Obama Pants on Fire re Benghazi

America should be accustomed to Obama’s selective historical memory by now.

But sometimes, even Obama outdoes himself and seems to forget we live in a digital age where virtually every statement made can be fact checked within seconds and on the internet soon thereafter.

In his Monday presser with British PM David Cameron, Obama asserted:

“The day after it [Benghazi] happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

Where was the lightening strike? As I wrote in my October 19, 2012, article:

Contrary to Obama’s words in the second presidential debate Tuesday night, he had NOT specifically declared Benghazi a terrorist attack in his 9/12 Rose Garden briefing, but stated generically, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.” If the president had declared it a premeditated terror attack in the 9/12 presser, then all official statements for the next 2 weeks on behest of the the WH were complete fabrications.

The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler checks the facts for us:

Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements: “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.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October: Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”

Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. 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.

Here is more proof of discrepancies–Obama’s September 12th interview with CBS’ Steve Kroft:

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”

OBAMA: “Right.”

KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”

OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

Even MSM is beginning to wake up–the initial question in the presser with British PM Cameron was posed by the AP’s Julie Pace. Now Americans must demand answers and not relent on tasking Media to do their job: expose, expose, expose! Obama has lied and continues to tell whoppers concerning Benghazi.

As for Main Stream Media? They would do well to heed the words of the Book,”Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

h/t Duane Patterson

Back to top button