Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Fort Hood massacre is called "workplace violence," and Benghazi anything but terrorism.
We must have an unspoken war on the term terrorism.
I don't think the average American cares about the definition of those terms when being referred to an attack against our country....I think it is just a handful of dictionary nerds in here who think that is a big deal.
I thought that, in the beginning of debate two, Mitt was a horrible bully to both Obama and to Candy Crowley, the moderator.
Someone commented that Mitt performed as though he was talking to the board of a company during a hostile take over, which is not appropriate.
I thought he was so angry that there was opposition this time that he was going to take a punch at the president.
Who wouldn't get angry when someone is standing there telling bold face lies about your plans? Obama was the one that wouldn't shut up, even talking over Candy.
He said on Sept. 12th and he said it again on Sept. 13th.
"But on Sept. 13, at a campaign event in Colorado, Obama again used the phrase "act of terror" and this time tied it directly to the Benghazi attack.
"So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America," he said."
Yeah, that's great. So I hear KSM is going to be allowed to wear a camo vest at trial. How IS that "swift and speedy path to justice" coming along, anyway? How about the Fort Hood Shooter? They won't proceed with his trial for "workplace violence" because his beard violates military policy but KSM can wear a camo vest? Yes, I am sooooooooooo confident that Obama will punish the Islamic jihadists who killed our Ambassador and 3 other Americans.
Mitt came off like a crybaby last night. Always whining and cutting off the moderator when it was time to move onto a new question. I thought he was going to cry a few times when he didn't get his way
I guess you didn't notice how the moderator gave Obama the last say in every question no matter who went first.
What people need to realize is the real reason Obama has a tough time calling them terrorists and terror attacks. He truly believes that they are freedom fighters since they are fighting for the Islamic cause.
What people need to realize is the real reason Obama has a tough time calling them terrorists and terror attacks. He truly believes that they are freedom fighters since they are fighting for the Islamic cause.
I'll say it again: The emphasis on semantics being played out in the media and on this forum is precisely what the Administration wants. As long as people fight about words, there will be no attention placed on the ACTUAL FAILURE of the USG to protect its ambassadors in hostile territory.
I wish I could say that i'm surprised that liberals are so easily duped into parroting Administration talking points. Unfortunatley, i'm not surprised at all.
Words mean nothing. It's the action that counts, and this was a failure of colossal proportions.
Frankly, I think the whole semantic argument is ridiculous, and it doesn't score any political points with me. It doesn't matter a bit what the WH thought the attack were "about" or "caused by" initially. If they judged it wrong in the heat of the moment, then so be it, things like that happen. Dissecting whether he said "terror" or "terrorism" and what he was referring to is useless bickering imo.
At the end of the day, 4 Americans were killed...
• Focus on where the breakdown in security was inside the walls.
• Focus on whether or not we had the right amount of security there.
• Focus on whether we should have been there at all.
• Focus on improving security at all our embassies.
• Focus on our overall foreign policy.
But focusing on whether the WH initially thought it was the video, or a protest gone violent, or a 9/11 retaliation right after the event is really pretty meaningless at this point. The fight is over (and lost, at least for Stevens and the others who died), now work on improving the overall structure to try and prevent a repeat of those events.
You are pleading intentional ignorance. They wanted to point the finger to the video, but that plan fell apart and now they are shown to be incompetent liars.
Were you so forgiving when Bush sold us on Iraq over WMD's that didn't exist?
Why is it too much to ask to expect the truth from our elected leaders? Why can't we expect the truth out of the media anymore, what happened to investigative journalism? We are being fed nothing but propoganda and you want to defend that, and pretend it doesn't matter?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
