Monday, November 5, 2012

President Obama On "Folks" Of Benghazi

This article contains the question and answer.  Statement analysis is in bold type.  All emphasis added for analysis.


In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof--two days before the election, far too late to reach the media and the public--that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack "terrorism" from the beginning.
CBS unveiled additional footage from its 60 Minutes interview with President Obama, conducted on Sep. 12 immediately after Obama had made his statement about the attacks in the Rose Garden, in which Obama quite clearly refuses to call the Benghazi an act of terror when asked a direct question by reporter 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, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

Please note that it is presented first as an accusation (not using "terrorism") followed by a question.  The specific question:  "Do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?" Please note that the word "terrorism" is highlighted by the Interviewer in both the statement and in the question.  It is sensitive via repetition, but it is also the main point of the "yes or no" question.                      Was it a terrorist attack?  He also uses "you believe", making it very personal to the President.

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.

1.  Note that the answer begins with "well", which is a pause for time to think.  The question about whether he believes it to be a terrorist attack should be considered sensitive. 
2.  Note the word "obviously" means to accept without question. 
3.  "Exactly" is a form of qualifying "how this came about"
4.  "And" in its use at the beginning of a sentence, indicates missing information
5.  Note "we" is to avoid the pronoun, "I", as he was asked what he, himself believed
6.  Note the use of the word "folks" rather than terrorists.  This is softer language than "terrorists", "murderers" or even "criminals" and will likely be received with anger from the family of those killed.  

"folks" is a friendlier, softer term, one that denotes familiarity.  "I am going to see Heather's folks this weekend" has a friendly sound to it.  It is not an appropriate word to use for the killers by someone speaking of justice.  

The article continues:  

NOTE:  Since when are spontaneous protesters "a group"?  He refers to "what group" because he knows it is a group.  It is not a mob, but a "group".

CBS News held onto this footage for more than six weeks, failing to release it even when questions were raised during the Second Presidential Debate as to whether Obama had, in fact, referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror before blaming it falsely on demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. The moderator, CNN's Candy Crowley, intervened on Obama's behalf, falsely declaring he had indeed called the attack an act of terror in his Rose Garden statement, and creating the impression that Romney was wrong.
That exchange turned what would have been an outright win for Romney in the debate into a narrow win or possibly a loss--and it discouraged him from bringing up the issue again in the next debate or on the campaign trail. CBS News could have set the record straight, but held onto this footage, releasing it just before the election--perhaps to avoid the later charge of having suppressed it altogether.
Fox News' Bret Baier, who has been following the timeline of events closely, noted in his analysis this morning:
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.
Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden.
How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?
There are many questions, and here are a few more.
Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama's claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning? 
Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on contain the additional "60 Minutes" interview material from Sept. 12? 
Why wasn't it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that "60 Minutes" tape -- why didn't they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously? 
Whatever your politics, there are a lot of loose ends here, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of strange political maneuvers that don't add up.
Actually, the conclusion to be drawn is quite simple: CBS News, in an effort to assist President Obama's re-election campaign, corruptly concealed information about two critical issues--namely, a terror attack and the president's dishonesty about it. When the players in the Libya scandal face investigation, so, too, should CBS News and those in the mainstream media who have wantonly assisted the administration's shameless lies.


SELLA35 said...

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...why FOLKS? Why not terrorists or KILLERS or anything, but FOLKS?? Folks is what I call my friends parents or my parents...FOLKS is bringing the terrorist-killers down to a personal level

dawn soca said...

Oh my, I am praying for a revolution tomorrow! May God bless our America...

Mouse74 said...

It would be nice if you also slaughtered Romney and his statments, but I suppose having your own blog is not about being nice ;)

Both are dirty liars. Not just Obama.

sidewalk super said...

Should we also accept that our lying president might be so familiar with the "enemy" that he wishes the use of the familiar "folks" would let them know what esteem he holds them in.
he is a piece of work.
masquerading as our statesman.

What is the reward for the news media? I am having trouble understanding their motives. Since I can boycott any product advertised on their programs and have done so.
. Fox is doing a terrific job with the mess created by obama. Sane news in an insane situation.

Anonymous said...

Refusing to commit until all facts are in prevents lies doesn't cause them. Im afraid I don't understand.

Anonymous said...

Anon - they had the facts in and the president knew it, that's the point.
I have no respect for any news outlet. It is the news outlets that have ensured this is a two man race when Virgil Goode is the best candidate.

BostonLady said...

FOLKS? omg. This is how much Obama understands the threat to freedom. He's going to sit down and sing "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony" and he believes that is all it takes.

Time for a change. Don't just hope for a change. Make it happen! Otherwise, these FOLKS will be emboldened to attack us again.

BostonLady said...

The facts were in as they watched this whole thing go down real time. Obama was not unaware.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
Im afraid I don't understand.
November 5, 2012 7:47 PM

I wish you an epiphany. Vote regardless, participation is paramount.

rob said...

This is not the first time CBS has played this game. Dan Rather went down the last time. Guess they thought if they quietly slipped it out 2 days before election, their azzes would be covered.

Anonymous said...

Peter, Obama also used folks in the same sentence to describe both the victims and the terrorists!

Obama on Michael Smerconish's radio program “What happened in Benghazi is a tragedy. We’re investigating exactly what happened. I take full responsibility for that fact. I send these folks in harm’s way, I want to make sure they’re always safe and when that doesn't happen, that we figure out what happened and make sure that doesn't happen again. But my biggest priority now is bringing those folks to justice and I think the American people have seen that’s a commitment I'll always keep.”

Jen said...

Anon Nov 5 @ 7:47,

The whole point is that they have finally (2 days prior to the election) released proof that Obama DID know all along that the attack was a planned terrorist attack, he didnt have to wait for 'all the facts' because they had real time video and the murdered ambassador had communicated a month before the attack that they were being surveilled and targeted, requesting increased security. Obama has continued to LIE about what he knew and when for six weeks and the mainstream media has glazed over it, now on the eve of the election they release the type of smoking gun evidence that SHOULD spark off an impeachment investigation and once again it's basically buried in the election hum bum. Obama still isn't being held to the standards that ALL other Presidents have been. The way the media has handled this Benghazi scandal is a joke and absolutely shameful!

Jane said...

"Folks" was really jarring and inappropriate in this context. I wonder if Obama was stuck in a folksy-friendly way of talking about people because he's been doing so much of that during the reelection campaign. That would be the most positive spin I could put on this.

drdebo said...

I just read this on CNN webpage- the fog of war: This is not conspiracy; this is the fog of war.

"It is also worth recalling that the situation in Benghazi was so chaotic and dangerous that it took three weeks for the FBI to get in to the city to investigate what had happened at the consulate.

And it took even more time for the facts to emerge that the Benghazi mission wasn't really a consulate in any conventional sense, but was more of a CIA listening station and that two of the four Americans who had died in the attack weren't diplomats as initially portrayed but were, in fact, CIA contractors.
Stepping back from the whole debate about how Rice came to make inaccurate public statements about Benghazi, there is another premise of the Republican attacks upon her that deserves considerable skepticism."