Because it is the only slim thread that their made up reality is hanging by.
It was the day after the anniversary, and he devoted time in his remarks to the anniversary. The fact that the actual remarks were made on 9/12 hardly matters.
Well, I agree with this at any rate.
Could you please cite the part of the speech where he blames the video?
So when the president said this, he was talking about 2001:
and then when he says, in the very next sentence, mind you:
he was back to talking about Benghazi? Got it, I think.
I was honestly a bit surprised, but I suppose desperate times call for desperate measures.
Holy shit do you not even realize how much of a fool you’re making yourself out to be with this issue?
If Obama had done an anniversary tribute to 9/11 on 9/12, I can’t even imagine the howling that would be coming from your side. It would be worse than how badly you guys tried to hang your hats on the “55 States” thing. “OMG! 0bama doesn’t even know when 9/11 is!!!”
Obama paid tribute to the victims of 9/11 on, wait for it… 9/11. Here’s my cite.
Obama’s 9/12 Rose Garden speech was specifically made in regards to the events in Libya, and he used the shared dates of the two attacks to tie them together as “acts of terror.”
Your argument is bad, and you should feel bad. Seriously, you should feel really shitty every time you regurgitate this “argument.” Really shitty.
All this babbling about how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, and it’s still forgotten that Romney’s first response after the attack was to issue a completely ignorant and stupid statement about the White House saying something it didn’t say.
WRONG.
He mentions 9/11, and then says “And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.” Then he talks about the character of America and then with the “No acts of terror…”
So you are 100% mistaken. He mentions Benghazi AFTER 9/11 and THEN he calls them “acts of terror.” And then in the NEXT SENTENCE he mentions the “four Americans” who died in Benghazi.
So to repeat: 9/11, Benghazi, “Acts of terror,” Benghazi. The only way to claim that “acts of terror” only refers to 9/11 (nevermind that it’s obviously plural) is to be willfully obtuse.
Have we not beat this whole “Act of Terror” issue into the ground? How about I direct this discussion into a different area, namely what are the implications if the assertion that this phrase did not refer to the Libyan attacks, but was merely a general statement, is true?* Because I just don’t see what the right is trying to accomplish with this, and I don’t see anyone from the right here who will be convinced of any other interpretation.**
- An idea that for the record, as one who has been speaking the English language for 40 years, I find wholly ridiculous.
** In other words, give it up already. Don’t you know a hopeless cause when you see one?
He said “Act of Terror”. Then the very next day, he again used the phrase “Act of Terror” in reference to the attack. link Funny how he kept bringing up the phrase “Act of Terror” and the Bengazi attack together, even though he clearly thought the two had nothing to do with each other.:rolleyes:
Romney wasn’t just talking about the Rose Garden speech. He said
Obama actually did it twice in the first two days.
Here’s what I think is going on with this claim, from what I’ve read from other blogs: conservatives think there is/was some kind of cover-up going on - that the White House knew from the start that this was a terrorist act, and outright lied about it for a significant period of time. So they’re putting every word of Obama’s under a microscope so they can continue this narrative.
Why Obama (or anyone else) would go to so much trouble, I don’t know. I think they think it’s because he’s a Muslim, y’know, and he cares more about Middle Eastern bombers than Americans.
Three times in three days when you include his speech in Las Vegas on 9/13, where he also used the term to describe the Libya attack.
Sure it was. He mentioned it both directly before and directly after he said “act of terror.” He called it an act of terror again the next day.
You’re grasping at straws. Romney handlers should have bothered to actually read Obama’s speeches before they fed him that line.
Honest question, Debaser. Is the following statement reflective of an attempt to avoid calling the attackers terrorists?
You’ll note that, similar to Obama’s statement, this speaker only says these the attacks “remind us that terrorists are still on the move,” but never calls the acts terrorism or the attackers terrorists. What say you?
To interrupt this regularly scheduled program, I come bearing good (or bad, depending on your vantage point). In the first daily tracking polls to come out after the second debate, which Obama is widely considered to have “won”, Romney gained a one point bounce in Gallup, Rasmussen and IBD/TIPP. While tomorrow could bring different news, it seems that effects of Obama’s “victory” was overstated while Romney’s “loss” seems to be paying dividends.
I have a theory as to why this is. At this point in time, I doubt there’s anyone undecided in regards to Obama as he’s been in office for nearly four years now. It’s hard not to know “who he is”, so to speak. If they’re undecided, it’s undecided between Romney and not voting. Excluding partisans on both sides watching the debate who have already decided who they’re going to vote for, those people “in the middle” who are watching the debates are doing so to decide whether or not they want to vote for Romney or stay home. As long as Romney doesn’t come off as a disinterested knuckle dragger, and seems a bit presidential, each debate will help him regardless of what Obama does.
ETA> I’m not sure if this is a daily tracking poll or not. It has Romney up nevertheless.
Glad it’s amusing. I’m pretty amused, too. In this case, you’re disagreeing with basic paragraph structure. This is a new low for anti-rationalist arguments, in my opinion: at least creationists are disagreeing with high-school level education.
Your argument seems to be based on some sort of general pattern. My argument is based, again, on the sentences in the same paragraph, and on the most basic understanding of how paragraphs are constructed. Of course, I can also appeal to a pattern for my argument, the pattern of statements made in a speech about a specific topic, and how those statements probably apply somehow to the topic at hand. I can also point out that the person who made the remarks (and made similar remarks the next day) explains how they should be interpreted in a manner consistent with basic paragraph design.
But I don’t need to. All I need to do is to refuse to reject all learning above the second-grade level, and there we go.
Sam, I’m especially surprised to see you back this losing horse. It makes me recategorize your take on conservatism.
Is there no conservative on these boards willing to admit that Romney made a clear and unambiguous error here? Or are all our conservatives willing to debase themselves to this antirationalist argument?
According to Peter King, it took Obama four whole minutes to call it an act of terror.
Romney can name that tune in three minutes.
I’ve given a couple of notes on this and now it’s time for official warnings; I will hand out more if people continue to say (or strongly imply) that other posters are stupid. Don’t do this again.
Missed edit window: NVM. I see. That says Romney up nationally but no change in the Reuters/IPSOS daily tracking poll.