Candy Crowley hosed Romney during the debate

[james&olya 1,121]

Actually Obama did not call "it" meaning the attack an act of terror. 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.

I find it absurd that you and others trying to make that point believe that a speech specifically about the Benghazi attack would have for a single sentence have jumped focus to some other un-named event and then immediately after resumed discussing the Benghazi incident! It is just as absurd as those birthers who used to try to distinguish between a 'birth certificate' and a 'certificate of live birth' as if they were somehow different and that there was fraud and a cover-up there! You need more tin-foil!!!

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Actually Obama did not call "it" meaning the attack an act of terror. 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.

Oh my god.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I find it absurd that you and others trying to make that point believe that a speech specifically about the Benghazi attack would have for a single sentence have jumped focus to some other un-named event and then immediately after resumed discussing the Benghazi incident! It is just as absurd as those birthers who used to try to distinguish between a 'birth certificate' and a 'certificate of live birth' as if they were somehow different and that there was fraud and a cover-up there! You need more tin-foil!!!

why then did they for 7 days call it a spontaneous protest and blame it on a movie. ?? Even Crowley said Romney was correct.

I find it absurd that you and others trying to make that point believe that a speech specifically about the Benghazi attack would have for a single sentence have jumped focus to some other un-named event and then immediately after resumed discussing the Benghazi incident! It is just as absurd as those birthers who used to try to distinguish between a 'birth certificate' and a 'certificate of live birth' as if they were somehow different and that there was fraud and a cover-up there! You need more tin-foil!!!

And Democrats have tried to do a good job of making the argument about the meaning of "Is" is , instead of focusing on Obama's terrible economy and failed record. It is not working this time.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Candy Crowley. She is a Democratic party hack.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Actually Obama did not call "it" meaning the attack an act of terror. 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.

Listening to Obama give the speech the day he gave it I honestly believed he was referring to the attack as an act of terror. Further I would personally feel it was an act of terror regardless of it being a spontaneous act of a mob incensed over an unwatchable film (or insert any other reason for violent protest here) or a planned act by a group of actual terrorists.

As to the post attack repitition of the false mob angry about a film story, the general public is often served incorrect information regarding intelligence. It is even conceivable the administration was directed to keep that story going so the group that carried out the attack wouldn't know what we actually knew.

If this is all Romney has, it is thin soup for an attack and it's time to move on.

[Pooky 3,850]

Listening to Obama give the speech the day he gave it I honestly believed he was referring to the attack as an act of terror. Further I would personally feel it was an act of terror regardless of it being a spontaneous act of a mob incensed over an unwatchable film (or insert any other reason for violent protest here) or a planned act by a group of actual terrorists.

As to the post attack repitition of the false mob angry about a film story, the general public is often served incorrect information regarding intelligence. It is even conceivable the administration was directed to keep that story going so the group that carried out the attack wouldn't know what we actually knew.

If this is all Romney has, it is thin soup for an attack and it's time to move on.

You can believe that if you want. I kinda thought you were smarter than that.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

You can believe that if you want. I kinda thought you were smarter than that.

Why do we do this? See someone who has a different thought or opinion than we have and feel the need to insult their intelligence for it..

Edited October 20, 2012 by Evylin

[Pooky 3,850]

Why do we do this? See someone who has a different thought or opinion than we have and feel the need to insult their intelligence for it..

Pot ... meet kettle.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Pot ... meet kettle.

Did you miss where I said WE?

[Pooky 3,850]

Did you miss where I said WE?

Not at all. I was just agreeing with you disagreeably.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

You can believe that if you want. I kinda thought you were smarter than that.

I know Romney has his magic knickers in a bunch, and frankly I have been surprised at this administrations difficulty in using the act of terrorism label, especially in regards to the Fort Hood shootings, but I don't need Obama to call anything terrorism if I see the act as such in my own mind, and I honestly felt when Obama was announcing the Lybia attack his words meant he felt this was an act of terror.

Debates are so incredibly boring I really could care less about this kerfluffal over cutting off Romneys cheesy gotcha. I disagree with Romney that Obama didn't refer to the embassy attack as terrorism, but you are free to differ.

The mob movie story vs what the CIA knew and reported is not much of a deal to me either, look through my posts on that subject and I was dismissive of that controversy as well. To me the movie was always irrelevant to the events that followed.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Why do we do this? See someone who has a different thought or opinion than we have and feel the need to insult their intelligence for it..

Because in my case for instance I am always right. It is irritating when people dispute you, when you know your right . I was wrong a few months ago in a post. I admitted it. . Everyone should be this way

[Pooky 3,850]

I know Romney has his magic knickers in a bunch, and frankly I have been surprised at this administrations difficulty in using the act of terrorism label, especially in regards to the Fort Hood shootings, but I don't need Obama to call anything terrorism if I see the act as such in my own mind, and I honestly felt when Obama was announcing the Lybia attack his words meant he felt this was an act of terror.

Debates are so incredibly boring I really could care less about this kerfluffal over cutting off Romneys cheesy gotcha. I disagree with Romney that Obama didn't refer to the embassy attack as terrorism, but you are free to differ.

The mob movie story vs what the CIA knew and reported is not much of a deal to me either, look through my posts on that subject and I was dismissive of that controversy as well. To me the movie was always irrelevant to the events that followed.

Governor Romney can keep his underwear, thank you very much. I don't need the extra laundry.

The administration does not have "difficulty" using the "act of terrorism" label. It has a distinct and uncomfortable reluctance to do so. Having played up the death of Osama bin Laden, the increasing evidence that his death was not the mortal blow that consigned Al Qaeda to the history books poses problems for the administration.

The proximity of the November election was an unwelcome constriction, which meant that an open and early admission that this was an Al Qaeda attack would have put a severe dent in the President's foreign policy advantage. What the administration didn't factor was the loss of trust that an apparent CYA exercise would cause outweighing the damage of an early attribution of an Al Qaeda terrorist attack.

What Candy Crowley did was give added legs to the impression of media bias.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, though, I might be tempted to read things a little deeper. Crowley might have refused to sign the pre-debate agreement specifically to leave herself free to interject herself into the debate. It was no secret that Libya would come up in the debate and not much of a leap to think that Romney would seize upon the President not calling it a terrorist attack for 2 weeks. So she gave herself latitude to squash that line of attack, as she did, calculating that an immediate apology after the debate would make it look like an innocent mistake, but leaving all the viewers who went elsewhere after the debate with the lingering impression that she had been right. Romney, being the lightweight debater that he is, didn't do his research, so he had no answer to the interjection and found himself with nowhere to go on that line of argument.

But I'm no conspiracy theorist. I just think she was biased and did it to bail out the President, who was about to get savaged by a mildly angry hamster ... again.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Because in my case for instance I am always right. It is irritating when people dispute you, when you know your right . I was wrong a few months ago in a post. I admitted it. . Everyone should be this way

If you were always right, how could you have been wrong? I am confused.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

If you were always right, how could you have been wrong? I am confused.

The same way gas was 1.89 a gallon because the economy was bad when Obama took over, but now that his economy is worse it is over 4 dollars a gallon. Same logic.

In retrospect i was wrong about having been wrong