How the President framed his remarks on Sep 12...

[Lukey]

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

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.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...dly-attacks-at-us-consulate-in/#ixzz29YouaqLe

Then, once, near the closing, he mentions "acts of terror" in a general sense. He never ONCE said "this attack was an act of terrorism" or that it was perpetrated by "terrorists."

And THERE'S your facts!

 

[Arkady]

I read the transcript. In prepared remarks on September 12, specifically addressing the attack, Obama very clearly referred to the attacks as acts of terror. Any attempt to pretend that phrase only refers to some other generalized "acts of terror," is just plain silly. Here that phrase is, in context:

"As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe. 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. Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

How anyone can read that, with Obama talking about "acts of terror" in a sentence directly followed by talk of mourning those kills, and NOT realize he's referring to the attacks that killed those people as "acts of terror" is a testament to the power of blind partisanship to make people stupid.

As for Romney, he's got to be pissed off that the moderator was willing to call him on his lie that way.

 

[Lukey]

I read the transcript. In prepared remarks on September 12, specifically addressing the attack, Obama very clearly referred to the attacks as acts of terror. Any attempt to pretend that phrase only refers to some other generalized "acts of terror," is just plain silly. Here that phrase is, in context:

"As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe. 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. Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

How anyone can read that, with Obama talking about "acts of terror" in a sentence directly followed by talk of mourning those kills, and NOT realize he's referring to the attacks that killed those people as "acts of terror" is a testament to the power of blind partisanship to make people stupid.

As for Romney, he's got to be pissed off that the moderator was willing to call him on his lie that way.

Simple question. In that passage, is he talking specifically about Ambassador Stevens? Or the broader war on terror in a general sense? And are we to ignore the following ten day PR campaign where he and his representatives repeatedly insisted it was merely a "spontaneous demonstration" that turned violent?

 

[KnotaFrayed]

So you would accept "efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others".?????????????????

Does that mean you agreed with Hitler or wouldn't mind if someone denigrated your religion?

Please describe for the audience what one calls those who perform "Acts of Terror"????

 

[Arkady]

Simple question. In that passage, is he talking specifically about Ambassador Stevens? Or the broader war on terror in a general sense? And are we to ignore the following ten day PR campaign where he and his representatives repeatedly insisted it was merely a "spontaneous demonstration" that turned violent?

I'm unaware of a "ten day PR campaign" to that effect. What I see is that Obama very clearly referred to an act of terror, in a speech specifically put together to address the event, and he followed the use of that phrasing with a sentence about mourning the deaths. The only reasonable way to view that is to say he was labeling the attack as an act of terror.

I realize you feel compelled to make an opposite point, since Romney stupidly went out on a dangerous limb with that one during the debate, and got called on it. But this comes down to simple reading comprehension.

 

[Lukey]

I'm unaware of a "ten day PR campaign" to that effect. What I see is that Obama very clearly referred to an act of terror, in a speech specifically put together to address the event, and he followed the use of that phrasing with a sentence about mourning the deaths. The only reasonable way to view that is to say he was labeling the attack as an act of terror.

I realize you feel compelled to make an opposite point, since Romney stupidly went out on a dangerous limb with that one during the debate, and got called on it. But this comes down to simple reading comprehension.

No, actually, he did not. He referred to "acts of terror" PLURAL - not any one specific act of terror. In fact, when he was speaking specifically of the Benghazi attack, he was very careful to refer to the attackers as "killers" not "terrorists." And he followed it up immediately by a comment about people denigrating religion, suggesting (again) that this attack was somehow tied into the demonstrations about the youtube clip.

So it would seem he was suggesting this was a non-terrorist attack and then pivoted to talk more broadly about the broader terrorist threats, which I would interpret his remarks as suggesting that the Benghazi attack was only tangentially related to. He and his Administration (and his surrogates) then went on a ten day campaign of dis-information regarding the Benghazi attack, including his speech at the UN, and Ambassador Rices, five show blitzkrieg to get that meme established.

http://times247.com/articles/obama-again-pins-libya-blame-on-video-at-u-n

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/ambassador-susan-rice-appeared-on-five.html

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/nati...in-Shadow-of-Campaign-Politics-171117311.html

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/us_news/Obama-Extremists-used-video-as-excuse-to-attack_88801480

http://global.christianpost.com/new...s-extremists-wont-survive-21st-century-82179/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ya-attack/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

 

[Lukey]

So you would accept "efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others".?????????????????

Does that mean you agreed with Hitler or wouldn't mind if someone denigrated your religion?

Please describe for the audience what one calls those who perform "Acts of Terror"????

If you are the President, seeking to downplay the whole episode for political purpose, you call them "killers."

And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

That you are reduced to arguing over whether President Obama was referring to acts of terror in the plural or in the singular is a pretty clear sign that you have lost this argument. It's a pretty clear sign that you are getting desperate in your attempt to defend Mitt Rmoney's faux pas in the debate last night.

 

[Lukey]

That you are reduced to arguing over whether President Obama was referring to acts of terror in the plural or in the singular is a pretty clear sign that you have lost this argument. It's a pretty clear sign that you are getting desperate in your attempt to defend Mitt Rmoney's faux pas in the debate last night.

Well that sure works as long as you can pretend all the events of the next ten days didn't take place. Obama wins again!

 

[Arkady]

OK, so in bat-shit-crazy Republicanland, Obama gathered together a press event to discuss the Benghazi attack, started discussing it for a few minutes, pivoted away, for no apparent reason, to an unrelated topic of acts of terror, for a single sentence, then pivoted immediately back, in the very next sentence, to discuss the Benghazi attack. From the bottom of my heart, let me urge you to get professional help. Your hatred of our president has gotten to the point where you're coming across as nothing so much as a raving lunatic.

 

[Bo-4]

Total Bullcrap there Lukey. It wasn't "toward the end" and you didn't even quote the full sentence:

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.”

 

[Bo-4]

OK, so in bat-shit-crazy Republicanland, Obama gathered together a press event to discuss the Benghazi attack, started discussing it for a few minutes, pivoted away, for no apparent reason, to an unrelated topic of acts of terror, for a single sentence, then pivoted immediately back, in the very next sentence, to discuss the Benghazi attack. From the bottom of my heart, let me urge you to get professional help. Your hatred of our president has gotten to the point where you're coming across as nothing so much as a raving lunatic.

Poor Lukey hasn't been the same since 11 of '08 when Grumpy McRage went down in an electoral landslide. Poor Willard shouldn't have stuck his neck out like he did. Probably should have re-watched the speech or read the transcript.

[video=youtube;Z0wllKURCq8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0wllKURCq8[/video]

 

[Lukey]

OK, so in bat-shit-crazy Republicanland, Obama gathered together a press event to discuss the Benghazi attack, started discussing it for a few minutes, pivoted away, for no apparent reason, to an unrelated topic of acts of terror, for a single sentence, then pivoted immediately back, in the very next sentence, to discuss the Benghazi attack. From the bottom of my heart, let me urge you to get professional help. Your hatred of our president has gotten to the point where you're coming across as nothing so much as a raving lunatic.

No, in conclusion he pivoted to comments on the wider war on terror. The fact remains that you guys cannot link to his quote where he said "the Benghazi attack was terrorism."

 

[Bo-4]

No, in conclusion he pivoted to comments on the wider war on terror. The fact remains that you guys cannot link to his quote where he said "the Benghazi attack was terrorism."

One of your greatest all-time stretches there Lukey! :laugh: Desperate much?

 

[Lukey]

Total Bullcrap there Lukey. It wasn't "toward the end" and you didn't even quote the full sentence:

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.”

Acts! Plural. And no "THIS act of terror." It was a weasel worded non-statement of any specificity, which is completely the opposite of how it is being portrayed today.

 

[Bo-4]

Acts! Plural. And no "THIS act of terror." It was a weasel worded non-statement of any specificity, which is completely the opposite of how it is being portrayed today.

So when Bushie grabbed a megaphone and climbed on the rubble at WTC and said: actS of terror won't be tolerated and we're gonna git 'em.. he wasn't talking about 9/11?

Dude, you need help. ;-)

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

So when Bushie grabbed a megaphone and climbed on the rubble at WTC and said: actS of terror won't be tolerated and we're gonna git 'em.. he wasn't talking about 9/11?

Dude, you need help. ;-)

Well, mebbe that George W. feller was talkin' bout how's their had been MUTLAPLE attakcs on 9/11. Them terreirest fellers attakced BOTH the World Trader Centres AND the Petnagone!

 

[zzigzzag]

Have fun trying to characterize the release of raw information to the whole world as soon as it was received as a "cover up". Maybe y'all can compel him to reveal the source(s?) of the original incorrect info. Then you can revert to, "He's throwing them under the bus" without skipping a beat.

Not that y'all are predictable when you're diverting your own attention from a big loss.

 

[Bo-4]

Well, mebbe that George W. feller was talkin' bout how's their had been MUTLAPLE attakcs on 9/11. Them terreirest fellers attakced BOTH the World Trader Centres AND the Petnagone!

Lol, yes that was it! God how i love the smell of desperation in the morning. ;-)

 

[KnotaFrayed]

If you are the President, seeking to downplay the whole episode for political purpose, you call them "killers."

And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

And if you are a candidate seeking to make political profit by second guessing a president who had more facts than you and trying to mince words to do so?

What does one call those who perform "acts of terror"???? Please answer the question directly.