--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > Ah semantics. When something like Benghazi happens, governments have a > > > lot to think about. What happened? Did we screw up somehow? Do we have to > > > cover our asses? How shall we respond? There is also the concern that > > > saying something abrupt might endanger relations with the government in > > > the country where the incident took place. > > > > > > I do not think Obama actually said it was a terrorist attack. He spoke of > > > 'acts of terror' in a general sense. This is diplomatic-speak so that > > > later on, if the statement is general enough, one can connect dots > > > between different parts of a statement. It is interesting that the > > > transcript of this speech on the White House website is far more > > > truncated than what he actually said. The White House transcript is > > > rather short and mentions the word attack only once in the title, and > > > none of the statement mentions the word terror: > > > > > > 'Statement by the President on the Attack in 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.' > > > > > > 'I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to > > > support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security > > > at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects > > > efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all > > > unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives > > > of these public servants.' > > > > > > 'On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative > > > of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly > > > served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As > > > Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. > > > His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and > > > justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, > > > and deeply saddened by this loss.' > > > > > > 'The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and > > > sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we > > > stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to > > > carry their work forward.' > > > > > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/09/12/president-obama-speaks-attack-benghazi > > > > > > So obviously he said more than this but even in a full transcript 'No > > > acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation' is > > > pretty vague as a direct reference to this specific attack since he used > > > the word 'acts', not specifically referring to this one at Benghazi. An > > > act of terror is not necessarily terrorist in nature, people just have to > > > experience terror. Obama called it a 'terrible act'. He called it 'this > > > type of senseless violence'. He spoke of 'brutal acts' in a general > > > sense. It seems to me that depending on who you support in the election, > > > and your prior beliefs - conservative or liberal - anyone can pick and > > > infer whatever they want. > > > > > > It seems clear to me the administration wanted to avoid making a > > > commitment as to what exactly was going on because perhaps or perhaps not > > > they knew or did not know exactly what happened, and perhaps they did or > > > did not know if they were culpable here. We would need to see the private > > > cables and messages and phone calls everyone sent back and forth and > > > clearly we will not see them, if they still exist, for a long time. This > > > kind of response is neither Republican or Democrat, it happens when the > > > unexpected happens, and in the political arena that means that someone is > > > going to start pointing fingers at you for not having done something to > > > prevent whatever it was that just happened. > > > > > > So the advice is to speak in the vaguest terms possible so that you > > > cannot be specifically pinned down for having said something to the > > > point. The downside to this is, depending on ones views, such statements > > > can be read in many different ways if you assume statement x is really > > > connected to statement y and is bolstered by comment z. > > > > > > If Obama has said unequivocally 'this is a terrorist attack and the > > > embassy did not have adequate protection in place' then this thread on > > > FFL and similar ones on other sites would not have much going for them. > > > > > > We do seem to know now that it was a terrorist attack. And that it was > > > successful. Therefore whatever protection was in place was inadequate, by > > > definition. > > > > Nicely put, you nailed it! > > > > Who cut funding for embassy security? In the latest State Department budget, > for fiscal year 2012, the Republican-led House of Representatives voted to > cut worldwide security by $145 million from what the Obama administration > requested, while cutting embassy security by $376 million.
Connect the dots, if you can. > http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/16/live-fact-checks-and-analysis/3twyNbvVqj5HuUv6urcuLL/story.html > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > > > > > <richard@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct, the President told a subtle lie (last night) > > > > > > > > by suggesting on day one he was calling it a terrorist > > > > > > > > attack, this was a mis-characterization of what he was > > > > > > > > saying on day one (in the Rose Garden!) and everybody > > > > > > > > knows it except Judy and Raunch! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > authfriend: > > > > > > > BillyG, forget it, give it up. Your lie has been exposed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > According to Crowley, on September 30th the Administration > > > > > > took weeks to admit Benghazi might be a terrorist attack. > > > > > > > > > > It took two weeks for the administration to *conclude* > > > > > that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. There was > > > > > confusing and conflicting information coming in from the > > > > > field, and it took time to sort it out and nail it down. > > > > > > > > > > Obviously Obama assumed it was a terrorist attack from > > > > > the start, since he referred to it as an "act of terror" > > > > > in his Rose Garden statement on September 12. That's in > > > > > the transcript and on videotape; it isn't in question. > > > > > Romney insisted he had *not* said it was an act of terror. > > > > > He was wrong. Crowley and Obama both corrected him. > > > > > > > > > > > > What we do know is due to the Obama administration's incompetence > > > > and/or negligence four (4) people are dead, this is indisputable. > > > > Hillary should be fired. > > > > > > > > > >
