The right is outraged that Romney was right. Obama didn't say the attack was an act of terror.

[Kablooie]

What Obama actually said was:

"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. "

To the right this doesn't fit the criteria because he didn't directly say that "the attack was an act of terror". They apparently think Romney was right because Obama didn't uses that exact phrase.

Moi Brain 'urts.
Moi Brain 'urts.

[quinnox]

1. that has got be the stupidest argument to come out for a long time

This is way, way beyond desperate. This would make the satire site "the onion" blush.

[Hubert Flottz]

81. The pubs are pulling out all the stops.

We had better drag everyone we can to the polls.

[still_one]

2. I am outraged that these scum will lie about anything

[Angry Dragon]

3. I guess they just forget other words followed>.......

[Drunken Irishman]

4. The Clinton Defense...

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".

[sweetloukillbot]

5. This whole thing has confused the hell out of me...

I remember him saying it was terrorism on day one. I remember the Libyan president saying it was terrorism on day one. I remember analysts saying they hit the safe house that people were evacuated to, and that ordinary rioters couldn't know about that location, therefore it was terrorism. I knew it was terrorism immediately. Where did this 14-days meme come from? What was said to contradict those earlier statements?
Was it just because the news focused so much on that stupid video? Because I remember those riots continuing for the next week as well.

[seabeyond]

16. romney mouthed off the day before. before it happened. while it happened. obama said nothing

until the next day, he had gotten the info and news was already talking it was a terrorist group using the mob as an excuse.

you are right.

[SaveAmerica]

38. Sorry! I didn't see your response before I added mine!

[SaveAmerica]

37. Yes, that's how it was, how I remember it too. But keep in mind

that before he could even get to the Rose Garden and make his statement, Romney was out there making his own stupid, careless and very dangerous statement and that and the resulting pack of lies on Fox and other Right garbage sources filled these fools with other ideas.

The right has skewed their reality so bad for so many decades there is no way we should expect that they would acknowledge they were given the wrong information.

[JDPriestly]

6. The problem is there was a terrorist attack but there was also a demonstration.

So it was very confusing. What's more, they attack may have been on an intelligence safe-house and the US needed to protect the identities and lives of other Americans and friends of the US.

The Republicans have shown complete insensitivity to very delicate security matters in their chatter about what happened in Benghazi.

[marew]

7. Then what the heck did they think he was referring to?

He just brought that word up for no reason? Duh!

[justabob]

32. Sept 11 2001

A friend of mine was doing battle with someone on FB last night over this, and that is what the wing-nut said Obama was talking about.

[blogslut]

8. They're just pissed because RMoney's "gotcha" went "thud"

[Turborama]

40. Bingo!

[Tx4obama]

9. President Obama said 'act of terror' twice within two days - see below

A day after Libya attack, Obama described it as 'acts of terror'

-snip-

The facts: 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."

-snip-

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/fact-check-terror/index.html

[ThePhilosopher04]

10. No, their real outrage ...

is Romney got his nuts cut off in front of the nation and discovered their "gotcha" talking point wasn't true after all. It's really a sad commentary that they would choose to politicize the deaths of four Americans serving our country.

[caraher]

11. Par for the course

Remember the "certificate of live birth" is not the same as "birth certificate" birther dodge?

[Son of Gob]

12. Yep, the Repubs are pissed

Here's one - http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021562758

[Marr]

13. Yes, well, that's how children often respond to such news.

They stamp their feet and shout. Doesn't change the fact that they're wrong, of course, and it only makes them look ridiculous.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

14. I loved the look of disappointment on Stench's face when Crowley contradicted him

after he had flashed his eyes at Obama in what he thought would be a moment of triumph.

[Major Nikon]

15. Yes, because cowboy diplomacy has worked so well in the past

If Obama had emphatically said it was terrorism, and it turns out later it wasn't, they would have faulted him even more for jumping to conclusions.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Morans. All of them.

[yellowcanine]

17. They are parsing "terror", "act of terror", and "terrorism" this morning. Sheez!

Translation. Obama scored a major point and they know it.

[Mariana]

19. I have to say, that is the most pathetic attempt

to deny reality on the part of the right wing that I have ever seen. And that's saying a lot.

[Cosmocat]

23. The funny thing is

they are VERY effective at creating situations like this.

There can be a very complicated issue that a D speaks to for a couple of minutes.

They will pull one sentence out of it, twist it to be something negative and you can't unravel it because of the complicated nature of the issue.

They do this CONSTANTLY.

In this situation, BO made a complete, word for word quote on what he said, Romney was so in his bubble he did not pick up on it, took the bait HARD and in a singular moment of journalistic integrity, Crawley slipped up and fact checked it.

Now, they are trying to unravel it, but they can't because the moment is set in stone.

It will work in their bubble, but to everyone else, Romney made an arse out of himself.

[B Calm]

18. LOL

[justiceischeap]

20. Nuance...they don't get it.

This is a sorry excuse for a "gotcha" moment.

[Solomon]

21. I had to turn my local radio station off in disgust this

morning because they were still claiming that Romney was right. Obama didn't say it was a terrorist attack. He only said it was an act of terror..

They are really pathetic.

[City Lights]

22. They're learning impaired.

Everything must be dumbed-down for them.

[standingtall]

24. Obama said "acts of terror"

it's on video tape, and therefore cannot be refuted no matter how much spinning right wingers do.

[True Earthling]

26. Saying the words "acts of terror" is not calling the attack specifically an act of terror

Obama was talking in generalities. If he was saying that then why did he go on Letterman and blame it on the riot against the movie?

[standingtall]

30. He was standing right next to Hillary the day after the incident

So putting that into context he meant acts of terror in Libya in particular. And just who said terrorist can't be motivated by movies?

[leftynyc]

31. Pathetic

There is no difference between terrorist act and act of terror - righties are looking ridiculous trying to parse this. Romney got spanked hard and the whining about it is music to my ears.

[True Earthling]

41. There's a difference between a coordinated pre-meditated act of terror and

a spontaneous riot as a reaction to a video. You can call them both terrorism or acts of terror but those terms are so general that it's difficult to parse the meaning as to what sparked the act or was it spontaneous or a pre-meditated coordinated attack. To bring clarity and context, all we can go by is the subsequent actions of the president and his admin...

So... if Obama was specifically calling the Benhazi a pre-meditated act of terror why didn't Susan Rice get the memo?

And why did Obama go on Letterman 4 days later and blame the attack on the video?

Obama called the inflammatory movie an “offensive” film released by a “shadowy character.” It’s also a straw man; the president thinks “extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.” But those extremists “don’t represent what the Libyan people think,” and “as offensive as this video was … that’s never an excuse for violence.”
http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/09/19/obama-letterman/

[leftynyc]

43. Stop digging

And look at debate video - mitt claimed it took the President 14 days to call it an act of terror -told mitt (with a wicked smile on his face) to proceed digging his hole until even the moderator told him the very next day, the President did indeed USE THOSE VERY WORDS - act of terror. You're embarassing yourself.

[True Earthling]

45. He used those words but what did he mean?

Do you believe he was calling Benghazi a pre-meditated coordinated attack? That's the real issue - not what words he used in his speech. His subsequent statements and statements of Susan Rice point to that not being the case.

[ieoeja]

53. Should he have called it a terrorist act before an investigation was done?

What you and the Rightists seem to be calling for would be extremely irresponsible. And a very disturbing trait for the President of the United States.

[True Earthling]

54. Should he and Susan Rice have blamed it on a riot before an investigation was done?

That's just as irresponsible. I find it hard to believe that 7 days after the attack they still believed it was a spontaneous riot. Do you think the president only gets info only AFTER the investigation is complete? They had to know within the first 24 or 48 hours what happened.

[billh58]

57. I think that

you may be on the wrong discussion board. FR is way around the corner...

[ieoeja]

63. GOP called the Oklahoma City bombing an Islamic terrorist attack on day one.

On the other hand, I just read the transcript for Obama's speech the day after the attack on the consulate, and he definitely called it an act of terror the day after. The words "riot", "movie", and "you-tube" do not make a single appearance in the speech.

But then the GOP still believes Sadaam had NBC** weapons. So they aren't really very good at making judgements on foreign affairs, are you?


**NBC weapons means Nuclear, Biological or Chemical weapons. I prefer the military terminology over GOP terminology.

[phleshdef]

76. Theres nothing irresponsible about it because it had no bearing on anyone's safety

The intelligence initially suggested the riots could be related because, obviously, there were riots going on in the region that day. And being right or wrong about that notion didn't negativelly effect anyone one way or the other. They shared their initial assumptions. Then once those assumptions changed, they told us what the new evaluation was.

You are just grasping at straws.

[SweetieD]

59. I think this is where your confusion lies.

You are adding extra words to their discussion. In the debate, Obama didn't even say he had said it was a pre-mediated coordinated attack. Even Romney didn't call Obama out on the premeditation part. It was simply whether the attack was "terror" or not. An attack can be terrorism even if it is not well thought out or premeditated. I mean when Iranians stormed the US embassy in 79 was that terrorism? Or not? since it was a spontaneous move? I'm also not sure how spontaneous days of rioting are. At some point it is not spontaneous. Also spontaneity doesn't calculate into whether or not something is terrorism. A terrorist could wake up and on a whim blow himself up in a square, he doesn't have to plan it out for months.

[True Earthling]

64. Romney was responding to Obama's claim that he called it an "act of terror" the day after

the attacks. Obama's claim was in defense of the question from Candy Crowley about the whole Benghazi mess and the blame Hillary was taking. For Obama to say that he called it "an act of terror" in the general sense... that would be meaningless as a defense. Nobody is arguing that whether it was spontaneous or planned that it does or doesn't fit the general definition of terrorism. The real issue how Obama interpreted the act as to it's specific cause in his Rose Garden speech. It's clear to me that Obama interpreted it as a spontaneous riot and not pre-meditated. From the Sept 12 Rose Garden speech he didn't say "terrorists who attacked our people" he said "killers who attacked our people" and he called it "senseless violence". Then he makes a very general statement about "No acts of terror"...

Obama did NOT call it an act of terrorism in the Rose Garden in the sense that it was premeditated but that is what he claims he meant when he said "I told the American people and the world that we were going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror". That is the only viable defense from the question by Crowley. Again... saying that he called it a "terrorist act" in general is not a defense that takes Hillary off the hook.

Rose Garden speech...

"We will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people."

"We reject those who denigrate the religious beliefs of others. There is no justification for this type of senseless violence"

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation"

From the debate...

"The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that we were going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror and I also said that we were going to track down those who committed this crime."

[mikeytherat]

74. ...

"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."

Acts. Act. Subject of the paragraph. Pretty simple to draw a line there. Perhaps you should look into The First Rule of Holes?

mikey_the_rat

[billh58]

99. Question:

How much are you being paid to support R-Money on DU?

[leftynyc]

82. No - that's not the issue and

really, stop embarrassing yourself. Romney said the President didn't call it an act of terror for two weeks and he was either lying or mistaken - either way, he got his ass owned.

[CreekDog]

95. no she didn't

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/team-romney-gets-bogged-down-in-candy-crowley-fight.php?ref=fpblg

but your point of view seems to be copied almost directly from right wing sources as the article above shows.

[True Earthling]

96. Interesting that it's interpreted that Obama was specifically referring to Benghazi

as a planned attack when he said “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation," however when he mentions the video 6X in his U.N. speech there's no connection.

Believe what you will.

[desertduck]

75. Is there a reason why videos can't be made to premeditate violence?!!?!

B/c the people making the video didn't think it would upset muslims? Since we are doing this stupid circle jerk....

[LanternWaste]

72. Would that be like saying an "acts of war" is not calling an attack specifically an act of war...?

"saying the words "acts of terror" is not calling the attack specifically an act of terror..."

Would that be like saying an "acts of war" is not calling an attack specifically an act of war? For example...
"Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America..." FDR, Dec, 8, 1941

[Hosnon]

86. Why on Earth would he reference terror attacks otherwise?

His speech didn't include a laundry list of possible scenarios; he denounced terror.

But, for what it's worth, I will love it if you guys glom onto this. Good luck splitting that hair, even if you are right:

"Well he did denounce terror attacks... but... didn't mention this one specifically... so... he wasn't calling the Benghazi attack terrorism... he was just denouncing terrorism in an official response to the Benghazi attack. Bu..but didn't call it terrorism..."

Yeah. Good luck.

[orpupilofnature57]

109. PU

[True Earthling]

25. Actually the right is correct... Obama was not specifically saying Benghazi was an act of terror.

Obama was talking in generalities. This is born out in Obama's appearance on Letterman where he blamed the attack on the reaction to the anti-Mohammad movie.

[Solomon]

27. Boy you are really begging for some pizza. lol

You sound as stupid and pathetic as they do.

That must have really hurt something fierce for you to out yourself over it.

Enjoy your stay.

[NoGOPZone]

47. Now, now, that's a True Earthling you're talking to

it's us phony ones that just can't comprehend.

[OldDem2012]

29. "Generalities"?? Oh, please stop. On the day following the attack in Libya....

to what else could the President have been referring when 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"??

What other "act of terror" had taken place at the same time as the attack on our embassy?

The Romney Right is trying to dig out from under a bad night for them...I'm not at all sure what you're doing.

[phleshdef]

44. You are so wrong. And its hilarious.

Even in your own quote there, he refers to them as terrorists. Whether they thought the video was their excuse or not is a moot point. It has no relevance on this argument on whether or not he called it terrorism.

When he was talking about acts of terror, it was in a statement regarding the attack, period. Theres nothing subtle about it. He called it an act of terror and referred to the perpetrators as terrorists. Theres no way around this fact. You are wrong and theres nothing you can do to change that.

[phleshdef]

52. General terms that were said directly in regard to the Benghazi attack.

You are stepping all over yourself by trying to overparse this.

The argument Romney was making was NEVER "did you call it a pre-meditated coordinated attack?". Romney said, straight up "you didn't call it an act of terror", which was categorically WRONG. Period.

And of course Obama wouldn't announce right away if it was a pre-mediated coordinated attack, the intelligence wasn't clear on that yet and anyone that expected it would be doesn't understand much about the intelligence business. They had to do more digging to find out what really happened and they are still gathering details on the story. My god, give our fucking people in the field time to do their god damn job.

[phleshdef]

65. I'm not the one arguing semantics. That be you. And you still be wrong.

You keep posting his quotes and it keeps leading to the same conclusion. And that conclusion is, he strongly suggested that the attacks on Benghazi was an act of terror. Theres no other way around it. And he said the same thing in a speech the next day. There was nothing subtle about it. Its painfully obvious that he was calling it terrorism. He didn't have to be all Limbaugh-esque about it to make that point.

[phleshdef]

67. I read the news, read the transcripts, watched the video, got the t-shirt and you are still wrong.

He referred to it as an act of terror when he said the phrase "no acts of terror..." and the next day "no act of terror..." while talking specifically about the attacks. I'm sorry, but you can keep going around in circles with yourself on this, but you will never find an effective argument that says otherwise.

Terrorism doesn't have to be premeditated and the administration didn't know enough at that point to know if it was premeditated or not. He didn't have to acknowledge that one way or another to imply that it was in fact terrorism.

So no, you are still wrong and me, Candy Crowley, Barack Obama and the vast majority of the media are right.

You're just embarassing yourself at this point.

[phleshdef]

71. You've deconstructed nothing. You aren't even coherent at this point.

Romney said that the President refused to call it an act of terror until 2 weeks later. Thats a lie, as has been proven, Romney was called on it. He now looks like a dumb shit. You can't change that no matter how desperately you want to.

Yes, Susan Rice did say that they, at that moment, believed the violence was a result of the riots that were going on in the region over the video. And yes Obama acknowledged that belief. At the time, thats what the intelligence was suggesting. A week or so later, the intelligence suggested otherwise. Thats not a fuckup. Thats just telling people what conclusions the people on the ground are currently drawing and that kind of thing is ALWAYS understood as subject to change as more information becomes available. That kind of thing is NORMAL when you are dealing with gathering intelligence in a very convoluted situation. There were in fact riots occuring in the region that day, spurred by the video and there was in fact an attack on the consulate in the same day. It took the intelligence community a little time to determine that the 2 weren't necessarily connected as they had first assumed. Theres nothing wrong with that. No one was harmed as a result of their initial assumptions being wrong. No spin is needed. No one did anything bad.

You keep harping about "premeditated attack" and that is simply not relevant. And no amount of you repeating the term over and over will make it relevant. No one knew those few days or even those first few weeks if something premeditated had happened. It wasn't yet 100% confirmable. Whether it was premeditated or not didn't change the fact that it was an act of terror and thats exactly what the President called it within the first 24 hours and then again within the first 48 hours. He implied the terrorist label way before Romney ever did, even.

You are wrong. You continue to embarass yourself. You are in over your head here. I hope sometime between now and the time you find yourself banned from DU, you'll realize that. But its doubtful with people like you and the conservative bubble that you tend to dwell in.

[True Earthling]

77. No one knew? Really?

From CNN Sept 13, one day befor Susan Rice went on the talk show circuit...

State Department officials said the two incidents at the diplomatic missions were not related and said they believe the Benghazi violence was a "clearly planned attack."

"It was not an innocent mob," one senior official said. "The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-consulate-attack-scene/index.html

and this...

[Updated at 12:51 p.m. ET] A London think tank with strong ties to Libya speculated Wednesday that Stevens was actually the victim of a targeted al Qaeda revenge attack.

The assault "came to avenge the death of Abu Yaya al-Libi, al Qaeda's second in command killed a few months ago," the think tank Quilliam said Wednesday. It was "the work of roughly 20 militants, prepared for a military assault," the think tank said, noting that rocket-propelled grenade launchers do not normally appear at peaceful protests, and that there were no other protests against the film elsewhere in Libya.

The planned attack came in two waves, one which prompted U.S. officials to leave the consulate for a secure location. The second wave was directed at the place of retreat, Quilliam said, citing unnamed sources on the ground in Benghazi and abroad.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/u-s-ambassador-to-libya-3-others-killed-in-rocket-attack-witness-says/

[Updated at 12:23 p.m. ET] A senior U.S. official tells CNN that U.S. unmanned surveillance drones are expected to begin flying over Benghazai and other locations in eastern Libya to look for jihadi encampments and targets that may be tied to the attack on U.S. State Department personnel.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/u-s-ambassador-to-libya-3-others-killed-in-rocket-attack-witness-says/

[Updated at 11:07 a.m. ET] Martin Indyk, a U.S. assistant secretary of state for the Middle East during President Bill Clinton’s second term, said Stevens was “always enthusiastic and cheery in everything he did, and he always wanted to be on the front line.”

Indyk knew Stevens in part because Stevens was his Iran desk officer. He said that because of Stevens’ enthusiasm, he wasn’t surprised that he accepted the charge to be an envoy to the Libyan opposition during the revolt against then-Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

Indyk said the attack was “clearly not the intention of the Libyan government,” noting it worked with Stevens and was quick to apologize after his death.

“By the same token, this was no mob lynching. It was demonstration with RPGs. There was something more organized behind this attack, I suspect, and it’s important for the (Libyan) government” to determine what happened and deal with the attackers, Indyk said.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/u-s-ambassador-to-libya-3-others-killed-in-rocket-attack-witness-says/

Obama blames riots/video...

Updated at 7:23 a.m. ET] President Barack Obama confirmed that United States Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed in an attack in Libya overnight, saying he "strongly condemns the outrageous attack."

While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/u-s-ambassador-to-libya-3-others-killed-in-rocket-attack-witness-says/

[phleshdef]

78. You are so horribly confused.

I'll just go from your first link.

"Also unclear Wednesday was the significance of the timing of the attack, which fell on the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington and coincided with a violent protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt.

State Department officials said the two incidents at the diplomatic missions were not related and said they believe the Benghazi violence was a "clearly planned attack.""

So thats saying the riots in Egypt weren't related to what happened in Benghazi. Everyone already knew that. They are 2 entirely different places. These same state department officials said they believed it was a planned attack. That still wasn't confirmed one way or the other. Some people believed maybe it was, some weren't sure. Obama never denied it was a planned attack one way or the other in those first days and neither did Susan Rice. A planned attack could've still been spurred by anger the anti-muslim video. It doesn't contradict that notion at all.

You are still, very, very wrong here and you are clinging to triviality. I can smell your desperation across the intertubes.

[True Earthling]

79. Rice never denied... This looks like denial to me...

TAPPER: So, first of all, what is the latest you can tell us on who these attackers were at the embassy or at the consulate in Benghazi? We’re hearing that the Libyans have arrested people. They’re saying that some people involved were from outside the country, that there might have even been Al Qaida ties. What’s the latest information?

RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

http://wizbangblog.com/2012/09/17/susan-rice-its-all-about-the-video/

[phleshdef]

80. Thats not a denial. Learn how to read.

"Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired."

- This means that there is still an ongoing investigation and that more details may come to light. It means "we haven't decided what really happened yet because we are still looking into it"

"But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo"

- This means what I said earlier, based on current verifiable information, we don't think it was premeditated. But combined with the previous sentence, its painfully obvious that the information, and thus the final assessment, is subject to change.

You are splitting hairs over absolutely nothing. You people are ludicrous. You have no understanding of how the intelligence community works and how difficult it is to always have a clear answer as to what all the facts are whenever a catastrophe like this first happens. People with common sense understand that the first stories that come out may not be a complete representation of what the truth ultimately is. Whenever any administration official says an investigation is still ongoing, it obviously implies that we are taking all assumptions with a grain of salt until everything is verified.

Are you tired of being dead wrong about this yet?

[Frosty1]

90. Except of course

911 then they knew within hours exactly who had done it.

[phleshdef]

92. I know right. We liberals gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on this shit...

...even when we hated his ass, we were still fair about this kind of stuff. These people are disgusting.

[OldDem2012]

60. Congrats! You made it to more than 500 posts!....

...Is FR going to award you with a merit badge?

[TwilightGardener]

61. I think he meant "acts of terror", and he demonstrated this by

using the phrase "acts of terror". Just as if I were to say, "there might be distressed freeper trolls here today doing damage control because Mitt suffered a massive blow", I ACTUALLY mean "there might be distressed freeper trolls here today doing damage control because Mitt suffered a massive blow". See?

[billh58]

107. +1

Nailed it!

[ohheckyeah]

108. "extremists and

terrorists ".....what do terrorists do? Would that be commit acts of terror? Duh....he said Terrorists attacked the embassy in the quote you quote. How much clearer does it need to be said?

Keep digging that hole.

[leftynyc]

33. Poor baby

Desperation has it's own very distinctive stink.

[Barack_America]

49. Study it out, True Earthling!!

Here is the direct quote:

"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. "

You believe he is speaking of two different acts within the same paragraph?

Honestly, the entire argument is quite foolish. If the murders had been carried out by "rioters", it would have been terrorism just as much as if it were Al Qaeda.

[True Earthling]

69. No - it's not the same.

Al Queda is premeditated and planned. This is the crux of the issue. I find it hard to believe that you can't see the difference. There's not much in the way of preventing a spontaneous riot but there are ways of defending and preventing attacks from Al Queda. That is the main issue... were there steps taken to prevent or defend an Al Queda attack based on intelligence reports and if not... why?

Honestly, the entire argument is quite foolish. If the murders had been carried out by "rioters", it would have been terrorism just as much as if it were Al Qaeda.

[ieoeja]

84. You must have missed the latest on this: Lybians say it was homegrown terrorists.

With no ties to Al Qaeda.

Heck, Al Qaeda has been trying to make inroads with the new Lybian government whose security personnel ended up fighting the terrorists. So it would be somewhat self defeating for Al Qaeda to have launched this attack.

[CreekDog]

98. you said "Actually the right is correct"

and you mean about everything. every subject, every topic, every idea.

and if you come back to me and tell me that I need to look at the context that you said that in, you are freaking hypocrite.

because that's how you are looking at Obama, as narrowly as my subject line is about your argument.

so which is it?

[CreekDog]

102. Please tell me what Obama's answer was to Mitt's question:

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?"

[CreekDog]

105. Look I asked you what Obama's answer to Mitt's question was, and now you're afraid to answer it

the reason I asked is because you are saying that Obama's answer to Mitt's question was yes --that's what you're basing your argument on.

so i'd like you to quote me where Obama agreed with Mitt's paraphrase of Obama in full.

or are you not ready to out yourself here?

[CreekDog]

111. guess you ran away from DU after posting this nonsense

[treestar]

50. And so what?

What difference could it possibly make? Non-issue.

[WinkyDink]

56. "the right is correct" never happened.

[quinnox]

73. So? It sounds like you are having some sour grapes about Obama's ass kicking of Romney

Just accept it, Romney got his head handed to him and looked like a total fool and liar, and that is what is important.

I'm enjoying all the squirming and crying about it though.

[The Straight Story]

91. Son, you're spending a LOT of time on something that does not even matter

Now I understand why people who follow rush/hannity/beck/fox do - they are told what things are important so they just believe it.

Who cares what it was initially called or why? It didn't change the outcome, does nothing at all, but people want something to whine about because someone told you to.

An embassy, in a hostile foreign region, gets attacked. Ok....no surprises there. Was it terror or mob violence or both? Does it matter at this point???

Jesus on a pogo stick - Obama didn't come running out of the white house yelling terrorism and sharing all the intel they had right away like I would have done (of course then some people might know who operatives were, etc).

Of all the things to be whiny about in this world folks are stuck on that? LOLOLOLOLOL

[Ganja Ninja]

28. That's known as "Grasping at Straws".

grasping at straws
Fig. to depend on something that is useless; to make a futile attempt at something.

grasping at straws also clutching at straws
1. trying to find some way to succeed when nothing you choose is likely to work
2. trying to find reasons to feel hopeful about a bad situation

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasping+at+straws

[Skidmore]

34. When I was listening to that press conference in real time, I immediately noticed that term and

realized that there was more going on which we would learn about later perhaps when as much could be accounted for by facts as possible. I never thought the President was saying anything else other than that they believed this to have been an act of terrorism and were in the process of figuring out who was responsible. It also occurred to me that old Ghaddafi supporters were possibly seeking vengeance.

[Overseas]

35. Great way to disguise Mitt's inflaming a situation instead of respecting Our President!

The President didn't use Limbaugh Talk, he gave a strong statement about our valuing tolerance but made it clear that we would pursue those who perpetrated the act of terror.

And hothead Mitt used the situation to fire up his base instead of understanding the delicacy of the situation and standing with our president.

[LaydeeBug]

39. Romney was not right.

[TwilightGardener]

55. I know--this thread was titled to attract maximum attention. I hate it

when DUers do misleading shit like this.

[demlion]

42. Highlights the right's narrow view of foreign policy. In that if you don't explicitly label

something an act of terror, then you did not acknowledge it. Rhetorically speaking Obama did lump the attack in the sphere of terror but because he did not say "this was an act of terror" the right attacks for it. Why: they know that their base, on average, is not educated enough to see what the president did.

[Doremus]

46. Their cognitive skills have regressed to the point they no longer understand English.

Pretty soon we'll have to grunt and point to communicate w them.

[JCMach1]

51. You also have to watch the video minutes prior as Obama spoke to 9/11

just before he said it... Clear reference to terrorism

[reformist2]

58. The Repuglicans really are destroying themselves over this, aren't they?

So it took a few days for the specific details of the killings to become clear... so what? Everyone knew this was terrorism from Day One. The Repugs must really be out of ideas if they are still clinging to this.

[LynneSin]

70. Reminds me when Christine O'Donnell claimed that Separation of Church & State didn't exist

in the constitution because the exact phrasing was not there.

Mind you she did that in a debate against Chris Coons, a lawyer with constitutional law background AND Widener Law School students, a place where Joe Biden, also a constitutional law expert, would teach classes from time to time.

[GeorgeGist]

83. It's like a certificate of live birth ...

is not a birth certificate.

[mnhtnbb]

85. The right is not generally known for nuance.

[abumbyanyothername]

87. If we keep talking about this long enough there's bound to be political gain in here somewhere.

Well there is. But not for you.

[MatthewStLouis]

88. The right wingers must have "terror" withdrawal since Dubya left town.

Remember when everything was about terror-y terrorists terrorizing with their terror-fying terror? Every other day Bush was running around like Chicken Little using the word like he just couldn't get enough of it.

[spanone]

93. fuckem all. everydamn one of them

[Tommy_Carcetti]

94. And these are the same guys who lambasted Clinton over his parsing of the word "is"?

Which, by the way, actually had some validity when you read it in proper context. (Clinton was asked about a statement where he said "There is nothing going on between [me and Monica]" At that time, his relationship with Monica had ended, so a present tense "is" would not have been accurate. But construing "is" to include not only present tense, but past tense as well, would warrant a different result if answered truthfully.)

[yellowcanine]

97. Not to mention a stupid thing to hang a "gotcha" on anyway, as Paul Krugman points out.

What does it matter what Obama CALLED it one day after the event? What he called it would not change anything and there is actually still some question as to what role the video played. What Obama did not do is invade a country based on nonexistent WMDs and what Obama did do was to get Osama bin Ladan and be relatively successful in taking down Gadaffi without committing American ground troops - that is what the Republicans are really chaffed about.

[Iris]

100. subtleties ain't their thing

[bluestate10]

104. Fuck the right. nt

[Major Hogwash]

106. Romney's fake response of acting shocked needs to be made into an ad.

Right now.

"I just want to get this on the record." ~ Mitt Romney during the 2nd Presidential debate.

Where's your tax returns, Mitt?

[moondust]

110. It doesn't matter.

Somebody down in the bureaucracy made a best-guess estimate of the security needs of the installations in a highly volatile region and in this one case it came up short. It's not an exact science. Somebody needs to get real.