Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Re: '#Scandalpalooza: #Benghazi cover up, IRS targeting, HHS shake downs, AP records' | Main | Re: 'Watching Obamacare unravel' »

May 14, 2013

WaPo Gives Barack Obama "4 Pinocchios" for His Claims that he called Benghazi an 'Act of Terrorism'

Topics: Benghazi, Political News and commentaries

"The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism." (Barack Obama at Obama/Prime Minister David Cameron news conference 5/13/13)

pinocchios41-300x88.jpg

(Via The WaPo) During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words -- though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words -- to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now. ...


When even the normally Obama-friendly Washington Post Fact Checker essentially calls Barack Obama a liar and gives him 4 Pinocchios for his claims that he called the Benghazi an "Act of Terror" following the attack that left four American dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens and two Navy SEALS Barack Obama had the chutzpah yesterday to say while answering a question on Benghazi that he called Benghazi a terror attack. It was an unmitigated lie, and even the left-leaning, usually Obama-friendly, WAPO is calling Obama on it.

As John Hinderaker notes at Powerline, Obama Bobs and Weaves on Benghazi. However, this rope-a-dope is more dope than rope. Barack Obama is twisting in the wind as he has lost all credibility. Hinderaker goes on to appropriately point out:

Sometimes the misdeeds of which a politician accuses his opponents are revealing, because they tell us how the politician himself really thinks. This is a case in point. There is every reason to challenge the integrity of Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton, based on the lies they told about Benghazi. But in Obama's mind, the only possible reason for criticizing the performance of an elected or appointed official is "fundraising." In his world, that is probably true: for Obama, fundraising is always the bottom line. But some of us actually care when an American ambassador and three colleagues are slaughtered by our bitterest enemies.

Posted by Hyscience at May 14, 2013 12:31 PM



Articles Related to Benghazi, Political News and commentaries: