2nd Debate Discussion

[Hingle McCringleberry]

I have no dog in this fight, I've already voted, and it wasn't for either of these D-Bags. I am not trying to spin it any direction, I agree he did not directly call this an act of terror, he did reference other general acts of terror, so call it what you will. Crowley agreed with Mitt after the fact. In the end this only matters to some political wonks, the vast majority of "undecided" voters will not pay attention to any parsing that is done today.

 

[zoogs]

The Rose Garden, the day after the attack:

"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," he 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. Today we mourn four 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."
-Barack Obama

Thanks, now show me where he called THIS and act of terror?

Ah, he was probably talking about those other acts of terror.

 

[Landlord]

Reading through this thread, I have to ask...

did someone really post that Crowley was interpreting Barack Obama's statemtent about acts of terror as a statement about acts of terror......

!?!?!

 

[huskerXman]

Hmm, the Washington post seems to agree with me.

http://www.washingto...e6a4b_blog.html

In fact, that reference to “acts of terror” didn’t appear in any sentence or paragraph with “Libya” or “Benghazi.” In that Rose Garden speech Obama seemed to obliquely refer to the purported provocation (the anti-Muslim video) when he said: “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. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.” The reference to “acts of terror” (plural, not the singular attack on Benghazi) was in reference to 9/11/01 and other jihadist attacks:

 

[knapplc]

So... Obama called a presser in the Rose Garden the day after the Benghazi attack to discuss "acts of terror" but did not in any way connect "acts of terror" to the Benghazi attack.

I suppose this was a completely random, pre-scheduled presser that just so happened to occur the day after the Ambassador was killed? I mean, if he had mentioned the Ambassadors name in that presser, maybe then we'd have some way to link the two concepts... . .... .. . .. . ... .... . ... . .. .

 

[knapplc]

Hmm, the Washington post seems to agree with me.

Jennifer Rubin, a right-wing pundit employed by the Post to write right-wing op/ed pieces. Nice try, though.

 

[huskerXman]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/30/no-obama-didnt-call-benghazi-act-of-terror-in-speech/

Obama said during the speech that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” — but at no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Here’s the line with some additional context:

 

[huskerXman]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57533862/fact-checking-the-second-presidential-debate/

It's true that the administration, including U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, maintained for several days that the attack was spontaneous and the result of protests over an inflammatory anti-Muslim video. Meanwhile, CBS News reported on Sept. 12 that the assault appeared to be a planned terrorist attack.

In his speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 25, Mr. Obama did not give any indication that the attack was an act of terrorism, instead repeatedly referencing the anti-Muslim YouTube video that allegedly spurred spontaneous protests.

 

[krc1995]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/16/fact-check-libya-attack/

It's just the Washington Post so maybe it's not a reliable source. See link for complete timeline

But Obama resists saying the ‘t’ word…

OBAMA: “What we’ve seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we've seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans.

“And my number-one priority is always to keep our diplomats safe and to keep our embassies safe. And so when the initial events happened in Cairo and all across the region, we worked with Secretary Clinton to redouble our security and to send a message to the leaders of these countries, essentially saying, although we had nothing to do with the video, we find it offensive, it's not representative of America's views, how we treat each other with respect when it comes to their religious beliefs, but we will not tolerate violence.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”

OBAMA: “Well, we're still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. 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.”

— President Obama, Univision Town Hall, Sept. 20

 

[Junior]

Now, I will ask one more time. WHERE DID HE CALL THIS AN ACT OF TERROR? I am not asking you what you think he meant, I have already gone over that.

"no terror acts" is not calling one specific act an act terror. It refers to all acts of terror.. What does he consider an act of terror? This one? Don't know he didn't specifically call this one an act of terror.

EDIT: neither does saying "we mourn..."

What other events happened the day prior that he would have been addressing as an act of terror??

 

[huskerXman]

I can go on if you need me to?

 

[JJ Husker]

I hate to jump in at this point but the deeper issue is not that Obama used the words "act of terror" the day after in the Rose Garden. That is a very limited segment based solely on the debate claim that Romney tripped all over. That only deals with the issue of the debate and fails to address how the administration actually treated the attack. The real issue is that the administration claimed it was a spontaneous uprising for two weeks. Don't let the minor details sidetrack you from discovering what Romney was trying, but bungled, to pin on Obama. Crowley also indicated this in her comments immediately after she corrected Romney.

 

[knapplc]

Can anyone tell me who pulled the trigger? Who killed the Ambassador? Who was involved in storming the compound?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

 

[VectorVictor]

So how do you feel about the 'binders full of women' comment?

not sure if you are talking to me or not, but I didn't hear it.

Yep, talking to you. Romney said it. What's your take on that?

again, I didn't not hear it so I have no idea what he said.

By the way, you know who else kept binders full of women?

In case you never watched it, this one is from the HBO show "Big Love", where one of Bill Hendrickson's three fundamental Mormon wives finds a binder of women for the older men to 'choose' for betrothal and discovers her sister (IIRC) and other former compound sisters, including minor girls, being included.

These are the best from Tumblr so far...

...and the 'binder' gaffe may be the worst one of all for Romney, as more folks are making the natural Mormon link/leap (understandably so) and making the public confront Mormonism and its sordid past (and present, for that matter).

That, and I'm suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure the 'baggers and fundamental derptards really love knowing their Presidential nominee has something weird and off-putting in common with Larry Flynt and Hugh Heffner. They already had reservations about him being Mormon (well, to be fair, the deep south fundies), but now to have something creepy in common with smut peddlers?

Yeah, this is going to play out well...

 

[carlfense]

http://www.washingto...k-libya-attack/

It's just the Washington Post so maybe it's not a reliable source. See link for complete timeline

But Obama resists saying the ‘t’ word…

OBAMA: “What we’ve seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we've seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans.

“And my number-one priority is always to keep our diplomats safe and to keep our embassies safe. And so when the initial events happened in Cairo and all across the region, we worked with Secretary Clinton to redouble our security and to send a message to the leaders of these countries, essentially saying, although we had nothing to do with the video, we find it offensive, it's not representative of America's views, how we treat each other with respect when it comes to their religious beliefs, but we will not tolerate violence.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”

OBAMA: “Well, we're still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. 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.”

— President Obama, Univision Town Hall, Sept. 20

Things that I notice:

This is referencing the Middle East protests as a group and not just Benghazi. (In fact, Cairo is referenced.)

Obama specifically says "embassies" in the quote. The Benghazi attack was on a consulate, not an embassy.

Obama had already referred to Benghazi as an act of terror.

And finally . . . what is the complaint exactly? That Obama hasn't said terror enough? What?