Westside Steve Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/10/17/video-candy-crowley-admits-romney-was-correct-about-libya-attack So yes this video was on NewsBusters. Put it in Google and there are dozens of hits but this is her in her own words so those of you who want to squeak about the source Might take notice that it's not commonly found on the mainstream media which I say is slanted toward the president. I would think at least those of you who deny media bias will grant this example aa true. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 But this isn't her admitting she got it wrong. This is Newsbusters, a right-wing website, saying she's admitting she got it wrong. In reality - which I'll admit has a liberal bias - this is her saying the same thing as she did at the debate: Obama did say "acts of terror" the following day, but that Romney was right when he said members of the administration still pushed the YouTube video explanation for two weeks. Additionally, Obama also called it an "act of terror" the following day at a speech in Colorado: "So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America." So this whole notion that Obama wouldn't call it terrorism is just false. It just is. I hate to tell you that it's false, but it's false. We're talking about nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 And why does this really matter anyway? If he called it terrorism or an act of terror or waited ten days to call it terrorism certainly matters little to me. The fact that they'd attacked the embassy and killed four Americans tells me pretty much what I need to know. I really don't get this. Nor do I get why "binders full of women" is important, or even funny. It's just about trying to own the news cycle in the waning days of a campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Your opinion of NewsBusters, or mine, has absolutely nothing to do with it. the video was Crowley in her own words whether it's on NewsBusters the New York Times Pravda or Cracked. The President ordered his flacks to call it a reaction to a video for nearly 2 weeks. Here's a spot were you should a while your liberal ideology to trump your love for the president. Among other things you and/or your team bitched about weee all the things Bush did to incite extremist Muslims to violence . I assume the reason for the subterfuge from the White House is because of that. It's okay to admit it. Free yourself, be yourself! WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 It does have something to do with it. Because I'm not reading her statement as an admission she was wrong and they are. And so are you! I think she's explaining what she said at the debate. Where in this is she saying she was wrong? She wasn't wrong. I think the Republican efforts to try and take what was an embarrassing moment for Romney and try and make it unembarrassing is what is so comical. He clearly didn't know that Obama had spoken about "acts of terror" the day after the attack, and then again two days after the attack, and accused him of not using the words "terrorism" for 14 days. Romney. Was. Wrong. No amount of post-debate spin is going to change that, try as you might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Let's just go to the transcript. It's very clear: ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. OBAMA: That's what I said. ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying? OBAMA: Please proceed governor. 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. OBAMA: Get the transcript. CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror... OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? CROWLEY: He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that. ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction. CROWLEY: It did. ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest -- am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the -- your secretary -- OBAMA: Candy? ....Romney was wrong! That charge is bold is clearly wrong. There's no way around it, is there? You can admit that, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 From FactCheck: "The transcript does show that Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Sept. 12: “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.” That night, he said at a Las Vegas fundraiser: “No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.” Obama employed the “act of terror” phrase a third time a day later at a campaign event in Colorado." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 So Romney said "it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror." Turns out he'd done it three times in 48 hours. Candy Crowley was perfectly within her rights to say what she said. Republicans are perfectly within their rights to try to wiggle their way out of this embarrassing moment for Romney by throwing a bunch of shit against the wall and seeing what smears. But the reality is quite clear: Romney made a specific accusation that was factually inaccurate and he got corrected on it. Sorry. Thems the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 You're spinning words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 I'm posting transcripts, which make the reality clear. What else do you want me to do, make shit up? Like that Candy Crowley is admitting she was wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 I'm posting transcripts, which make the reality clear. What else do you want me to do, make shit up? Like that Candy Crowley is admitting she was wrong? Not at all. In Crowley's own words Romney was right. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Let's not be dense. You're reading half and leaving out the other half to push a partisan line, and then accusing me, who is acknowledging both halves, or being too partisan. It's typical. Just like in the debate, as you'll see in the transcript above, Crowley said that Romney was incorrect, and that Obama had called it "an act of terror." This should be beyond dispute. He clearly had, and multiple times. Crowley then goes on to say that Romney is, in part, correct when he says that the administration took a while to get everyone on the page that this was a terror attack. This is also undoubtedly true. In other words, Crowley got it right. Do you really want to keep digging this whole? Let's try this: was Romney's accusation during the debate that "it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror" correct or incorrect? Let's see how honest you are, Mr. Just Callin' It Like I See It. Because clearly here, I'm calling it fair and you're pushing your Republican tropes to try and recover after an embarrassing debate gaffe. So, Steve, was Romney wrong? Did it take the president 14 days, as he alleged? Yes or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Did it take the president and his flacks 14 days to admit the video story was a lie? Yes. Did Romney claim the president never used the words act of terror? I don't believe he did. Did Crowley say that Romney was right? Yes she did. Did the president speak of Acts of terror in non specific terms? Yes he did. Did the president and his underlings mislead the public about the reason for the attack? Yes. Repeatedly. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 And let's admit this is the same specificity you would demand if the shoe were on the other foot. And I understand you'd much rather have this non discussion then tell me why the president and his team lied. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Did it take the president and his flacks 14 days to admit the video story was a lie? Yes. Did Romney claim the president never used the words act of terror? I don't believe he did. Did Crowley say that Romney was right? Yes she did. Did the president speak of Acts of terror in non specific terms? Yes he did. Did the president and his underlings mislead the public about the reason for the attack? Yes. Repeatedly. WSS hahaha. You fucking hack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 This is some classic hackery: Me: was Romney's accusation during the debate that "it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror" correct or incorrect? You: Did Romney claim the president never used the words act of terror? I don't believe he did. Hahaha. ...What are you doing this for? What are you, on CNN in a split-screen debating Stephanie Cutter? You're just talking to your old friend here. You're not shilling for anyone. Answer the question. We're talking about the debate, and Candy Crowley's fact check, and whether or not she was correct. Here's Romney's accusation again: "it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror." Was that correct or incorrect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 It does have something to do with it. Because I'm not reading her statement as an admission she was wrong and they are. And so are you! I think she's explaining what she said at the debate. Where in this is she saying she was wrong? She wasn't wrong. I think the Republican efforts to try and take what was an embarrassing moment for Romney and try and make it unembarrassing is what is so comical. He clearly didn't know that Obama had spoken about "acts of terror" the day after the attack, and then again two days after the attack, and accused him of not using the words "terrorism" for 14 days. Romney. Was. Wrong. No amount of post-debate spin is going to change that, try as you might. I copied this 1 just so you could read were you claimed that Romney accused the president of not using the word terrorism. I know you don't like to be fact check, in fact you love to call everyone else hack. Just for your information I believe a hack is someone who gets paid for it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Now we're parsing the difference between "act of terror" and "terrorism"? That's what you're hanging this on? Next we can move on to the huge difference between "violent act" and "violence." Classic. Answer the question, you hack. Again, you're not on CNN and what you say about what Romney said doesn't matter. Just answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Let's boil it down and then move on, I doubt you'll ever give me a straight answer. Since the president never specifically referred to The Benghazi attack as an act of terror and perpetrated the hoax about the video for 2 weeks, Romney was technically correct. But I really wish you would answer this: why is it that you are compelled to bicker semantics when is the president of the United States is involved in a cover up at least as serious as the 1 that brought down the Nixon administration? Why is that element of no concern to you? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 And what I was parsing is the fact that you claimed Romney stated the president never used the word terror. Rodney never made that claim. that's all there is to that. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Let's boil it down and then move on, I doubt you'll ever give me a straight answer. Since the president never specifically referred to The Benghazi attack as an act of terror and perpetrated the hoax about the video for 2 weeks, Romney was technically correct. But I really wish you would answer this: why is it that you are compelled to bicker semantics when is the president of the United States is involved in a cover up at least as serious as the 1 that brought down the Nixon administration? Why is that element of no concern to you? WSS This is classic up is downism. Facts are "semantics." Asking for a straight answer is ...you doubting I'll ever give you a straight answer. And then you answer your question incorrectly. Yes he did!! Here's President Obama specifically referring to the attacks as an act of terror: "So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world." Submit, bitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 This is classic up is downism. Facts are "semantics." Asking for a straight answer is ...you doubting I'll ever give you a straight answer. Submit, bitch. I must have missed that straight answer. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 And the idea that this is a cover up that's worse than Nixon and Watergate is laughable. So I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with you. I think there's a failure to provide adequate security. There's also an intelligence failure. The idea that this is some monster cover-up to deny a terrorist attack when the president is out there calling it a terrorist attacks three times in the first 48 hours is a bit rich. You can't even get the basic facts straight. You started this whole thread based on something that isn't true - that Candy Crowley admitted she got it wrong - and then added in more stuff that isn't true - that President Obama didn't call the Bengazi attack an "act of terror." You're just flailing around here. I think there are enough failures to investigate without pretending this is Watergate because it gets you hard before an election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Will you admit you were wrong? Clearly your contention is incorrect. Since the president never specifically referred to The Benghazi attack as an act of terror and perpetrated the hoax about the video for 2 weeks, Romney was technically correct. That's just wrong. Clearly. You have the quote right above you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Here is the intellectual pretzel you have to twist yourself into to imagine that you're correct: 1. Take Obama's Rose Garden statement and pretend that when he uses the phrase "Acts of terror" he's not referring to the reason he called the press conference, or the incident he spends 5-6 paragraphs discussing. You can read the statement in full here. To imagine this "act of terror" is just talking about 9/11, and not including all of these events, is a stretch. To put it mildly. 2. Ignore what Obama said in Colorado the next day. ""So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world." That is clearly referring to the Bengazi attack, and using the same verbiage from the day before. 3. Ignore the statements in Las Vegas, where he also called it an Act of Terror. Now, if you can do all of that, and then look at Romney's statement in the debate "it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror" and still determine that Romney is correct, or even technically correct, I suggest you take some more English courses. Clearly - clearly - to any fair observer, which you obviously aren't, Obama had called the attack in Bengazi and act of terror on three occasions, which makes Romney's statement false. Which makes Candy Crowley's statement that Obama "did say that" obviously true. There is no getting around this. No amount of changing the subject will save you from the claims you made in this thread, or why they're 100% wrong. Your post is wrong, Steve. It's factually incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 From there you can tell me where in here Candy Crowley "admits she was wrong" too. Because she doesn't. Because she wasn't. CANDY CROWLEY: Well, you know, I heard the president speak at the time. I, sort of, reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it. So I knew that the president had, had, said, you know, these acts of terror won’t stand or, whatever the whole quote was. And I think actually, you know because, right after that I did turn around and say, but you’re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was a, you know, this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn’t. So he was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word. And I, you know, they’re going to parse and we all know about what the definition of is is, but, I, uh, you know, in the end, I think John [King]’s probably right. I think this has a lot more to with jobs and the debt crisis and all of that kind of stuff. I just think that probably it was one of those moments and I could even feel that here, you know, when you say something you’re not expecting. It’s just that was the natural thing coming out of me going, ‘Actually he did, you know, call it an act of terror.’ Uh, when, you know, half the crowd clapped for that and the other half clapped for ‘But they kept telling us this was a tape, this was caused by a tape’ so, you know, in the main, the thrust of what Governor Romney was saying, which is why I went back and said that, um, but I just think he picked the wrong kind of way to go about talking about it if that makes sense. That's her explaining what she did during the debate, not saying she got it wrong. That's her saying Romney got it wrong by picking the wrong word. ...But accept Newsbusters conclusion. They're a pretty fair outfit. Are you ever right about anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Here's your thesis statement: this is her in her own words so those of you who want to squeak about the source Might take notice that it's not commonly found on the mainstream media which I say is slanted toward the president. I would think at least those of you who deny media bias will grant this example aa true. No, it's clearly not. it's an example of the media doing exactly what the media is supposed to do. Plus, you've failed to accurately characterize what she's saying, which is in no way an admission that, as you contend, she "Admits she was wrong." She's explaining why she got it right. And as we've established, she clearly did get it right. Because Romney got it wrong. All Romney had to say was that the administration took 14 days to get their story straight, or something like that, and he would have been fine. But he didn't. He accused the President of going 14 days without calling the Bengazi attacks an act of terror. That is demonstrably false. I'm happy to establish the facts, and separate them from your partisan bullshit so you can ...call me partisan. Let's do this again some time. Gotta go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 You know, I didn't even read the news busters article. Did a web search and it was at the top of the list. Listened to her in her own words, and that's it. I'd have been just as happy to see the clip on the New York Times or Washington Post or NBC site but.... I form my own conclusion which is that semantically the president was speaking in general. Had he been referring to this Act specifically he would not have gone on with the cover up. And just for the hell of it according to the body count it's Benghazi four Watergate zip. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Man, this is another bad performance for you. I really can't spend much more time explaining to you what words mean, and then what sentences mean when those words are aligned in a certain order. But someone like Tupa would look at this and say, "Yes, Romney got it wrong in the debate, and Crowley got it right." It would take him five seconds. Because he has some integrity. And because it's pretty plain to see. Also, if he wanted to contend that Crowley just admitted she got it wrong, he'd cite me where she said that. Especially after I asked him to. But you don't. You just say, basically, "I read it and that's how I took it." Which is a longer way of saying, "I don't read so good." Fun to see you get rolled by a staged Republican pushback, though. They could sell you just about anything. Remember Newt Gingrich in the primary? He knew that when you got nothing, go at the liberal media. The base will love you for it. Nothing different here. Lose the debate? The moderator was a liberal. Lose a point on Libya, which should have been your big slam? Pretend you didn't lose, but the liberal media framed it as a win. Because they're in the tank! I'll give you guys this: having less shame is a pretty good political strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Anything to take attention away from the cover up. spin away amigo. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.