Mitt Romney an honest man? I think not.

[AlaskaMoose]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

Well, he called it an act of terror, rather than a terroristic terrorist attack by terrorists or whatever it is that the Obama-haters think they want today.



:



See, you have to understand that from the right-wing viewpoint, an act of terror is not the same thing as - whatever the right wing calls it - because it was spoken by President Obama.

I haven't read the detailed timeline that was apparently released, but, it is pretty interesting that about half a dozen CIA guys with light weapons were able to rescue the remaining folks who were alive considering that the attacking force was estimated at about 150 initially. Are there estimates for how many of the attackers were killed?

Here are a couple of the many articles:

http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/...ya-4002219.php

http://www.freep.com/article/2012110...xt|FRONTPAGE|s


If I were Romney, I would be ashamed of myself on this one, but, I do think the President did not handle this completely correctly. He seemed to view it in largely military terms, to be handled mostly "in the family", but, he should have realized that as far as Romney and Ryan are concerned, "all's fair". I'm surprised that they haven't blamed him for Hurricane Sandy yet.

What for some reason you can't comprehend is that President Obama was not referring to the attack on the embassy as being a terrorist attack. That was a general statement about terrorism. That's why Hillary Clinton and the rest continued blaming the video as the cause for the uprise in Libya. She finally admitted, days later, that it was a terrorist attack. In other words, it was not that a video resulted on the killing of the four Americans by the uprising people.

If you don't believe this, at least listen to what the parents of the four Americans have to say on this subject, or at least hear what CBS has to say about it:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...terrorist-act/


AND, if you don't believe CBS, then go to FOX and watch the video where Crowley says that she made a mistake and that Romney was correct.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

What for some reason you can't comprehend is that President Obama was not referring to the attack on the embassy as being a terrorist attack. That was a general statement about terrorism. That's why Hillary Clinton and the rest continued blaming the video as the cause for the uprise in Libya. She finally admitted, days later, that it was a terrorist attack. In other words, it was not that a video resulted on the killing of the four Americans by the uprising people.

If you don't believe this, at least listen to what the parents of the four Americans have to say on this subject, or at least hear what CBS has to say about it:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...terrorist-act/


AND, if you don't believe CBS, then go to FOX and watch the video where Crowley says that she made a mistake and that Romney was correct.

So, in a speech about what happened in Libya, the President says, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation" - but because he didn't specifically say that what happened in Libya was an act of terror everyone (that leans right) is harping on this. I really don't understand it. It seems clear as day to me, but maybe the next time the President has to make a speech about something we'll have him speak slower and use pictures - because obviously some of you need him to dumb things down.

The first comment below the article is an example of the kind of people who truly believe this is some kind of "conspiracy". You aren't in good company.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

AND, if you don't believe CBS, then go to FOX and watch the video where Crowley says that she made a mistake and that Romney was correct.

She did no such thing. The next morning after the debate when asked if she was backtracking, the answer was NO.

http://www.allyourtv.com/index.php/2...-debate-moment


O'BRIEN: Act of terror, people on one side applaud. And then you said, yes, it took two weeks, people on the other side applauded. So not a backtrack?

CROWLEY: No. I mean, the question was -- we got so stuck on that act of terror. Now, did the president say this was an act of terror? The president did not say.

O'BRIEN: "These acts of terror."

CROWLEY: "These acts of terror." But he was in the Rose Garden to talk about Benghazi. So I don't think that's a leap, sorry.

[AlaskaMoose]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

She did no such thing. The next morning after the debate when asked if she was backtracking, the answer was NO.

http://www.allyourtv.com/index.php/2...-debate-moment


O'BRIEN: Act of terror, people on one side applaud. And then you said, yes, it took two weeks, people on the other side applauded. So not a backtrack?

CROWLEY: No. I mean, the question was -- we got so stuck on that act of terror. Now, did the president say this was an act of terror? The president did not say.

O'BRIEN: "These acts of terror."

CROWLEY: "These acts of terror." But he was in the Rose Garden to talk about Benghazi. So I don't think that's a leap, sorry.

Still, President Obama did not specifically tell, nor will he, that the attack on the Embassy and the killing of four Americans was a terrorist attack. That's why Hillary Clinton and Rice kept on blaming the video for the uprise in Libya, and telling that these people were responsible for the attack.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

What for some reason you can't comprehend is that President Obama was not referring to the attack on the embassy as being a terrorist attack. That was a general statement about terrorism. That's why Hillary Clinton and the rest continued blaming the video as the cause for the uprise in Libya. She finally admitted, days later, that it was a terrorist attack. In other words, it was not that a video resulted on the killing of the four Americans by the uprising people.

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

Still, President Obama did not specifically tell, nor will he, that the attack on the Embassy and the killing of four Americans was a terrorist attack. That's why Hillary Clinton and Rice kept on blaming the video for the uprise in Libya, and telling that these people were responsible for the attack.

He called it terror and called it an attack at least 6 times. It's amazing the lengths you guys go twist something to fit your agenda.

[vega07]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

Still, President Obama did not specifically tell, nor will he, that the attack on the Embassy and the killing of four Americans was a terrorist attack. That's why Hillary Clinton and Rice kept on blaming the video for the uprise in Libya, and telling that these people were responsible for the attack.

How does saying that the attack might be due to that video exclude it from being a terrorist attack? It's still a terrorist attack either way! This line of logic never made sense and still doesn't make sense. This semantics crap is exactly what it is...BS.

I think it's about time we bring this thread back to its original topic.

[Heilage]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=yTCRwi71_ns

He does have some slammin' moves though.

[MorphingDragon]

...and nothing of value was added this day.

[tdream]

Originally Posted by Heilage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=yTCRwi71_ns

He does have some slammin' moves though.

Lol the guy playing Myth Robme is very slick

[dscuber9000]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

What for some reason you can't comprehend is that President Obama was not referring to the attack on the embassy as being a terrorist attack. That was a general statement about terrorism.

So Obama just got up and started talking about terrorism without any context? Stop clinging onto this. He called it terrorism. He was clearly referring to Benghazi.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by dscuber9000

So Obama just got up and started talking about terrorism without any context? Stop clinging onto this. He called it terrorism. He was clearly referring to Benghazi.

AM is just the advance guard of the Right Wing Thought Police. If you don't inhabit their echo chamber, parrot right wingnuts or use specific right wing sound bites, you are instantly branded as un American. There's simply no point in trying to reason with them because they are beyond reason.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by Ugg

AM is just the advance guard of the Right Wing Thought Police. If you don't inhabit their echo chamber, parrot right wingnuts or use specific right wing sound bites, you are instantly branded as un American. There's simply no point in trying to reason with them because they are beyond reason.

You know what's really un-American?

Trying to restrict the civil rights of other people while you go around huffing and puffing that "merrica is a free country".

[noteple]

Fast and Furious

Brought to you by the letter O and
The number 16 Trillion.