Furthermore if you dispute Fact Check. Then go look up one of the others. Here lets go thru that one more time for you.
Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’
Sept. 12: Clinton issues a statement confirming that four U.S. officials, not one, had been killed. She called it a “violent attack.”
Clinton: All the Americans we lost in yesterday’s attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future.
Sept. 12: Clinton delivers a speech at the State Department to condemn the attack in Benghazi and to praise the victims as “heroes.” She again makes reference to the anti-Muslim video in similar language.
Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear — there is no justification for this, none.
Sept. 12: Obama delivers a morning speech in the Rose Garden to address the deaths of U.S. diplomats in Libya. He said, “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.” He also makes reference to the anti-Muslim video when he says: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.” He uses the term “act of terror” later that night when talking about the attack at a campaign event in Las Vegas. <<<<<EVIDENTLY YOU DIDNT READ THIS RIGHT.....now what were you saying since here it is in black and white. Were we still playing semantics?
Sept. 12: After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for “60 Minutes.” Obama says he didn’t use the word “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.” Steve Kroft, the show’s host, wonders how the attack could be described as a “mob action” since the attackers were “very heavily armed.” Obama says “we’re still investigating,” but he suspects “folks involved in this . . . were looking to target Americans from the start.”
Sept. 12: Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, tells the BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. The little-known militant group issues a statement that says it “didn’t participate as a sole entity,” neither confirming nor denying the report.
Sept. 12: Citing unnamed “U.S. government officials,” Reuters reports that “the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance” and that members of Ansar al-Sharia “may have been involved.” Reuters quotes one of the U.S. officials as saying: “It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”
Sept. 13: ‘Clearly Planned’ or ‘Spontaneous’ Attack?
Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Ali Suleiman Aujali — the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. — at a State Department event to mark the end of Ramadan. Ambassador Aujali apologizes to Clinton for what he called “this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya.” Clinton, in her remarks, does not refer to it as a terrorist attack. She condemns the anti-Muslim video, but adds that there is “never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
Sept. 13: CNN reports that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie.
CNN: “It was not an innocent mob,” one senior official said. “The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”
Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack
Sept. 14: Clinton spoke at Andrews Air Force Base at a ceremony to receive the remains of those killed in Benghazi. She remarked that she received a letter from the president of the Palestinian Authority praising Stevens and “deploring — and I quote — ‘an act of ugly terror.’ ” She, however, did not call it an act of terror or a terrorist attack and neither did the president.
Sept. 14: At a State Department press briefing, spokeswoman Nuland says the department will no longer answer any questions about the Benghazi attack. “It is now something that you need to talk to the FBI about, not to us about, because it’s their investigation.”
Sept. 14: At a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Carney denies reports that it was a preplanned attack. “I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false.” Later in that same briefing, Carney is told that Pentagon officials informed members of Congress at a closed-door meeting that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack. Carney said the matter is being investigated but White House officials “don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.”.....snip~
Heres the link again so all can see it for.....what it is!
Last edited by MMC; 05-09-13 at 01:11 PM.
I'll try one more time to get you to admit to your previous error, but I know you will not acknowledge it. You posted:
Are you capable of admitting this error, or are you going to do another quote dump to cover this up?
Right Exactly on the 14th Both Obama and Clinton did not refer to it act of terror or terrorism. Which Obama Had Labeled it an Act of Terror On the Sept 12th. Got that part now.....Obama labeled it an Act of Terror on.....Sept 12. Are you still confused?
Nice justice, too, President Tiger Woods. Still working on that?
Testimonies are before you from people that were actually on the ground. Not Republicans, but actual state-department people that are telling you right to your face what really happened. Yet you just ignore it.
Integrity. It's such a rare quality today.
I realize that admitting any error on your part is impossible for you, and that it has not dawned on you what the difference between "terror" and "terrorism" is. With the later, you have an firm understanding of who did the "terror". You want the President to state who did it before it was known, but hypocritically criticize him for using intel that was not complete.
Not quite. Hillary knew 2 hours after the attack it was Planned and Ansar Al Shariah was involved. Which she stated she spoke to the President One time and one time only.
So you are saying She either did or didn't tell him. Which if she didn't tell him.....guess where that leaves Hillary. Also I would take a look around and note whats Up with Panetta and Gen Dempesy saying they never talked to Hillary at all. Nor did they get any request from the State Dept. Plus Hicks testifying the only time she talked to anyone in Libya was at 2 am.
So Now you Are trying to say either Hillary Was derelict in her Duty. Which would be to inform the President that there was an attack on our Embassy and it was planned by Terrorists. Or that she never told him. While at the same time saying Obama didn't know anything or couldn't have.
As you can see it can't go both ways. I would recommend reading whats up rather than trying to play with semantics of already known facts.
No, she did not and neither did anyone beyond those who carried out the attack.Not quite. Hillary knew 2 hours after the attack it was Planned and Ansar Al Shariah was involved. Which she stated she spoke to the President One time and one time only.
No, that is YOUR claim, strawman.So you are saying She either did or didn't tell him.
Another perfect example of garbled writing, garbled thinking.Which if she didn't tell him.....guess where that leaves Hillary. Also I would take a look around and note whats Up with Panetta and Gen Dempesy saying they never talked to Hillary at all. Nor did they get any request from the State Dept. Plus Hicks testifying the only time she talked to anyone in Libya was at 2 am.
More straw, this is your claim.So Now you Are trying to say either Hillary Was derelict in her Duty.
More garbled thought and writing.Which would be to inform the President that there was an attack on our Embassy and it was planned by Terrorists. Or that she never told him. While at the same time saying Obama didn't know anything or couldn't have.
If you had any hope of understanding words and their usage, this would be ironic....but since you don't, it is just sad.As you can see it can't go both ways. I would recommend reading whats up rather than trying to play with semantics of already known facts.
Your whole argument is an objection to semantics, the semantics of "terror" and "terrorism" and you can bring yourself to face this. You cannot face up to the fact that you want the President to "bring out information", which the administration did, which was not fully formed, and then you criticize him for doing so.
It is all confused, pointless and thoughtless argument from you, and nothing will bring you understand this.