Would have made a difference?

[sirs]

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...

From Obama's Rose Garden speech, September 12 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

Slice it or dice it, parse it however you want, he referred to it as I said, as an act of terror. You and the rest of the rabid Republican right can take it however you want.

Parce it however you want, he was not referring to the Libya attack specifically.  In CONTEXT, he was refernecing atcs of terror such as the original 911 attack.  This is validated by the interview performed shortly after that speech, in which he was asked, point blank, was the attack on Libya a terrorist attack.  His answer was NOT yes.  It was along the lines of "we need to do a thorough investigation".  This is again validated by that question being asked to all the other WH minions, be it Carney, or Secretary Rice, in which the talking points they settled on, was that of a spontaneous act that stemmed from a stupid video.

Those are facts, and despite that, there you were doing your best Candy Crowly impression.  It appears you haven't backed off it either, have you?

[hnumpah]

No. I reported what he said. Period.

[sirs]

And what he said is a distortion of the later claim that he did. 

He did NOT refer to the Libya attack specifically.  IN CONTEXT, when he was speaking in the Rose Garden, he referred to acts of terror, in general, NOT Benghazi.  This is substantiated by his later inability to call Libya an act of terrorism, when he was asked point blank,  not just later that day, in an interview, when he was on the show "The View".  THAT'S A FACT

So, since that fact is established, are you still defending that he called Libya an act of terrorism the day after?

[hnumpah]

I reported what he said. Your views may differ.

[sirs]

Yes, you reported his reference to all acts of terror being bad, including what happened on 911, on Bush's watch

Following the Rose Garden....His interview on 60minutes

So, are you still defending that he called Libya an act of terrorism the day after, when he clearly didn't?

[hnumpah]

I reported what he said. Your views may differ.²

[sirs]

So....you're pleading the 5th?  I thought my question was quite specific, and easy to answer....a yes, or no should suffice

[hnumpah]

I reported what he said. Your views may differ.³

Yapping at me incessantly about it like a small mongrel dog is not going to change that.

[sirs]

Ok, so you're pleading the 5th.  I got it, we can move on.  I won't ask again

[Plane]

I could be wrong , but I see the president planning to be a weasel.

His chosen representative made the rounds of the talk and interview shows pushing the notion that a California made web video was to blame , his secretary of state promised the family of one of the victims that the video maker would be prosicuted.

But promptly on day 2 the president makes a statement that can be parced creatively, it can be understood as a condemnation of terrorism generally, or as a promise of revenge if it is referring to the Bengazi incident.

Weasel words allow you to have it both ways and choose one later.

I am supposed to believe that Mrs. Rice was presenting only her own POV and not flying a trial baloon for the president , as if what she said is independant of the Presidents statrements.

Sometimes I think that the President has practicly no respect for my intelligence. 

[hnumpah]

I reported what he said. Your views may differ.⁴

I'm not "pleading" anything, becauae there is no reason to. I am simply pointing out the facts.

[sirs]

As was I...which then prompted the appropriate follow-up question....are you still defending that he called Libya an act of terrorism the day after, when he clearly didn't? #3...to which you keep trying to redirect to what he said at the time, which no one is refuting, of what he said at the time.  At the time, it was NOT referencing Benghazi specifically as an act of terrorism.  His subsequent interviews when asked that point blank question, support the fact that he did not.

But I did say, I wouldn't ask it again.  Your plea has been submitted, we can move on

[hnumpah]

I reported what he said. Your views may differ.⁵

[sirs]

And I reported what he and his minions said afterwards.  Yes, your plea has been submitted.  Got it the 1st time     

[BT]

Actually he did incorporate the words act(s) of terrorism in his Rose Garden address. That is Bears claim. On the face of it, Bears statement is true.

Sirs you seem to be under some false impression that people are required to respond to your posts as well as your demands. That is not the case. Nor does that lack of response mean they are taking the 5th or backing away from a position or any of the readings you may feel is indicated. I think the forum as a whole would be a lot less acerbic if you rethought that impression..