Obama thinks liberals are stupid

Hey, liberals!  Obama thinks you are stupid.  Yeah, he really does.  He knew Benghazi was terrorism before he didn't know it was terrorism.

Addressing a question about Benghazi in his press conference Monday, May 13, 2013, Obama's "logic" really made an impression:    

"The Day after it happened I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism."

"What we have been very clear about throughout, was that immediately after this event had happened we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were. It happened at the same time we had seen attacks on the US Embassy in Cairo as a result of this film."

"Nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days."

"Suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story.  There's no "there" there.

"Talking points pretty much matched the assessment I was receiving at that time in my presidential briefing...."

Obama claims to have known the day after the attacks that they were an act of terrorism.  (He's claiming that his Rose Garden comments about terrorism in general amount to a statement that the attacks were terror-related, but this is not the case.  However, for the sake of, ahem, clarity, let's assume it is.)  So, thus far, we have:

Day After. Obama. Terrorism.

But, immediately after it happened he wasn't clear who did it, how it occurred and the motivation.  So:

Immediately After. Obama. Unclear. 

Obama knew it was terrorism the day after, but immediately after, it wasn't clear.  When exactly does "immediately after the attack" begin and end before it becomes the "day after"? Isn't the "day after" it happened pretty much the same as "immediately after" it happened?  And how do those 7 hours of sleep factor into this unclear/clear timeline?  Could it be he knew it was terrorism before he didn't know it was terrorism? And did his Rose Garden statement take place during the period "immediately after" it happened or the "day after"?

What difference at this point does it make? Let's move on.

Leaving behind Obama's initial certitude about Benghazi having been a terror attack, not only did he not know what had happened because it wasn't clear, but he goes on to make the sweeping statement that nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days.  Those first few days must, ipso facto, include "immediately after" when he knew it was terror, so it would seem that nobody, including the president, knew what was happening during those first few days, even though at one point in the immediate period following the attack, the President did know. Wow.  I think I just blew my own mind. Anyway:

First Few Days. Nobody Understood.  

Except for a brief moment immediately after the attack when Obama knew it was terrorism, all of this "it was unclear" and "nobody understood" is in direct conflict with Greg Hicks' testimony that personnel in the field as far from Benghazi as Tripoli, knew almost instantaneously that terrorism was involved.  Even Ansar al Sharia -- a known terrorist group that  took credit for the attack as it was unfolding -- did so in order to ensure there would be no doubt that this was...a terror attack.

Is this getting any clearer?

So, even though everyone on the ground in Libya knew what was happening and this was communicated throughout the duration of the attack to Washington, and even though there was no mention by the Prime Minister or Ambassador Stevens or anyone else we are aware of, about a video spurring protests that got out of hand, Obama still claims that nobody understood anything. 

Then, magically, five days later

-even though personnel in Libya claim everyone on the ground and in Washington knew it was terror-related, and

-even though the day after the attack Obama knew it was terror-related, and

-even though immediately after the attack it was not clear to Obama, and

-even though during the first few days after the attack nobody understood what was going on...

Susan Rice used talking points on the Sunday morning television shows to promote the notion that the attacks were spurred on by a protest against an anti-Muslim video that got out of hand.  And we know that every appearance Obama and Hillary made thereafter, conclusively stated that the video -- and not the terrorists -- was to blame for Benghazi.  That would include when Obama appeared on TV with Steve Croft, when he and Hillary did the State Department television announcement for Pakistan and when they spoke so touchingly at Andrews Air Force base over the caskets of the Forgotten Four.

After reading through the talking points memos it's clear that everyone knew it was terrorism from the get-go, and we now know that the CIA's original talking points were altered to reflect the video fairy tale and remove all references to terrorism.  After reading the original CIA talking points which clearly lay out that the Benghazi attack was terror-related -- something we can all do with our own two eyes -- does Obama still maintain that the "nobodies" he claims didn't understand anything the first few days after the attack, are still unclear?  Or is it now clear to them that Benghazi was a terror attack? 

Does it really make any difference?  After all, it happened so long ago.

Obama said the talking points are a side show...so he either cannot read or is hoping you won't read them.  He says it's all recently been spun and that there's no "there" there.

Conservatives have been convinced since day one, that the cause of the attacks was terrorism.  Obama is talking to his liberal supporters hoping they will buy his convoluted logic and not rely on their own (frankly, calling his logic "logic" is insulting to logic). 

When toiling with proofs in high school geometry and being thoroughly flummoxed, our teacher used to tell us: "If you can't convince them, confuse them."

Liberals:  Obama wants to confuse you, because he can't convince you.  That should be enough to tell even those with the lightest of intellects that there really is a "there" there.

Hey, liberals!  Obama thinks you are stupid.  Yeah, he really does.  He knew Benghazi was terrorism before he didn't know it was terrorism.

Addressing a question about Benghazi in his press conference Monday, May 13, 2013, Obama's "logic" really made an impression:    

"The Day after it happened I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism."

"What we have been very clear about throughout, was that immediately after this event had happened we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were. It happened at the same time we had seen attacks on the US Embassy in Cairo as a result of this film."

"Nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days."

"Suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story.  There's no "there" there.

"Talking points pretty much matched the assessment I was receiving at that time in my presidential briefing...."

Obama claims to have known the day after the attacks that they were an act of terrorism.  (He's claiming that his Rose Garden comments about terrorism in general amount to a statement that the attacks were terror-related, but this is not the case.  However, for the sake of, ahem, clarity, let's assume it is.)  So, thus far, we have:

Day After. Obama. Terrorism.

But, immediately after it happened he wasn't clear who did it, how it occurred and the motivation.  So:

Immediately After. Obama. Unclear. 

Obama knew it was terrorism the day after, but immediately after, it wasn't clear.  When exactly does "immediately after the attack" begin and end before it becomes the "day after"? Isn't the "day after" it happened pretty much the same as "immediately after" it happened?  And how do those 7 hours of sleep factor into this unclear/clear timeline?  Could it be he knew it was terrorism before he didn't know it was terrorism? And did his Rose Garden statement take place during the period "immediately after" it happened or the "day after"?

What difference at this point does it make? Let's move on.

Leaving behind Obama's initial certitude about Benghazi having been a terror attack, not only did he not know what had happened because it wasn't clear, but he goes on to make the sweeping statement that nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days.  Those first few days must, ipso facto, include "immediately after" when he knew it was terror, so it would seem that nobody, including the president, knew what was happening during those first few days, even though at one point in the immediate period following the attack, the President did know. Wow.  I think I just blew my own mind. Anyway:

First Few Days. Nobody Understood.  

Except for a brief moment immediately after the attack when Obama knew it was terrorism, all of this "it was unclear" and "nobody understood" is in direct conflict with Greg Hicks' testimony that personnel in the field as far from Benghazi as Tripoli, knew almost instantaneously that terrorism was involved.  Even Ansar al Sharia -- a known terrorist group that  took credit for the attack as it was unfolding -- did so in order to ensure there would be no doubt that this was...a terror attack.

Is this getting any clearer?

So, even though everyone on the ground in Libya knew what was happening and this was communicated throughout the duration of the attack to Washington, and even though there was no mention by the Prime Minister or Ambassador Stevens or anyone else we are aware of, about a video spurring protests that got out of hand, Obama still claims that nobody understood anything. 

Then, magically, five days later

-even though personnel in Libya claim everyone on the ground and in Washington knew it was terror-related, and

-even though the day after the attack Obama knew it was terror-related, and

-even though immediately after the attack it was not clear to Obama, and

-even though during the first few days after the attack nobody understood what was going on...

Susan Rice used talking points on the Sunday morning television shows to promote the notion that the attacks were spurred on by a protest against an anti-Muslim video that got out of hand.  And we know that every appearance Obama and Hillary made thereafter, conclusively stated that the video -- and not the terrorists -- was to blame for Benghazi.  That would include when Obama appeared on TV with Steve Croft, when he and Hillary did the State Department television announcement for Pakistan and when they spoke so touchingly at Andrews Air Force base over the caskets of the Forgotten Four.

After reading through the talking points memos it's clear that everyone knew it was terrorism from the get-go, and we now know that the CIA's original talking points were altered to reflect the video fairy tale and remove all references to terrorism.  After reading the original CIA talking points which clearly lay out that the Benghazi attack was terror-related -- something we can all do with our own two eyes -- does Obama still maintain that the "nobodies" he claims didn't understand anything the first few days after the attack, are still unclear?  Or is it now clear to them that Benghazi was a terror attack? 

Does it really make any difference?  After all, it happened so long ago.

Obama said the talking points are a side show...so he either cannot read or is hoping you won't read them.  He says it's all recently been spun and that there's no "there" there.

Conservatives have been convinced since day one, that the cause of the attacks was terrorism.  Obama is talking to his liberal supporters hoping they will buy his convoluted logic and not rely on their own (frankly, calling his logic "logic" is insulting to logic). 

When toiling with proofs in high school geometry and being thoroughly flummoxed, our teacher used to tell us: "If you can't convince them, confuse them."

Liberals:  Obama wants to confuse you, because he can't convince you.  That should be enough to tell even those with the lightest of intellects that there really is a "there" there.

RECENT VIDEOS