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 sole reference to terrorism is a generic, “no act of terror will ever shake our resolve” reference. The text of the address calls the assassinations an “attack,” never using terms like assassination, terrorism, murder, etc.
So when Candy Crowley bailed Obama out by saying the President did call the assassination a terrorist act she was dead wrong and should acknowledge that she got her facts wrong.
”
Bingo.
So, Obama embellished or generalized at best, lied at worst.
The moderator effed up when she overstepped her bounds to help Obama and in her haste, misstated the truth. Moderators are supposed to be neutral. And the supposedly "undecided" audience ate it up. And she says she's wrong after the fact? A little late for that.
Crowley should have kept her mouth shut. This will go down bad tomorrow for Obama.
Yes it will.
I saw it as it was at that time in the debate.
In his presentation of Benghazi on September 12th Obama called it an "act of terror" but not a terrorist act.
He also spoke of respect for other faiths/religions.
The whole of his diatribe was solely on Benghazi, not Egypt at all, and had nothing to do with the tape but he chose to throw that bit in on respect for the beliefs of others.
Why was that?
It was totally unreleated.
That was pure misleading on Obama's part.
Obama in Press Briefing on Benghazi, Sept. 12th, day after;
" 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."
That is his first time implicating the video in the Benghazi sttsck.
Last edited by bluesjuke; 10-16-2012 at 10:53 PM..
She knows she's toast for not asking Obama to please answer the question where he completely railroaded......so she's trying to soften the blow...don't kid yourself these people have lawyers on the go...she goofed and lost credibility while everyone clearly can see...Obama is in the frying pan and really has no control over the progression of things...its become a matter of telling the truth...everybody's getting all fuzzy and warm telling the truth but Obama.
She knows she's toast for not asking Obama to please answer the question where he completely railroaded......so she's trying to soften the blow...don't kid yourself these people have lawyers on the go...she goofed and lost credibility while everyone clearly can see...Obama is in the frying pan and really has no control over the progression of things...its become a matter of telling the truth...everybody's getting all fuzzy and warm telling the truth but Obama.
I agree. As of October 12 Obama was leading in Ohio 51-46. After this debate I think he may get a bump of maybe 2 points. I think Romney needs Ohio to win, according to most experts.
I can't stand someone spinning and lying. Many people were not paying attention because left wing media didn't want you to know and that includes Candy Crawly
The false White House narrative blaming the murders on a protest gone bad over a YouTube video. But Obama maintained that illusion straight through to his speech before the United Nations two days ago, even as reports surfaced that our government knew al-Qaeda was behind the attack within 24 hours. Apparently, this has become too much to sweep under the rug for some of the mainstream press and Democrats.
This is an issue that is not going to die! so get used to it.
Until the facts came out later, almost EVERYONE in the news media and as a result the public thought the killing was related to the youtube video protests because THEY HAPPENED THE SAME DAY as when Chris Stevens was attacked and killed. It was only perhaps a day or two later that it surfaced that this might've been a co-ordinated attack.
So yes once the facts were known, they didn't change their stance quickly enough to reflect the updated facts they had and stuck with the youtube video as the cause for abit too long. But in the grand scheme of things SO WHAT? Does it really matter? Why do people these days expect everyone to get EVERYTHING correct RIGHT AWAY? Why can't people understand that IT TAKES TIME to get all the facts pieced together and know what really happened? Sometimes you get it right quickly and other times you don't, but why get angry when you don't get all the answers right away? Don't Americans have ANY patience these days? >_>
And getting back to the 'acts of terror' comment, I'm sure Romney was referring to how long it took for the Dems to acknowledge that the Chris Stevens attack was a co-ordinated strike, but instead he called Obama out on whether or not he stated the attack was an 'act of terror' the next day WHICH OBAMA CLEARLY DID and Crowley rightfully backed that up BECAUSE ITS TRUE.
Fact is is that Romney should've been more clear as to what exactly he was attacking before going all in on the wrong issue.
Yes it will.
I saw it as it was at that time in the debate.
In his presentation of Benghazi on September 12th Obama called it an "act of terror" but not a terrorist act.
He also spoke of respect for other faiths/religions.
The whole of his diatribe was solely on Benghazi, not Egypt at all, and had nothing to do with the tape but he chose to throw that bit in on respect for the beliefs of others.
Why was that?
It was totally unreleated.
That was pure misleading on Obama's part.
Obama in Press Briefing on Benghazi, Sept. 12th, day after;
" 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."
That is his first time implicating the video in the Benghazi sttsck.
4 men killed by terrorist!
Obama did NOT reschedule his morning Intel meeting ... And off to Vegas Obama went. The campaigner in chief!
Romney tried to be snarky and clever and ended up making a fool of himself. If he had stated the facts simply he would have won the point. Instead he tried to play the Rush-Limbaugh-game of deconstructing language and making it more about semantics than facts.
He got it wrong and Crowley called him on it.
Apart from the fumbled execution, it was an unwise tactic to persuade swing-voters, who don’t respond to talk-radio memes.
Fact is is that Romney should've been more clear as to what exactly he was attacking before going all in on the wrong issue.
This is the least partisan answer to this event.
Candy was a decent moderator, but the rules she abided by were simply untenable in a debate.
Everyone has a bias one way or the other, we can't help it. We interpret things in a way we want. If she supported Obama, she'd have heard the accusation as one that was easily defensible. If she supported Romney, she'd have seen Romney's question for what he intended.
The simple problem is that in a debate, it can not be Barack vs Mitt vs Candy. One of the three will always come out worse in that narrative. It's inevitable.
To her credit, she admitted she was wrong after the fact. That doesn't do Mitt much good now, however ,as millions won't hear it. I don't blame Candy. I blame the format.
I am going to say something which a lot of people won't like: Lehrer was the superior moderator. Both Candy and Lehrer let the candidates overrun their talk time(Which is bad), but Lehrer let Obama defend himself. The debate was between two presidential hopefuls and not two presidential hopefuls and some third party who isn't running.
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.
