It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mobiusmale
Well, let's actually look at what Obama said...
...speaking of the attacks and the murders, he said that “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.”
...speaking of the attacks and the murders, he said that
Originally posted by mobiusmale
This interpretation is borne out by the next two weeks full of official Government statements (including more by Obama) claiming that this was not a terrorist attack, but only a mob's reaction to an anti-Islamic video.
RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.
We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.
We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present.
Originally posted by MsAphrodite
You can spin away here all you like. This history is far too recent for you to try and claim what we just experienced is not so. All of us know how this story was presented to us.
Originally posted by MsAphrodite
this story was presented to us.
The nanny moderator was sure that the president had called the Benghazi murders "acts of terror" -- journalism’s equivalent of a replacement referee’s worst call.
William Bigelow, writing for Breitbart.TV, noted that she had interrupted Obama 9 times. She interrupted Romney 28 times
I was quite literally shocked when, at one point, Romney stood up to deliver a standard rebuttal to an Obama delivery - but Crowley told him to sit back down because she wanted to move on...as she said, many questioners had been waiting all day for their chance to ask (questions she had hand-picked)...
I also clearly remember her locking in on Romney and saying, "But Mr. Romney...what if your numbers don't add up, will you reconsider your policies?"
Originally posted by daaskapital
reply to post by mobiusmale
Who cares.
She cut both candidates off at critical times. She cut Obama and Romney off equally...
Originally posted by mobiusmale
reply to post by daaskapital
Sure...
If 9 equals 28, you are right on the money.
Originally posted by 3chainz
All of the moderators and questions are already pre-determined and agreed upon by both parties.
Romney kept going over time
Romney was wrong about the Libya thing
End of story.
Originally posted by Indigo5
Look at what Romney said again...
Romney: "I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an "act of terror." "
He didn't say "administration" or "UN Ambassador" ...he said the President took 14 days to call it an act of terror and that he didn't call it that at the rose garden speech the day after.
FALSE on every bit of the claim. If he wanted to talk about inferences by the UN Ambassador then he should have. For effs sake he was pretty exact in calling the President a liar on the matter...Candy appropriately told him what was in the transcript.
If you are going to shoot for a "Gotcha" moment by calling the President a lair in front of Millions of people...then you better be right. HE WAS WRONG...REALITY and TRANSCRIPTS. Tough SH*&
Stop whining.
If Candy Crowley stating the sky is blue is a problem for Romney...then he is the saddest candidate for POTUS we have seen in a long time.edit on 18-10-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
“It was one of those moments, and I could even feel that here, you know, when you say something you’re not expecting,” Crowley insisted, admitting she simply couldn’t help herself from unprofessionally inserting herself into a heated dispute between presidential candidates.
“He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” Crowley said, echoing the extremely legalistic reading of the facts about what President Obama meant when he said “acts of terror” in reference to the Benghazi attack.