Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

TITLE OF THIS BLOG POST CORRECTED: Obama's Rose Garden Speech About Benghazi

LINK.  Also see THIS.

(Two posts today. Please scroll down)

24 comments:

  1. He actually did use the word terror, the transcripts back that up. The argument can be made however, that he was referring to the fight against terrorism in general...and/or 9/11....rather than Benghazi.

    But that will be spun two different ways by two opposite camps.

    ReplyDelete
  2. He did say it, but as CI said, in a very generic way, and his administration did everything it could to avoid the T-Word in the two weeks following the attack, essentially proving Romney's larger point correct.

    Crowley should have not jumped in to Obama's defense.


    BTW, AOW, did you see the bizarre attack an anonymouse POS unleashed against you at Leticia's?

    http://leticiasworld.blogspot.com/2012/10/more-obama-supporters-threaten-to-kill.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. I love the look Romney gave Obama during that portion of the debate... It's the same look my husband gives one of the children when they are caught in a ridiculous lie.

    We were both about to throw shoes at the TV with Obama and Crowley's behavior!

    ReplyDelete
  4. He said "act of terror" and somehow the fringe right thinks this doesn't mean "terrorism".

    Pitch till you win.

    ReplyDelete
  5. He made an oblique reference to "act of terror," then spent the next two weeks denying it was terrorism. He sent Ambassador Rice out to the Sunday shows to deny it was terrorism.

    Joe Biden, in his Jokeritis-plagued debate performance insisted angrily that "We just didn't know."

    So which is it Ducky? Who's wrong? The president, the VP and the Ambassador all can't be right.

    Or perhaps is just normal chaos one would expect from an incompetent president.

    They're the ones pitching 'till they win (whatever that means)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Which is it?

    He said "act of terror". Pretty damn clear.

    ReplyDelete
  7. He was speaking about the video. Not saying that it was a terror attack. And further more Candy Crowley should have kept her mouth shut!! It was NOT her place to back him up. That's not part of a moderator's job. I am still ticked off how she continually interrupted Romney and allowed Obama more time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think the White House has now admitted this, but those robot voters probably won't hear about it.

    Debbie
    Right Truth
    http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

    ReplyDelete
  9. I should have phrased the title of this blog post to include something more specific. I was in a hurry.

    I stand corrected and will correct the title of this blog post to be more accurate.

    About the text of that Rose Garden speech:

    "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."

    Furthermore:

    CNN anchor and debate moderator Candy Crowley joined CNN’s panel after the debate to discuss a moment where she corrected Mitt Romney after he claimed that President Barack Obama had refused to characterize the attack in Libya an act of terror for 14 days. Crowley said that Romney’s was “right” in that the Obama administration spent weeks refusing to say that the attack was terrorism...

    [source]

    Obama implied that what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, was an act of terror(ism), but he diluted that implication over and over again by referring to "Innocence of Muslims."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Silverfiddle nailed it!

    He made an oblique reference to "act of terror," then spent the next two weeks denying it was terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Silverfiddle,
    I've been at work all day today. Will check out that thread at Leticia's site.

    Thanks for letting me know.

    ReplyDelete
  12. No act of terror will ever shake the resolve of this Nation.

    Hardly a clear statement that this was an act of terror. Especially when one figures in all the statements about a video causing a spontaneous demonstration that became riotious. Why then did they criticize Romney for calling it terrorism if they thought it was terrorism?

    Some may say this was a gaffe by Romney but it brought the whole botched Obama Foreign Policy back on to the front stage. And dont forget we just went through another debate where Biden looked like a fool because he said the President and he were unaware of the additional security requests.

    If you are a party hack for the DNC you see this as one exchange but independents and moderates are watching the whole picture.

    And last night they also said Fast and Furious and Executive Privilege what the heck is that all about.

    Make no mistake this format favored a smooth talking liar but the next one Obama has to face Romney.

    I'll bet money Romney gives him another butt kickin.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Silverfiddle,
    I took a look and left a brief response.

    I'm scared. NOT!

    I am amused, however.

    I must be doing something right. I'm getting under the skin of a person who loves to make threats.

    And, now, back to the regular program.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In my view, last night's debate ultimately made no difference as to how people will vote on November 6.

    Both men scored against each other at some points, and both men failed to score at some points.

    In other words, this was not a debate that effected a sea change.

    Obama supporters continue to support Obama, Romney voters continue to support Romney.

    ReplyDelete
  15. CI,
    The ambiguity satisfies all sides, maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Blogginator,
    Blogginator,
    Hardly a clear statement that this was an act of terror. Especially when one figures in all the statements about a video causing a spontaneous demonstration that became riotious. Why then did they criticize Romney for calling it terrorism if they thought it was terrorism?


    Good points. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree with AOW but it did affect those in the middle. Those in the middle knew Obama was pushing the video. They saw a President who could not answer a question about drill permits. They saw a President who didnt know where his money invested. They saw a President who failed to answer the question about why he did nothing about immigration.

    More importantly, they saw Romney is not some crazy man who is going to throw grandma off the train.

    So yes the Demos won on style but look at the polling on issues. Romney wins on the issues. People are going to be voting on issues this time. In 2008, style won for a variety of reasons but mostly because the economy was fundamentally sound. That is not true today....the song and dance of obama is no longer dazzling the crowd they want answers. Answers Obama cant give.

    In short, how much do you think someone cares about the vagueness of the Rose Garden statement when they have been unemployed for 23 months, gas is doubled, and food prices are going up?

    I say let Obama have his little victory in the Rose Garden....

    ReplyDelete
  20. Blogginator,
    I do wonder how many undecideds there really are at this point.

    Are there a lot in the middle that could go either way at the polls? I guess so.

    There really is no predicting the outcome of elections and juries.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  23. “Declaring something an act of terror does not necessarily mean you are declaring it a terror attack.” —Fox News’ Megyn Kelly

    LOL!

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective