Obama lies about Rose Garden address.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by squeeks, Oct 16, 2012.

  1. squeeks, Oct 16, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2012

    squeeks macrumors 68040


    Jun 19, 2007
    During the debate Romney accused Obama of not declaring the attack in Libya as a "terrorist attack" until days even weeks later, The President rebuffed saying that in an address in the Rose Garden that he DID in fact refer to it as a "Terrorist Attack" and that Romney could check the transcript. Well checking the transcript he in fact NEVER referred to the attack as a terrorist attack.

    Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...marks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

  2. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604


    May 28, 2005
    Obama said it was an act of Terror, which he did say in the speech.
  3. Sky Blue Guest

    Sky Blue

    Jan 8, 2005
    Might want to read what you posted.
  4. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Oct 9, 2006
    ah damn the GOP lap dogs lie about Obama lieing. Wow who is shocked by that one.

    And when pressed about their own lies they dodge..
  5. 184550 Guest

    May 8, 2008
    So you're the guy that Romney's getting ready to fire...

  6. Roessnakhan macrumors 68040


    Sep 16, 2007
    You think "terrorist attack" and "acts of terror" don't mean the same thing?
  7. soco macrumors 68030


    Dec 14, 2009
    Yardley, PA
    It's not literally the same, word for word, so Obama is a communist.

    No, I cannot define "communist."
  8. yg17 macrumors G5


    Aug 1, 2004
    St. Louis, MO
    Guess he did a control+f, typed "terrorist", found no results, and assumed Obama was lying :rolleyes:
  9. 184550 Guest

    May 8, 2008
    Reading is such a pesky task.
  10. PhoenixMac macrumors 65816

    Mar 7, 2010
  11. Renzatic Suspended


    Aug 3, 2011
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    It's like a socialist.

    No, I don't know what that means, either.
  12. noisycats macrumors 6502a


    Jun 1, 2010
    The 'ham. Alabama.
    "Study it out". :)
  13. mohsy90 macrumors 65816


    Feb 4, 2011
    New York
    This will definitely be argued about back and forth and will be a complete waste of time. Obama reference was a little more general but it doesn't mean he didn't say it. Either way, I'd still like hear an answer for why they waited weeks before calling it a definite terror act and not because of some tape.
  14. Coleman2010 macrumors 68000

    Oct 9, 2010

  15. Huntn macrumors P6


    May 5, 2008
    The Misty Mountains
    Desperate attempt (reference the OP and the entire GOP) to create a political point and if the OP is a Republican, belongs to a party who dismisses/ legitimizes lying as part of the political game.
  16. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    Why do media sources continue to use the term "alleged" even when it's pretty obvious that the accused is "definitely" guilty?
  17. Kurwenal macrumors 6502a


    Jun 27, 2012
    Admit it, you were in charge of putting the Statue of Liberty in Apple Maps, right?
  18. swingerofbirch macrumors 68040

    Oct 24, 2003
    The Amalgamated States of Central North America
    I saw Romney stepping into it and I thought . . . oh boy. I didn't so much feel bad for him as I was fascinated by the moment. And I was most surprised that the moderator fact-checked him.

    On the other hand (and I say this as someone who has already voted for Obama in this election and in the last one), if I were Obama, I would have said something like, "This is not a place to win political points, but to clarify for the audience this is what I said . . ."

    There is a controversy over what happened. I found it interesting that Hillary Clinton took blame for the event because under the Bush administration, I don't recall anyone taking the blame for 9/11. I'm not saying that Clinton shouldn't have taken blame. It's just interesting that relative to 9/11/01, the debate very quickly turned inward into: did the US let this happen and who in the US is responsible? I guess commensurate to the scale of each attack, the speed at which that question was asked makes sense. And it also makes sense in that I feel like there terrorists attacks became a mark of a president's competency after 9/11/01, whereas the enormity and shock of the 9/11/01 attacks at least initially caused Americans to focus on the attackers not who allowed the attacks to happen under their watch. Even in the '04 debates, I don't remember Kerry attacking Bush over the Osama bin Laden memos (I'd be happy to be fact-checked on that, going on fuzzy memory there).

    The other part that really resonated with me is that it wasn't until I decided to go out and research the attacks in Libya a few days ago that I was even aware Obama had used the phrase "acts of terror" the day after the attack. So, I felt a smidgen of sympathy for Romney; although, he should be a bit more up-to-date on these things than I am. Anyhow, the article I found describing the timeline of reaction was in a slanted blog by the Washington Post. That post actually initially did not include Obama's Rose Garden statement and only added it after goading by readers.

    The note after it was added reads:

    Note: we added this statement to the timeline after Josh Gerstein of Politico asserted that the phrasing “acts of terror” showed Obama acknowledged “terrorism” was behind the attack. From our many years of covering diplomacy we would say there is a world of difference, but readers can draw their own conclusions.

    I can't really comment on that world of difference (I guess it's political? If Obama said there was a terrorist attack it would sound like he allowed something really bad to happen but if it's act of terror it doesn't sound as bad?).

    But I know the larger issue was the initial bad intelligence on what happened (some say bad intelligence is inevitable in that part of the world because of "chaos") and the possibility that the embassy workers knew they needed more security and didn't get it.

    I'd say that even as an Obama supporter, it doesn't mean a lot to me that Romney walked into a situation where he happened to specifically say Obama never called it an act of terror. I was thinking: what terrible luck that he said act of terror rather than terrorist attack. At least with the latter, he could have claimed like the Washington Post that there is a difference in the terms. But he actually chose the exact words Obama did say. I don't claim to understand the implications of the Libya attack on a non-political level. I don't understand what's going on in the world well. I don't know if you can unless you know really intelligent people who are in the loop.

    But I think two things: 1) there are valid questions to ask about the attack 2) I can't see how the semantics are materially important, so Romney messing up on his attack isn't a huge fumble in my eyes because the attack made in that vein to begin with was not as substantive as questioning the protection of embassies and intelligence failures, not which words were used to describe it (which again, I admit, may have been politically motivated).

    Here's the WaPo blog (not endorsing it):

  19. Aragornii, Oct 16, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2012

    Aragornii macrumors 6502

    Jun 25, 2010
    The president did not call the murder of Ambassador Stevens an act of terror in the Rose Garden speech. If he thought so he could have said so plainly. He didn't. He was asked the question point blank repeatedly after the fact, and never called it terrorism.

    He sent Ambassador Rice out to all the talk shows to specifically say it was a spontaneous riot in reaction to a YouTube video. The administration stuck firmly with that line for two weeks. No question about it. There is absolutely no context to back up the president's claim that he considered this a terrorist attack at the time. None at all. Any statement that the president treated this as an act of terror at the time is an absolute falsehood.

    Candy Crowley is already walking back her misguided decision to interject herself into the debate, saying Romney was "right in the main."

    The more talk there is about Benghazi, the more the president falls in the polls. The more Crowley's error gains traction in the press, the more Obama's numbers continue to fall.
  20. hulugu macrumors 68000


    Aug 13, 2003
    quae tangit perit Trump
    Aragornii. Please source your arguments. Transcripts from Rice and Carney please.
  21. zioxide macrumors 603


    Dec 11, 2006
    "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."

    Reading is not that difficult.
  22. CaptMurdock Suspended


    Jan 2, 2009
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    ...and she's wrong to do so. Even if the word "terrorist" doesn't appear in the transcript, the meaning is clear. Romney got caught. Deal.
  23. mudslag macrumors regular


    Oct 18, 2010
    Crowley isn't backing down. She stated right after she told Romney he was wrong about the "terror" comment she also stated he was right about the time laps and the video explanation. She reiterated that later on when she was talking about it.
  24. hulugu macrumors 68000


    Aug 13, 2003
    quae tangit perit Trump
    From Real Clear Politics, Candy Crowley said this on CNN after the debate:

    Crowley is confused. During the Rose Garden speech, Pres. Obama said "act of terror" which is what he was obviously referencing during the debate.

    Romney is trying desperately to find his Iran Hostage moment, but the Benghazi story is slippery and complex. Conservatives are equally desperate to litigate the idea that there's a cover-up, but what becomes obvious from reading all the texts is a confusion about the immediate events—Romney added to this by criticizing the Egyptian embassy—as well as subsequent causes.

    The Wall Street Journal reported that a "mob" formed up at the facility, obviously this was cover for the actual attack and it's clear that Ansar al-Sharia was behind it. But, why Ansar al-Sharia decided to attack on that day (besides the anniversary of Sept. 11) is unknown, but as the New York Times reported on Sept. 12:

    On Sept. 16, Ambassador Rice said:

    So, the attack could have been planned in advance, but the choice of day could have been set by the release of the video and the protests in Cairo. That's what people don't get.

    The attack was an "act of terror," but it also corresponded with the protests, hence the confusion.

    Ultimately, this comes down to poor management of the message. The tendency was to argue that this situation was under investigation and that it was linked to the tape and the protests, which could be entirely correct. That doesn't mean it wasn't an act of terror and the president called it as such during his statement in the Rose Garden.

    As usual, Republicans don't care about Stevens, the security problems, or why a Yemenese terrorist group is operating in Libya and what that means for the country—or Syria for that matter. Instead, we're going to litigate the difference between "terrorist act" and "act of terror."
  25. astrorider macrumors 6502

    Sep 25, 2008
    You seem to be stuck in a time well around mid-September. It would take a lot less effort to read up on some current news about this incident then to weave the above argument based on month old incorrect assessments and news reports.

Share This Page