Before the myth sets in: Romney was right, Crowley was wrong, and Obama lied

Obama lied when he said that he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terrorism only a couple of days afterward. It didn't happen and he lied about it. Crowley has since admitted that she was wrong on the facts and Romney was right.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...lse-fact-check

What do you expect from a dem hack, disguised as a journalist. And oscuminable lies every fucking time he opens his mouth, if Soros's dick isn't in it...

Why would it matter, in any event. It's a non issue. And I read the transcript of he speech and Obama was correct.

Why would it matter, in any event. It's a non issue. And I read the transcript of he speech and Obama was correct. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

He NOT ONLY was incorrect ... he LIED .. and Candy later agreed he was incorrect and she agreed so was she incorrect!!!!

But if they were "CORRECT" then why did he and his "Team" LIE .....

.......... to the press, to the United Nations, and to the U.S. people.

Obaminable did NOT say the attack was "an act of terrorism." He did suggest that the killing of the U.S. citizens was associated with the "efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others" and there is his #3 member of his "team" and the #2 member of his "team," already lied last weekend when he said in his "debate" that they didn't know what caused the attack.

Rose Garden, Sept. 12, 2012, at 10:43 a.m.
"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts."
http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-st...enghazi-attack



And BTW: AFTER the debate "Candy," who showed her BIAS by wading in on the issue and "supporting" Obaminable's LIE, ...

..... recanted her support for Obaminable and admitted that Obaminable did not say the attack was an "act of terrorism" as he LIED about during the debate.

On another major conflict regarding the TRUTH .. Romeny was correct on the reduction of permits by the "Team" ... roughly 2/3 off shore reduction of drilling/exploration permits and roughly 1/3 on shore permit reduction ... while Obaminable was spouting off about DOUBLING the permits .....

Snake oil salesmen only exist because the gathering crowds take their word!

Obaminable has now taken down Crowley and CNN with his LIE.

How long did bho claim that a film was responsible for the attack?

He said the US would not tolerate "acts of terror" during his statement about what happened in Libya. Don't know how it could be more clear. You can parse it all you like, the words are there.

Crowley didn't say she was incorrect about what President Obama said, she said she shouldn't have interjected....and she's right about that. Stop blaming the "liberal media" for Mitt's loss last night and for every other thing that you idiots think is wrong with the world. We hate Fox News just as much as you hate the so-called "liberal media." With the difference being Fox News isn't journalism and doesn't really even pretend to be....it's blatantly partisan reporting and right-wing propaganda. With no complaints from you. So shut the fuck up and stop crying about it.

Let's face it: this is much ado about nothing....an attempt by the repuke propaganda machine to gin up an issue that they think can be spun into something that will effect the outcome of the election. It's not going to work and it's amusing to watch JD and Lexus beat their hands on the floor in frustration in recognition that nobody but the right-wing loonies believes this is an issue that ought to decide the election. Undecided voters don't care about what happened in Libya. Americans are dying every day in Afghanistan, these consulate people are just more casualties in the repuke-created and never-ending "war on terror." Deal with it.

He said the US would not tolerate "acts of terror" during his statement about what happened in Libya. Don't know how it could be more clear. You can parse it all you like, the words are there.

Crowley didn't say she was incorrect about what President Obama said, she said she shouldn't have interjected....and she's right about that. Stop blaming the "liberal media" for Mitt's loss last night and for every other thing that you idiots think is wrong with the world. We hate Fox News just as much as you hate the so-called "liberal media." With the difference being Fox News isn't journalism and doesn't really even pretend to be....it's blatantly partisan reporting and right-wing propaganda. With no complaints from you. So shut the fuck up and stop crying about it.

Let's face it: this is much ado about nothing....an attempt by the repuke propaganda machine to gin up an issue that they think can be spun into something that will effect the outcome of the election. It's not going to work and it's amusing to watch JD and Lexus beat their hands on the floor in frustration in recognition that nobody but the right-wing loonies believes this is an issue that ought to decide the election. Undecided voters don't care about what happened in Libya. Americans are dying every day in Afghanistan, these consulate people are just more casualties in the repuke-created and never-ending "war on terror." Deal with it. Originally Posted by timpage

The clock time allowed each candidate says it all. Crowley allowed Odumbo a 3:14 minute advantage at Romney's expense. Three times Crowley gave Odumbo the first AND last word on a topic while she never allowed Romney that opportunity. Crowley was very partisan in Odumbo's favor.

BHO spent two weeks spinning the attack as being the USA's fault. It was his administrations actions that allowed it to happen. In his attempt to "never let a crisis go to waste", he found another chance to suck islamist cock.

Waaaaa1

I've no idea why everybody seems to take advantage of the benefit of hindsight and gets their facts incorrect, but this is one of the more sensible comments on the issue:

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blo...y_bookman_blog


At the end of the day, Obama DID call it an act of terror the day after, as the transcript shows, and Romney is a cheap lying slimeball.

Why LL and others deny the fact that Obama used the word 'act of terror' the day after is for them only to reflect on.

Why anybody supports Romney, who lied when he accused Obama of NOT referring to it as an act of terror the following day, is beyond me.

Romney accused Obama of not calling it an act of terror for another 14 days.

This is clearly a complete porkie pie - Obama used the words 'act of terror' the day after.

The issue is about statesmanship and character, not the poring over individual words in statements during a time when facts were being assimilated.

Of course there is a degree of 'context' and 'interpretation' in any statement, but you ought to be pretty careful in your accusations before they turn around and bite you.

You right wingers sometimes call up half americans like churchill for support. Are you aware of how many lies churchill told, and the arguments he had with roosevelt?

The arguments were about bigger issues than just the war - Churchill was tied to the old empire, roosevelt was interested in bringing american democracy to the world. This had a direct impact on strategy and tactics, e.g. invasion of italy, the importance of mediterranean, delay of overlord.

Churchill almost manipulated US deaths, so that there would be more support for the european theatre rather than Japanese.

The terrifying thing is the number of americans who wanted peace with Hitler (I seem to remember a figure of 20%) so that they could concentrate on avenging pearl harbour.

My point is that politics is messy and there are more important issues than who exactly said what on which day

Roosevelt was a pretty good liar also.

The worst kind of leader is one who makes off the cuff statements before facts are known.

All politicians will try to manipulate you to the best of their ability.

Do you want to be manipulated by Obama or Romney?

I've no idea why everybody seems to take advantage of the benefit of hindsight and gets their facts incorrect, but this is one of the more sensible comments on the issue:

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blo...y_bookman_blog


At the end of the day, Obama DID call it an act of terror the day after, as the transcript shows, and Romney is a cheap lying slimeball.

Why LL and others deny the fact that Obama used the word 'act of terror' the day after is for them only to reflect on.

Why anybody supports Romney, who lied when he accused Obama of NOT referring to it as an act of terror the following day, is beyond me.

Romney accused Obama of not calling it an act of terror for another 14 days.

This is clearly a complete porkie pie - Obama used the words 'act of terror' the day after.

The issue is about statesmanship and character, not the poring over individual words in statements during a time when facts were being assimilated.

Of course there is a degree of 'context' and 'interpretation' in any statement, but you ought to be pretty careful in your accusations before they turn around and bite you.

You right wingers sometimes call up half americans like churchill for support. Are you aware of how many lies churchill told, and the arguments he had with roosevelt?

The arguments were about bigger issues than just the war - Churchill was tied to the old empire, roosevelt was interested in bringing american democracy to the world. This had a direct impact on strategy and tactics, e.g. invasion of italy, the importance of mediterranean, delay of overlord.

Churchill almost manipulated US deaths, so that there would be more support for the european theatre rather than Japanese.

The terrifying thing is the number of americans who wanted peace with Hitler (I seem to remember a figure of 20%) so that they could concentrate on avenging pearl harbour.

My point is that politics is messy and there are more important issues than who exactly said what on which day

Roosevelt was a pretty good liar also.

The worst kind of leader is one who makes off the cuff statements before facts are known.

All politicians will try to manipulate you to the best of their ability.

Do you want to be manipulated by Obama or Romney? Originally Posted by essence

The "context" you are ignoring, Essence, is that Odumbo was talking about 9/11 2001 as an "Act of Terror".

This is what Odumbo had to say about the Libyan incident:

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well - for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion - we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.
I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, . . . .There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan." Odumbo’s September 25 UN Speech.

Read more at http://www.mstarz.com/articles/5205/...dL4TuZeoXAR.99

Plus, there are the dozen or so other similar remarks made by Odumbo, Rice and Carney in the days -- nay, the WEEKS -- following the attack.

@essence: your link is not a "transcript" of the Obama Rose Garden statement. And in the partially quoted text, Obama doesn't call it a terrorist attack, but talks generically about terrorism....big difference, but I dont' expect you to get it.

Also, Crowley has since walked back her debate statement regarding what Obama said and didn't say !

But, I hope this keeps percolating; the more sunlight on this issue the worse for Obama...afterall, he sent Rice out on a liars tour of the Sunday talk shows immediately; and continued the false "video was the cause for riots and the killings" storyline for several weeks.

What I don't understand about the new false Terrorism claim by the Obamazombies is this:

If Obama intended to label Benghazi as an act of terrorism, why didn't he make that statement in clear unambiguous language ?

Why the obtuse use of the generic phrase "acts of terror" reference ? Was he trying to be squishy on an important national security issue and attack on American soil ?

Why did the White House then try to spin the story line as the attack NOT being terrorism; but a video and street demonstrations ? Which we now know was not true; and a purposeful mislead by Obama.

IT IS TIME FOR OBAMA TO HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE ON THIS ISSUE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stand before America and answer the questions on this issue Mr. President.

Why did the White House then try to spin the story line as the attack NOT being terrorism; but a video and street demonstrations ? Which we now know was true; and a purposeful mislead by Obama.

IT IS TIME FOR OBAMA TO HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE ON THIS ISSUE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stand before America and answer the questions on this issue Mr. President. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It'll happen next week. Get ready to watch Odumbo squirm.

romney's question was specific, "You said in the rose garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror?"

the attack is THE ATTACK; "IT" in the sentence refers to the attack

no obama didnt, he merely mentioned terror in some abstract way.

and at this point obama wouldn't answer directly because he knew, before the american people, on national television, with the stake of the presidency in the balance, he was attempting to fool americans, so he continued in his lie, "get the transcript"

but crowley waded in to support the falseness of obama's obfuscation

what a wicked mix of pathetic dissemblers this troup of incestousness is, the "news" media and the obama administration

a moderator becoming a supporter before your very eyes and a supporter of lies, "fact-checking" at selective whim and at a crucial moment. she should be shunned