CNN is an extension of Team Obama

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,973
Reaction score
2,156

When Romney said Obama had not called the attack an act of terror for 14 days, Crowley interrupted and said: “It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror.”
Naturally, Obama asked her to restate her point and she did. “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” asked the president. “He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that,” she continued.

We know this is not true, because it became painfully apparent that Obama punked us.

That one moment defined the debate. Crowley, who had come under criticism from both sides prior to the debate, also cut off Romney when he was making a point about the president’s "Fast and Furious" gun scandal.

CNN running interference for Team Obama on the important issues.:mad:


“Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” Obama implored the moderator.
She obliged. “He — he did call it an act of terror,” said Crowley.
Crowley’s peers at CNN backed her up.
“It was a mistake by Mitt Romney,” said CNN Wolf Blitzer.
“Candy fact-checked him in front of the American people,” said CNN’s John King.

However, the Rose Garden text — in combination with the administration’s actions in the subsequent two weeks — showed Romney’s larger criticism was accurate.

As always, CNN stands for Clinton News Network.
 
Romney Stumbles on Foreign Policy

“More troubling,” Romney said, was that the day after the attack, “the president flew to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser,” and then to Colorado for another fundraiser, when he should have been dealing with the crisis.

You could practically hear trumpets blaring “Hail to the Chief” at the vast opening that this left the president. Obama, with a stern face and a barely suppressed tone of outrage, stated that the day after the attack, he stood in the Rose Garden and denounced the assault as “an act of terror.” A few days later, he added, he greeted the caskets of the dead, grieved with their families. To say that anybody on his team “would play politics” on an issue like this, Obama concluded, “is offensive—that’s not what we do.”

Romney then dug himself deeper, claiming that Obama took 14 days before he called the attack an act of terror. Obama replied, “Look at the transcript.” Then, in a peak of drama, Candy Crowley, the CNN reporter who moderated the debate, interjected, “He did, in fact, sir,” prompting applause from the otherwise-stone-faced audience. In other words, Crowley said, Obama did call it an act of terror.

Let’s go to that press conference of Sept. 12. Obama did say, clearly speaking about the attack the day before, “No acts of terror will shake the resolve of this great nation.”

1. Obama states that he called it an act of terror the day after.
2. Romney calls him a liar and says he never called it an act of terror for around 2 weeks.
3. The moderator calls BS on Romney because it's been well documented that Obama did call it an act of terror.

Here's my question; if you hate Romney so much, why do you put so much effort into propagating his lies?
 
I didn't watch it again. But, really there's a pissing match over Obama using 'acts of terror' versus Romney wanting him to say directly that Libya was a Terrorist Act? The whole speech was about Libya and the US reponses. Perhaps Romney thought when Obama said 'acts of terror' he meant funding the Contra or something?

@Red, yeah and certainly Fox is neutral and would never politic such an event. :rolleyes:

If this is the important difference out of the debate it was well worth my sweet sweep at the 8-ball tourney last night.
 
Romney Stumbles on Foreign Policy



1. Obama states that he called it an act of terror the day after.
2. Romney calls him a liar and says he never called it an act of terror for around 2 weeks.
3. The moderator calls BS on Romney because it's been well documented that Obama did call it an act of terror.

Here's my question; if you hate Romney so much, why do you put so much effort into propagating his lies?

What total bullshit Mike. On Sept 12 Obama used "acts of terror" in his speech as such.

“Yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks,“ Obama’s said in the Rose Garden. “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,” he said.​

He was talking about 9/11. What is happening now is obvious revisionist history.You seem to forget that clearly Obama punked us all. That is what happened.

But during the following two weeks, he and his deputies refused to describe the attack as a terror strike, and instead repeatedly described the attack as a spontaneous protest to a little-known video critical of Islam’s prophet, Mohammad.

On Sept. 25, for example, Obama pitched this view during his speech at the U.N. General Assembly. “In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening… That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world,” he declared.

“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… The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” Obama declared.​
 
“Yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks,“ Obama’s said in the Rose Garden. “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,” he said.

And he immediately followed up with:
"Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America."
Clearly, he linked the two.
 
Clearly, he linked the two.
“In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening… That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world,” President Obama

Why for weeks has the administration been claiming it was an attack over a youtube video?
Clearly it was a preplanned attack, to occur on the anniversary of 9/11
 
“In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening… That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world,” President Obama

Why for weeks has the administration been claiming it was an attack over a youtube video?
Clearly it was a preplanned attack, to occur on the anniversary of 9/11

This whole espisode was discussed at length right here on Whyzzat. Funny now that it is clear Obama punked us, our lefties pretend like it never happened. Hillary Clinton even went on TV apologizing for the video!

Nope, never happened :rolleyes:
 
Sept 12, 2012 Rose Garden Speech, Full Text: Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya

Obama characterizes the Benghazi violence and/or its perpetrators ten separate times, in an address that is only about 800 words. Obama used the words “attack” or “attackers” seven times, the word “act” twice, and the word “violence” once. used the adjectives: “senseless,” “brutal,” “terrible,”outrageous,” and “shocking.”The word “terrorist” is never used as an adjective in Obama’s descriptions of what happened in Benghazi, nor is it used as a noun to describe the perpetrators. There is no question that the omission was intentional on Obama’s part.

The only mention of terrorist acts by Obama is his generic statement of resolve after mentioning both the 9/11 attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

Obama repeated over and over that it was a spontaneous attack caused by a youtube video.

So Obama was lying, because he knew it was a preplanned terrorist attack, and spent a month repeating the lie.

Obama is doing nothing but parsing words now
 
The word “terrorist” is never used as an adjective in Obama’s descriptions of what happened in Benghazi
You are correct he called them 'acts of terror'. :rolleyes:
 
@Metalman you're right. Assuming you rip out the sentence, put it in a new paragraph, then ignore/erase the next 2 sentences in the original paragraph where 'Act of Terror' is stated.
 
@Metalman you're right. Assuming you rip out the sentence, put it in a new paragraph, then ignore/erase the next 2 sentences in the original paragraph where 'Act of Terror' is stated.

You forgot about the next month of Obama lying that it was about a youtube video
 
How facts backfire


It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one. “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789.
Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.
that sure explains viewers of faux news
 
@Cecilia,

In the Debate thread I commented on the research you posted about facts from the opposition. If Obama jumped up and down and said 'You're lying Mitt' too loudly it'd tend to work against Obama more than it'd work against Mitt. I understand why people would like Obama to do that. If I were part of the Obama Election team I'd tell him that passionate bloggers and the media will do Mitt's fact checking and to ignore most of the lies.

Heck look at the stoopid arguement over called the Libyans Terrorists or not. A certain right winger here even went so far to post the transcript but failed to read and understand it. The individual bias caused by partisanship clouds facts so much that people often can't find the tip of their nose.
 
uh oh; reality has reared its ugly head yet again...

CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

excerpt:

The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Riceabout the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.



old romney is a foreign policy faux pas... what a hammerhead... so eager to be right about something and he mucks up stuff that is deadly serious and not a game. and we got darryl issas nonsense treason too...


Issa’s Benghazi document dump exposes several Libyans working with the U.S.

excerpt:

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday, according to Obama administration officials.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...p_exposes_several_libyans_working_with_the_us

treacherous jerks!! :finger:
 
Back
Top