Revisiting Honesty Over Acts of Terror

In the 2nd Presidential Debate of 2012, Candy Crowley after wrongly reinforcing Obama's misleading phrase where he vaguely spoke of unspecified "acts of terror" as the White House misinformed the public for weeks about a demonstration over a video, tried to appear even-handed by,  but Democrats were still whopping it up over Crowley's wrong statement that he called it an "act of terror."  If he had really called it an act of terror, then the White House could not have been coy with the press and evaded calling it a terrorist attack for weeks.  But who could see the inconsistency as Democrats were loudly high-fiving over another successful publicity stunt?

Too bad we didn't have access to this information in October about what General Petraeus had foudn fishy about the edited CIA talking points:

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.
These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

Al Qaeda just happened by with rockets and assault weapons on September 11th when they noticed people demonstrating over a video and decided to join in?  Hmmm... No, we better just not ever mention al Qaeda at all. Blame it on a video, Susan Rice.  And after we tell America, we'll find the person responsible, we'll jail the guy who made the video.

Jill Kelley became an advocate for internet privacy after the private information from her personal email were leaked once the FBI had searched them.  Why did the FBI leak the information, unless Eric Holder wanted to create a different sort of scandal for the people to associate with Petraeus?  How many months before the Benghazi incident was the Petraeus affair being investigated?

Also in the 2nd Debate, Obama tells us that as he's watching the terrorists go after the two surviving men in the embassy, he'll avenge them (or at least find the perpetrators).  He's watching all this happen live and he admits to already having written them off and doesn't explain why.

Four Pinocchios for Obama on Benghazi: Subjunctive Outrage

Washington Post has awarded Obama (finally) with four Pinocchios for his equivocations on Benghazi:

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.”

With the mounting evidence that the IRS injunction against conservative groups came from Mount Olympus, President O-ghaza has come up with various weasel words (as A Conservative Teacher has enumerated nicely under "UPDATE") about the alleged abuses.  These words come out to saying "Acts of political intimidation will not be tolerated."

Yes, my fellow citizens, Candy Crowley will vouch that the Evader-in-Chief recognized this political witch hunt as an unseemly act, "if in fact it did occur," so qualified after the IRS admitted to it and apologized for it.    Only just now has the Washington Post finally caught up and recognized that in the Rose Garden speech, Obama could have added "if in fact this was an act of terror" without contradiction.  His Rose Garden speech was essentially another example of his "subjective outrage."

Suppose after the Tsarnaev bombing, before we had any of the revelations we've had about what the Tsarnaev brothers' motivations were, that Obama would have got on the air and said that we had every reason to think that this was an unpremeditated reaction by some Chechen Christian boys in response to some sacrilegious depiction of Jesus, and followed with a little blurb about the unbroken America spirit warning that "No acts of terror" would weaken it if in fact there were attempts to weaken... If it turned out to not be a what we generally think of as a terrorist attack (rather than a terror-inducing attack like the Columbine rampage, which is not thought of as a terrorist attack per se even though it was truly an act of terror), wouldn't he have been able to backpedal and say that he never actually claimed it had to be the work of terrorists?  It doesn't change the truth that no acts of terror would weaken our resolve.

It's all weasel words.  It's have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too words.

Obama's administration is now saying that the video was blamed because it was too early to tell the cause (CIA official testimony to the contrary), even though Obama "clearly" identified it as a terrorist attack from the beginning.  Oh well, fog of war, blah blah blah.  The fog of war makes it so that you know it's terrorist attack even though you don't know whether the terrorist attack that you were warned would happen on the 9/11 anniversary was actually a video-inspired riot that got out of hand.   Why were we told it had to do with a video, when, as Madame Secretary implied, it really didn't make any difference?

What perhaps does make a difference was that the people responsible actually be caught.  And as the administration promised the father of the slain Navy SEAL, they got the man that blasphemed the Prophet of Islam, the man responsible.

Well, at least the Washington Post has caught on.  But what were most of these major media outlets doing when it appeared some sort of subterfuge was apparent.  Perhaps they were too busy playing Galaga to notice.

That man is playing Galaga!
Thought we wouldn't notice.  But we did.

Maybe this is why CBS didn't get around to releasing the footage in which Obama is asked about whether he is purposely skating around the term "terrorism" and Obama continues to skate.  They were busy playing Galaga.  Which is why they missed noticing and reporting Obama's penchant for "subjunctive outrage," if in fact it was outrage.

Benghazi-gate vs. Watergate

A bit of nostalgia from one American about the late-blooming Benghazi story:

I lived through 'Watergate'....I was in my early twenties and once it gained momentum all the media was covering it, in fact if you were not it was considered 'Un-American'. Benghazi is far worse and if you criticize it you are Un-American, Stupid and a RACIST. What a difference forty years of liberal schooling and media 'indoctrination' can do.

Yes, times they've been a-changin'.  But realize that the fact that a Democrat is doing this rather than a Republican also makes a difference.

Benghazi A Terrorist Attack? The Fog of War Denial

"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?" ~ Secretary Clinton

At this point...  at this point?  Now that the Americans have been dead for months?  Now that we're finally in a position to get answers?  Now that the election is over and it's too late for the truth to matter?  Hillary says, "I did not say ... that it was about the video for Libya."  But with the father of the slain Navy SEAL: "[s]he mentioned that the thing about, we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video."  Yep, we'll bring the responsible person to justice.

The emergency security force dispatched as reinforcements were held up at the Libyan airport for hours.  I don't think the memorial service for Tyrone Woods (where Hillary told his father that they'd nab the maker of the video) took place the very next day.  But: "Within 24 hours of the attack taking place, Washington was informed by a variety of intelligence sources that the attack had indeed been pre-planned and was undoubtedly the work of al-Qaeda which, apart from attacking the consulate, had also attacked the CIA's safe house in Benghazi."

And the State Dept. supposedly had a live feed to the events (though neither Barack nor HiIlary say the seven-hour siege in real time); the surveillance record of which did not show any demonstration.  Not to mention, Obama following up with his "blaspheme the prophet" speech.  If a video wasn't to blame, what the hell does it matter whether some hack doesn't give the Prophet (may he be blessed) his due respect?

Obama's Orwellian manipulations about Benghazi

An interesting thing happened in response to the Benghazi debacle.  For weeks afterward, people had the impression that it happened because of a mob that got out of control.   A couple of Muslims gathered around an iPad and were horrified at the ill treatment of their holy Prophet, and got together their pitchforks and torches to storm the castle.  Meanwhile, Achmed broke out his stockpile of assault weapons, and Abdul finally found a use for those 150 hand grenades he had been saving for a suicide bombing.

[UN Ambassador Susan] Rice’s account directly contradicts that of Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf, who said this weekend that he had “no doubt” the attack was pre-planned by individuals from outside Libya.  “It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival,” Magariaf told CBS News.* [emphasis mine]

What an inefficient State Department to take weeks to figure out that unlike the Cairo event (which didn't result in American deaths) there was no corresponding demonstration.  The administration avoided saying for a long time that it was a terrorist attack because of a supposed ongoing investigation. The Susan Rice narrative instead played out in people's imagination.

How is it that instead of talking about terrorists invading American soil, the administration got everyone talking about a riot that started over a videotape?  If it was acknowledged from the beginning that it was a concerted effort of terrorists, how did the idea take over that it was an angry mob that got out of control?

Could it be because Obama equivocated in his Rose Garden speech that "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation"? That sounds like a warning. It follows a discussion of the events of 9/11/2001 and is general.  The Benghazi events are referred to as "outrageous attack," "brutal acts," and "terrible act." but "acts [plural] of terror" is reserved for America's position on terror (the Obama Doctrine?).

Could this be the reason that the press did not hold  this administration accountable when they subsequently avoided calling it a terrorist attack?  Could it possibly? Or did the press simply forget that it had been called a terrorist attack?