PINAR DEL RIO


support babalú


Your donations help fund
our continued operation

do you babalú?

what they’re saying


bestlatinosmall.jpg

quotes.gif

activism


ozt_bilingual


buclbanner

recommended reading





babalú features





recent comments


  • asombra: Good luck with that, hon. You can always be dismissed as a paranoid hysteric (you know, like “those people”) and/or...

  • asombra: For what it’s worth, Flake looks even more fruity than Charlie Crist.

  • asombra: Castro, Inc. is a parasite and a whore, but alas, such creatures haven’t been around forever for nothing.

  • Gallardo: Cuba was killed by spoiled imbecility and ingratitude coupled with international complicity and bad luck, not much more. The...

  • asombra: Love our “general.” General de oficina, that is.

search babalu

babalú archives

frequent topics


elsewhere on the net



realclearworld

Getting Tangled in The Shyster Lawyer’s Fishing Line

Let me preface my post by saying that, yes, the Obama administration's "talking points" editing on Benghazi are important. This entire administration, from the top down, intentionally and continually lied to the American people. Without the willingness of the MSM to participate and take this administration's word for everything this would not have stood all these last eight months. And now the MSM appear pathetic and frustrated as they discover, question, catch-up, and painfully opine, yet, set their attention now on saving Hillary Clinton's bacon for 2016. However, lost in this are the bigger points that still need addressed. The "Stand Down" order that kept military defenses from trying to reach our people under attack on 9/11/12 in Benghazi, and that only ... ONLY ... the Commander-in-Chief could have given. That is the primary issue. The "talking points" redacting is even third to the fact the State Department completely ignored Amb. Stevens's repeated warnings for weeks that the security situation in the Benghazi area was deteriorating, and his requests for more security to be assigned to the American diplomatic holdings there were denied. Other nations, including ours, had sustained attacks prior to the deadly attack on 9/11/12, some of those other nations pulling their diplomatic personnel out of the volatile area as a result of those attacks. Why were our people still there, and with little dependable and trustworthy security, and on the anniversary of 9/11/01? The "talking points", while a distraction from the major issues within this terror attack, are important as well because their intent was/is to hide those power points.

Since the Benghazi whistleblowers testified, and contradicted the White House narrative, the Obama-ops and talking-heads have been out claiming/insisting Obama called Benghazi "terrorism" the day after the 9/11/12 attack on our compound there. Mmm-kay, so why then did Obama and Clinton keep pushing the video for weeks and months, if that were true? This video that appears nowhere in the un-edited or the edited versions of the email exchanges. Nowhere in his day-after statement did Obama say the Benghazi attack(s) were "terrorism". As a matter of fact, as the transcript shows (not counting his "Good morning" opening), these are paragraphs 4 & 5 of his statement (SoS Hillary Clinton by his side) on the attack:

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

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.

Clearly his reference to 'respecting all faiths' and 'rejecting all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others' were alluding to the offensive anti-Muhammad video Obama, Clinton, and others would repeatedly cite as the cause of the spontaneous protest in Benghazi. And this is the first sentence of paragraph 6 which points back to paragraph five's scolding of the Muhammad video:

But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence...

These are paragraphs 11, 12 & 13. The word "terror" is mentioned only once throughout the entire text of the statement in paragraph 13 (there are 16 - counting his closing sign-off remark), and it follows 11 & 12 that primarily discuss the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks and the troops (and their families) who have fought and died/were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, Benghazi being mentioned as an after-thought in this section of Obama's statement:

I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who loved them back home. Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.

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.

It is a classic Obama dangling-factoid that can be argued both as, "No, he never called Benghazi 'terrorism'" and (as they are now) "Yes, Obama called Benghazi 'terrorism' the day after the attack" ... positioned just the right way within his statement so as to be able to swing either way by not being directly committed to or connected to any one specific subject within the rest of the vague context. He does this consistently with every statement/speech he reads to the American people. He commits to nothing. It is pure Obama "voting present" shyster-lawyer-style, generalizing so as to be able to be argued either way when called on it ... as they are now.

The full transcript of this post-Benghazi statement is here.

1 comment to Getting Tangled in The Shyster Lawyer’s Fishing Line

  • asombra

    The more shit Obama and his administration pull or try to pull, the angrier I get--not with Obama and his crew, who are just being themselves, but with those responsible for putting them in place. We have a frighteningly high proportion of people who vote primarily for a free ride, or skin color regardless of anything else, or to make a fashion statement, or out of asinine wishful thinking, or out of outright perversity. The media, for the most part, is not only corrupt but brazenly so, as if they feel untouchable or think most people can be fooled and manipulated indefinitely. The supposed opposition, meaning the Republican party, leaves much to be desired, but there's no other viable alternative currently at hand. God help us, because we're in a heap of trouble.