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.
I have listened to that video so many times since you had to post it but failed to hear The One call that attack a terrorist attack. He just does't use that word. He said it there almost as badly as when he talked about the terrorist murders in the Texas Fort and called them workplace violence.
If Obama really said that why did Candy Crowley apologize for her action after she realized what she had done? I am very sure you are trying too hard to convince all of us about the words of Hussein Obama and that you actually do know that Crowley was right when she apologized.
Please tell, what is the difference between saying it was a "terrorist attack" and an "act of terror"?
Please tell, what is the difference between saying it was a "terrorist attack" and an "act of terror"?
Maybe timing of when words were said could help you out. The word terror appeared several sentences from the word Genghazi. I heard a very interesting playback of that speech this morning and even with help the real left leaner on the show just couldn't admit that all you people are wrong. That playback did, however, support Candy Crowley's apology for what she said. If you would want to hear the playback of it the way Fox did it you can do so by watching Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace at 2:00 EDT or at 6:00 EDT today. I know that Fox is made up of cheaters but seeing The One and how far it was between the words that fast does a lot to explain what leaners have been unable to understand up to now.
I might add that he never did say terrorist attack even close to anything about Benghazi. All he said was that we wouldn't allow terrorist attacks and here we are over a month from that speech and not a thing has been done. Talk about foreign policy, Obama has none at all other than allowing Muslims to push us around.
Maybe timing of when words were said could help you out. The word terror appeared several sentences from the word Genghazi. I heard a very interesting playback of that speech this morning and even with help the real left leaner on the show just couldn't admit that all you people are wrong. That playback did, however, support Candy Crowley's apology for what she said. If you would want to hear the playback of it the way Fox did it you can do so by watching Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace at 2:00 EDT or at 6:00 EDT today. I know that Fox is made up of cheaters but seeing The One and how far it was between the words that fast does a lot to explain what leaners have been unable to understand up to now.
I might add that he never did say terrorist attack even close to anything about Benghazi. All he said was that we wouldn't allow terrorist attacks and here we are over a month from that speech and not a thing has been done. Talk about foreign policy, Obama has none at all other than allowing Muslims to push us around.
It was cleared up last night ... ref last couple of minutes of the video
What gets me is Obama being so understanding of the followers of the Prophet when he thinks the video caused the attack. Right away he was sympathetic.
Please show me where he showed sympathy toward anyone except for the families of the 4 men who lost their lives. Where? When did he apologize even once?
Romney, in an effort to slander the President, shot from the hip before he had ANY information, and before the families could be notified or we could confirm the 4 deaths, and everyone, including many Republicans, said he was wrong. Are you one of the low information people pundits refer to who listen to Rush Limbaugh regularly? Do you read World News Daily and also believe Obama is secretly gay and has had his lovers murdered to cover up his homosexuality?
"Mitt Romney claims the Obama administration issued an "apology for American values" after U.S. embassies were attacked. Not true. Romney refers to a statement issued before mobs attacked either in Egypt or Libya, and faults U.S. diplomats for failing to condemn actions that hadn't yet happened.
Furthermore, the word "sorry" or "apologize" doesn't appear in the statement. Under the headline, "U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement," the embassy in Cairo said, "Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy." [/quote]
The above statement was issued on Sept 14 and leaders around the world, including several Republicans in Congress, thought Romney's remarks were not only incorrect, but totally inappropriate.
[URL="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/many-republicans-join-democrats-in-denouncing-attack-in-libya/"]Many Republicans Join Democrats in Denouncing Attack in Libya[/URL]
Please tell, what is the difference between saying it was a "terrorist attack" and an "act of terror"?
Though I believe Obama and his speechwriters struggled mightily to avoid using the words Libya and Benghazi and terror in the same sentence, let's assume you're right and he did mean what happened was an act of terror. That takes us to your question and wordplay.
I suppose anyone who tells a lie can be classified a liar, which could make everyone a liar. We probably all have cooked a meal or washed a dish, so you could say we are all 'cooks' and 'dishwashers.' But is that a realistic way to use words.
If angry protesters went temporarily berserk and committed an act of terror, I guess they became terrorists when they performed the act. However, is that what you think of when the government refers to a war on terror or terrorist groups or homeland security.
This is a case of understanding what Obama meant by how he used words and what words he didn't use.
Let me say at the outset that obviously our hearts are heavy this week -- we had a tough day a couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya.
"An attack" NO mention whatsoever of calling that attack an act of terror.
And we want to send a message all around the world -- anybody who would do us harm: 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.
There's that "would" again.
Notice how it's not anyone who HAS done us harm. The attack in Benghazi was in the past tense at that time. Obama was speaking in the future tense.
If Obama were REALLY calling the attack in Benghazi an act of terror, it should read along the lines of... "the act of terror attack on our diplomatic post in Libya" or "the terrorist attack on our diplomatic post in Libya." Obama said NOTHING of the kind.
For example, THIS is how the Obama Admin actually calls an attack a terrorist attack: "The United States condemns in the strongest terms the terrorist attack today in Beirut that killed Lebanese Internal Security Forces Information Bureau Director Wissam al-Hassan and at least seven others, and wounded dozens more."
All this arguing over a phrase and whether or not it applied to a given moment in time compare to the fact that the TSA practically rapes American citizens, the skies have drones spying on American citizens, camera's are mounted on every street corner spying on American citizens makes me sick to my stomach. This administration has plenty of time, money and man power to watch Americans but they can't send one or two Marine fire squads to Benghazi.
What's worse you have the entire liberal left defending him over something that was obviously a general statement and not even close to being specific. I continue to be amazed by the lack of Critical Thinking and Media Bias.
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.