Truth is in short supply these days. Kudos to anyone who moderates it.
What is there to interpret? Truth is you can’t handle it.
Obama didn’t refer to the attacks in question as terrorist attacks. Not during that speech and not for a week and a half afterwards.
The fact that he’s debate prep people could only find this and one other example of him almost calling the attack terrorism in the twelve days following the attack is proof of this, not proof to the contrary.
Romney was right. Obama was being misleading and Crowley got it wrong.
Where on earth was last night’s Obama two weeks ago in Denver?
He kicked Romney’s ass. The question, then, is whether that will move the needle in the polls at all.
Will it? Fuck, I don’t know; my best guess is that the national polls will revert back to where they were pre-conventions with Obama sitting at +1 or +2 of the vote.
Fine, it was unprofessional. But you just called it a “slip”, implying not bias, but just a screw-up. It is not evidence that she was in the tank for Obama. She could have just left the first comment alone. Maybe you’d have an argument then.
Obama sucked huge in round 1. To say that this was the equivalent in round 2 is just mindless cheer leading.
Obama showed up to this debate and held is ground. But he didn’t win. The polling shows this. It was about even.
Obama and Romney were disagreeing more this time because Obama was fighting back. But it’s interesting to note that they were almost always disagreeing about Romney’s statements. Obama puts words into Romney’s mouth and then they argue about what Romney’s position is. In fairness, Romney is only a candidate, so it’s more debatable where he stands than Obama who has a clear track record of failure for Romney to attack.
But that’s ‘taking sides’! Waaaaa! :rolleyes:
Let me ask you then, what is the implication about Obama and the lack of the use of the word “terror” or its variations, anyway?
This.
Like a pollster said, Give Republicans bad news, they want to kill you. Give Democrats bad news, they want to kill themselves.
Not even you believe a single word of that.
Including the last sentence.
The part that’s open to interpretation is that his “acts of terror” remark on 9/12 came after speaking about the 2001 attacks. Therefore, it’s ambiguous as to which attack he was referring to as a terror attack. In the days directly after that, neither he nor his staff would call it an act of terror, which also lends some ambiguity to his original comment.
I’m not sure what it is that I can’t handle. I said above that Obama performed very well last night. I’m just saying the debate as a whole, and that instance in particular, was very poorly moderated by Crowley.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to parse this into but it was clearly a biased debate. She was hostile to Romney the whole night. Her “slip” was that she blatantly entered the debate on the side of her candidate. It certainly showed her bias.
Did you see how Romney attempted to put words in Obama’s mouth during the contentious exchange over drilling of Federal lands? He wanted Obama to say something about the decline of their use, but Obama clearly had the upper hand with his explanation of why he acted as he did, and his stressing of the fact that oil production is at the highest levels here in years. It was just one example of how try as he might, Romney wasn’t able to counter the stronger debater last night.
Wow. How little we knew when we snickered at “it depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is” that the art of pathetically pedantic parsing would advance by leaps and bounds over the next decade and a half.
Wow. Can you guys EVER not take a punch.
You run around bitch-slapping people who don’t hit back, but when one of them finally winds up and lands a killer right hook to your jaw, all you can do is criticize the referee?
Face it, you got your ass kicked HARD last night. When you did that to us two weeks ago, we got up off the canvas and punched back. See how this whining about Ms. Crowley goes over with the independent voters in swing states. I don’t think most of them will even know or care what you’re whining about.
The reason Romney made the false accusation about Obama taking 14 days to call it an act of terror is that he lives in a cocoon. If something appears in three right wing blogs it is taken as gospel truth and can be used in the campaign. If you can find six right wing bloggers who agree with your tax philosophy, then you cite them as “independent studies” that show your math adds up.
You can’t say Romney didn’t suck major ass. He utterly failed in the response to the equal pay for women question, with the laughable “binder full of women” line and his courageous stand for flextime. Notice that he didn’t endorse the Equal Pay Act. He failed in any attempt to outreach to Hispanics. Again, in the right wing blogosphere you can call people “illegal aliens”. Not so much in the real world. What did he offer the middle class? Tax free capital gains. Whoop-de-fucking-do. He assumes everybody reports capital gains. What a putz. He lookd every bit the petulant entitled bitch that he is.
You really don’t know the answer to this?
There are a couple of possibilities:
-
Obama’s administration, at every level, truly didn’t know that there was a terror attack at the embassy for 12 or so days. This would obviously be a huge intelligence failure that SecState Clinton is now attempting to take the blame for.
-
Obama’s administration is embarrassed that their middle east policy is a failure and that organized terrorists are able to plan and carry out an attack on our embassy. They spin the events for a few news cycles that it was all a protest gone wrong over a video no one has seen before. This results in other actual protests because now everyone has seen the video and buries the real story that there was an organized terrorist attack. It almost worked.
Psychological projection in action; you’ve just described Republicans, not Democrats.
If you’re saying that Crowley planned ahead of time to be in the tank for Obama, then I don’t think it makes sense to call it a “slip”, that’s all. And her comment immediately after to Romney, hurriedly put forth, plainly suggests to me that she knew she had screwed up.
He was actually a Bishop in the Mormon church. It was in that capacity that he reportedly encouraged an expectant single mother that she should give up the child for adoption into a two-parent Mormon family, in accordance with the will of the church.