THE BLAZE by EDDIE SCARRY
(MY TWO SENSE: It has been some time since I’ve been unable to call, by name, this oval office emperor. I have been unable to capitalize any of his name(s) or labels or hear his voice without becoming nauseated and enraged. His tyrannical rule has cost Americans, thus far, myriad liberties, privacy, and the willingness or ability to trust any politician again. The incredibly long list of those who serve under this tyrant are as soulless as he. So, we are a nation in big trouble, with very few public servants left who just might have a modicum of honor. We cannot be certain of them, however, until personal integrity, of each, displays as a matter of rote. Evidence of honor, integrity, values, and morals is missing in government at all levels, local and federal. My God—how did we get here?
Washington DC politics, a cesspool of debauchery, is in big trouble, now that one cover-up after another has been exposed. Regardless of those who continue to hide their heads up that you-know-what, road–in spite of their number, truth is truth, and we must continue to demand the complete story—all of the facts. We must refuse to allow any of these criminals to further shred the US Constitution lose momentum. Let us keep feet to the fire because, if we don’t, and given the opportunity, this crew of thugs will delay, delay, delay until judicial actions become lost in the dictator’s fog. He will threaten lives, careers, and family with everything in his power from death to prison to keep the facts from coming out. He will postpone coöperation until the country forgets, or is distracted by another story. If we allow this, culpability and punishment won’t come to the guilty, and they will walk free to get back to the work of “fundamentally transformating America.
‘Taking Revisionist History Too Far’: Washington Post Fact-Checker Gives Obama ‘Four Pinocchios’ on Benghazi Claim
May. 14, 2013 9:35am
Eight months after the terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, the debate on whether President Barack Obama immediately identified the incident as a terrorist attack continues.
“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism,” Obama said at a press conference on Monday. Though Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler has written several times before about what exactly Obama actually said that day and what he meant, Kessler is once again examining the issue. This time, he’s turning up the heat.
“The president’s claim that he said ‘act of terrorism’ is taking revisionist history too far,” Kessler wrote in a post Tuesday, “given that [Obama] repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack.”
Kessler noted (once again) that though Obama did actually use the phrase “act of terror” after the attack, it was done “in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor.” In essence, it wasn’t clear that Obama was specifically referring to the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack when he said “act of terror.” Most importantly, Obama didn’t say “terrorism” at all the day after the attack. He said “act of terror” and in subsequent remarks, declined to address the incident as a terrorist attack.
Indeed, in an interview with CBS immediately after the Benghazi attack, Obama was asked if he believed it was “a terrorist attack.” Obama responded, “It’s too early to know how this came about, what group was involved. But obviously it was an attack on Americans.” He continued, “I don’t want to jump the gun on this.”
Splitting hairs? Kessler preemptively defended himself from that charge in a previous post:
The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.
In previous posts on the topic, Kessler has not issued any “Pinocchios” for Obama’s claim that he immediately labeled the Benghazi incident as a terrorist attack. In the latest post, however, Kessler gives Obama four. According to the rating scale, four Pinocchios is reserved for claims believed to be “whoppers.”
Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, previously defended the administration from Kessler’s assessment on the issue, noting that former President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims hospitalized by the 9/11 terrorist attack.
WASHPOST: Obama’s claim he called ‘act of terrorism’ — Four Pinocchios… (washingtonpost.com)
Obama Calls Criticism on Benghazi Talking Points a ‘Sideshow’ (foxnewsinsider.com)
No comments yet.