company to be found--the reason for which is obvious--every man that joined the company, in the eyes of King George III, was a traitor, and if the colonies had made a failure, would have been hung.

"Davis' company was formed the fall before the fight and they met every week for drill and allowed pay by the town for one-half day's work. It would appear that the colonies knew this war had got to come and they anticipated it."

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Red James cash:

You can call cat pee champagne - you won't change the taste.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Red James Cash]

Give it up book,youre out of your league.

 

[NHBandit]

Red James cash:

You can call cat pee champagne - you won't change the taste.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

LOL.... unbelievable.. but predictable.

 

[Chadeaux]

Red James cash:

You can call cat pee champagne - you won't change the taste.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

No expertise better than experience, is there OB?

Back atcha there bud.

 

[packerbacker]

alright OB, it was "technically" a consulate but this is a cut and paste description of a consulate, emabassy or diplomatic mission. I don't care what you call it, it was "ours" and had an ambassador with a staff. They are "technically" the same thing except the "embassy" is normally located in the capital city of a country.
"U.S. embassies and consulates abroad, as well as foreign embassies and consulates in the United States, have a special status. While diplomatic spaces remain the territory of the host state, an embassy or consulate represents a sovereign state. International rules do not allow representatives of the host country to enter an embassy without permission --even to put out a fire -- and designate an attack on an embassy as an attack on the country it represents."
So, if this description is accurate, the attack on the "consulate" was an attack on the US....yes?......no?

 

[JunkShopFiddler]

JunkShopFiddler:

. Is their hatred of our President so great they are willfully blinded to the truth

~ The Old Bookaroo

Wrong again. There is no truth in this administration to be blinded to!

No "hatred" of Mr. Obama is being expressed here...But a mighty and resounding "yes we do" hate his reliance upon lying to get and retain followers like yourself.

Claiming the attack was a response to a year old video? Are you kidding? Next thing you know Mr. Obama will be saying we can all keep our healthcare plans...Oh wait...he already said that!

Mr. Bookaroo, I'm sure you are a fine fellow, but defending and supporting a liar who lies on such a world wide scale makes you look as though you are completely deluded. Defending a liar whose lies affect so many people in such negative ways, all in order to gain personal dictatorial powers, say very little about your ability to recognize what is going on around you. You seem to be a really smart guy, if it could be ascertained how smart folks like yourself come to support thugs like these, then humankind would understand how all of history's dictatorial monsters came to power.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

JunkShopFiddler:

Why you choose to ignore the facts is up to you.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Old Bookaroo]

packerbacker:

It wasn't a consulate, either. However - was it an attack on a diplomatic facility of the United States? Absolutely. I haven't seen anyone dispute the obvious fact we were attacked. We did our best to defend ourselves. Some people refuse to recognize that - in my personal opinion, because they are willfully ignoring the evidence. The Benghazi Attack has been spun and twisted by people trying to tear down our President. I think it is shameful there are those who use the deaths of Americans to try to score domestic political points.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Native Floridian]

Yet 56% of Americans aren't following the investigation. Why is that? Just who is deluded!