Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Obama didn't really call the Benghazi attack an "Act of Terror" in the Rose Garden speech on 9/12, even though his comments did include that phrase with that interpretation   (foxnews.com) divider line 387
    More: Stupid, FactCheck, President Obama, Rose Garden, rendition, Libya, Candy Crowley, National Counterterrorism Center, Susan Rice  
•       •       •

1913 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Oct 2012 at 9:14 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



387 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-17 02:44:09 AM  
This is just ridiculous. He said "act of terror", and he meant "act of terror".

This proves beyond a doubt Obama does possess a time machine, since the Romney line for the past couple of weeks has been the whole "14 days" thing. Obama has to have went back in time and inserted those comments into his speech. 

Otherwise the whole line falls apart.
 
2012-10-17 02:50:28 AM  
There is so much furious spin on this that it's pretty clear Romney got his ass handed to him tonight.
 
2012-10-17 03:08:25 AM  
So Rmoney is automatically President now and there is no need for elections.
 
2012-10-17 03:13:15 AM  
I can't really find whatever partisan stance I'm supposed to take without stepping on four dead Americans.
 
2012-10-17 03:51:16 AM  
farm1.static.flickr.com
 
2012-10-17 05:36:41 AM  
And we're done here.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-17 07:47:46 AM  
So exactly what point is being made? A bunch of angry Muslims attacked a consulate and killed four Americans. You could call that an act of terror regardless of whether they were disorganized protestors or a slightly more organized local militia. It's pretty much the same thing either way.

The whole fight seems to be about labels.
 
2012-10-17 08:25:52 AM  
i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-17 08:44:42 AM  

vpb: The whole fight seems to be about labels.


No, the whole fight is that the PRESIDENT is WEAK on TERRORISM.

Even if he's not.

Which he is, because he didn't use the word "terror" or "terrorism".

Which he did.

Doesn't matter though, 'cause he's still weak on terror.

Even if he isn't.
 
2012-10-17 08:46:00 AM  
I found the exchange interesting as an example of epistemic closure. It seemed like Mitt Romney REALLY believed this 'fact'. Usually, he's just lying his ass off. But he seemed to genuinely think Obama had done this. The only way to think that is to live inside an echo chamber so much that when confronted with reality, it leaves you scared and confused.
 
2012-10-17 08:53:29 AM  

ox45tallboy: This is just ridiculous. He said "act of terror", and he meant "act of terror".

This proves beyond a doubt Obama does possess a time machine, since the Romney line for the past couple of weeks has been the whole "14 days" thing. Obama has to have went back in time and inserted those comments into his speech. 

Otherwise the whole line falls apart.


Why then, did ambassador Rice keep calling it a spontaneous demonstration in lieu of a planned attack?

On CNN's "State of the Union" on September 30, Candy Crowley asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) why he thought it took the administration 17 days after the Benghazi attacks to give a "sort of definitive statement" that terrorists orchestrated the attacks.

Why did Candy Crowley ask McCain why he thought it took the admin 2 weeks to say that it was terrorism!
 
2012-10-17 08:54:24 AM  
Here's what you're asking me to believe if you want me to believe that Obama used the phrase "acts of terror" not in the context of the Benghazi attacks: The day after the attacks, President Obama gave remarks on the deaths of four Americans at the hands of an angry mob in Libya. In the course of those remarks, the President stopped, changed subjects and also added that America would not stand for attacks in a general sense.

Yeah, that makes sense.
 
2012-10-17 08:55:24 AM  
Crowley went on to side with Romney about the administration's confusing account, saying it took two weeks for officials to say more definitively that the attack was more than an out-of-control protest, and she said after the debate that Romney "was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word."

The Liberal Media, folks
 
2012-10-17 09:00:40 AM  
This can't possibly be a bad strategy. I fully encourage the GOP to fixate on this whenever talking about the Benghazi attack.
 
2012-10-17 09:08:09 AM  

Jackson Herring: Crowley went on to side with Romney about the administration's confusing account, saying it took two weeks for officials to say more definitively that the attack was more than an out-of-control protest, and she said after the debate that Romney "was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word."

The Liberal Media, folks


Well, and that is 100% correct. The message out of the WH was weak and muddled. For 2 weeks, they obviously were fighting an internal battle as to how to message this, probably because there was an element that felt they couldn't acknowledge a terrorist attack on 9-11 in an election year.

This was a weak point for Obama, and should have been a slam dunk issue for Romney. Problem was, Romney, like a blown cross-examination, inexplicably got hung up on the one point as to whether Obama used the word "terror" in the Rose Garden speech. Also, Obama displayed sufficient outrage at the notion that this was a political issue for his administration.
 
2012-10-17 09:08:37 AM  

EnviroDude: Why then, did ambassador Rice keep calling it a spontaneous demonstration in lieu of a planned attack?

On CNN's "State of the Union" on September 30, Candy Crowley asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) why he thought it took the administration 17 days after the Benghazi attacks to give a "sort of definitive statement" that terrorists orchestrated the attacks.

Why did Candy Crowley ask McCain why he thought it took the admin 2 weeks to say that it was terrorism!


Whe did they wait for facts to come in before being definitive? Why!
 
2012-10-17 09:16:34 AM  

violentsalvation: I can't really find whatever partisan stance I'm supposed to take without stepping on four dead Americans.


gotta beat that horse
 
2012-10-17 09:17:21 AM  

gilgigamesh: Jackson Herring: Crowley went on to side with Romney about the administration's confusing account, saying it took two weeks for officials to say more definitively that the attack was more than an out-of-control protest, and she said after the debate that Romney "was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word."

The Liberal Media, folks

Well, and that is 100% correct. The message out of the WH was weak and muddled. For 2 weeks, they obviously were fighting an internal battle as to how to message this, probably because there was an element that felt they couldn't acknowledge a terrorist attack on 9-11 in an election year.

This was a weak point for Obama, and should have been a slam dunk issue for Romney. Problem was, Romney, like a blown cross-examination, inexplicably got hung up on the one point as to whether Obama used the word "terror" in the Rose Garden speech. Also, Obama displayed sufficient outrage at the notion that this was a political issue for his administration.


Romney's slam dunk was intercepted! GOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAA
 
2012-10-17 09:17:30 AM  
Is calling something an "act of terror" the same as calling it an "act of terror?"

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
 
2012-10-17 09:17:42 AM  

gilgigamesh: For 2 weeks, they obviously were fighting an internal battle as to how to message this,


or actually trying to figure out what the fark happened
 
2012-10-17 09:18:16 AM  
they're really going to go with 'he didn't say it hard enough', aren't they?
 
2012-10-17 09:18:25 AM  

EnviroDude: ox45tallboy: This is just ridiculous. He said "act of terror", and he meant "act of terror".

This proves beyond a doubt Obama does possess a time machine, since the Romney line for the past couple of weeks has been the whole "14 days" thing. Obama has to have went back in time and inserted those comments into his speech. 

Otherwise the whole line falls apart.

Why then, did ambassador Rice keep calling it a spontaneous demonstration in lieu of a planned attack?

On CNN's "State of the Union" on September 30, Candy Crowley asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) why he thought it took the administration 17 days after the Benghazi attacks to give a "sort of definitive statement" that terrorists orchestrated the attacks.

Why did Candy Crowley ask McCain why he thought it took the admin 2 weeks to say that it was terrorism!


Um?

You realize it can be spontaneous AND STILL BE TERRORISM?

I mean, the attacks did USE the ongoing/spontaneous protests AS COVER. It's not like they had a crystal ball and went "On 9/11, some dipshiat american will release a video that will piss off muslims the world over. We shall use the protest and ensuing chaos to make our attack more effective!"

Isn't it more likely that they were a terror cell, perhaps planning *something*, but went "Oh shiat, it's total chaos out there! ACHMED, GET THE ROCKET LAUNCHER."
 
2012-10-17 09:18:58 AM  
Holy hell... Fox has the tea bagging idiots so twisted up we can have an argument about the contents of a goddamn transcript.
 
2012-10-17 09:19:28 AM  
That poor chicken is just a mass of feathers, blood and gizzard by now.
 
2012-10-17 09:19:44 AM  

Jackson Herring: or actually trying to figure out what the fark happened


Don't you see, we now have proof that Obama doesn't have telepathic powers and therefore is unfit to be President and furthermore.
 
2012-10-17 09:19:49 AM  
HOLY EFFING SH*T THEY ARE REALLY GOING WITH THIS??????

Wow. grasping at straws is too much; this is just insane.
 
2012-10-17 09:21:10 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: That poor chicken is just a mass of feathers, blood and gizzard by now

as of six months ago.

/FTFY.
//They're farking the sun-bleached skeleton at this point.
 
2012-10-17 09:21:15 AM  

gilgigamesh: Jackson Herring: Crowley went on to side with Romney about the administration's confusing account, saying it took two weeks for officials to say more definitively that the attack was more than an out-of-control protest, and she said after the debate that Romney "was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word."

The Liberal Media, folks

Well, and that is 100% correct. The message out of the WH was weak and muddled. For 2 weeks, they obviously were fighting an internal battle as to how to message this, probably because there was an element that felt they couldn't acknowledge a terrorist attack on 9-11 in an election year.


Or perhaps they didn't want to make a definitive statement until they knew all the facts.

Unlike Romney, who made it a political issue before the bodies were cold (and before anyone knew there were deaths).
 
2012-10-17 09:22:08 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: rufus-t-firefly: That poor chicken is just a mass of feathers, blood and gizzard by now as of six months ago.

/FTFY.
//They're farking the sun-bleached skeleton at this point.


Does KY work on a wishbone?
 
2012-10-17 09:22:18 AM  
c'mon the first thing you do when you get hit in an attack is to immediately go on TV and explain all your intelligence to everyone listening. its an xk red 27 maneuver.
 
2012-10-17 09:22:22 AM  
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
 
2012-10-17 09:22:45 AM  

Jackson Herring: gilgigamesh: For 2 weeks, they obviously were fighting an internal battle as to how to message this,

or actually trying to figure out what the fark happened


Perhaps. But I think they had to know right away what was up. There was video of the attack, and someone on the inside was a mole that revealed the location of the safehouse.

Anyway. It certainly didn't take them 2 weeks to figure out what was up. They just couldn't get a coherent message out.
 
2012-10-17 09:23:21 AM  

Felgraf:

Isn't it more likely that they were a terror cell, perhaps planning *something*, but went "Oh shiat, it's total chaos out there! ACHMED, GET THE ROCKET LAUNCHER."


But I'm le tired.
 
2012-10-17 09:23:39 AM  
Romney fell into a trap on that one.

There is no sense in getting bogged down on the Rose Garden speech. The Obama administration and the media spent two weeks telling everyone the attack was a result of a few whackadoos who were part of an angry mob protesting a YouTube video, when they knew that was not the case.
 
2012-10-17 09:23:46 AM  

karmaceutical: Holy hell... Fox has the tea bagging idiots so twisted up we can have an argument about the contents of a goddamn transcript.


doublethink
 
2012-10-17 09:23:47 AM  
Jackson Herring


gilgigamesh: For 2 weeks, they obviously were fighting an internal battle as to how to message this,

or actually trying to figure out what the fark happened


Or simply lying out of the embarrassment because Obama had recently and defiantly claimed that he had 'Al Qaeda on Its Heels' when it was actually Al Qaeda that organized the attacks.
 
2012-10-17 09:24:07 AM  

vpb: The whole fight seems to be about labels finding a way they can exploit the situation to attack Obama

 

FTFY.
 
2012-10-17 09:24:25 AM  
Desperate Republicans are desperate.
 
2012-10-17 09:24:59 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: gilgigamesh: Jackson Herring: Crowley went on to side with Romney about the administration's confusing account, saying it took two weeks for officials to say more definitively that the attack was more than an out-of-control protest, and she said after the debate that Romney "was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word."

The Liberal Media, folks

Well, and that is 100% correct. The message out of the WH was weak and muddled. For 2 weeks, they obviously were fighting an internal battle as to how to message this, probably because there was an element that felt they couldn't acknowledge a terrorist attack on 9-11 in an election year.

Or perhaps they didn't want to make a definitive statement until they knew all the facts.

Unlike Romney, who made it a political issue before the bodies were cold (and before anyone knew there were deaths).


came here to say this. thanks.
 
2012-10-17 09:25:19 AM  
MISS CLEO/GARY SPIVEY 2016.
 
2012-10-17 09:25:26 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Or perhaps they didn't want to make a definitive statement until they knew all the facts.

Unlike Romney, who made it a political issue before the bodies were cold (and before anyone knew there were deaths).


True. Absolutely inexcusable.

I can't believe it took Obama 2 weeks to figure out what happened. It is far more plausible that a faction within the wh was pushing to conceal the reality of another 9-11 terrorist attack for as long as possible.
 
2012-10-17 09:25:26 AM  
I think we can all agree that initially we were to believe terrorists didn't build that act of terror, a filmmaker did.
 
2012-10-17 09:25:59 AM  
NateGrey


Desperate Republicans are desperate.



and lying Dems are liars
 
2012-10-17 09:26:53 AM  

karnal: Or simply lying out of the embarrassment because Obama had recently and defiantly claimed that he had 'Al Qaeda on Its Heels' when it was actually Al Qaeda that organized the attacks.


Yes, more or less I think this was the case.
 
2012-10-17 09:27:26 AM  

Felgraf: EnviroDude: ox45tallboy: This is just ridiculous. He said "act of terror", and he meant "act of terror".

This proves beyond a doubt Obama does possess a time machine, since the Romney line for the past couple of weeks has been the whole "14 days" thing. Obama has to have went back in time and inserted those comments into his speech. 

Otherwise the whole line falls apart.

Why then, did ambassador Rice keep calling it a spontaneous demonstration in lieu of a planned attack?

On CNN's "State of the Union" on September 30, Candy Crowley asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) why he thought it took the administration 17 days after the Benghazi attacks to give a "sort of definitive statement" that terrorists orchestrated the attacks.

Why did Candy Crowley ask McCain why he thought it took the admin 2 weeks to say that it was terrorism!

Um?

You realize it can be spontaneous AND STILL BE TERRORISM?

I mean, the attacks did USE the ongoing/spontaneous protests AS COVER. It's not like they had a crystal ball and went "On 9/11, some dipshiat american will release a video that will piss off muslims the world over. We shall use the protest and ensuing chaos to make our attack more effective!"

Isn't it more likely that they were a terror cell, perhaps planning *something*, but went "Oh shiat, it's total chaos out there! ACHMED, GET THE ROCKET LAUNCHER."


I am sure there are many that will think when Obama said "acts of terror", that he was saying that the attack was due to acts of terror. In context, he wasn't. But context doesn't matter as does the definition of "is".

The government either changed their mind and try to deny it was terrorists, or not.

Obama can't put that genie back in the bottle.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/160146#.UH6yIJG9KK0

This is on CNN too
 
2012-10-17 09:27:48 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vpb: The whole fight seems to be about labels.

No, the whole fight is that the PRESIDENT is WEAK on TERRORISM.

Even if he's not.

Which he is, because he didn't use the word "terror" or "terrorism".

Which he did.



Doesn't matter though, 'cause he's still weak on terror.

Even if he isn't.

 


And Clinton didn't have sex with that woman, Monica Knobgobbler

Well he did, but nobody cares so he didn't
 
2012-10-17 09:28:10 AM  
He said "actS of terror" people, can't you see just how wrong you are?!?
 
2012-10-17 09:28:34 AM  

Cletus C.: I think we can all agree that initially we were to believe terrorists didn't build that act of terror, a filmmaker did.


..and conservatives completely gave Muslims the benefit of the doubt, and didn't immediately point out how culturally inferior they were.
 
2012-10-17 09:28:37 AM  

gilgigamesh: I can't believe it took Obama 2 weeks to figure out what happened. It is far more plausible that a faction within the wh was pushing to conceal the reality of another 9-11 terrorist attack for as long as possible.


Well, the big thing is that if they declare it a terrorist attack, the question naturally becomes 'who?' Was it pro-QGhaadrhraffi militia groups, was it an al Qaeda branch, was it the Jewish Popular Front? When Obama says he's gonna bomb someone, it behooves us to figure out who to bomb. I understand that this is directly in contrast to established Republican policy, but it's one thing I can agree with Obama on.
 
2012-10-17 09:29:48 AM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: Romney fell into a trap on that one.

There is no sense in getting bogged down on the Rose Garden speech. The Obama administration and the media spent two weeks telling everyone the attack was a result of a few whackadoos who were part of an angry mob protesting a YouTube video, when they knew that was not the case.


It was a bit of both. the riot was caused by the video, and that gave the terrorist cover for their attack. Not to mention, sometimes it takes a bit of time to digest the intel and link terrorism to what happened.

Two weeks isn't that bad. The GOP denied for years that they had forewarning of 9/11 from various sources, and that resulting in thousands of deaths, with no one in the bush administration punished for it.
 
Displayed 50 of 387 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report