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.
Again Romney agreed that act of terror was an appropriate term. And the Presidents used acts. Certainly the WTC was in that set.
No. Obama 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," without any explanation whatsoever of what he considered to be acts of terror.
In contrast, THIS is how Obama actually discussed the attack in Benghazi: "Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to *this* type of senseless violence."
Note the specific use of "this." It is a determiner. It clearly tells us that Obama was referring to the attack in Benghazi.
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."
Again Romney agreed that act of terror was an appropriate term. And the Presidents used acts. Certainly the WTC was in that set. So he was describing a number of items...
You would therefore have to decide he was talking about items other than Benghazi...which would not be in the context of the remarks.
You simply can't get where you are going on these remarks.
Obama never said it was an act of terror. Obama said it was a riot incited by a video , not a planned attack. Obama went on to explain it was spontaneous. This is not an act of terror as explained by Obama himself. And this is the reason.
Obama will not call any muslim a terrorist. That is plain to see. Obama did say if the political tide turns ugly he will support the muslims. This statement he made in his book. Obama is living up to what he said. He will not go against a muslim..
Obama had two other times he could have taken out Bin Laden but didn't.. it was by Hillary's urging the third time to put pressure on Obama to take out Bin Laden.. he was pushed into killing Bin Laden even though two times previous he passed. If not for Hillary , Bin Laden would be alive today. Now why did Obama pass the first and second time? And why did Hillary have to urge Obama to take out Bin Laden?
I guess in the future in Obama should start referencing people's social security numbers so we
that we can be sure who he is talking about.
At the time was there another group of four Americans who had just been killed that he might have been referring to?
If you're going to claim that Obama Directly called what happened in Benghazi a terrorist attack, you should be able to find a sentence in one of his statements with the words Benghazi, Libya, That attack, Yesterday's attack, in the same sentence as 'terror' or 'terrorists.'
Instead, he did everything possible to avoid Directly calling it an act of terror or a terrorist attack.
No. Obama 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," without any explanation whatsoever of what he considered to be acts of terror.
In contrast, THIS is how Obama actually discussed the attack in Benghazi: "Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to *this* type of senseless violence."
Note the specific use of "this." It is a determiner. It clearly tells us that Obama was referring to the attack in Benghazi.
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."
See the difference?
Uhh no. Romney obviously state that act of terror was sufficient. The general context was the losses in Libya. The specific was "Acts of Terror".
Was he being precise about this? No. And that may have been wise. First off he had concerns about what actually went down...and reports today question Al Qaida involvement and even indicate that some portion was due to the reaction to the video...and that appears to be testimony from a witness on the scene.
Did you notice the airplane in which the Americans pulled out of Benghazi? Did you note who Steven's last meeting was with?
There are obviously a whole lot of back stories on this. Many may never come forth. But I am of the opinion you go with the CinC and SofS until there is strong evidence to go the other way. Romney trying to get elected is not such evidence.
Give me a freaking break, now you want to put the blame on Romney? And you don't like my source, so you post crap from Media Matters? Wow, you have zero integrity or respect for the truth.
"this man" was not referring to Romney, which should be obvious from my post (#598) on budget cuts to which you responded. How could Romney have anything at all to do with voting in Congress on cutting security for the consulate? I was referring to Jason Chaffetz. Obviously, you never bothered to click on the link or watch the short video. I said I'd stop posting, but I couldn't resist. At least I read what you posted and the link you provided.
Reading comprehension. This is why we need Sesame Street.
Obama did not say "this was an act of terror," he called it an "attack" a few times, and called it a "terrible act," but he not say "this act of terror" or "this terrorist act" in the same sentence as Benghazi. It took Obama nine paragraphs to even say the word "terror" and then it was vague reference to the American spirit and our nation's resolve.
It doesn't even matter because whether or not he called it an act of terrorism in the Rose Garden, the scumbag-in-chief still orchestrated an elaborate cover-up that lasted for two weeks. He was hoping the LSM would ignore the story while he ran out the clock.
No. Obama was rambling all over the place... he discussed September 11, 2001, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the troops killed and injured in those wars, etc. Obama failed to indicate that the attack in benghazi was an act of terror. If you believe otherwise, cite the sentence in which Obama says the attack in Benghazi was an act of terror. You won't be able to because he didn't say it.
Now we have a president who is destroying us from the inside out. Obama , because of his own words." when the political tides grow ugly , I will support the muslims. Of course. Obama shows that every day. Obama can't call a muslim a terrorist. He had to blame a video instead. And then Obama has the FBI put the film maker in jail.
Obama will not call a muslim a terrorist because his own belief in the muslim religion can't fathom that they can be blamed. Obamas own pastor said We , Americans deserved the hit on the twin towers that represented our capitalist system. Obama is also rooted in black liberation theology which is a hate white belief that whites raped all poor countries of their resources. Obama has lots of baggage .
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.
