Prove it!!!

If you want to "shoot down rumors" you need to actually give out information not simply denials.

The other question is - did they offer assistance?

By now, we know we cannot believe anything coming from the White House or anyone speaking on behalf of the White House.

Boy is the White House ever trying to bury this. What happened and is continuing to happen must be even worse than anything we have read about yet.

"Its not true because I say so". Try that defense in a court of law and see how quickly you end up in an orange jump suit.

Good, now I really hope the emails Newt was speaking of come out.

#5, that is axiomatic with these people. It is always worse than we could imagine. Always.

Sure, We already know they did. Why would anyone think Obama would start telling the truth now? The WH line is still no need to nix it since there was no attack.

#3, exactly! You've gotta ask the right question.

Liars! Where were they when they did it??? Being interviewed by the MSM? Put them on the stand in court and swear under oath. Too bad we can't put the SEALS under oath.

We already know they lied about the whole episode. Maybe they can tell us again about a movie no one saw.

Depends on what the words " stand" and "down" mean.

It will be much more difficult to shoot down facts. Once Odumbo is out, the whole truth (or most of it) will become known. What many of us fear and suspect will be laid bare to see.

Just who refused to give a "commit weapons" order to the AC-130 that was in the area? Ex-seals on the ground were lazing a target for the AC. Was it Obama or Valerie Jarrett?

There had been a C-130 gunship in Libya but it was moved out of country shortly before. It would be like Obama to ask what were available resources. When told that the C-130 was available nearby but out of country and would make hash out of the attackers, I can envision Obama limiting them to in-country resources. Thus being able to say, "I didn't deny intervention."

I think they're trying to be cute with language.
Sure they didn't a deny request for help - they just didn't approve intervention of forces.

Weasels

Who gave the order to `shoot down the rumors`? Hillary? Barack? Axelstach?

This should of course read "White House denies rumors..." instead of "White House shoots down rumors..." Another example of blatant journalistic bias. There are too many to count.

Who knows what the truth is? Not the public, not yet. This situation will certainly continue past the election. It is typical Obama stonewalling. He has done this about everything, beginning with his birth certificate, records, Fast and Furious, energy policy, health care, etc. He will certainly do it about Benghazi. It is obvious that he is hiding all kinds of things about all sorts of things public and private. There is more hidden and unknown about this man and his behavior and associations and past than is known. Almost everything that is known -or is thought to be known- has been told us by himself and his handlers. The documented parts of his entire life and his presidency are slight indeed. Americans can thank the mainstream news media for this unprecedented and dangerous state of affairs. Not only have they failed to investigate and challenge him like other presidents, they have actually done their best to discredit and defeat anyone who tries to find out more facts about this mystery man president.

Rumors?

Oh, I see the Obama White House is parsing again.
Who besides the Obama gang said these were rumors?

I hope President Romney doesn't sweep this under the rug when he comes to office. This is too important and too treasonous to pull a Bush and just let it go. Heads really, really need to roll. It cries out for justice.
Something else that needs some long-awaited justice is that wall street meltdown four years ago. I can't believe there haven't been any perp walks over that, but there certainly haven't.
It's not good for the moral fiber of our people to see things like that just fade away.

I'm with #16. The Clintons taught us that we must parse the words of liars, and this WH statement never denies BHO's inaction. Oh, that the truth comes out before Nov. 6.

It would seem that "shooting down rumors" with blanks (lies) is not likely an effective strategy. The current regime is oblivious to that reality.

Hi folks. Simple explanation. The operative wo rds they said were "during the operation". How about BEFORE the operation?

They may think they are shooting down rumors, but the truth will not be easily shot down with an empty gun. 0 & Co. are just hoping that the arms trafficking to Al Qaeda aspect of Benghazigate (The real reason the CIA was there.) will not get out before the election.

The part will not inspire the peace loving Rat base.

"Reliable" WH sources also insisted that Benghazi was not a terrorist attack. Denial does not disprove anything.

Cover-Up says it all.

Can't shoot down rumors when hardly anyone believes you.
This cover-up is worse than Watergate. Nobody died in Watergate.

Obama was standing OUTSIDE the WH smoking when he gave the order.

Liberals words are as meaningless to them as they are to us.

“Shoots down”? Hardly. They simply floated another balloon into the already considerable fray. Their unsubstantiated denial carries little weight at this point.
In the continuing fallout on this topic their contention seems to be that no one in the WH knew anything or did anything – except to give an order to do whatever it took to protect the ambassador from the movie review. But no one seems to have been on the receiving end of that directive.

Just give us the video, audio and transcripts and you’ll be cleared, Mr. Pres. Nothing to worry about, right?