Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Obama’s Big Bad Benghazi Cover-up

On September 11th 2012 an armed group of militants attacked a US Diplomatic consulate in Libya which killed four Americans and injured three Americans and seven Libyans. The next day President Obama addressed the people calling it an “outrageous attack.” And then the story was over with and everyone went back on with their lives. Well, not exactly.

Leave it up to the Republicans. John McCain came out blasting President Obama after comments he made at his Rose Garden address. McCain is blaming the Obama Administration of a cover-up in this incident in Benghazi, and rightfully so since Obama never actually told the American people that a diplomatic mission to Libya was attacked.

Wait a second…yes, he did tell the American people that a diplomatic mission in Benghazi was attacked. So wait, I’m confused about this now. What exactly was the cover-up? I’m looking as hard as I can to see it, reading between each line I can, but it is no where to be found. The more I think of it the more it boggles my mind. There was an attack on a US diplomatic mission to Benghazi…four Americans were killed…the next day President Obama spoke about it openly…what did he say?


“Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed were our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.”

“It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.”

“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.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

OK yeah so he openly spoke about it, but where the hell is the cover-up part? What are John McCain and the GOP saying about the Obama Administration? As I searched for this answer I found a lovely piece at which features quotes from Bret Baier of the Fox News Network. “Oh boy,” I thought.

So it turns out that this cover-up the GOP and right-winged talking heads are going on about is that the attack was actually a terrorist attack and that the President is trying to cover it up. But wait a second…did Obama say “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”? Is it not clear that he is saying in this very sentence that the attack against US diplomats in Benghazi was in fact a terrorist attack? Not according to Bret Baier of Fox News, no.

As I said, I found this little piece from an article Bret wrote and posted on his own website. If you’re familiar with Faux News you can smell the BS spin job they use to try to say that President Obama is covering up the fact that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.


These are two crucial answers in the big picture.  Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.

Can you smell it? It smells like ‘Pure Grade A 100% Faux News Bullshit’. The spin tactic being used here is so out in the open and overt that a five year old could point it out.

First off, let’s go into this article that I found. It’s actually about Faux News man Bret Baier who says that he has proof that Obama is covering up the fact that the Benghazi attack was actually a terrorist attack. He states that a CBS interview with the President was recorded in October in which this was said:

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, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell 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.

He then goes on to say that the recording wasn’t aired for more than six weeks and that they still failed to air the interview even when questions about the incident were being raised during the second presidential debate. As I read, the author states that when asked if the Benghazi attack was in fact a terrorist attack the moderator, Candy Crowley, stepped in and spoke for Obama falsely stating that Obama in fact called it an act of terror on September 12th 2012 at his Rose Garden interview.

Falsely stated? How did the moderator falsely state that Obama called the act an act of terror when he did in fact say it was an act of terror? The author goes on to make the argument that if this didn’t happen and the moderator didn’t step in and lie for Obama that Romney would have won the debate, and that CBS withheld this interview to assist President Obama cover-up any dishonesty about the attacks and assist him in his reelection campaign.   

So here is the spin. Obama says in his Rose Garden interview that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,” essential labeling the attack as a terror attack. It’s not so much because he said it was an act of terror but because he can’t prove it’s an act of terror, and the GOP is using this as an excuse to call into question the credibility of the Obama Administration. Merely because there are different people with different opinions on what actually happened in Benghazi the right-wing political machine is using the incident to call the Obama Administration into question about an alleged cover-up on whether or not the attack was terrorist in nature or not. If Obama says in a speech that terror will never shake our resolve than isn’t it clear he is just covering his ass on both sides of the spectrum? Can’t he think to himself, “Well we don’t know if this is a terror attack yet, but either way terror will not shake us”? I am wouldn’t that be a very poignant thing to say to keep our spirits up? No, instead the GOP wants to try to call Obama a liar because there were conflicting reports on whether or not it was a terrorist attack and because he didn’t have to answer his question at the debate.

But the truth is simple, if Obama had come out during the debate and said, “Yes, terrorists did in fact attack a US Diplomatic mission to Benghazi” the Romney campaign would have turned right around and said, “See? There was a terrorist attack on Americans in Benghazi and Obama never saved them. He is weak against terror.” This is just another use of political spin and word play and they know it.

Word play and semantics are being used here heavily and lets face it they are simple tactics to use and they work for any argument you are in. You just have to change a word or the meaning or a word to make your argument. It’s not ‘Gun Control’ it’s ‘Preventative measures against violent crimes’, it’s not a ‘job’ it’s a ‘career’, don’t say the word ‘compromise’, don’t say ‘capitalism’ say ‘free economic market’, don’t say ‘taxes the rich’ say ‘takes from the rich’, they are not ‘middle class’ they are ‘hardworking tax payers’, ‘government spending’ is ‘waste’, ‘entrepreneur’ is ‘job creator’. And in this case we can also define what these are based on who is currently in office, Republican or Democrat.

And in this case of the Benghazi Terror Attack Cover-up the word terrorism is now redefined. You see if Bush were in office this case would be easy, it would be an act of terror, plain and simple, no need for investigation. Why? Because it happened to Americans in a foreign country, the attackers were Muslim (or possibly Muslim) and it happened AFTER 9/11/01. See that? Those are the ingredients for terror under Bush's watch. But the Republicans are willing to change their view when it's a Democrat in office. Now the definition has changed and we should investigate this to see if it was a terror attack, because terror attacks are so deeply thought out and largely complex and don't require just a few Americans to die by the hands of foreigners in a land where maybe there are terrorists. You see now for a terror attack to be considered a terror attack one needs to form a terror group and intentionally attack American interests.

So as you can see, he Republicans have a back up plan for just in case not all of their criterion are met for a terrorist attack. See if there is no terror group that comes out and takes responsibility the right-wingers can say, “Oh see this doesn't fit the bill of what we know as a terror attack. This Benghazi thing was just some protest that went violent and unfortunately some Americans got caught up in it and were killed.” And BOOM, just like that Obama’s image is changed. He isn’t a guy who is weak on terror, he’s a liar who called a protest riot a terrorist attack. And how can the American people trust a president who can't tell the difference between a protest riot and a terrorist attack?

As usual I had a hard time wondering what the right-wingers are trying to get at. Are they trying to say that Obama is covering up the fact the the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, or are they are calling him a liar for calling it an attack. They can go either way with this issue and like all politics it is bunk. We shouldn't be worrying about whether or not it's a terrorist act by a politicians definition or not
  Let’s take time to step away from the TV for a moment and make our own decision without some talking head political pundit or politician. Lets think about the word terror and what it means, because in my view any act of violence is an act or terror. Violence is terrible, terrifying, and for lack of a better word, terror. Terror has no exact definition unless the word is being used for political gain. War is terror, being mugged is terror, flying a plane into a building is terror, and getting caught up in a violent riot is terror. It’s not that complicated folks, all of these things are terror so don't let the right-wing media change your view on what terror actually is. 

SOURCES: Proof Obama Refused to Call Benghazi Terror CBS Covered-Up

President Obama's Rose Garden Speech (VIDEO)

President Obama's Rose Garden Speech (TRANSCRIPT)


  1. Why do you think that only people in the GOP think there was a cover up.I dont watch fox news everyday and im not a republican and i can tell the president is hiding something.The only reason mrs clinton dident talk to the press is because she dident want to get cought in a LIE.

  2. What is the cover-up, could you enlighten me? What does Obama truly have to cover up? He either lied about the attack being a terror attack or he didn't. And as for Clinton not talking to the press...she did talk to the press. Multiple times. Here is the link:

  3. I was also confused about the Rose Garden Speech. I clearly heard him say, at 1:20, "Since our founding, the United States has been a nation who respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (You left those statements out)?? What did religion do with a "terrorist attack??
    Then he went on to televise a 30-second ad to the Pakistan people (only cost us $70,000) to say
    "The United States rejects all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." SOS Clinton stated, "The US Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject it's content and message."
    I, for one, am still confused, however, I will reserve judgement until the "Situation Room" activities are made public and why General Carter Ham was relieved of duty in the midst of the attack.


Type comments here...