Romney now has 19 pants on fire statements. Almost 3 times as many as a sitting Pres.

Well if I decided not to debate you based on the fact that you support baby killers like obama, we'd never have to argue at all. It's hard for me to discuss anything with people that want to kill babies.

 

It might be something fact-checkable, but it's hardly "pants on fire."

Obama said he called the attack an "act of terror" the day after the attack.

The transcript shows he was speaking generally, saying "no act of terror" will intimidate the U.S.

But while he did not specifically say "this attack was a terror attack", there was no other reason to use that phrase in relation to the attack unless he was lumping it into that group.

I don't think Obama *knew* whether it was a terror attack at the time of his speech, and was doing the rhetorical equivalent of saying "If this turns out to be a terror attack...." So his later statement bends the truth a bit, implying far more certainty than was present at the time.

But that's not "pants on fire". And it's a sufficiently murky call -- because he clearly *did* lump the attack in under the general label of "terror attack" -- that I'm not surprised Politifact declined to take it on.

 

Gee, that is a real poor attempt at double speak. Romney lied because obama didn't lie but was instead wrong about the reasoning blah blah blah blah.

Obama didn't call the attacks acts of terror just like Romney said, and now you are attempting to cover for the messiah who lies. Get over it, you cannot twist the truth into a lie and a lie into the truth. Nobody is buying it.

Now as for you devolving the conversation into a childish game of name calling, I was just demonstrating that I can do that too. If you want to dodge charges of personal attacks by claiming that saying "statements and argument(s)" appear ignorant in no way is intended as a personal attack against the person saying it, then I just have to retort by saying that that is the stupidest thing I have heard all day.

 

Well now there you have it. This explains the following 2 weeks of "it was a demonstration because of an internet video" parade of appearances by every star in the obama administration. I guess politifact likewise would take a pass on the "demonstration because of an internet video" lies too as the matter is still under investigation and the jury is not in on that lie even though there is not one shred of evidence which would support the "fact" that is was a "demonstration because of an internet video".

Imagine my surprise that you are yet again defending them for declining "to take it on". Anytime a democrat tells a whopper, they seem to get their glasses all fogged up and things become "sufficiently murky".

 

I'm not saying that explains or excuses the administration's response to the attack. I'm saying it explains why Politifact has not found an Obama statement it can clearly rate.

 

No, what you are saying is that factcheck is justified in giving obama a pass on his lie.

Factcheck calls Romney a liar for calling out obama on his lie during the debate. But, Factcheck and you seem to think that it is not necessary to investigate whether or not obama's lie was indeed a lie. So how can you determine if Romney's incredulity was factual or not if you fail to determine that which made him incredulous was factual?

His statement was "I said it was an act of terror" and you have already acknowledged it was not true. He was refering to acts of terror in general.

 

Wow. I didn't bother going to the Romney Politifact item, trusting your description of it. My bad.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-says-obama-waited-14-days-call-libya-attack/

#1, they gave Romney a "half-true".

#2, they completely dealt with Obama's statement within that article.


We went to the transcript, and the president has a point. On September 12, the day after the attack, in the Rose Garden, Obama condemned the attack and said, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

In the days since, some have parsed Obama's remarks and argued he didn't say the Benghazi attack was specifically an act of terror. However, given the overall context of his comments, it seems a fair conclusion that he was including the attack in the "acts of terror" that he said would never shake American resolve.

However, in the days that followed, the White House spokesman and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations suggested that the attack seemed to have taken advantage of a demonstration over an American-made video that disparaged Islam.

On Sept. 13, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States."

The next day, a State Department spokeswoman said, "We are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated." But she ended with this: "Obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating."

On Sept. 16, five days after the attack, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said, "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

On Sept. 20, Carney told reporters, "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials."

But that same day, Obama told an audience at a town hall meeting, "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

It wasn’t until Sept. 21 that everyone in the administration as a whole stated publicly that the attack was planned and executed by a terrorist group.


So they addressed it. They point out that the administration as a whole muddled its message, but Obama himself appeared to always refer to it as a "terror attack." So Romney gets a half-true.

So your complaint seems to be that they handled it by addressing Romney's initial claim, rather than rating Obama's response. But that's two sides of the same coin; it would have been stupid to rate both. So they rated the first statement -- Romney's -- because he's the one that brought it up.

 

Wouldn't one need all of the facts to determine how truthful Obama has been regarding that?

 

I disagree the most stupid thing all day is you saying that Obama did not say the attacks were acts of terror. Also yes that can be considered a personal attack since I've repeatedly refuted your arguments and said how they are making you appear ignorant.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sn-bq2M95A

Clip from the speech I believe he said exactly at around the 1:05 mark "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation" While even before mentioning the attacks in Libya and he even referred to it as an attack before this mark while staying on the topic of Libya.

You cam claim he got his facts wrong, lied or even was just negligent about the actual events but he did use that phrase while addressing the Benghazi attacks.

 

Na, he didnt lie. In fact that line has been debunked about 20 times now. but I guess if I were you, I would feel butt hurt too about having my preciously held beliefs laid waste too.

 

I have never killed a baby in my life. I doubt Obama has either. Nice job in getting it totally wrong again.

 

Except, he did lie. He said the attack was spontaneous and sparked by some obscure video.
He even kept that lie going all the way up to his speech at the un two weeks later.

 

The stupidest thing I have heard all day was just surpassed by the more stupid statements above. It is a personal attack on you if I say your statements are stupid, but it not the case when you call my statements ignorant? That is such a stupid statement that it would make you appear super-stupid.

You have refuted nothing but you have in fact proven my statements correct. As was acknowledged by Candy Crowley and many others, and as evidenced by you quote above, a generalized statement regarding terrorism in no way equates to Benghazi = terrorism. Merely using that statement while addressing the Benghazi attacks is no substitute for saying, "this was an act of terror". If he did believe that, then why did his administration and those that speak for him continue to deny it was an act of terror for weeks?

Not only did he get his facts wrong, but they attempted to perpetrate a lie on the American public that this was a demonstration in reaction to a video:

[video=youtube;peXK31YZP6A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peXK31YZP6A&feature=related[/video]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/candy-cr...-terror-but-thought-he-picked-the-wrong-word/

 

He may have never killed a baby with his own hands. But while in the Illinois legislator he did fight tooth an nail to deny life saving medical treatment to babies whose only crime was to survive botched abortions.

 

What lies?
Since the story is still in a state of confusion, NO ONE knows the truth.

Only that of the three men who were in the compound when it was attacked, 2 died (one apparently on site, the other in the hospital of smoke inhalation, after libyans civilians found him and took him to the hospital, although the American rescuers had not found him in the room where he was last seen by the man who did escape.)

And that two more Americans died on top of the roof from a mortar shell, following a second attack on the annex

Even today, it is unclear who those terrorists were linked to.

 

Late term abortion do not lead to baby being born that can survive for days or weeks. There is no "saving" a late term abortion fetus.

 

If a baby is alive after it is no longer tethered to it's mother then it is an American citizen and is afforded every right that come along with that privilege.

Except, obama fought to deny them those rights. He said saving the baby would be 'too much of a burden on the mother". And, instead, the baby was left in a broom closet to die.

 

Read my previous posts and you will see that I have debunked your debukers and raise you 100 million Americans who are informed enough to know that obomber lied like a silver tongued auto salesman in a lying contest. Now go buy yourself some Preparation H for your sore butt.

Nice job in getting it totally wrong again. I said people who WANT to kill babies, not who have actually killed babies. As for president obortma killing babies, well, in reality, he is the president, and I'm sure that someone else kills them and cooks them up before he eats them.

 

I said this exact thing, I said that Obama was wrong to blame it on the video and that he did my point was since the start that he referred to it as an act of terror but on this I would like to point out that video was dishonest in one part that I saw. It said that when he was referring to the acts of terror he was referring to 9/11, this is false. Go watch the clip I left that wasn't cut up leaving out key parts of it in between at that specific quote. He actually finished talking about 9/11 at the 30 seconds mark and referred back to Benghazi.

 

You are only firming up my argument that they failed to rate obama's lie during the debate. Saying the "muddled its message" is just another way of mincing words. No English teacher would look at the sentence structure of his speech and make the leap into the void of saying that therefore, he said that Benghazi was also an act of terror. He also mentioned the families of those killed by the terrorists. Can we then make the leap that the terrorists were members of the families of those killed?

This was not about Romney's initial claim, but rather obama's claim that he said it was terror in the Rose Garden which he did not.

 

Keep lying to yourself.

 

How is sadanie lying? The facts have not been released. While you could say that's suspicious, until they are, we cannot say definitively that Obama did or did not crew this up or cover it up. You can't fact check something until you ave the facts.

 

I watched it and he did not say that Benghazi was an act of terror. He refused to on the view 2 weeks later as well. Why would he say it was on Sept 12th, but refuse to 2 weeks later? Because he didn't say it on Sept. 12th. He just refered to acts of terror in general, and as I said earlier, no English teacher would look at the sentence structure and say that he did.

Goodbye.

 

Or until the results of the investigation is done which will be after the election.

PS I like the "no one knows the truth" catch phrase.

 

It is very possible when the group making the call are of the opposing political view...