Crowley Admits She Was Wrong . Great

[heckofajobbrownie]

Are you serious?

 

I'm addressing your thread, buddy! The claims you made! Which are unture! Both of them - the one about Crowley and the one about Obama! And me correcting your demonstrably false claims is me ...spinning to avoid the cover-up?

 

You fucking hack. Hahahaha. Holy cow.

[Westside Steve]

Are you serious?

 

I'm addressing your thread, buddy! The claims you made! Which are unture! Both of them - the one about Crowley and the one about Obama! And me correcting your demonstrably false claims is me ...spinning to avoid the cover-up?

 

You fucking hack. Hahahaha. Holy cow.

Like I said hacks get paid. Like Crowley and uh......

 

Consider my work a public service.

No need to thank me.

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Heck is seriously delusional. Obama never, NEVER said that the attacks were terrorist attacks. He said they were caused by a video that incited riots. He mentioned freedom of speech issues. He did say it was an act of terror, but not in the sense that it was caused by terrorist's, but that it was a mob scene that ended in the death of an American Ambassador. On his watch. The weak ass Commander in Chief. Vote this guy out of office. Please.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Republican rallying cry: He didn't say "terrorist attacks." He said "acts of terror!"

 

Run with that, fellas. That's a slam dunk!

 

What rule is this that he's violating again? The one you guys just made up? He must say ____ or else he invites weakness! He must use this verb tense, and not that one, despite the fact that they mean the same thing, or else the Middle East will ....something.

 

This stuff is so dumb it makes my head hurt.

[heckofajobbrownie]

But hey, at least DieHard admits Obama said it. I can't even get Steve to admit that.

[VaporTrail]

act of terror =/= terrorist attack

 

uh. lol.

[VaporTrail]

Bitching about semantics is on par with those bitching about Ryan mixing up Colt and Weeden and his photo op at the soup kitchen. Non-issue.

[FairHooker11]

Oh look ... its another confession from your friends at CBS !

 

kind of a groundswell, but it can gain momentum....

 

boy oh boy, I wonder when deepthroat gets involved?

[Saint]

New polls have Romney up 7% after the biased debate so the next debate the moderator will have to gag Romney and start coddling Lord Zero.

[Westside Steve]

Heck.

Let's pretend you are 100 percent correct.

yes the president considered this a terrorist attack on day one. As a matter of fact it was a terrorist attack on American soil. Our consulate.

 

So what was his response, as commander in chief, for such a heinous act?

Fundraising, fundraising and more fundraising.

And 2 weeks of kissing the terrorists ass by groveing over a stupid video that had nothing to do with it.

And sending out his funkeys to lie about it.

Think about it sir.

It really is worse under your interpretation.

WSS

[VaporTrail]

Steve, that really is a half-assed analysis of what went on. It's not solely the president's job to figure out who was responsible for that attack. He delegates that to the CIA and FBI. What seems clear to me is that nobody, including those two very important organizations, seemed to have a clue why this initially happened. Everyone was scrambling to analyze what just happened with very little data. If the President's past record is any indication, there have been or will be quite a large number of retaliatory drone attacks and specops raids. When the president claims, we're trying to find out what happened, it's not him that's doing it. He's waiting for reports from his spy network before pushing a kill button.

 

And obviously he's going to continue fundraising. His reelection isn't exactly a lock.

[Westside Steve]

So first you tell me that it's not his responsibility.

Fair enough I often call him at empty suit.

Next you remind me that drone strikes on civilians is decisive and tough leadership.

okay.

And a couple weeks of obvious lies is just because nobody knew anything.

Fine.

No wonder the election isn't a lock.

but don't worry, the promise of free stuff should easily outweigh this monumental failure on just about every front.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Also just to be clear:

The president knew it was a terror attack on American soil but the FBI and CIA thought it was a protest over a video?

WSS

[VaporTrail]

So first you tell me that it's not his responsibility.

 

That's not what I said.

 

Next you remind me that drone strikes on civilians is decisive and tough leadership.

 

And where did I say civilians?

 

And a couple weeks of obvious lies is just because nobody knew anything.

 

Lose/lose situation. If the administration admits that nobody knew anything, you'd be criticizing him for that, even though it really isn't anyone's fault that we have incomplete data to draw conclusions from. Remember the last time that happened? Iraqi Freedom? I don't want another one of those.

 

but don't worry, the promise of free stuff should easily outweigh this monumental failure on just about every front.

 

More things that I didn't talk about. Next time you attempt to argue against me, how about arguing about what I actually write.

[Westside Steve]

So first you tell me that it's not his responsibility.

 

That's not what I said.

 

Yes it is. Read second and third sentence.

 

Next you remind me that drone strikes on civilians is decisive and tough leadership.

 

And where did I say civilians?

 

Who do you think is getting killed in these strikes?

Why do you guess they hate us?

 

And a couple weeks of obvious lies is just because nobody knew anything.

 

Lose/lose situation. If the administration admits that nobody knew anything, you'd be criticizing him for that, even though it really isn't anyone's fault that we have incomplete data to draw conclusions from. Remember the last time that happened? Iraqi Freedom? I don't want another one of those.

 

Actually the last time I recall is this cluster f*** in Afghanistan.

 

but don't worry, the promise of free stuff should easily outweigh this monumental failure on just about every front.

 

More things that I didn't talk about. Next time you attempt to argue against me, how about arguing about what I actually write.

 

Actually you did say you absolve the president from his duties so he can campaign.

Read it again.

You said he had to fund raise because his reelection isn't a lock.

I was just trying to ease your mind and perhaps give him an excuse to do his job.

 

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Jeez, Steve. I've never seen you so energized. What will become of your whole "I see through all of this" oeuvre, even if no one bought it in the first place?

 

Look, you're going too conspiratorial. The scandal isn't a scandal. It's a fuck up. And it's not Obama's fuck up; it's the State Department's. Is Obama ultimately responsible? Sure, in a way. Everyone always blames the guy at the top. But embassy staffing decisions are not something he's directly involved with, and everyone understands this. So it's not his direct responsibility. Plus, there isn't a single Republican on record who talked about inadequate embassy security before the Bengazi attack. Not one. This simply wasn't an issue. It's an issue now because things went bad, and there's a chance to pin it on the president in an election year.

 

Democrats would be doing the same thing if this were a Republican president.

[calfoxwc]

that's bullsheep, heckbunker.

 

Obamao referred to "acts of terror", then did NOT CLAIM that the murders in Libya were acts of terror.

 

Then, he went out of his way to refer to the VIDEO for two weeks.

 

So, he was lying to the American people for two weeks. Lying out his stupid, leftist ass.

 

Because the state dept knew it was an act of terror within 24 hrs.

 

So, Obamao is so stupid, he doesn't know how to listen to the intel from his own state dept?

 

as always, heckbunker, you wish to have it both ways. Everything was Bush's fault, even a tornado

 

in the midwest. But nothing is Obamao's fault. You are making yourself look more and more like

 

a complete stupidass moron by vainly trying to paint lipstick on the presidential lying pig.

 

Probably just so you can see what crap will stick on the wall. That's what biden does, most lib journalists do.

 

So, heckbunker, you are far from being completely worthless like your woodenpeckerhead flea is...

 

but you are very, very rarely honest about your posts. Steve has kicked your ass so many times -

 

you should know I saw an advertisement in the local drugstore for these inflatable donuts to sit on.

 

Yes, Virginia, obamao never had a magic twanger. He is a fraud. It was all heckbunker and sheply pretend.

[VaporTrail]

Yes it is. Read second and third sentence.

 

My second and third sentences.

 

It's not solely the president's job to figure out who was responsible for that attack. He delegates that to the CIA and FBI.

[calfoxwc]

the state dept already knew. they obviously told Obamao.

 

he wouldn't come out and admit it directly for two weeks.

 

for politics.

 

sick and twisted sumbeech in OUR WH.

[Westside Steve]

You said he delegates that to the FBI and CIA.

 

And whatever his responsibility was he avoided because he had to, in your words, fundraise.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, I'm going to let you in on a little something: Romney and Obama both spend sizable portions of their day fundraising, and have been doing it every day for over a year. And if Romney were to win, you know what he'd spend large portions of his day doing, and every day, starting in about May of 2013? Fundraising.

 

You know what member of Congress do just about every day? Get on the phone with people and ask them for money. Or attend fundraisers. Virtually every day of their term. It never ends.

 

The fact that you find it odd that the president fundraises during the latter stages of a presidential campaign makes me wonder if you were born yesterday or two days ago.

[calfoxwc]

heckbunker wimpy translation:

 

"waaaaaaa ! But... but....'sniff"...Romney wasn't being a president when HE went fundraising...so ObaMao doesn't have to be

 

president while fundraising. It's only fair, Steve! ("pout, boo hoo, whiney ass whine") "

[DieHardBrownsFan]

 

'My son is NOT very optimal... he is very dead': Mother of U.S. diplomat killed in Libya attack slams 'insensitive' Obama's comment about security fiasco

• President told Jon Stewart, 'If four Americans get killed, it's not optimal'
• Remarks sparked massive backlash from conservatives on social media
• Mother of slain diplomat Sean Smith says Obama was 'disrespectful'
  

By Daniel Bates and Toby Harnden In Washington

 

PUBLISHED: 10:49 EST, 19 October 2012 | UPDATED: 14:28 EST, 19 October 2012

 

• Comments (122)
• Share

The mother of an American diplomat killed during a terrorist raid on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi has hit out at Barack Obama for describing the attack as 'not optimal', saying: 'My son is not very optimal - he is also very dead.'

 

During an interview shown on Comedy Central, Obama responded to a question about his administration's confused communication after the assault by saying: 'If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.'

 

Speaking exclusively to MailOnline today, Pat Smith, whose son Sean died in the raid, said: 'It was a disrespectful thing to say and I don't think it's right.

 

'How can you say somebody being killed is not very optimal? I don't think the President has the right idea of the English language.'

 

Scroll down for video

 

Not optimal: President Barack Obama, pictured left, discussed the killing of four men in Benghazi while speaking to Jon Stewart, right, on The Daily Show

 

Criticism: Pat Smith, left, whose diplomat son Sean, right, died in the raid, slammed the President's remarks

 

 

 

 

Speaking from her home in San Diego, Mrs Smith, 72, continued: 'It's insensitive to say my son is not very optimal - he is also very dead. I've not been "optimal" since he died and the past few weeks have been pure hell.

 

'I am still waiting for the truth to come out and I still want to know the truth. I'm finally starting to get some answers but I won't give up.

 

'There's a lot of stupid things that have been said about my son and what happened and this is another one of them.'

 

Obama was speaking to Jon Stewart of The Daily Show for a programme that was broadcast last night. Stewart, a liberal whose young audience is full of potential voters prized by the Obama campaign, asked the president about his handling of the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.

 

But Obama's response sparked outrage among Republican commentators including the website Breitbart and prompted a vicious backlash from the Twitter community.

 

Killed: U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was one of four Americans who died in the assault

 

Heroic: Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods, right, and Glen Doherty, left, were also killed in the mortar attack

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ambassador Chris Stevens, diplomat Sean Smith and security men and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed by terrorists on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 - an attack that the White House initially blamed on a spontaneous protest about an anti-Islam movie made in California.

 

Mrs Smith has previously attacked the Obama administration for keeping her in the dark over how her only child died.

 

She told Anderson Cooper last week that top officials had told her 'outright lies', adding: 'Everyone of them, all the big shots over there told me - they promised me, they promised me that they would tell me what happened.

 

'I told them, please don't give me any baloney that comes through with this political stuff.

 

'I don't want political stuff. You can keep your political, just tell me the truth - what happened. And I still don't know.'

 

 

 

[clebro]

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.

1. That would have been a good point, if Rice and H. Clinton didn't claim it was done in response to the Youtube video after obama gave his garden speech. Vague comment from obama + Rice and Clinton saying it was a Youtube video protest = terrorist attack?

 

2. Any murder is an "act of terror". That doesn't mean every murderer is part of a terrorist organization.

 

3. See above.

 

Romney should have chose better words, because the killings were an "act of terror" reguardless of who committed them. Big Bird could of done them and it still would have been "an act of terror". That doesn't mean Obama can go back and claim he said it was a planned attack carried out by terrorsits, when he (like Romney) failed to be specific.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Again, if you ignore what words mean, you can say whatever someone else thinks isn't what you think it should be.

 

But forget that for a moment. Here's the deal. Obama said that his administration made public the best estimates of the intelligence community at the time, right? And you guys are now accusing him of lying, and telling everyone on his team to lie, in order to cover up what happened, right?

 

Well, here we go. This was just released.

 

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

 

So four days after the attack the CIA is still telling the White House that the attacks were inspired by the video, just like they were all over the world.

 

Is it possible that you guys have this wrong, and that the administration was doing exactly what it said - relaying the best estimates of the intelligence community at the time, a picture that was evolving daily?

 

Sure seems like it. And this may be why Romney lays off this case on Monday. I don't think he will because your side thinks it's a slam dunk and you're all waiting on the edge of your seats for it. But don't think Obama won't have all of these details at his disposal when he does.

[heckofajobbrownie]

In short, if that's what the administration was being told, so Obama described it an act of terror, and his administration suggested that it evolved out of the video protests, and then once the CIA and the FBI altered their findings as they learned more the administration relayed that information as well, what would be the problem?

 

I don't think for a second that any information that might support the administration's case will be accepted by any of you as exculpatory because that's not the way you roll, but there you go.

[clebro]

In short, if that's what the administration was being told, so Obama described it an act of terror, and his administration suggested that it evolved out of the video protests, and then once the CIA and the FBI altered their findings as they learned more the administration relayed that information as well, what would be the problem?

 

I don't think for a second that any information that might support the administration's case will be accepted by any of you as exculpatory because that's not the way you roll, but there you go.

According to CBS, the intelligence community knew it was a terrorist attack within hours. Days later Rice and Clinton were still talking up the video BS.

[Westside Steve]

Steve, I'm going to let you in on a little something: Romney and Obama both spend sizable portions of their day fundraising, and have been doing it every day for over a year. And if Romney were to win, you know what he'd spend large portions of his day doing, and every day, starting in about May of 2013? Fundraising.

 

You know what member of Congress do just about every day? Get on the phone with people and ask them for money. Or attend fundraisers. Virtually every day of their term. It never ends.

 

The fact that you find it odd that the president fundraises during the latter stages of a presidential campaign makes me wonder if you were born yesterday or two days ago.

And as I know you're aware Mitt Romney is not the commander in chief.

Yet.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

 

I don't think for a second that any information that might support the administration's case will be accepted by any of you as exculpatory because that's not the way you roll, but there you go.

Nor any spin or excuse so ridiculous that you might hesitate to take it as if it came from a burning bush.

WSS

[FairHooker11]

The A.P. reports... in review

 

The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.

 

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went.

 

 

So "talking points" by CIA used first by Joey B during his debate to assert the point of how "they didnt have all the facts" bullshit, was cherry picked from its

intel reports

- NOW being touted to defend the original

 

narrative / Susan Rice? laughable...

spin indeed! and clever strategy!

 

 

One U.S. intelligence officer said the widely distributed assessment was an example of "cherry picking," or choosing one piece of intelligence and ignoring other pieces, to support a preferred thesis.

 

"Even if you push out that one piece of intelligence," said this intelligence officer, "it is still in the context of a conversation between a group with an affinity to al Qaeda and a manager of an al-Qaeda affiliate. Why were we only hearing about how the attack was inspired and not about that?"

 

 

Rice

has

said

about

her

initial

comments

that

she

was

providing

"

the

best

assessment

the

administration

had

at

the

time

"

and

that

an

investigation

was

taking

place

.

The

CIA

declined

to

comment

 

very effective dodge? she should say, "the best cherry picked info we had at the time" ?

 

 

 

KNOWN FACT BY THE CIA-

 

Al-Qaeda has established a core network in Libya, but it remains clandestine and refrains from using the al-Qaeda name." The report also said Ansar al-Sharia has "increasingly embodied al-Qaeda's presence in Libya."

 

I really rather hear from David Petraeus seeing that he was essentially thrown under the bus by Biden with the claims he made.... not knowing? sheesh

 

the White house is being run by punks. imo ....