Presidential Debate Thread - Obama vs. Romney (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Pickles]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

It seems unlikely he would use the phrase "acts of terror" if he didn't feel this attack was an act of terror. What would be the reasoning?This is a needless word parsing exercise. The words are in there on a brief speech on the subject. It's difficult to extract their meaning to be something outside of what happened in Libya.

 

[drummer]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

He is condemning the act throughout the speech. If Romney wants to go half cocked and call out every attack in the Middle East "Terrorist Acts" without ground Intel (which he has), then he isn't being a President. Jeebus, I wish most here picking at this would go over there for a summer.

 

[DoubleG]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

from dparker or drummer I'd expect this kind of denial in the face of fact. The ship has already sailed. Candy Crowley already admitted Romney was correct on the point. You are clearly fishing here. Goodnight everybody.

 

[StrikeS2k]

So back to the beginning of the debate. Do the top 25% of high schoolgrads in Massachusetts really get four years of college tuition paid for? That's crazy awesome. Is Romney pitching that deal for the country?

I found this interesting as well. I did some research and found this article:http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/10/romney_john_and_abigail_adams_scholarship_program_why_merit_aid_backfired.single.htmlThe grant isn't as generous as we'd imagine though. It only nets about $1700 because it covers tuition but not fees or other expenses. Those expenses are much more than the grant amount so, while helpful, not THAT helpful.

 

[drummer]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

He said "No acts of terror" in that speech. Of course you aren't listening to the whole speech. You don't have that kind of attention span.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

If you like the free market Mitt...why are you going to use the government to make it more attractive to keep outsourced jobs in America?

To get votes? In a truly free market, in a global economy, who is going to win those outsourced jobs? Not lazy Americans.

 

[tommyboy]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

Ironically Romney was right and obamas claim that it was a YouTube video was wrong

 

[Mr. Pickles]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

Not fishing in the least. There's some strange fascination of calling this a "terror attack" or "terrorist attack" rather than the presumably more passive "act of terror" or collectively belonging to "acts of terror" broadly. I find it difficult to make the case that Obama didn't include this event as part of collective "acts of terror." There would be no reason to include it in this short speech.One thing you have to realize is that this speech came in the immediate wake of the event. A president has to be careful because facts emerge which can invalidate everything about what you've already said. The word choice strikes me as being a verbal hedge. Not sure why this is getting such attention.

Romney has good points about how the video was played up as being the impetus for this attack. That seems to have not played much of a role. However, he makes himself look reckless by issuing an early statement in the wake of this attack which basically talked over anything the president was handling at the time. Overall, I think this issue is a misplayed hand for Romney, even if there are valid points to make.

 

[dparker713]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

He does, but regardless, I fail to see how you can find anything in that speech objectionable.

 

[sublimeone]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,
, that it was spontaneous reaction to a film that the Obama administration finds reprehensible and disgusting and that the attack has nothing to do with US policy or the Obama administration. This is after Obama gave the speech in the rose garden. This was what the White House was saying at the time, so it's obvious they are now lying.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

 

[dparker713]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

True or false. At no time during the week after the attack did Obama refer to the attack as an act of terror.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

If Obama was calling it an act of terror, then why did he never once mention terrorists when he talked about the attack in his speech to the UN but talked only about the Youtube video? They knew within 48 hours that the video had nothing to do with it and that it was a planned terrorist attack.

You guys keep missing the point. The audience didn't applaud because Romney was caught in an apparent falsehood. They applauded because Obama forcefully said it was offensive to use this issue for political purposes. And he's absolutely right.

Wrong.

 

[sublimeone]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

 

[drummer]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

Romney didn't know his ### from a hole in the ground on this when it happened. He pounced on it for a calculated Political move and made himself look less Presidential over it. There is a whole thread over this. What you don't do is call something what you think it is when you don't really know who is behind it. You are too busy looking at a phrase, lamenting over a point that Obama won in a debate because the other guy is not the POTUS who thinks he can call out a point because there are no lives in danger under him. The reason why Obama won that point was because he is the POTUS, Romney isn't, and Romney already had used that attack to try and score political points. He tried it once again, and got called out for it once more. He didn't know #### because he had zero Intel when it happend, and for good reason.

If you tried to listen to that whole speech without your holding your loosening sphincter, you would find a POTUS carefully choosing words not for your own personal comfort, but to carefully move forward during a tense situation in the Middle East. The best thing a POTUS should do there is to get out of the Arabian Peninsula altogether. Then you wouldn't have "Acts of Terror" or "Terrorist attacks" or "Those ####### TERRORISTS KILLED 4!".

You're still not caring about the 4 that died though. That's obvious. Tomney in full effect here.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

 

[tommyboy]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

I think its just one way to spin it., Another would be that our country was attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11, again, and our administration bungled on ground security, then pretended like it was a youtube video reaction, knowing full well that there was no protest in Benghazi, just a 400 person attack. The mainstream US press reaction and the Obama campaign reaction after romney opined on it was to blame him for shooting first and ask questions later. Currently there is a US citizen in jail for excercising free speech.

 

[drummer]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

The only "acts of terror" anybody faces here is when their FF team gets hosed.

 

[drummer]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

Now you're trying to make sense.

 

[sublimeone]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

do you at least concede the Obama administration concocted the Youtube video response to distract from the truth that the attack was a pre-meditated act of terror?

 

[drummer]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

Are you talking about the Rose Garden speech?

 

[sublimeone]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

 

[sporthenry]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

So from a conspiracy theorist, I ask why did they concoct it? What benefit do they get from this? I don't disagree that the WH didn't declare it as a terrorist attack promptly (they waited for facts and perhaps they waited too long) but what exactly did they gain, or even hope to gain here? If anything, I would think people are more sympathetic to terrorist attacks.

 

[sublimeone]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

 

[drummer]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

So from a conspiracy theorist, I ask why did they concoct it? What benefit do they get from this? I don't disagree that the WH didn't declare it as a terrorist attack promptly (they waited for facts and perhaps they waited too long) but what exactly did they gain, or even hope to gain here? If anything, I would think people are more sympathetic to terrorist attacks.

Did Obama admit to Libya or not?

 

[sporthenry]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

So from a conspiracy theorist, I ask why did they concoct it? What benefit do they get from this? I don't disagree that the WH didn't declare it as a terrorist attack promptly (they waited for facts and perhaps they waited too long) but what exactly did they gain, or even hope to gain here? If anything, I would think people are more sympathetic to terrorist attacks.

Did Obama admit to Libya or not?

Admit what?

 

[drummer]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

Tell me the impact of the video throughout the whole region. Now, has Obama took responsibility of Libya?

 

[sublimeone]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

So from a conspiracy theorist, I ask why did they concoct it? What benefit do they get from this? I don't disagree that the WH didn't declare it as a terrorist attack promptly (they waited for facts and perhaps they waited too long) but what exactly did they gain, or even hope to gain here? If anything, I would think people are more sympathetic to terrorist attacks.

So they needed to wait for "the facts" to come out, yet they knew immediately that it was all due to a Youtube video? This is what you believe?

 

[drummer]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

So from a conspiracy theorist, I ask why did they concoct it? What benefit do they get from this? I don't disagree that the WH didn't declare it as a terrorist attack promptly (they waited for facts and perhaps they waited too long) but what exactly did they gain, or even hope to gain here? If anything, I would think people are more sympathetic to terrorist attacks.

Did Obama admit to Libya or not?

Admit what?

My link

 

[Willie Neslon]

From my chair i thought Obama was saying acts of terror but not referring to what happened in Libya. It would be like him saying after a stock market crash that he was against financial crisis but not referring directly to that days crash. He just happened to mention terror acts but i think he clearly was not referring to what happened as one so to speak.

 

[StrikeS2k]

So from a conspiracy theorist, I ask why did they concoct it? What benefit do they get from this? I don't disagree that the WH didn't declare it as a terrorist attack promptly (they waited for facts and perhaps they waited too long) but what exactly did they gain, or even hope to gain here? If anything, I would think people are more sympathetic to terrorist attacks.

I think they were hoping the issue would die, just like they hoped would happen with F&F. They didn't want to admit to the unbelievable failures regarding security that happened on their watch on an anniversary of 9/11. But the issue wouldn't die and when even the MSM wouldn't let it die they eventually had to come clean that it was an act of terror and that security was inadequate.

 

[drummer]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

So from a conspiracy theorist, I ask why did they concoct it? What benefit do they get from this? I don't disagree that the WH didn't declare it as a terrorist attack promptly (they waited for facts and perhaps they waited too long) but what exactly did they gain, or even hope to gain here? If anything, I would think people are more sympathetic to terrorist attacks.

So they needed to wait for "the facts" to come out, yet they knew immediately that it was all due to a Youtube video? This is what you believe?

In the fog of War, especially in the Middle East, how clear are the facts at hand at it's immediate point?

 

[tommyboy]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

i'm not the one arguing the "terrorist" comment here guy. i think you're confusing me with someone else. I haven't claimed he didn't call it terrorism.

 

[tommyboy]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

So from a conspiracy theorist, I ask why did they concoct it? What benefit do they get from this? I don't disagree that the WH didn't declare it as a terrorist attack promptly (they waited for facts and perhaps they waited too long) but what exactly did they gain, or even hope to gain here? If anything, I would think people are more sympathetic to terrorist attacks.

So they needed to wait for "the facts" to come out, yet they knew immediately that it was all due to a Youtube video? This is what you believe?

In the fog of War, especially in the Middle East, how clear are the facts at hand at it's immediate point?

according to reports they knew within hours

 

[drummer]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

I'm pointing out how you are politicizing the event. GUY.

 

[sporthenry]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

So from a conspiracy theorist, I ask why did they concoct it? What benefit do they get from this? I don't disagree that the WH didn't declare it as a terrorist attack promptly (they waited for facts and perhaps they waited too long) but what exactly did they gain, or even hope to gain here? If anything, I would think people are more sympathetic to terrorist attacks.

So they needed to wait for "the facts" to come out, yet they knew immediately that it was all due to a Youtube video? This is what you believe?

Well lets see, there were protests about the video in Cairo and all over the Middle East. They attacked the US Embassy in Egypt so I think they used faulty intel and made the link that they were somehow connected. They couldn't get FBI agents on the ground for a few days to investigate. And I still don't see what they gain by delaying the announcement and why does it matter when it was labeled a terrorist attack?

 

[drummer]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

So from a conspiracy theorist, I ask why did they concoct it? What benefit do they get from this? I don't disagree that the WH didn't declare it as a terrorist attack promptly (they waited for facts and perhaps they waited too long) but what exactly did they gain, or even hope to gain here? If anything, I would think people are more sympathetic to terrorist attacks.

So they needed to wait for "the facts" to come out, yet they knew immediately that it was all due to a Youtube video? This is what you believe?

In the fog of War, especially in the Middle East, how clear are the facts at hand at it's immediate point?

according to reports they knew within hours

You know how many "reports" get borked within hours of an event? Even 9/11 wasn't truly clear within those hours.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

It wasn't "concocted" per se, but they definitely looked for political cover in it. The death of diplomats doesn't look good no matter what the facts are. I think there are some big whiffs by the admin for their handling of it, but they aren't to blame for it. If al-Qaeda wants to kill a guy in a foreign consulate, they probably succeed unless we have a decent tip. This hindsight game about security is pointless. Romney's breathless attempt to make it political is a tremendously poor decision. Of course that was before the first debate, so they were more desperate. Now they're married to it.

 

[drummer]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

It wasn't "concocted" per se, but they definitely looked for political cover in it. The death of diplomats doesn't look good no matter what the facts are. I think there are some big whiffs by the admin for their handling of it, but they aren't to blame for it. If al-Qaeda wants to kills a guy in a foreign consulate, they probably succeed unless we have a decent tip. This hindsight game about security is pointless. Romney's breathless attempt to make it political is a tremendously poor decision. Of course that was before the first debate, so they were more desperate. Now they're married to it.

Very

 

[sublimeone]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

So from a conspiracy theorist, I ask why did they concoct it? What benefit do they get from this? I don't disagree that the WH didn't declare it as a terrorist attack promptly (they waited for facts and perhaps they waited too long) but what exactly did they gain, or even hope to gain here? If anything, I would think people are more sympathetic to terrorist attacks.

So they needed to wait for "the facts" to come out, yet they knew immediately that it was all due to a Youtube video? This is what you believe?

Well lets see, there were protests about the video in Cairo and all over the Middle East. They attacked the US Embassy in Egypt so I think they used faulty intel and made the link that they were somehow connected. They couldn't get FBI agents on the ground for a few days to investigate. And I still don't see what they gain by delaying the announcement and why does it matter when it was labeled a terrorist attack?

If you don't know, you don't know. You don't give a speech to the UN blaming a Youtube video if you don't know (they did know though). It's pretty obvious the administration didn't want a terrorist attack on their record this close to an election. That's the reality of the situation and no amount of spin is going to change it.

 

[tommyboy]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

lol, seriously? It's kind of a big deal, you might even say its a story, something even a debate moderator might maybe even ask about.

 

[Black Sunshine]

It's ovah.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/luntz_focus_group_of_mostly_former_obama_voters_switch_to_romney.html

 

[dparker713]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

So from a conspiracy theorist, I ask why did they concoct it? What benefit do they get from this? I don't disagree that the WH didn't declare it as a terrorist attack promptly (they waited for facts and perhaps they waited too long) but what exactly did they gain, or even hope to gain here? If anything, I would think people are more sympathetic to terrorist attacks.

So they needed to wait for "the facts" to come out, yet they knew immediately that it was all due to a Youtube video? This is what you believe?

Well lets see, there were protests about the video in Cairo and all over the Middle East. They attacked the US Embassy in Egypt so I think they used faulty intel and made the link that they were somehow connected. They couldn't get FBI agents on the ground for a few days to investigate. And I still don't see what they gain by delaying the announcement and why does it matter when it was labeled a terrorist attack?

If you don't know, you don't know. You don't give a speech to the UN blaming a Youtube video if you don't know (they did know though). It's pretty obvious the administration didn't want a terrorist attack on their record this close to an election. That's the reality of the situation and no amount of spin is going to change it.

Even I find this whole thing semantics.

 

[drummer]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

So from a conspiracy theorist, I ask why did they concoct it? What benefit do they get from this? I don't disagree that the WH didn't declare it as a terrorist attack promptly (they waited for facts and perhaps they waited too long) but what exactly did they gain, or even hope to gain here? If anything, I would think people are more sympathetic to terrorist attacks.

So they needed to wait for "the facts" to come out, yet they knew immediately that it was all due to a Youtube video? This is what you believe?

Well lets see, there were protests about the video in Cairo and all over the Middle East. They attacked the US Embassy in Egypt so I think they used faulty intel and made the link that they were somehow connected. They couldn't get FBI agents on the ground for a few days to investigate. And I still don't see what they gain by delaying the announcement and why does it matter when it was labeled a terrorist attack?

If you don't know, you don't know. You don't give a speech to the UN blaming a Youtube video if you don't know (they did know though). It's pretty obvious the administration didn't want a terrorist attack on their record this close to an election. That's the reality of the situation and no amount of spin is going to change it.

No matter how it shakes during the Election months, how they handle it abroad is what really matters. Obama's language in the Rose Garden matters more than a UN speech. You should know this.

 

[drummer]

It's ovah.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/luntz_focus_group_of_mostly_former_obama_voters_switch_to_romney.html

This has been posted already. Notice it's traction.

 

[sublimeone]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

It wasn't "concocted" per se, but they definitely looked for political cover in it. The death of diplomats doesn't look good no matter what the facts are. I think there are some big whiffs by the admin for their handling of it, but they aren't to blame for it. If al-Qaeda wants to kills a guy in a foreign consulate, they probably succeed unless we have a decent tip. This hindsight game about security is pointless. Romney's breathless attempt to make it political is a tremendously poor decision. Of course that was before the first debate, so they were more desperate. Now they're married to it.

I agree in large part. It's come out now that the embassy requested extra security and the request was ignored. The administration was aware of these facts and how this could play and how incompetent they could look having this attack happen on the anniversary of 9/11 so they chose to cover it up. It's one thing to take political cover, it's another thing entirely to push a false narrative day after day and to do things like condemn the video as the cause of the attack in a UN speech.The problem is not the attack but the way the Obama administration handled it that is truly disturbing.

 

[drummer]

There are very few times a bald faced lie is told in these debates. Typically the facts are open to interpretation and each side can spin the truth the way they want it spun. But with regard to the Benghazi issue, Obama made a statement that is categorically untrue. He did not call it an act of terror the day after the attack. He did not call it an act of terror a few days later when the president of Libya called it an act of terror. There is no way to spin this.

You might actually want to read the speech.

He did not call the attack an act of terror,

It matters to you because Romney screwed it.

 

[sublimeone]

You are referring to the end of the nearly 5 and a half minute speech when he briefly mentions the anniversary of 9/11, he was not talking about Benghazi, it's fairly obvious.

No, it's not fairly obvious. There was an interjection about 9/11, but the end of that speech is about the current event in Libya. Again, why would anyone mention "acts of terror" regarding a subject that wasn't related to terror? It's nonsensical.

Yeah, it's about as obvious as it gets. It becomes even more obvious when you factor in the response from the administration.The Obama administration went on for 2 weeks that this was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video... do you disagree with this fact?

I do not disagree with the attempt to massage it as incited by a video.I think you're dead wrong about the mention of "acts of terror" in association with this event.

Why did the administration concoct the Youtube video response?

So from a conspiracy theorist, I ask why did they concoct it? What benefit do they get from this? I don't disagree that the WH didn't declare it as a terrorist attack promptly (they waited for facts and perhaps they waited too long) but what exactly did they gain, or even hope to gain here? If anything, I would think people are more sympathetic to terrorist attacks.

So they needed to wait for "the facts" to come out, yet they knew immediately that it was all due to a Youtube video? This is what you believe?

Well lets see, there were protests about the video in Cairo and all over the Middle East. They attacked the US Embassy in Egypt so I think they used faulty intel and made the link that they were somehow connected. They couldn't get FBI agents on the ground for a few days to investigate. And I still don't see what they gain by delaying the announcement and why does it matter when it was labeled a terrorist attack?

If you don't know, you don't know. You don't give a speech to the UN blaming a Youtube video if you don't know (they did know though). It's pretty obvious the administration didn't want a terrorist attack on their record this close to an election. That's the reality of the situation and no amount of spin is going to change it.

No matter how it shakes during the Election months, how they handle it abroad is what really matters. Obama's language in the Rose Garden matters more than a UN speech. You should know this.

Can you just stop posting? you add absolutely nothing to the conversation.

 

[drummer]

Can you just stop posting? you add absolutely nothing to the conversation.

That's when I know you don't.

 

[sporthenry]

So from a conspiracy theorist, I ask why did they concoct it? What benefit do they get from this? I don't disagree that the WH didn't declare it as a terrorist attack promptly (they waited for facts and perhaps they waited too long) but what exactly did they gain, or even hope to gain here? If anything, I would think people are more sympathetic to terrorist attacks.

I think they were hoping the issue would die, just like they hoped would happen with F&F. They didn't want to admit to the unbelievable failures regarding security that happened on their watch on an anniversary of 9/11. But the issue wouldn't die and when even the MSM wouldn't let it die they eventually had to come clean that it was an act of terror and that security was inadequate.

Well I would give the President and his advisers a bit more credit that they know the truth will come out. I don't think they were that stupid to think a Diplomat's death would just be swept under the rug. As far as the "unbelievable failures," I guess we can disagree about that. Sure we can play Monday Morning QB about what should have happened similar to what we did on 9/11, but I have a hard time blaming Hilary or Barack when most of this is dealt with in the intelligence community who likes to operate independently. I doubt most of the failures got to the President's desk but as any good leader, he took the blame saying the buck stopped here. I just think it is too easy to play Monday Morning QB when we have no idea what else the intelligence community has to deal with.