Patterico's Pontifications

5/14/2013

Obama Gets Four Pinocchios for Claiming He Called Benghazi “Terrorism”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:10 am



Barack Obama at his presser, on Benghazi: “The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.” The “FactChecker” at the Washington Post, Glenn Kessler, has actually been OK on the Benghazi issue, for whatever reason, and gives Obama four Pinocchios for this one.

Obama did use the phrase “no act of terror” [will go unpunished or similar words] several times after Benghazi. Kessler asks, is it splitting hairs to note that he didn’t say “terrorism”? It almost could seem that way, except for the fact that Obama agreed, on video, that he was specifically avoiding using the word terrorism. Behold:

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.”

ASIDE: Of course, as we now know, “these folks” meant “the people who made that YouTube video.” We know that Hillary told the family member of a victim, not that they pledged to get the terrorists, but that they pledged to get the maker of the video.

ANOTHER ASIDE: The FactChecker says: “For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.” Yeah? Is it really that unknown? They had video evidence that undercut a central argument Obama was making about a hot issue related to the election, and they just happened to bury it, and we are to consider that a mystery? OK then.

ASIDES ARE NOW DONE.

So anyway, Obama is just lying. Again. Nice to see someone prominent calling him out.

66 Responses to “Obama Gets Four Pinocchios for Claiming He Called Benghazi “Terrorism””

  1. It’s simple, really. The MSM needs to re-establish a degree of credibility in order to protect the team downstream in 2014.

    cedarhill (99e0c5)

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

    OBAMA: “No, Steve, it was an act of workplace violence. I think it’s intolerant and unkind to claim otherwise. Besides, if I had a son, he very well might have looked like the sad souls who are fighting the good fight in Libya against imperialism, racism, sexism, and homophobia.”

    Mark (9ba6f2)

  3. letting a propaganda slut from CNN moderate presidential debates is not the way of the samurai

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  4. Kessler learned this two step, when he was whitewashing Arafat in hopes of becoming the Post’s Tom Friedman, he’s been better then Ignatius on the subject, but the point is this was an AQ attack and it was known within hours,

    narciso (3fec35)

  5. The press deserves some Pinocchio’s on the story as well.

    AZ Bob (c11d35)

  6. This morning Hot Air pointing to a Politico story headlines why Susan Rice did the 5 disastrous talk shows. Who knew certain key government officials hate to do them and have “standing refusals” to do talk shows so are never asked.

    elissa (dba791)

  7. Translation: The media know that Obama is a brazen liar and they’ll let you know … when its good for you.

    SPQR (768505)

  8. This nitwit couldn’t lie straight in bed.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  9. I think Obama was referring to our Navy Seals as the terrorists.

    Elephant Stone (65a34b)

  10. Maybe the reason Obama didn’t get too involved in the Benghazi situation as it was unfolding (other than to tell the military to ‘stand down,’ of course) is because the story had yet to appear in the newspaper.

    Elephant Stone (65a34b)

  11. Our honored host wrote:

    The “FactChecker” at the Washington Post, Glenn Kessler, has actually been OK on the Benghazi issue, for whatever reason,

    It’s kind of difficult to hold the position of “fact checker” and not actually check the facts; that’s why he’s been better than one might expect from The Washington Post. Of course, he also knows that the facts only really matter to us right-wing whackos anyway, so it doesn’t matter if he tells the truth about Barack Hussein Obama.

    President Nixon’s undoing was the fact that there were so many diligent reporters who didn’t like him, and who were willing to do their jobs. President Obama and his minions have just urinated off his greatest defender, the professional media. At least some of them will react to an attack on their professional credibility negatively, and might, just might, actually start doing their jobs. The first ones to leave the reservation will be the ones with the advantage when it comes to winning that Pulitzer Prize.

    The Dana who remembers Watergate (3e4784)

  12. WOW!!! FOUR PINNOCCHIOS!!! THAT HAS TO STING!!!

    Why do we give so much fucking attention to the mouth-breathers who declare themselves “fact-checkers”? They’re not. They’re ass-coverers.

    Rob Crawford (e6f27f)

  13. Kessler learned this two step, when he was whitewashing Arafat in hopes of becoming the Post’s Tom Friedman

    Are you sure that “whitewashing” is a synonym for “tonguewashing”?

    Rob Crawford (e6f27f)

  14. You know what’s really weird? Why would Hillary say that they will punish the video maker? Is it now against the law to insult Islam?

    It’s a very telling comment. And extremely craven.

    Patricia (be0117)

  15. How can this be? Would Candy Crowley lie to the American people while faithfully moderating a presidential debate? Has she apologized yet?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  16. It’s kind of difficult to hold the position of “fact checker” and not actually check the facts

    Why? CNN has no trouble finding folks who are able to fail just that way.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  17. Even Sammy’s precious New York Times acknowledged in a story on September 20 that nobody in the White House had called the attack terrorism until then.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  18. Recall Romney failing to call out Obama and Candy Crowley’s tap shoe act during the debates about exxaclty this. The White House KNEW on September 12th this was a disaster for them, they sent Susan Rice out there with the BS story and they did everything possible to scream “SQUIRREL!” if anyone raised the issue. And in the midst of a prsidential debate we saw a President and the medic coordinate a response to stop the questions being asked. And they got away with it.

    Bugg (ba4ca9)

  19. “Recall Romney failing to call out Obama and Candy Crowley’s tap shoe act during the debates about exxaclty this.”

    Bugg – Romney called out Obama and then Obama appealed to Crowley for help which she gladly gave. Facing two to one odds on stage in a national debate with not notes or video is not a winning position for Romney to maintain. Crowley apologized for both her intrusion and mistaken position afterward, but the damage was done.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  20. four pinocchios is the absolute highest number of pinocchios the washington post is empowered to bestow it means you’re a filthy disgusting fascist LIAR

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  21. Comment by happyfeet (c60db2) — 5/14/2013 @ 11:50 am

    Now feets, he’s not “filthy”; I understand he bathes regularly.

    President Pinocchio: Has a sort of ring to it.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  22. 20. Comment by happyfeet (c60db2) — 5/14/2013 @ 11:50 am

    Now feets, he’s not “filthy”; I understand he bathes regularly.

    President Pinocchio: Has a sort of ring to it.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 5/14/2013 @ 12:14 pm

    Of course he’s not filthy. We know this because high level officials have told us so. According to Dingy Harry Reid (D-Vegas Mob) in addition to being clean, he’s also articulate, light-skinned, and he has no negro dialect unless he really wants to.

    Tingles Matthews was unable to comment due to the fact the only thing he can hear are the racist dog whistles sounding off inside his head.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  23. Pinocchio is getting a bad rap lately. He deserves better. His is a story of redemption in the face of pretty steep obstacles.

    Birdbath (716828)

  24. Obama claims that words matter, except the ones he utters:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q77-anUqvEI

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  25. “these folks” meant “the people who made that YouTube video.”

    I really don’t think so. For that to be true, everyone else would have to accept that the maker of the video was the chief culprit.

    And he said “folks” too. Plural. there were many people who attacked the Americans in Benghazi but only one person responsible for the video.

    People should stop buying stupid spin. The truth is quite bad by itself, and worse than a President being too political.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  26. I don’t know what is the matter with Darrel Issa. he said on CBS THIS MORNING that the talking points started out truthful and they wound up a lie. No, they started out as a lie, and they wound up a little bit better.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  27. President Obama said the same thing that was in the talking points was pretty close to what was in his Daily Brief.

    Do you think he is lying about that?

    If so, why haven’t any members of Congress – or leakers – called him on it. Would he dare claim that if it was not true? (strictly speaking of courtse)

    There really was SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE that the CIA chose to rely on. I said this in October,, nothing has changed my mind, and Nothing else makes any sense.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  28. I sent a Freedom of Information Request to the White House in 1997 asking about the visits of the Saudi Arabian Ambassador. I got back a letter from the White House counsel’s office saying that they are not covered by it. So I thought a bit and wrote a FOIA request to the Secret Service. I got back a letter saying to contact the White House
    counsel’s office. I sent a FOIA to the State Department asking about reports of any meeting.

    Case number 9700879

    I finally got an answer early in the Bush Administration.

    Nothing helpful

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  29. David Brooks has a good column on the scapegoating of Victoria Nuland.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  30. Oh dear God

    JD (ee8414)

  31. “President Obama said the same thing that was in the talking points was pretty close to what was in his Daily Brief.”

    Sammy – Remember back, he was skipping his Daily Briefs more often than getting them back then. How would he have known what was in them?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  32. 20. A puppet rendering the facsimile of a real boy.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  33. 28. Not that I would ever read Brooksie, I do agree careless reference to Nuland authoring talking points is inaccurate.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  34. Letting my Inner Snark out:

    “…he was skipping his Daily Briefs more often than getting them back then. How would he have known what was in them?”

    Probably only cared if it was Michelle in his Daily Briefs as she always stretched the material.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  35. “No, they started out as a lie, and they wound up a little bit better.”

    Sammy – Really? What was the lie in the original version and how was the final version better? Please explain.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  36. Nothing makes sense to Sammy except his own fact-free speculation.

    SPQR (768505)

  37. Sammy actually asked the rhetorical question of whether Obama would say something that was untrue ….

    The mind boggles.

    Hint Sammy: Obama has been caught lying before.

    SPQR (768505)

  38. WOW!!! FOUR PINNOCCHIOS!!! THAT HAS TO STING!!!

    Why do we give so much fucking attention to the mouth-breathers who declare themselves “fact-checkers”? They’re not. They’re ass-coverers.

    It’s what we lawyers call a “statement against interest,” Rob Crawford. I don’t mean to be elevating Kessler as some kind of nonpartisan trustworthy expert. On the contrary, I am saying: “When even a hack like Kessler has to admit…”

    Patterico (9c670f)

  39. 27. There really was SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE that the CIA chose to rely on. I said this in October,, nothing has changed my mind, and Nothing else makes any sense.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/14/2013 @ 2:42 pm

    Sammy, when you have troops in contact in Afghanistan or Libya you don’t call the CIA in Langley, VA, to get SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE about the tactical situation. You get that from the troops who are, you know, in contact. Like those DSS agents in Benghazi. Particularly the agent(s) in the tactical operations center of the compound who, sure enough, were in communications with their command center.

    David Petraeus certainly knows this; he was an infantry officer and a Ranger. He also would have known with certainty when the administration turned to him to get their talking points rather than information they should have been getting by debriefing the guys on the ground that meant the administration had no intention of telling the truth.

    The fact that the administration is still hiding those agents is all the evidence you need that they intend to hide the truth along with them for as long as it takes.

    Maybe even then he knew they had the Broadwell thing hanging over their head. But in any case there’s a reason why he called the talking points useless and said he wouldn’t use them but it was the WH’s call if they wanted to go down that path. For some reason he didn’t call BS.

    The bottom line is that the administration turned to the “Intelligence Community” because they were looking for something to hang their hat on other than what they knew their primary sources would have told them. That’s your SOOPER SEKRIT INTEL.

    It’s like going to a Tarot card reader or psychic instead of a doctor for a cancer diagnosis. You’re avoiding the doctor only because you really don’t want to confirm what you already suspect.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  40. Also Rob Crawford, not being a lawyer, I would nonetheless think that if four Pinnochios on this matter garnered 1,954 comments, then perhaps a lot more people now know about the dishonesty and lying that we’re unaware of it before.

    I see Kessler as a useful tool.

    Dana (292dcf)

  41. narciso @35, the Obama campaignistration playbook is thin. Mostly because President Prom Queen’s handlers have never really needed one. Why do you need a sophisticated scandal playbook when the MFM will keep things from becoming a scandal?

    But leaking conflicting information to muddy the waters and give the MFM an excuse to declare a simple situation too complicated to explain to the public is, I believe, generally the step between the IG report and the internal review.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  42. 36. A ‘little better’:

    Well we’d like to buy a clue but plainly, we’ve just been pantsed by the MB and posse over Arab Spring and we’ve no coin.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  43. Apparently, no emails ever mentioned the video. If they had, wouldn’t the WH release them?

    Who made up the story?

    Patricia (be0117)

  44. 23. “a story of redemption in the face of pretty steep obstacles”

    Indeed, bastard of an adulterous pederast and floozy, doper who nonetheless plays Muslim foreign student card to academic success despite never attending class, sleeps his way into the good graces of the Marxist Left as soft-bottomed boi.

    Anointed ‘Lightbringer’ he is the most comprehensive disaster in American History ahead of George Custer, Ambrose Burnside and Lady Gaga.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  45. 45. Apparently, no emails ever mentioned the video. If they had, wouldn’t the WH release them?

    Who made up the story?

    Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 5/14/2013 @ 7:53 pm

    Neither the emails or the talking points ever said anything about a video. The important thing for this administration is to not put their lies down in writing. But when the talking points were changed and stopped talking about attacks and instead referred to demonstrations that gave them an excuse to bring the video into it.

    Obviously the demonstrations had to be over something, right? Hey, if Susan Rice and the Preezy figured it was the video then who can say they lied in the midst of all that fog of war?

    The video is like the stand-down order; now no one can be sure who put them into the mix. Quite possibly the press itself can be blamed. After all, we now know President Tiger Beat doesn’t find out a damned thing about what’s going on in his administration or the wider world unless he sees it on Comedy Central.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  46. ‘act of terrorism’

    Read the headline. It was that he said it was an ‘act of terrorism”

    Jim (f59ea1)

  47. BTW, he did say it was an “act of terror”.

    “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.”

    http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story/full-transcript-of-obama-s-rose-garden-speech-after-sept-11-benghazi-attack

    Jim (f59ea1)

  48. Jim, you are either an idiot or a clown. Obama was not talking about Benghazi when he said that.
    Thanks for playing son.

    Gus (694db4)

  49. 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.”

    Who were the four Americans then, Gus?

    Jim (f59ea1)

  50. You know Jim, no one at the time thought he was talking about Benghazi, especially since he dissembled on 60 Minutes later that day.

    If you look at the context of his statement, he was saying that no matter whether enraged crowds or terrorists commit acts of violence, the U.S. will respond to find the guilty.

    So, now we have some guy who made a video in jail and, as far as I know, no one else in custody for the attack.

    “Acts” is not the same thing as “Act.”

    Regardless, the problem is really not the stupid cover-up, it is the tragedy.

    Ag80 (c81f80)

  51. how’s that finding the guilty thing coming along?

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  52. chop chop food stamp

    your second term ain’t gittin any fresher

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  53. 51. Who were the four Americans then, Gus?

    Comment by Jim (f59ea1) — 5/14/2013 @ 8:53 pm

    The four killed by the act of terror of a Coptic Christian posting a YouTube video, Jimbo.

    We all know that the only thing that terrorizes the Muslim world more than some woman somewhere showing too much eyebrow is a YouTube video. Perhaps causing earthquakes if the chador reveals a bit of ankle.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7608214/Scantily-dressed-women-cause-earthquakes-Iranian-cleric-says.html

    The fact that Obama went on for a couple of weeks refusing to call what happened at Benghazi a terrorist attack and instead that he kept blaming a spontaneous demonstration over a video through his UN speech two weeks later not to mention intervening TV interviews sort of blows your obvious BS out of the water.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  54. Nuance, means undermining a host regime, Magarief’s in this case, when they contradict you, of course that’s not new, he was this much of a jackass with Karzai, at least for the first two years.

    narciso (3fec35)

  55. My bad, Jimbo. I forgot one of the acts of terror that scares the foie gras out of Sunni Muslim even more than a woman inadvertently showing a little too much leg while trying to get out of car while wearing a tent.

    Being Shia.

    http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&Id=418944

    Egyptian Salafist: “Shia Are More Dangerous Than Naked Women”

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  56. “Jim” – your act is quite transparent.

    JD (b63a52)

  57. Kessler asks, is it splitting hairs to note that he didn’t say “terrorism”?

    I think they lost the ability to call “SHENANIGANS!” when they let the “it depends on what you mean by ‘no'” BS pass by.

    Smock Puppet, 10th Dan Snark Master and Gender Bïgǒt (e69dc9)

  58. Yet another good piece from the Weekly Standard showing the evolution of the Administration position on the Benghazi attacks, showing the political damage calculus present from Day 1 in the information put out, plus the absence of discussion of protests and demonstrations in briefings to journalists:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/seeds-benghazi-talking-points_724431.html?nopager=1#

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  59. 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.”

    ASIDE: Of course, as we now know, “these folks” meant “the people who made that YouTube video.” We know that Hillary told the family member of a victim, not that they pledged to get the terrorists, but that they pledged to get the maker of the video.

    It is not possible that Hillary meant that, even if a member of the family understood it that way, and I don’t know if that is the case. They are not that stupid, even if that is what they wanted to do, so as to think that survivors of the victims would think that was going after the people who did it.

    No they meant the perpetrators. People in Benghazi etc.

    ANOTHER ASIDE: The FactChecker says: “For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.” Yeah? Is it really that unknown? They had video evidence that undercut a central argument Obama was making about a hot issue related to the election, and they just happened to bury it, and we are to consider that a mystery? OK then.

    Hurricane Sandy could explain why they delayed it a week, but not why they delayed it till near the end of October. But this became important only after a debate.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  60. Good Allah, Sammy.

    JD (22d860)

  61. Who is ASIDE?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  62. Sammy, I’m starting to get a little worried about you. Obsessions are not healthy. Seriously.

    elissa (1ac480)

  63. Read the headline. It was that he said it was an ‘act of terrorism”

    Comment by Jim (f59ea1) — 5/14/2013

    Your own quote proves he did not. Even his die hard supporters like Candy Crowley say he took 17 days to admit Benghazi specifically was an act of terror.

    A president saying he won’t tolerate acts of terror is a hell of a lot different from a president calling a specific act “terrorism”. the Administration’s weakness on this issue has been pronounced, for example when he refused to call Nidal Hasan’s Islamofascist terrorism “workplace violence”.

    You’re dissembling about such well worn talking points that you have to be aware of what you’re doing. Sad.

    Dustin (2da3a2)

  64. My comment posted when I was editing it. oops.

    the Administration’s weakness on this issue has been pronounced, for example when he refused to called Nidal Hasan’s Islamofascist terrorism “workplace violence”.

    Dustin (2da3a2)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1196 secs.