Obama : Called Bengahzi incident an act of terror.

Semantics. A dumb thing for Romney to push upon. The only thing all night that gave Obama the chance to look insulted and tough. Without that moment and/or part of the debate, the whole thing sways heavily for Romney. Not as much as the 1st debate, but still. As Americans we all duke it out with each other regularly, but none wouldn't bring hell on earth on people who did that crap to Americans. Just how it is. Guaranteed, in hindsight, Mitt Romney doesn't pull the trigger on that one. Says all that needs to be said on that subject.

 

Of course,,it's clear. In any speech the tone is set early, you know what the speech is going to be about. What else would you do? You cant just meander on and hope they understand your theme,,this is not poetry, it's a speech and the one thing most speech's have in common is you know EARLY what they are about.

Especially in any type of briefing,,it's news....

 

In your world is being illegally parked also a terrorist act?

 

Calling someone on their lie is hardly 'getting away with it'. You know who didn't get away with it?

Romney.

 

act of terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

Literally, the exact same definition. Can we move on folks?

 

"...And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president, that's not what I do as Commander in Chief...." ~ pbama.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82484_Page7.html#ixzz29bNb30ni

He has said he didn't want to mislead. He wanted to be sure his intelligence was right. Yet, he mentioned the video many times during his UN speech and only mentioned terror in regards to Iran. He was terribly angry at the maker of the video though.

That anger is what many people remember. His anger as well as Hillary's. What a terrible person the guy who produced the video was. Insulting an entire religion. Semantics aside, everyone remembers that pbama's anger at Bassile (or whatever his name is) was much more clearly stated than his anger at Al qaeda. He wanted to make sure the intelligence was correct though no intelligence ever suspected that the attack resulted from that video.

Why deflect the blame? Why show such palpable anger at the video maker?

 

Another excellent point against Obama that "wants to be careful what he says". LOL

If he wanted to be careful he would have just said that he didn't know instead of blaming the video for two weeks. This is called walking back the error.

Of course this has been one of the problems with Obama's presidency, taking sides with no knowledge. In this case, he had the knowledge but kept up the lie.

 

Not that my answer will matter in the very teeny weeny minds of liberals, but here goes....

On 9/21 CNN themselves reported that "FOR THE FIRST TIME THE PRESIDENT HAS CALLED THE ATTACK THAT KILLED STEVENS WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK"

And this is why...

In his rose garden speech he first talked about 9/11/01, Walter reed, wounded warriors, the news of the attack on benghazi, standing up for freedom and giving up our lives for it...blah blah blah....then he says "no acts of terror will shake the resolve against this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.....today we mourn for 4 more Americans....blah...blah...blah...bring them to justice for this TERRIBLE ACT"....then he goes on to talk about religious freedom and the video.

So.....here's a question for you....at your leisure.

"do you really think that if this happened under bush we would EVER wonder if this was a terror attack or not?"

I can tell you that we would know immediately. I know this.

Now, here's what happened the Obama champaign saw their way out of this, and they and candy went with it. But what they did not realize is that the American people with half a brain know they are lying and covering again, because we were there for weeks after listening to Obama, Clinton, rice, axelrod, and carney all say this attack was about a Godda** video! We won't forget, and Obama will lose on November 6th and his will be a big factor as to why....you can't stop it and neither can Obama at this point....so better deal with it now so that it doesn't shock your system too much on election day.

 

Sounds like he "shoots first and aims later".

Well, not really. He knew he was lying.

 

You all are dragging out something that would disappear if you would just stop.

 

You are right, officials lying like they did in Watergate is just a distraction.

 

Could it be he's mad at the video maker because he speaks the truth about muslims? Obama is the closet thing we have to the anti-christ. Very little is really known about this guy even after all these years. Forged birth certificate? Colledge transcripts? Muslim father? Relatives who claim he was born in Africa? Why is he siding with Iran and Syria? Could it be he is a Sunni sympathizer?

 

Dear God, man. The only people your riling up is people you could rile up just by saying Obama's name. Anybody in their right mind would tell you it was dumb thing for Romney to go after. I would bet even Romney at this point. The questions were mostly suited to benefit the dems, and I wouldn't doubt if that was thrown out there, masked as a question for the benefit of reps, but in all reality bait for a trap. Romney looked like an idiot. Hell, the entire room of non decided voters clapped for Obama in a venue you're not supposed to clap in. Was dumb. Live and learn.

 

Oh you are just a birther and we can laugh at you and ignore the facts or lack of them and laugh at you. Ha Ha Ha, and feel superior about ourselves. Harumph.

 

Yes, going after the lies from the WH against a sitting President and a Prez friendly moderator is dumb. What was he thinking. Lies don't count, empty rhetoric does. I get it.

 

LOL watergate? Really?

 

I'm just trying to throw a dog a bone. (*)(*)(*)(*) it. I bow out.

 

Guess you don't remember what Watergate was. It wasn't about the break in but how the Administration lied.

 

Definition of TERROR
1: a state of intense fear 2a : one that inspires fear : scourge b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : worry d : an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3: reign of terror
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

Sounds like you need to go argue with Merriam Webster Only definition #4 ties the word to Terrorist attacks. Maybe your right many conservatives like myself are in "a state of intense fear" that Obama could be re elected this meets definition # 1 and you're saying "Your so desperatly trying to argue that act of terror means something other than terrorism" which by your logic Obama is a terrorist

 

Siding with Iran and Syria? Have you been sleeping? Iran is subject to punishing sanctions .. and they are working. The rest of your claims are nonsense.

 

So youre just not going to address the question: explain why he presented it to the UN in the way he did and above all why did he send Susan Rice to no less than 4 morning shows telling people it was a you tube video and a demonstration that got out of control.

Avoiding that like the plague aye?

 

Did you read the thread on security concerns in Libya?

 

You have to drop the “ism” he said "Act of Terror
The word Race is different than Racism
The word National is different than Nationalism
The word Institution is different that Institutionalism
And yes the word Terror is different than Terrorism

We can move on and you are welcome! JUST THE FACTS FOLKS!

 

How many politicians/ ex-US Presidents can you name who've never changed their minds, - lied - broke their promises ?


.....

 

Let's recap:

- Cons scream it took the President two weeks to call it terrorism
- Romney wastes no time using national tragedy for political gain
- The President claims in debate #2 that he said it wad an act of terror the very next day
- Romney makes him repeat it because he wants it on record but the President tells him to please continue
- Romney makes (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag of himself by acting like an ass and being wrong
- Quote from the Rose Garden is widely circulated
- Romney is proven wrong
- Cons claim an "act of terror" is not the same thing as a "terrorist attack" so actually Romney was correct
- Or they claim Obama wasn't talking about Benghazi completely ignoring the very next sentence in his quote
- Or they claim yeah he may have said what he said but he said it for the wrong reason

Not a good week for Romney or his supporters. Even worse for the cons that are so twisted in semantics they don't even know which way is up any more.