Yep, they're actually going to hope this flies. Here's another example.
Plaid Adder
2) I would like to know who crafted that speech because it is a masterpiece.
I am not being sarcastic. If you read that speech closely, you will realize that it is so constructed that whether the attacks turned out to be spontaneously motivated by the film or whether they turned out to be a calculated terrorist attack, retroactively that speech will prove that Obama was right.
Because early in the speech, Obama asserts that while they deplore the denigration of anyone's faith there is categorically no excuse for "senseless violence." Then, later in the speech, he links the Benghazi attack to September 11 and says, "No acts of terror will weaken our resolve," etc. He does not explicitly say "the Benghazi attack was an act of terror;" but it is so strongly implied that virtually anyone, looking back after the fact, will agree that this is what he meant. He also does not explicitly say that the attacks were motivated by outrage over the film. But, had it turned out that they were, the speech implies that strongly enough that he's covered there too.
The one thing that is absolutely clear is that it is always referred to as an "attack" and the people who carried it out are always referred to as "attackers"--never as 'protestors.'
This tells me that at the time that speech was written, nobody was entirely sure what the story was--but it also tells me that there was a strong suspicion that this was not going to turn out to be a spontaneous event. It also tells me he's got people on his team who are really good at what they do, which oddly enough I find very reassuring.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021561826
I've noted this primitive hasn't been posting much of late. S/he's never been very smart (in fact, s/he's extremely stupid), a trait s/he shares with liberals in general, but this is hoping against hope.
Note this:
He also does not explicitly say that the attacks were motivated by outrage over the film.
Ah, but his flunkies at the Egyptian Embassy, the UN Ambassador, Hillary Clinton, and others did on behalf of his administration, which is the same as him saying it personally. They went out of their way to say it was NOT a terrorist attack. There's no escaping that.
No doubt Dear Leader will try and spin this, but his act of incompetence got 4 Americans killed, and then he tried to blame it on a video. Is there any doubt that if the video excuse had worked, that the fact that this was a terrorist attack would have ever been mentioned? They were forced to finally admit it was a terrorist attack, it wasn't because that's what they wanted the public to believe.
.
