Candy Crowley Admits Romney Was Correct About Libya Attack But Simply Couldn’t Stop Herself

reply to post by HostileApostle


I love yours and Obama's word semantics games too.

Let's pretend that it was faulty intelligence that sent Obama on a two week tour of bashing a Muslim video.

All you can do is repeat yourself about the words spoken and not the actions taken.

Sorry, actions speak louder than just three words spoken.

Obama's action was to cover up the truth about what happened.

You and Obama both fail.

reply to post by spinalremain

Romney supporters are actually upset that fact checking was done in real time.

No, Romney supporters are upset that Obama insists on covering up the real reason why there was an attack in Benghazi in the first place.

reply to post by popcornmafia

Desperate, the only desperate one now is Obama..

Again just look at the polls..
Obama is loosing

I'm looking at the polls and Obama's path to 270 is still very clear and very likely.

Romney's path to 270 is still very narrow and very unlikely.

And I do believe Romney's bump has leveled out and Obama is back on the rise.

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to

 

I love your semantics games, it just screams desperation.

And Romney was wrong, Obama did call it an act of terror and that is what the whole conversation was about during the debate.

Now you desperate Romney supporters are coming out playing the semantic game claiming an act of terrror isn't the same thing as a terrorist attack.

That's like saying an act of kindness isn't a kind act, it's just silly.

Desperate, the only desperate one now is Obama..

Again just look at the polls..
Obama is loosing

Candy and all her word smithing yo will not be able
to get potus back in the white house

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by HostileApostle

 

I love yours and Obama's word semantics games too.

Let's pretend that it was faulty intelligence that sent Obama on a two week tour of bashing a Muslim video.

All you can do is repeat yourself about the words spoken and not the actions taken.

Sorry, actions speak louder than just three words spoken.

Obama's action was to cover up the truth about what happened.

You and Obama both fail.

You do know there were two events at the same time, right?

The Egyptian (and other middle east) protests and riots and the Benghazi attacks. The video WAS the cause of the riots across the middle east. And now there is more information coming out from eye witnesses IN Benghazi saying the attackers WERE angry over the video.

Obama said the attack was an act of terror, to any intelligent person that means a terrorist attack. It means the same damn thing unless you are a desperate Obama hater, and then somehow "act of terror" means happy fun time. Obama also said that they were continuing to INVESTIGATE the CAUSE of the attack, but initial intelligence was showing the video was a factor.

Right Wingers seem to not know the difference between defining what an event IS and the CAUSE of that event.

Seriously, it's making all of you look absolutely dumb as rocks.

reply to post by popcornmafia


Did you just repeat yourself?

Obama has 3 or 4 paths to 270 that are likely.

Romney has 1 and it all depends on Ohio.

What happened in Benghazi was tragic and I do want answers. I want answers, not assumptions. I have no problem waiting until the investigation is complete before the true facts are shared with us. It's sickening that some folks think they deserve immediate answers to everything; such is the way of things in the age of information I suppose.

Yes, it is tragic that four Americans were killed in a dangerous and unstable country where they bravely, but voluntarily, went to serve their country; knowing the risks they were taking. What is also tragic is that many more Americans die on a daily basis right here on American soil; yet, those deaths are not politicized by the right. Why is it that the deaths of innocent people on American soil are not politicized by the right? Might it be because they really don't care? Or might it be because any politicizing of violence in America would require a serious discussion about stricter gun regulations? This is just another example of the hypocritical thought process of many on the right.

Originally posted by HostileApostle

You do know there were two events at the same time, right?

The Egyptian (and other middle east) protests and riots and the Benghazi attacks. The video WAS the cause of the riots across the middle east. And now there is more information coming out from eye witnesses IN Benghazi saying the attackers WERE angry over the video.

"The intelligence community on the ground in Libya has told Senators Corker and myself that within 24 hours, they communicated up to Washington that this was a terrorist attack," said Graham. "The president of Libya on the same date said it was a terrorist attack. The video of the compound shows that there was nobody at the Benghazi consulate.

cnsnews.com...

Sorry, you saying it was so, does not make it so. The Al Qaeda video calling for these killings was already released on 9/10 and the Libyan government's security forces were stating that this was a planned attack within 24 hours.

Once again, you fail.

Obama said the attack was an act of terror, to any intelligent person that means a terrorist attack. It means the same damn thing unless you are a desperate Obama hater, and then somehow "act of terror" means happy fun time. Obama also said that they were continuing to INVESTIGATE the CAUSE of the attack, but initial intelligence was showing the video was a factor.

Within 24 hours, Libyan security forces had already come out and said that the Muslim video was not the factor. The attack had been planned for three months by Al Qaeda. The video that Al Qaeda released on 9/10 was created in June 2012.

Right Wingers seem to not know the difference between defining what an event IS and the CAUSE of that event.

Leftists want to ignore everything that was said and video taped as proof, but only want to hold dear what Obama has to say about it because they're in deep denial. Just like Obama himself.

Seriously, it's making all of you look absolutely dumb as rocks.

If you weren't stuck living under a rock, you'd know what everyone else (including intelligence agencies) had to say on the matter.

reply to post by Deetermined

Within 24 hours, Libyan security forces had already come out and said that the Muslim video was not the factor. The attack had been planned for three months by Al Qaeda. The video that Al Qaeda released on 9/10 was created in June 2012.

Within 24 hours they called it a terrorist attack, and so did Obama.

The did not say that the video was 100% not a factor in this. The only said that it was a terrorist attack.

This is why Obama also said this was a terrorist attack (act of terror) the DAY AFTER.

Again, playing the semantics game and splitting hairs over saying an "act of terror" is not a "terrorist attack" is just pathetic.

Please go educate yourself on the difference of defining what an event is and what caused that event.

reply to post by HostileApostle


You're the only one using semantics at this point.

Go do some homework on what really happened and give up trying to use Obama's words as an excuse.

Did Obama ever come out and say that this was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda?

Obama was quick to change the subject when Romney brought this up during the debate.

Actions speak louder than words. Unfortunately, Obama didn't have words to answer Romney's question.

Here's the transcript:

ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the — your secretary —

OBAMA: Candy?

ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how —

OBAMA: Candy, I'm —

www.politico.com...

Here, let me translate that in English for you....

OBAMA: "Candy!! Candy!!, change the subject quick so I don't have to answer Romney's question!!!"

reply to post by Deetermined

Did Obama ever come out and say that this was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda?

Yes, the White House's offiicial position on it is that it was a terrorist attack.

Obama was quick to change the subject when Romney brought this up during the debate.

Not really, he schooled Romney on this issue and made Romney look like a complete fool. And this was BEFORE Romney stepped in it and was proven wrong by the Moderator.


And the talked about Libya for a long time in the debate. And Romney lost on the Libya issue, he was drowning when they changed subjects. Why do you think Obama would want to change subjects when he was destroying Romney on it?


Right Wingers are an odd breed, are you really trying to claim Romney came out on top of the Libya issue in the debate?

reply to post by Deetermined


Obama was asking the moderator to do her job, as Romney was breaking the pre-agreed upon terms of the debate. He veered from the question he was asked, and directly engaged Obama in a confrontation argument, goading him to answer, which was against the rules of the debate.

Romney tried to use a bully strategy and circumvent the rules, while he pushed Crowley around. At one point, when Obama attempted to answer him, during one of these illegal confrontation, Romney actually shushed Obama, saying,"You'll get your turn."

Bad form!

Originally posted by HostileApostle

Yes, the White House's offiicial position on it is that it was a terrorist attack.

You're just using word semantics again. When did the White House say that it was a terrorist attack by a terrorist group?

Not really, he schooled Romney on this issue and made Romney look like a complete fool. And this was BEFORE Romney stepped in it and was proven wrong by the Moderator.

Guess what? Obama was made a fool of by the moderator too!

Let's look at that transcript again...

ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

CROWLEY: It did.

www.politico.com...

Why do you think Obama would want to change subjects when he was destroying Romney on it?

Because Obama didn't want to admit that he went around for two weeks stating that the attack was the result of a Muslim video when everyone else knew otherwise! DUH!!!

Right Wingers are an odd breed, are you really trying to claim Romney came out on top of the Libya issue in the debate?

Even Crowley admitted that Romney just used the wrong words in conveying his message. If Romney had used the words "planned terrorist attack" instead of "terrorist act", this would have turned out totally different.

The only defense Obama has on this issue is the same as yours. Trying to use words instead of actions to defend it.

Obama's actions were clear. He spent two weeks trying to get everyone to believe that this was due to a Muslim video instead of his own policy on drone attacks that killed two top Al Qaeda leaders between June & August of this year.

Plain and simple.

Obama called it a "terrorist act". Unfortunately he tried to lead us all to believe that it was a terrorist act by a bunch of protesters due to a stupid video. Carney, Hillary and Rice and Obama all repeated the lie over and over again.
Obama tried to lay the blame on the right wing religious producer, director and actors in the video. He knew this was a lie but he repeated it over and over again for weeks. This was dirty politics. He tries to divert blame from his administration to innocent parties. I am not supporting Romney or voting for him so don't even attempt to call me biased due to party loyalty.

Obama attempted a scurrilous coverup and failed. No one should make excuses for this liar.
How many of you Obama supporters would be willing to overlook this and if Bush was President? Be honest.

reply to post by Deetermined

You're just using word semantics again. When did the White House say that it was a terrorist attack by a terrorist group?

Are you serious? This is like talking to a child.

Obama saying it on the 12th in the Rose Garden. And then saying it again on the 13th. Then Carney saying it at a press conference.

www.cnn.com...

On September 12, the day after the attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Obama said in comments in the Rose Garden that he had learned about the attack on the consulate the night before.

"Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe," he said. "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."
...
On September 13, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice. He then added, "No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."
...
On September 19, Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the ambassador and three other Americans "were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy."
...
White House spokesman Jay Carney sought to clear up any confusion on September 20.

"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials.
...
Two days later, Carney responded bluntly to a question about why Obama had not labeled the incident a terrorist attack.

"I think you're misunderstanding something here," Carney said. "I'm the president's spokesman. When the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, in open testimony in Congress, answered a question by saying yes, by the definitions we go by -- this is me paraphrasing -- this was a terrorist attack -- I echoed that, because this president, this administration, everybody looks to the intelligence community for the assessments on this. And it has been since I said so, the president's position that this was a terrorist attack."

All during that time, they were continuing an investigation to try to find out what "CAUSED" the terrorist attack.

On September 13, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, said authorities "are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, (and) whether it was premeditated" until they had completed an investigation.
...
On September 16, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said, "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."
...
On September 25, on ABC's "The View," interviewer Joy Behar asked Obama about a remark made by his secretary of state. "I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?"

To that, Obama responded, "We're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. We don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world there's still a lot of threats out there." Obama added that "extremist militias" were suspected to have been involved.

Those are the facts.

They called it a terrorist attack from day one, but continued to say they don't have all the information as to the cause and they are continuing to investigate it.

This is what responsible people do, they gather facts before making claims.

reply to post by HostileApostle


You're right. Let's just talk about the facts. Words are not important here.

The fact remains that Libya's terrorist attack was due to a planned attack by Al Qaeda and not a Muslim video.

The fact remains that the attack was due to drone attacks killing two top Al Qaeda leaders in June & August.

There. Just the facts, ma'am!

No need to argue over words any more!

reply to post by HostileApostle


You conveniently left out all the quotes where the Obama administration laid the blame squarely on the video instead of Al Queda.

Obama supporters will never admit that Obama lied. Their opinions are clearly biased and thus easily dismissed.

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by HostileApostle

 

You conveniently left out all the quotes where the Obama administration laid the blame squarely on the video instead of Al Queda.

Obama supporters will never admit that Obama lied. Their opinions are clearly biased and thus easily dismissed.

edit on 10/19/2012 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)

Then go ahead and provide those quotes where Obama said that this was only about the video.

Originally posted by HostileApostle

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by HostileApostle

 

You conveniently left out all the quotes where the Obama administration laid the blame squarely on the video instead of Al Queda.

Obama supporters will never admit that Obama lied. Their opinions are clearly biased and thus easily dismissed.

edit on 10/19/2012 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)

Then go ahead and provide those quotes where Obama said that this was only about the video.

I specifically used the term, "Obama Administration". Those quotes by Carney on day 3 after the attack are easily found and I'm sure you have already seen them,

reply to post by Sparky63

I specifically used the term, "Obama Administration". Those quotes by Carny on day 3 after the attack are easily found and I'm sure you have already seen them,

Please Proceed.