The Second Debate, Benghazi

Posted on October 16, 2012

0



Anyone can think whatever they want to think about what was said in the rose garden the day after the attack in Benghazi. But saying the words and implying the intent of the words spoken , is something very different . This is exactly what the President said in the rose garden on 9/12.

“The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. … No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.”

If you want to infer that when he said this he was admitting to the American public that this was an act of terror, then you have your right to that opinion . But what you need to ask yourself is why these statements were made after 9/12.

September 12 — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

“We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. 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.”

September 12 — White House spokesman Jay Carney, in response to questions about whether the attack was planned:

“It’s too early for us to make that judgment. I think — I know that this is being investigated, and we’re working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time.”

September 13 — Jay Carney:

“The protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States.”

 

September 13 — State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland:

“Well, as we said yesterday when we were on background, we are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans. So I know that’s going to be frustrating for you, but we really want to make sure that we do this right and we don’t jump to conclusions. That said, obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating.”

September 14 — Jay Carney:

“We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

 

September 16 — Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CBS’ “Face the Nation”:

“We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

 

September 18 — Jay Carney:

“Our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped — that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere. What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation.”

September 19 — Jay Carney:

“It is a simple fact that there are, in post-revolution, post-war Libya, armed groups, there are bad actors hostile to the government, hostile to the West, hostile to the United States. And as has been the case in other countries in the region, it is certainly conceivable that these groups take advantage of and exploit situations that develop, when they develop, to protest against or attack either Westerners, Americans, Western sites or American sites. … Right now I’m saying we don’t have evidence at this point that this was premeditated or preplanned to coincide on a — to happen on a specific date or coincide with that anniversary.”

September 25 — President Obama on ABC’s The View,” in response interviewer Joy Behar’s question, “I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”:

“We’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. We don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it. But what’s clear is that around the world there’s still a lot of threats out there.” Obama also said, “extremist militias” were suspected to have been involved.

And while you’re  trying to figure all that out, ask yourself why the first time you ever heard anything like this comment from the White House came on 10/2:

October 2 — Carney:

“I can tell you that from the moment our facility was attacked in Benghazi, the president’s focus has been on securing our diplomats and facilities in Libya and around the world, and on bringing the killers to justice. At every step of the way, the administration has based its public statements on the best assessments that were provided by the intelligence community. As the intelligence community learned more information they updated Congress and the American people on it.”

 

Now go back and check all the dates. Because on the 9/25 the President said quite clearly, “We don’t have all the information yet”. But on 9/20 , Jay Carney clearly said:

September 20 — Jay Carney:

“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials.”

So if the intent in the rose garden on 9/12 was to inform the people of the United States that the attack was indeed, an act of terror, and 9/20 your spokesman said it was an act of terror, why on 9/25 didn’t you just tell Joy Behar it was an act of terror?

Advertisements