[OFFICIAL] USMB Post Debate Poll/Thursday 10-16

[clevergirl]

Could you link Obama blaming the Libya attack on the video?

No?

How surprising!

Why do you lie, Pix?

No, why do you lie? You freaking brown nosing apologist~

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Address to the United Nations General Assembly | Fox News Insider

The video did spark outrage through the Muslim world. Are you this stupid in real life?

No, stupid brown nosing is what you are engaged in. Your playing at ignoring your own demand aside...I provided a link to Obama blaming the video for the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens. You called another poster a liar about that being true. You now need to pull your moronic head out of your butt and apologize.

BTW, so glad as to have helped you see that Obama DID blame the video for what happened.

 

[Ernie S.]

Scoring the debate strictly as an old debate coach and judge:

I gave Obama a slight edge on points made. (Part but not all of this was due to the fact he got 3-1/2 more minutes to speak than Romney did and that Obama simply does better with targeted and memorized phrases than Romney does. Romney sometimes gets into the weeds on nitpicked issues and doesn't quite complete his thought.)

I gave Romney the win on substance. This is because Romney answered the questions much more specifically than Obama did, and Romney is much better on big picture concepts than Obama is. And I think Romney will come out far better than Obama when the legitimate fact checking is reported.

I checked Romney won because I personally put more importance on substance and accuracy than I do on formal debate points in these things.

Of course both sides are claiming victory this morning. We'll know in a few days after the immediate spin cycle dies down and the follow up polls are completed.

Did anyone else listen on radio?

I did and Romney seemed a lot more relaxed than obama who came across as angry and almost frantic at times. The stuttering was a huge turn off, as was Crowley's more than obvious bias.
Listening without watching facial expressions and body language gives one an interestingly different perspective. It's been said that the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon debate was won by Kenedy on TV, but Nixon on radio.

 

[Dr.House]

Could you link Obama blaming the Libya attack on the video?

No?

How surprising!

Why do you lie, Pix?

I already did, you are just blind to the truth. Have you been studying rules for radicals again Ravi?

No you didn't.

Yes, she did...

Apparently you can't read....

You need someone to help you with the big words?

 

[Ravi]

No, why do you lie? You freaking brown nosing apologist~



TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Address to the United Nations General Assembly | Fox News Insider

The video did spark outrage through the Muslim world. Are you this stupid in real life?

No, stupid brown nosing is what you are engaged in. Your playing at ignoring your own demand aside...I provided a link to Obama blaming the video for the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens. You called another poster a liar about that being true. You now need to pull your moronic head out of your butt and apologize.

BTW, so glad as to have helped you see that Obama DID blame the video for what happened.

No, you did not. You provided a link to Obama blaming the riots on the video.

Thanks for answering in the affirmative that you really are this stupid in real life.

 

[paulitician]

Fact Check on the 'Moderator': Crowley allowed Obama 9% more speaking time and allowed him to interrupt Romney 28 times.

 

[PixieStix]

Could you link Obama blaming the Libya attack on the video?

No?

How surprising!

Why do you lie, Pix?

No, why do you lie? You freaking brown nosing apologist~

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Address to the United Nations General Assembly | Fox News Insider

The video did spark outrage through the Muslim world. Are you this stupid in real life?

Yes it did, and it was used to inflame even more muslim outrage, which is why Obama and Hillary continued to speak about our values as Americans as well as religious beliefs. And because of the narrative by Susan Rice and others speaking on the world stage about the stupid video, not to mention our media.

Again part of the timeline

May 22 - IRC office in Benghazi attacked, followed by a Facebook message “now we are preparing a message for the Americans.”

June 6 - A hole is blown into the consulates gate, which is described big enough to let 40 men through. This could have been a trial run to test the effectiveness of the Sept. 11 attack.

August 14 - The end of the extension for the Special Ops Security Team and it leaves Libya. Their commander has testified that the ambassador wanted them to stay.

Prior to the attack, family members of Libyan Security guards warn of an impending attack on the consulate.

Sept. 10 - Al-Qaida leader Ayman al Zawahiri calls on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al Libi, killed in a June drone strike in Pakistan.

Sept. 11 - A well-planned armed attack is executed on the Benghazi consulate. According to witness statements the attack was observed live via video by State Department personnel. Video also reveals that there were no protests prior to the attack.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, why do you lie? You freaking brown nosing apologist~



TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Address to the United Nations General Assembly | Fox News Insider

The video did spark outrage through the Muslim world. Are you this stupid in real life?

No, stupid brown nosing is what you are engaged in. Your playing at ignoring your own demand aside...I provided a link to Obama blaming the video for the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens. You called another poster a liar about that being true. You now need to pull your moronic head out of your butt and apologize.

BTW, so glad as to have helped you see that Obama DID blame the video for what happened.

That's the thing. The Rose Garden speech I posted in its entirety up there does leave a bit of wiggle room re the President's intent but, very little wiggle room and there was no reason for him to mention 'denigration of anybody's religion' if he wasn't referring to the video as the catalyst for the attack.

But if he believed it was a terrorist attack, Romney would have had even more reason to criticize him for immediately boarding a plane for a Las Vegas fund raiser rather than tend to business to make sure such attack wasn't the forerunner of many more planned attacks.

The question remains of what the President knew and when did he know it? He said in the debate he knew it right away and said so. If so, his behavior is even more indefensible. (Most of us now do think he did know and his behavior was indefensible.)

Certainly in his U.N. speech, the U.N. Ambassador's statements, the press briefings from Jay Carney in the following week, and other spokespersons for the Administration were all pointing to a video and denying that it was a planned out, deliberate, intentional terrorist attack.

The President should not be allowed to wiggle out of this one, but Romney lost a point by failing to ask the follow up question of "If you said it was a terrorist attack, Mr. President, why did you allow all your people including your press secretary and the U.N. Ambassador and the Secretary of State et al to deny that it was a terrorist attack for two weeks following the incident?"

 

[Ernie S.]

And how bout that 'fair & impartial' Moderator? She only gave Obama 9% more speaking time and allowed him to interrupt Romney only 28 times. Oh well, i guesss that's better than that VP debacle. Seriously, it's time to change how these Moderators are chosen. All these Debates just seem like set-ups for the Democrat to win. That has to change. Forget just Romney & Ryan, the People have not been served well with these bogus Debates. It's time for change.

OK--how about we choose moderators with party affiliation that is not of the incumbent?

It will make debates awhole lot more intereting.

Think about it, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Shawn Hannity moderating a debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Mighty interesting, yes?

Or maybe Brit Hume? Someone with at least a hint of integrity.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Romney won because he crafted his message to the undecided, where Obama simply preached to the choir of his already adoring fans. Obama gained zero votes, Romney gained the undecided.

 

[amrchaos]

Actually, I think Obama referred to the violence as an act of terror.

Also think that you conservatives are trying a bit too hard to convince people that Obama is a delusional nit-wit that cannot connect the dots between an embassy attack on 9/11 an acts of terror.


So I say, you draw your own conclusions. I will draw mine.

No. He did not. His speech was not exactly a model of clarity, but the ONLY time the President made ANY allusion to the word "terror" was AFTER he had invoked the painful memories of 9/11/2001.

And THEN he suggested that we will not cave in to acts of terror. He was talking about the attack in America 11 years earlier and the brave men and women in the military who are fighting in response to that attack.

Meanwhile, the dope was starting some puffery about the Benghazi attack as being a mob reaction to the stupid video.

That is what you drew from Obama's statements.

But I have to ask, why mention 9/11 if he did not think the attack on the embassy was related to a terrorist act? Why make reference to the 9/11 terroist attack on America in a statement that is about an attack on an American embassy? If I am taking your implication of your post, that Obama did not believe the attack on the embassy was related to terrorism at all, but spontenous protest, then why make such an inference to terrorism?

You would not, if you wish to convince people that the attack was not terrorist related.

Such a reference tend to suggest the opposite.

 

[Ravi]

What's amusing is that Romney keeps using a terrorist attack to wrongly and stupidly bash the president. On the original 9/11, he and all the other idiotic GOPers used it to drum up support for a stupid war.

Romney continues to be a toad.

 

[paulitician]

Romney won because he crafted his message to the undecided, where Obama simply preached to the choir of his already adoring fans. Obama gained zero votes, Romney gained the undecided.

Very good point. It's either suffer through this same misery another four years, or vote for something different. I think Romney did do well getting that message out.

 

[Rocko]

Romney was debating Obama and Candy. Obama wants to run against Bush, so they ask Romney, how are you different than George Bush. That was criminal.

 

[paulitician]

Romney was debating Obama and Candy. Obama wants to run against Bush, so they ask Romney, how are you different than George Bush. That was criminal.

It's always DAT BOOOOOOSH. And now they're desperate. So expect a lot more of that tired stuff. But will that be enough for em this time around? I guess we'll see.

 

[amrchaos]

What's amusing is that Romney keeps using a terrorist attack to wrongly and stupidly bash the president. On the original 9/11, he and all the other idiotic GOPers used it to drum up support for a stupid war.

Romney continues to be a toad.

Actually, there is something wrong with the security set up if 1) there were evidenece of impeding attacks, or 2) the fact that we have an embassey vulnerable to attack in an unsecured/unstable country such as Libya.

The first situation suggest negligence.
The second suggest the need of a military detache to perform diplomatic duties.

Both suggest problems with the administration handling of the Middle East uprisings. But it is hard to get to that point when we keep talking about semantics and the confusion that the administration actually helped create when we talk about videos and uprisings versus embassy security.


The fact that the embassy was open to attack is the problem. By focusing on that point alone win Republicans political points. But these extra arguments is pointless and can even backfire since it tends to contain a politically directed narrative about this president.

 

[paulitician]

Ya think CNN will Fact Check their own lackey? I doubt it.

 

[paulitician]

Lets be honest, it's become very clear the Obamabots are shocked at how excellent a Debater Mitt Romney is. They really believed this whole thing would be a cakewalk for their Dear Leader. Well, OOPS! It's definitely no cakewalk.

 

[Ravi]

What's amusing is that Romney keeps using a terrorist attack to wrongly and stupidly bash the president. On the original 9/11, he and all the other idiotic GOPers used it to drum up support for a stupid war.

Romney continues to be a toad.

Actually, there is something wrong with the security set up if 1) there were evidenece of impeding attacks, or 2) the fact that we have an embassey vulnerable to attack in an unsecured/unstable country such as Libya.

The first situation suggest negligence.
The second suggest the need of a military detache to perform diplomatic duties.

Both suggest problems with the administration handling of the Middle East uprisings. But it is hard to get to that point when we keep talking about semantics and the confusion that the administration actually helped create when we talk about videos and uprisings versus embassy security.


The fact that the embassy was open to attack is the problem. By focusing on that point alone win Republicans political points. But these extra arguments is pointless and can even backfire since it tends to contain a politically directed narrative about this president.

It wasn't the embassy. But I understand what you are saying.

The only real way to prevent embassy attacks is to not have embassies.

I don't think we want to go down that road.

 

[Liability]

Terrorism caused by a video. I guess you have nothing to counter the lies he told about his energy policies.

After reviewing the official transcript on the White House website as well as watching the video from the Rose Garden address again, not once did the president call the Benghazi attack a "terror attack." What he did say late in his address was this:

“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.” From the context, it was clear that his reference to "terror" was general. Not once did he apply that characterization to Benghazi.

“I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives,” said the president during his address.

Crowley's intervention on Obama's behalf was just another blatant display of the clear bias in the mainstream media. She incorrectly declared that Obama called Benghazi "an act of terror." As a member of the media and as the debate moderator, should not have protected the president nor thrown him a lifeline. She interpreted Obama's September 12 remarks to suit his immediate need.

Crowley lied to protect the president, becoming another corroborator in the Obama-Libya coverup.
Email Henry D’Andrea at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter (@TheHenry)


Read more: Candy Crowley gets it wrong: Obama never called Benghazi a ‘terror attack’ in Rose Garden speech | Washington Times Communities
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter


Candy Crowley gets it wrong: Obama never called Benghazi a

Obama looked much better tonight. I give him the win.



In a Rose Garden address specifically ABOUT the attack, he called it an outrageous attack and an act of terror. The rest is political bullshit...

Bullshit. He mentioned 9/11/2001. He did make A reference to acts of terror, but he was CLEARLY not speaking about the Benghazi attack.

The bullshit is what you are spewing. As per usual.

 

[paulitician]

Obama lied, people died. The awful Libyan debacle is all on him. BOOOOSH and Romney cannot be blamed. It's all on him. Period, end of story.