Without anything substantive to complain about, what can he do but attack people personally?
When you can’t back up your complaints, point out that the person you disagree with is fat. That’s nice and substantial.
And anyway, Candy Crowley: I Didn’t ‘Backtrack’ On Romney Libya Fact Check
Lindsey Graham on the 15th of this month
Romney, during the debate said it.
Obama didn’t challenge this. It’s not in dispute, except I guess to those of you who don’t know.
Anytime.
I still don’t get it. Personally I was more upset at the idea that a mob could get through security and kill a diplomat. That made the US look pretty weak. It makes it look better that it was a terrorist group. Hell, it’s not like Obama was the only president to have a “terrorist act” (as contrasted with “act of terror” apparently) occur on his watch, nor was it the first on his watch.
Regarding the “was it a riot” question, see the article linked to in this post. Though it wasn’t an attack under cover of riot (and I admit I’m actually surprised to see people on the SDMB saying they’d never heard or read otherwise) it appears it was by all means an attack motivated by the film, and also that there was mobbing activity of various kinds in the immediate aftermath such that the attack and subsequent behavior which surely was in some cases "riot"ous are pretty inextricably linked–part and parcel of a single event.
That isn’t very nice. Candy’s physical attributes aren’t relevant to the discussion.
But Romney didn’t claim that. What he claimed was that Obama didn’t identify the attack on Benghazi as a terrorist act even though they already know that it was. Obama’s speech in the Rose Garden the day after did mention “terror acts” but did not specifically identify the attack in Benghazi as a terror act. It was more of a general statement about terror acts. Obama’s preceding statement prior to his mentioning “terror acts” in the Rose garden was a statement about the original 9/11 attacks - at no point in the speech did he identify the Benghazi attack as a terrorist act.
So, when Crowley “corrected” Romney by saying that Obama did call Benghazi an “act of terror”, she was actually simply lying for Obama. She should resign. She has no credibility as a journalist.
Exactly. Iff Romney could prove his point ("Obama didn’t use the phrase “Terrorist Attack” soon enough) I still don’t get his point. Why exactly would that make Obama a worse choice for president? I must be completely immune to right wing talking points because I don’t see a controversy here regardless of how the facts come down.
Ah. Since it was so many hours ago, there’s little likelihood that it will shed any light on the matter, but could you share the search terms that you used, which resulted in that being the first hit?
'Cos, you might have, you know, cherry-picked your terms in an effort to make a “tied” result be one of the top hits. If you say you didn’t, I’ll certainly take you at your word, of course. But I’d like to know that you’re actually saying it, and sharing your search terms could inoculate you against a charge that you’re deluding yourself about your own motives.
I agree. If there was a remotely evident “so what” to this, more people would probably have attended to the details. “Hannity said it is a conspiracy” doesn’t answer the question.
I agree. If there was a remotely evident “so what” to this, more people would probably have attended to the details. “Hannity said it is a conspiracy” doesn’t answer the question.
ETA: They still appear to be stuck on “Coke is green” instead of Pepsi has a better more refreshing flavor or contributes all its proceeds to homeless orphan children.
It’s no surprise there was confusion. Reuters even quoted Abdel-Monen Al-Hurr, spokesman for Libya’s Supreme Security Committee, on September 12 saying “There is a connection between this attack and the protests that have been happening in Cairo…
They are trying to take advantage of the security situation in Libya and cause more instability in the country.”
I’m not really sure what the Republicans are accusing the State Department / Administration of. Not knowing right away what happened? Covering it up (and if so, for what reason)? And since Obama said from day 1 that they were going to track down the attackers and bring them to justice, why does it matter when the attack was planned?
Well, okay, but that is redundant. He’s disqualified from the office of the President by the fact that he’s a Republican.
You are absolutely wrong. Full stop.
Did you even bother to check the full transcript of Obama’s speech in the rose garden?
You’re quote make it seem as if Obama is identifying Benghazi as an act of terror. Here’s the preceding paragraphs for your benefit:
*Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.*
As is clear to everyone with the reading comprehension of a grade schooler, Obama was making a general statement when he mentioned “acts of terror”. No one with even half a brain would say that Obama specifically identified the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack. Proof of this is the fact that on September 28, even Candy Crowley herself was asking why the White House is still not saying that it was a terrorist attack. And yet she had the temerity to correct Romney and say that Obama did label it a terror act. Really? Then what’s with your statements on September 28?
You are 100% completely wrong. I know you love your idol so much that it pains you that he’s being attacked. But you have to let go of your idolatry of Obama before it’s too late.
Republicans, and probably some Democrats, seem to think that there’s a “terrorist acts under someone’s watch” scorecard, and the higher the score, the worse it is for the someone. That’s sort of true as far as it goes…it is politically a good thing from someone to be able to claim that their score is low, so there is some incentive to try to getthe public to view borderline cases as “not terrorist events”.
But this has no PRACTICAL, EFFECTIVE importance. Surely, our security apparatus will hunt down and deal with perpetrators of events like this (and, work to prevent future occurrences), whether we call them acts of terror, mob violence, or Fred Flintstone. So if Sean Hannity wants to accuse the Obama administration of a bit of temporary spin, fine. But that’s all it is. Almost nothing.
Wrong, wrong, wrongity wrongity wrong. The administration immediately said they’d find the parties responsible. They’ve continued to say that. Given the violent demonstrations about the video that occurred at the Egyptian embassy prior to the attack in Libya, it was a reasonable belief that the attacks that happened at the same time at the Libyan consulate were similarly motivated. But the campaign said they wanted to find out what really happened.
And they’re in the process of doing so. In the process of doing so, they found out that it wasn’t motivated by the video.
That’s what happens in an investigation.
Obama didn’t catch Romney in anything. He’s put forth an insanely stupid narrative–that the administration didn’t think this was a terrorist act, because it was a protest, and there’s some sort of exclusionary clause between terrorist acts and protests. The president showed that he was wrong, citing a speech in which he called it an act of terror (and never mentioned a protest, interestingly). He did so in such an unambiguous way that Romney couldn’t let it go unanswered.
Romney could have backed down, of course. He could have said, “Why, if you knew it was an act of terror, did your administration vacillate so much?” and then the president could have answered that charge.
But instead he got his facts wrong. Obama didn’t set him up for that trap: Obama explicitly told him about it, and Romney decided the President was lying.
Romney is entirely responsible for this screwup.
adaher, I asked you awhile ago some questions in post 558, a post where I show unambiguously that “act of terror” refers to the previous day’s events. Since you’ve not answered those questions, I invite Debaser to do so. Or, Debaser, you could address post 832, explaining your position with some more clarity.
The whole “an act of terror isn’t a terroristic act, even though I can’t tell the difference, and the president chooses his words carefully!” in some of the most deeply pathetic weaseling I’ve ever seen. If there’s no difference that you can find between the two terms, yorick, drop the freakin’ issue. Don’t imagine some sort of sinister inscrutable motive on the part of the president for using the one term and not the other.
I just hope we spend the next two weeks parsing “acts of terror” vs. “terrorist attacks”, and that some time in the interim Obama orders the killing of those responsible so we can go over once again just how weak his is on terrorists.
Much better that than discussing the unemployment rate or gas prices or Obamacare, right Gov Romney?
Completely and 100% untrue. He mentioned 9/11, he mentioned Benghazi, and he referred to them TOGETHER as “acts of terror.”
Not that it matters one iota anyway whether he called it a terrorist act or a Mayday dance. He said that the event was being investigated and those responsible would be brought to justice, and that’s the same message the administration has still given. Nobody except the most partisan Republicans really care if the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the video or just was coincidentally timed with real video protests going on in the region at that time, as long as we learn what happened and fix it.
Maybe you hadn’t heard, but here it is: Bin Laden is dead.