The winning ticket for the GOP in 2016?

[hippie_hunter]

I love that conservatives are still angry about the Crowley situation, which was totally legit. Obama did say it was an act of terror immediately.

Actually, he totally didn't.These were the words he said immediately:

"Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans."

The Washington Post actually gives the Obama Administration 4 Pinocchios for their claims that they've immediately called it a terrorist attack. Even PolitiFact, while criticizing Romney for stretching the truth, calls the Obama Administration out for waiting until September 21 to acknowledge it was a terrorist attack.

And then, like a good moderator, she made it clear that there were some things up for debate and some things that weren't.

Like a terrible moderator, Crowley stuck her neck out for Obama to say things that didn't happen.

The truth is the truth.

Which was that both Obama and Romney were not correct. Romney was taking his criticism too far, but Obama did not do that. And he only said that he said it was immediate was after Crowley claimed that he did.

If Obama were to say, "No you don't understand, the world is flat." Well, it's the moderator's job to focus the debate on what matters, so it's perfectly acceptable to say, "wait, no, that's not true...these are the facts, now let's talk about the issues up for debate in our non-flat world."
If Mitt was more interested in the substance of the issue rather than the bs semantic argument "oh gosh, the president didn't call it a terrorist attack." Who the heck cares? What does that have to do with anything? It harkens back to this weird conservative belief that Obama doesn't love this country enough or he's just not truly American enough. "You see - he didn't call this terror; he doesn't get it like the rest of us do." As if the word is more important than the facts that happened on the ground. So the tactic backfired. Rightly so.

Even going beyond the Romney/Obama debates, debate moderators have been Obama dick riders. Even in the Hillary/Obama debates the moderators showed a clear preference for Obama. It's why I call people out when they say that Hillary has the media in her pocket and a reason why I actually sympathize with Hillary to a degree in her rather antagonistic relationship with the media.

 

[MaceB]

Here's Obama's quote from the Rose Garden:

"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."

If you want to talk about whether or not this language was specific enough, we can do that... but that's splitting hairs IMO. He referenced the Benghazi attack as an act of terror. Romney said he didn't. Crowley corrected him. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Except he didn't declare it to be a terrorist attack until much later, fact checkers even state this and call the Obama Administration out on it. Romney certainly went too far, but Crowley was wrong. That quote you bring up was Obama stating that if it were an act of terror.

The thing about Obama is that he usually thinks before he speaks. He's the opposite of his predecessor in this regard. The only times he really jumped the gun with his words were probably when he was running against Hillary and railed against rednecks clinging to their guns and Bibles and declaring a red line on Syria. Thinking clearly what he says is in his rather pragmatic nature.

 

[MaceB]

Dude... I just quoted you what he said in the rose garden. Okay, he said act of terror instead of terrorist attack. Really? Doesn't that seem like a technicality to you?
I don't see IF in that statement. It's like he said it, but he didn't say it to people's satisfaction... Well, I'm sorry. Obama said check the transcript. Crowley verified that he did in fact say act of terror in the transcript. I don't get the problem, honestly.

 

[chaseter]

It he declared it a terrorist act, why did his administration backpedal?

 

[MaceB]

There's no IF involved. I provided his quote above. And he didn't backpedal... well... or only in conservative media did he backpedal. And why exactly does it matter? If he seeks justice for those who did the act, and he gets up there in the rose garden and condemns the attacks, then why does it really matter if he uses the word, "terror?"

 

[chaseter]

That was what Romney was getting at but didn't do it very well and then Crowley came in to aid Obama to shut him down.

If Obama declared it a terror attack, why did he and his Administration backpedal and blame it on a video and refuse to call it a terrorist attack afterwards?

Either Obama is a liar or he got lucky with his wording in that speech.

 

[MaceB]

Haha, so because you don't like it, he just got lucky huh? Honestly, I'm not aware of him backpedalling after the Rose Garden speech. Maybe he didn't say it was a terrorist attack again because.... it... doesn't matter? Or maybe he didn't say it again because they were checking their intel. It's not like they had eyes on the ground when it happened, so there was lingering questions about the motive and the actors.

She didn't come in to aid him. She set the record straight. Obama did, in fact, say it was an act of terror. I don't get why this is difficult for some people? Is it because conservative media made this into a big thing during the election? I mean its on tape. He said the words...

 

[chaseter]

Do you choose to not read opposing posts thoroughly or not care enough to just repeat the same thing over and over like Republicans do with Benghazi?

 

[MaceB]

Well, I repeat what I said until it's confronted and addressed. Obama said the words, do you disagree? I mean... just saying, he must be lying isn't really something I can respond to, because how I can disprove your speculation?

...And I did address everything you said. Look, I don't recall him backpedaling, so you'll have to provide evidence if you really want to go with this. Regardless, I gave you two points why: either he didn't say it again because it's semantic triviality, or he didn't say it because they were checking intel.

You're the one not addressing me, honestly. Obama asked Romney to check the transcript. Crowley checked the transcript and verified yes, Obama did say "act of terror." I say it again, because you're not combatting the issue... just kinda going... well why did he do this then, clearly he's a liar. I mean, I'm giving you the actual quotes; you're giving me your feelings.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Trump/Walker 2016

Hand to God if Trump gets the nom I will vote for him (I'm a registered Dem) just to watch the Daily Show tear him apart on a nightly basis. I know it would be horrible for the country but I think we can handle four years of insanity based on the amount of laughs I would get out of it

 

[hippie_hunter]

There's no IF involved. I provided his quote above. And he didn't backpedal... well... or only in conservative media did he backpedal. And why exactly does it matter? If he seeks justice for those who did the act, and he gets up there in the rose garden and condemns the attacks, then why does it really matter if he uses the word, "terror?"

PolitiFact and Washington Post Fact Checker both go after Obama for saying that he called it a terrorist attack immediately. They don't side with Romney, but they don't side with Obama on this one either.

 

[MaceB]

On the one hand, it's a pretty funny development that Trump is doing well in the poles. On the other hand, it's a true travesty.
Americans need a 2nd voice, a healthy alternative approach. We need the Republican party to come back to viability. As it is now, we have a center left party, and a party that got on board the crazy bus a long time ago. And as has been said many times, there's nothing wrong with conservatism in principle. The conservative approach to climate change would be to try to keep our climate from changing. The conservative principles of hard work and capitalism have merit within reason. They just need to come back from the edge, re-evaluate their social issues, and be the practical party again.
Alas, I used to think the every day conservative was sensible whereas the conservative politicians were the crazy ones. With Trump's popularity though, it definitely gives you pause to consider... maybe half the country is just this way - loaded up with rage. It doesn't matter what the politicians say, as long as they tap into that societal unrest.

 

[MaceB]

PolitiFact and Washington Post Fact Checker both go after Obama for saying that he called it a terrorist attack immediately. They don't side with Romney, but they don't side with Obama on this one either.

I'm not gonna budge on this one. I'm sure the fact checkers say something like "even though Obama said it in the rose garden, it was left ambiguous so we give him 2 pinnochios (or whatever) because he didn't make it clear that it was a terrorist attack.

While I respect that viewpoint, there is no arguing that he referenced Benghazi as an act of terror the morning after it happened. It's right there in black and white. Like i said, we can talk about how clear his words were, but he did say the words nonetheless. Thus, Crowley didn't do anything improper by setting the record straight when it came up in a debate.

 

[SV Fan]

The Washington Post actually gives the Obama Administration 4 Pinocchios for their claims that they've immediately called it a terrorist attack. Even PolitiFact, while criticizing Romney for stretching the truth, calls the Obama Administration out for waiting until September 21 to acknowledge it was a terrorist attack.

Obama said he used the words "acts of terror" the very next day. How is that 4 Pinocchios? At worse it should be a half truth because he did say those words but you might argue it wasn't in the proper context.

Which was that both Obama and Romney were not correct. Romney was taking his criticism too far, but Obama did not do that. And he only said that he said it was immediate was after Crowley claimed that he did.

Actually Obama was egging Romney on before Crowley said anything. My guess it was planned to egg him on that he didn't say the word "terror" then after the debate make the point how wrong Romney was with commercials and media attacks. Basically I am guessing Obama had it drilled into him that he used the term "Acts of terror" the day after Benghazi and to use that point when Romney stats ranting about it. As I pointed out on the previous page blame Romney's preppers for not catching that and developing a better argument, then Candy Crowley for pointing out the truth.