Dissecting the Rose Garden speech

Apr 2012
9,970
2,644
Here, there, Savoir Faire is everywhere.
#1
[video=youtube;Z0wllKURCq8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0wllKURCq8[/video]

Before any mention of "actS of terror" we have this about a minute and a half into it:

Barack Obama said:
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.
What's he talking about here? Why is that even mentioned? The video? Does the video have something to do with this attack?

Barack Obama said:
No actS of terror will ever shake this great nation.
What actS is he talking about? If he's talking about many (plural) attacks then he's not really talking about this particular attack in Benghazi. He's talking about other attacks. . .in general. Coupled with the above quote about the nation's founding, the context of this attack is in serious question. Later on for the following two weeks, the president clarifies his stance.

It's all about the video.

You have to lie to yourself to conclude otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2007
14,191
851
#2
unless you have a specific reason to conclude that he is NOT including benghazi in those "actS" of terror, you have to assume he is in fact including it and calling it such.
 
Apr 2012
9,970
2,644
Here, there, Savoir Faire is everywhere.
#3
unless you have a specific reason to conclude that he is NOT including benghazi in those "actS" of terror, you have to assume he is in fact including it and calling it such.
No I don't. You need to take the blinders off and listen to the rest of the speech. He's talking about the video. Protests and violence in the name of a video are "mob acts" and not necessarily "acts of terror." The context is in serious question because he's talking about efforts to "denigrate the religious beliefs of others."

To cherry pick the "acts of terror" like you have done is to cast a blind eye and deaf ear to the full context. You are deceiving yourself.
 
Dec 2007
14,191
851
#4
No I don't. You need to take the blinders off and listen to the rest of the speech. He's talking about the video. Protests and violence in the name of a video are "mob acts" and not necessarily "acts of terror." The context is in serious question because he's talking about efforts to "denigrate the religious beliefs of others."

To cherry pick the "acts of terror" like you have done is to cast a blind eye and deaf ear to the full context. You are deceiving yourself.
why exactly couldn;t he be claiming it was an act of terror brought on by the video? why are the two mutually exclusive?

also if he was NOT including this attack as an act of terror, why did he mention "actS of terror"?
 
Apr 2012
9,970
2,644
Here, there, Savoir Faire is everywhere.
#5
why exactly couldn;t he be claiming it was an act of terror brought on by the video? why are the two mutually exclusive?

also if he was NOT including this attack as an act of terror, why did he mention "actS of terror"?
Good questions. It underscores what I said about the "fogginess" of the full context (in fact, Clinton blames this on the "fog of war" so there is some consistency in the obscurity). In the following two weeks, he clarifies his context:

It's all about the video.
 
Dec 2007
14,191
851
#6
Good questions. It underscores what I said about the "fogginess" of the full context (in fact, Clinton blames this on the "fog of war" so there is some consistency in the obscurity). In the following two weeks, he clarifies his context:

It's all about the video.
ok fine. which, as biden pointed out, that was what they were being told. as they learned more, they reported the changes. i'm failing to see the "scandal" here.
 
Feb 2011
40,024
9,769
happyfunville
#7
It's all good. Obama will get no bounce and the truth will come out in the next debate. We all know the administration tried like hell to blame the attacks on a video-inspired mob and we all know now that they knew it was a terrorist act while doing so. All the left's echo chamber spin doesn't change those facts.
 
Likes: aboutenough
Dec 2007
14,191
851
#8
It's all good. Obama will get no bounce and the truth will come out in the next debate. We all know the administration tried like hell to blame the attacks on a video-inspired mob and we all know now that they knew it was a terrorist act while doing so. All the left's echo chamber spin doesn't change those facts.
wait, how do we "know" that?
 
Apr 2012
9,970
2,644
Here, there, Savoir Faire is everywhere.
#9
It's all good. Obama will get no bounce and the truth will come out in the next debate. We all know the administration tried like hell to blame the attacks on a video-inspired mob and we all know now that they knew it was a terrorist act while doing so. All the left's echo chamber spin doesn't change those facts.
Exactly. The whole question did little more than galvanize one base and inflame the other. The wishy-washy middle walked away thinking it was a tie or perhaps Romney had a slight edge due to his crushing assault on Obama's energy record, economics, and other points. And as far as the Benghazi question goes. . .even the middle knows he said it's all about the video.
 
Apr 2012
9,970
2,644
Here, there, Savoir Faire is everywhere.
#10
ok fine. which, as biden pointed out, that was what they were being told. as they learned more, they reported the changes. i'm failing to see the "scandal" here.
But Biden directly lied about that. They had real time video. They knew from the start. There is no "as they learned more."
 

Similar Discussions