Proof Obama Lied in Debate

[PoliticalChic]

Your rebuttal is to repeat what you originally said, again out of context? Good one.

I've proven beyond any doubt that he specifically referred to Benghazi as an act of terror in his rose garden remarks.

That you wish to deny the proven has absolutely no effect on what's been proven. The Holocaust deniers haven't made the Holocaust disappear,

nor will your denials make the proof I've provided disappear.

It's too bad the term Mongoloid Idiot fell into disuse. You could have had a title.

You moron.....those are direct quotes: FactCheck and WaPo.


And.... from the OP
AGAIN:

"And- this generalization was after he said this:
"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None."

An obvious reference to the pretend-provenance of the attack: the video.
There is no other way these four sentences make sense."



Did I miss your answer to the question...are you a liar or stupid?

Waiting.

Once you acknowledge that yes the President did in fact call Benghazi an act of terror in his rose garden remarks, and denounce your out-of-context edited misrepresentation of the president's remarks,

once you take the baby step of acknowledging an irrefutable fact,

then we can proceed to your other points. You need to show some integrity in debating.

Modeling yourself after a Holocaust Denier, or for that matter a Birther, is neither in the letter nor the spirit of

integrity.

Hey you never know, you might win the second half of your argument. You'd be batting .500 then.

This is the best attempt you can field in an attempt to save face??

First....you have no reputation to save. You are a liar....and not even a good one!
Surprising, with all the practice you've had.


Second....if and when you manage to get out of junior high school....by age or size, you may learn the meaning of 'context."

My analysis is based on the context.....the four sentences that lay the groundwork for the video fable.
You suggestion that "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve..." is identical to specifying Benghazi as "an act of terror" is what defies context.



Which, once again, leads to the query: are you stupid or a liar?


'Fess up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, the GOP push this idiocy to it's logical end. We have men of long service to this nation stating that there was nothing anyone could have done for the Ambassador, yet the GOP still insists on pushing their lie of how events went down. It is starting to sour big time, and will sooner than later, bite them big time.

"....the GOP push this idiocy to it's logical end."

In my desire to avoid idiocy, I wonder if you could provide the answers to these questions:

1. According to the White House spin machine, a satirical video was the cause of the attacks...but no intelligence organization was claiming that. Why is that?


2.According to White House supporters, reinforcements were not sent because they believed that they would arrive too late to stem the attack.....exactly where did the attackers post their timeline of 'begin attack.....end attack'?
BTW....it lasted six hours. How did the White House know that it wouldn't last six days?


3.As of this moment, there has been no Presidential timeline released....implying that Obama went to bed, unconcerned, so that he could awake, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed to set off on his fund-raising. Why was he not engaged?


4. "Even as the White House strove last week to move beyond questions about the Benghazi attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2012, fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults. The Weekly Standard has obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom."
The Benghazi Talking Points | The Weekly Standard

 

[PoliticalChic]

He did NOT call it a terrorist act, and Candy Crowley was an active participant in the debate. Her sole objective was to assist Obama and help him win it. Why Romney agreed to let activist liberal journalists host every one of the debates, I'll never understand. Romney could have countered by asking Obama why he went to the U.N. and repeated the video story if he thought it was a terrorist act, but I think he made the miscalculation of thinking the media would set the record straight.

Also, Ryan could have delivered the knockout punch in his debate by asking Biden what he thought was so funny about people dying. Another missed opportunity.

Her action was the most blatant and despicable media manipulation of the decade.
It may have cost us the United States of America.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I saw the speech myself. Oddly enough I don't need some pundit to tell me what I heard. I actually know what I heard. He called it an act of terror.

What's next?

You are representative of normal America. Normal Americans rarely have trouble with the obvious.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is how bad it's gotten...

Darrell Issa said this the other day, in trying to get around the indisputable fact that the President called Benghazi an act of terror:

"An act of terror is different from a terrorist attack."


...so he's conceding that Obama called it an act of terror, but then falls back to new position of insanity, lol, that acts of terror are not actually terrorist attacks.

Issa is not alone, From Fact Check some key points from an awesome timeline they put together. And the key part of his speech in the Rose Garden he references different religious beliefs. Again this goes to the narrative that this "act of terror" was caused by an anti muslim video.

It is what it is.

[irrelevant blather removed]

Tell us the difference between an act of terror and a terrorist attack.

Just thought you might benefit from this:

"The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life. A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob."
Coulter, "Demonic," chapter 14

 

[PoliticalChic]

The mental case left in here have the political IQ's of a small soap dish.

Shit......even the Washington Post today is saying "4 Pinnochio's"!!!

Obama?s claim he called Benghazi an ?act of terrorism? - The Washington Post




When The New Yorker Magazine, Newsday and the Washington Post are saying your a liar, it makes the mental case rantings of the internet hyper-left laughable!!!

I swear the left wing administration cheerleaders aren't just drinking liberal Obama kool aid anymore; they're mainlining it.

Sheesh.

The President called Benghazi an act of terror on September 12th. There is no disputing that, unless you are insane.

You're lying again.

Can't help it, can you?

I can see that it proves the old saying
"Habits begin as spider webs, but become steel cables."

 

[PoliticalChic]

I saw the speech myself. Oddly enough I don't need some pundit to tell me what I heard. I actually know what I heard. He called it an act of terror.

What's next?

No he didn't.

 

[skookerasbil]

This is how bad it's gotten...

Darrell Issa said this the other day, in trying to get around the indisputable fact that the President called Benghazi an act of terror:

"An act of terror is different from a terrorist attack."


...so he's conceding that Obama called it an act of terror, but then falls back to new position of insanity, lol, that acts of terror are not actually terrorist attacks.

Issa is not alone, From Fact Check some key points from an awesome timeline they put together. And the key part of his speech in the Rose Garden he references different religious beliefs. Again this goes to the narrative that this "act of terror" was caused by an anti muslim video.

It is what it is.

[irrelevant blather removed]

Tell us the difference between an act of terror and a terrorist attack.

LOL......sorry s0n......the BS strategy of semantics distraction is ummmm..........fAiLing this time!!!



And I must admit.......Im fucking giddy!!!!



FACTCHECKER in the Washington Post FTMFW!!!!


Obama?s claim he called Benghazi an ?act of terrorism? - The Washington Post

 

[boedicca]

I think what Nixon did pales in comparison to this. We're talking about national security here and ignoring warnings that could have saved our people in Benghazi. They should have either been removed from Libya after the direct threats on Steven's life or we should have beefed up security. Instead, we remove security personnel in the days before the attack. I am still in disbelief that amid all the attacks and threats prior to the 9/11 attack that no one realized that the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil would be a likely day for another strike on us. Or did Obama think terrorists would merely celebrate a day of volunteering, since that is what he reduced the 9/11 attacks to?

On top of that, we had nothing but lies since then and that may be the most telling of all. When people lie, it means that they are hiding something. Lying about who carried out the attacks and why, then refusing to help investigators find the truth is a cover up, plain and simple.

We know for a fact Obama and Hillary lied. No question about that. When people practice CYA tactics, it means they did something wrong. Can't just ignore it or allow them to minimize it by claiming it doesn't make any difference. It's about the integrity of our leaders. If they cannot be trusted, they are unfit to lead.

Indeed. Nixon lied and abused the power of his office, but he did not do so in the context of his role as CIC, nor did anyone die as a result.

Obama has gotten away with being a corrupt liar because he is photogenic (Nixon was not), and the MSM press have promoted and protected him (unlike Nixon).

 

[NYcarbineer]

You moron.....those are direct quotes: FactCheck and WaPo.


And.... from the OP
AGAIN:

"And- this generalization was after he said this:
"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None."

An obvious reference to the pretend-provenance of the attack: the video.
There is no other way these four sentences make sense."



Did I miss your answer to the question...are you a liar or stupid?

Waiting.

Once you acknowledge that yes the President did in fact call Benghazi an act of terror in his rose garden remarks, and denounce your out-of-context edited misrepresentation of the president's remarks,

once you take the baby step of acknowledging an irrefutable fact,

then we can proceed to your other points. You need to show some integrity in debating.

Modeling yourself after a Holocaust Denier, or for that matter a Birther, is neither in the letter nor the spirit of

integrity.

Hey you never know, you might win the second half of your argument. You'd be batting .500 then.

This is the best attempt you can field in an attempt to save face??

First....you have no reputation to save. You are a liar....and not even a good one!
Surprising, with all the practice you've had.


Second....if and when you manage to get out of junior high school....by age or size, you may learn the meaning of 'context."

My analysis is based on the context.....the four sentences that lay the groundwork for the video fable.
You suggestion that "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve..." is identical to specifying Benghazi as "an act of terror" is what defies context.



Which, once again, leads to the query: are you stupid or a liar?


'Fess up.

I understand that as an immigrant who doesn't speak English very well it is sometimes hard for you to understand English.

Why did you omit the context that proves the President was talking about Benghazi (which btw was WHY he was in the rose garden)

when he referred to acts of terror?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Issa is not alone, From Fact Check some key points from an awesome timeline they put together. And the key part of his speech in the Rose Garden he references different religious beliefs. Again this goes to the narrative that this "act of terror" was caused by an anti muslim video.

It is what it is.

[irrelevant blather removed]

Tell us the difference between an act of terror and a terrorist attack.

LOL......sorry s0n......the BS strategy of semantics distraction is ummmm..........fAiLing this time!!!



And I must admit.......Im fucking giddy!!!!



FACTCHECKER in the Washington Post FTMFW!!!!


Obama?s claim he called Benghazi an ?act of terrorism? - The Washington Post

So your answer is that you can't tell us the difference between an act of terror and a terroist attack.

Fine. That is my point. There is no difference.

 

[Wildman]

Obama lied...

What a shock...

He's been lying for the past 6 years.

CORRECTION PLEASE !!


he has been lying ever since this:

thinking he only started lying in the past 6 years is phantasy

 

[NYcarbineer]

[You suggestion that "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve..." is identical to specifying Benghazi as "an act of terror" is what defies context.

Again, you insist on omitting the context of the president remarks, because you know that he SPECIFIES Benghazi as one of those acts of terror immediately after saying acts of terror.

I know you're programmed by the cult to behave this way but you really need to start thinking for yourself.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The greatest treachery of the election cycle was committed by Candy Crowley during the debate. She not only certified an answer by Obama...i.e., that he had claimed Benghazi was a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden speech....

....but she was dead wrong.
I leave it to each to decide if you lied or was merely mistaken.




The point is....Obama knew....he lied.

1."(CNN) -- Conservative critics have launched an attack on CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley, who moderated Tuesday's second presidential debate, after she corrected former Gov. Mitt Romney's claim that President Barack Obama did not refer to the consulate attack in Benghazi as an "act of terror."

a. Obama said in the debate that on September 12, he called the attack in Libya that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, an "act of terror." Romney, however, disputed the claim, and said the president had not called it an "act of terror" for 14 days. Crowley correctly stated that Obama had used the term "act of terror" during remarks at The White House the day after the attack. Romney was mistaken.

b. Crowley correctly stated that Obama had used the term "act of terror" during remarks at The White House the day after the attack. Romney was mistaken."
The truth about what Candy Crowley said - CNN.com




2. Notice the subtle change from 'the Benghazi attack was an act of terror....'
to the more general 'No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,..." which is what he actually said. Full Transcript of Obama's Rose Garden Speech After Sept. 11 Benghazi Attack - October 16 12 10:31 EDT - ForexTV.com

a. And- this generalization was after he said this:
"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None."

An obvious reference to the pretend-provenance of the attack: the video.
There is no other way these four sentences make sense.




3. Gregory Hicks (C), Foreign Service Officer and former Deputy Chief of Mission/Charge d’Affairs in Libya, spoke to Hillary Clinton the night of the attack...and made clear that there was no video-protest.
Dems Circle Wagons Around Hillary As Benghazi Whistleblowers Signal 2016 Attacks - Forbes

a. Hillary to father of slain: We'll “make sure that the person who made that film was arrested.” Ibid.




4. Further, he went on to speak at the UN, continuing the charade,...
"During his address to the United Nations today in New York City, President Obama again blamed violent Islamic riots in the Middle East on a video....six times."
Obama to UN: "Crude and Disgusting Video Sparked Outrage" - Katie Pavlich

a. Attack....September 11th......Rose Garden....September 12.....UN speech September 25
...Obama continues with the lie to this day.




5. Need more?

Ok: if Obama actually believed that the attack was related to the video.....

"Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference"
Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference - ABC News

....why was it necessary to remove terrorist references???





So....let's review.

a. The video has nothing to do with the Benghazi attack

b. The Obama White House knew this immediately

c. They had an opportunity to save those Americans....and chose, instead, to insure re-election...they told reinforcements to stand down.

d. Hillary looked him in the eye and lied to the father of a victim

e. Obama lied at the debate; he was abetted by Candy Crowley

f. The Obama White House made sure that 'terror attack' was not in the report.

g. To this day, he is lying about involvement in the cover-up



Now....if this has no importance.....why should the charges against Nixon have any?

Much ado about nothing. Anyone surprised? PC is the quintessential partisan hack, if she had college level writing skills (or chose not to write for the conservative dumbies alone) one might suspect she was in the employ of the Brother's Koch.

As it stands now, PC ought to read about the boy who cried wolf. She and the rest of the echo chamber need to remember the more they whine and accuse, the less impact they have on reasonable, intelligent and normal people. Benghazi is one more Red Herring used to excuse the inability of the Republican Party to govern and the desperate need for their hard held beliefs to be sustained even when they have had a record of failure.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who here can tell us exactly who carried out the Benghazi attacks?

Who here can tell us exactly what caused them to attack when they did?

No one? None of you know the who and why of the attacks?

That's interesting, considering the amount of certainty you all seem to be relying on to make your claims.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once you acknowledge that yes the President did in fact call Benghazi an act of terror in his rose garden remarks, and denounce your out-of-context edited misrepresentation of the president's remarks,

once you take the baby step of acknowledging an irrefutable fact,

then we can proceed to your other points. You need to show some integrity in debating.

Modeling yourself after a Holocaust Denier, or for that matter a Birther, is neither in the letter nor the spirit of

integrity.

Hey you never know, you might win the second half of your argument. You'd be batting .500 then.

This is the best attempt you can field in an attempt to save face??

First....you have no reputation to save. You are a liar....and not even a good one!
Surprising, with all the practice you've had.


Second....if and when you manage to get out of junior high school....by age or size, you may learn the meaning of 'context."

My analysis is based on the context.....the four sentences that lay the groundwork for the video fable.
You suggestion that "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve..." is identical to specifying Benghazi as "an act of terror" is what defies context.



Which, once again, leads to the query: are you stupid or a liar?


'Fess up.

I understand that as an immigrant who doesn't speak English very well it is sometimes hard for you to understand English.

Why did you omit the context that proves the President was talking about Benghazi (which btw was WHY he was in the rose garden)

when he referred to acts of terror?

See...you keep shooting yourself in the foot!
(Aim a little higher.)


Here is an immigrant to this great nation, for whom English is a second language...

...and I still runs rings around you!

Even the Liberal press has admitted that I am correct, e.g., FactCheck, and WaPo....


Bet I'm even more informed scientifically. Watch this:

You are to Obama, as the remora is to a shark.

Sucker!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtI6iyUXukE]Jonathan Bird's Blue World: Shark Suckers - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

The greatest treachery of the election cycle was committed by Candy Crowley during the debate. She not only certified an answer by Obama...i.e., that he had claimed Benghazi was a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden speech....

....but she was dead wrong.
I leave it to each to decide if you lied or was merely mistaken.




The point is....Obama knew....he lied.

1."(CNN) -- Conservative critics have launched an attack on CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley, who moderated Tuesday's second presidential debate, after she corrected former Gov. Mitt Romney's claim that President Barack Obama did not refer to the consulate attack in Benghazi as an "act of terror."

a. Obama said in the debate that on September 12, he called the attack in Libya that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, an "act of terror." Romney, however, disputed the claim, and said the president had not called it an "act of terror" for 14 days. Crowley correctly stated that Obama had used the term "act of terror" during remarks at The White House the day after the attack. Romney was mistaken.

b. Crowley correctly stated that Obama had used the term "act of terror" during remarks at The White House the day after the attack. Romney was mistaken."
The truth about what Candy Crowley said - CNN.com




2. Notice the subtle change from 'the Benghazi attack was an act of terror....'
to the more general 'No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,..." which is what he actually said. Full Transcript of Obama's Rose Garden Speech After Sept. 11 Benghazi Attack - October 16 12 10:31 EDT - ForexTV.com

a. And- this generalization was after he said this:
"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None."

An obvious reference to the pretend-provenance of the attack: the video.
There is no other way these four sentences make sense.




3. Gregory Hicks (C), Foreign Service Officer and former Deputy Chief of Mission/Charge d’Affairs in Libya, spoke to Hillary Clinton the night of the attack...and made clear that there was no video-protest.
Dems Circle Wagons Around Hillary As Benghazi Whistleblowers Signal 2016 Attacks - Forbes

a. Hillary to father of slain: We'll “make sure that the person who made that film was arrested.” Ibid.




4. Further, he went on to speak at the UN, continuing the charade,...
"During his address to the United Nations today in New York City, President Obama again blamed violent Islamic riots in the Middle East on a video....six times."
Obama to UN: "Crude and Disgusting Video Sparked Outrage" - Katie Pavlich

a. Attack....September 11th......Rose Garden....September 12.....UN speech September 25
...Obama continues with the lie to this day.




5. Need more?

Ok: if Obama actually believed that the attack was related to the video.....

"Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference"
Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference - ABC News

....why was it necessary to remove terrorist references???





So....let's review.

a. The video has nothing to do with the Benghazi attack

b. The Obama White House knew this immediately

c. They had an opportunity to save those Americans....and chose, instead, to insure re-election...they told reinforcements to stand down.

d. Hillary looked him in the eye and lied to the father of a victim

e. Obama lied at the debate; he was abetted by Candy Crowley

f. The Obama White House made sure that 'terror attack' was not in the report.

g. To this day, he is lying about involvement in the cover-up



Now....if this has no importance.....why should the charges against Nixon have any?

Much ado about nothing. Anyone surprised? PC is the quintessential partisan hack, if she had college level writing skills (or chose not to write for the conservative dumbies alone) one might suspect she was in the employ of the Brother's Koch.

As it stands now, PC ought to read about the boy who cried wolf. She and the rest of the echo chamber need to remember the more they whine and accuse, the less impact they have on reasonable, intelligent and normal people. Benghazi is one more Red Herring used to excuse the inability of the Republican Party to govern and the desperate need for their hard held beliefs to be sustained even when they have had a record of failure.

Hey....look who's back!!

I heard you got a brain transplant and the brain rejected you!



Can we make the same deal as before?
Either you find an error in the OP....
...or admit your ancestors came here in search of bananas!


'Cmon....

It'll be fun.

 

[Wildman]

he did not call it a terrorist act, and candy crowley was an active participant in the debate. .

you're as retarded as the rest of the conservatives around here. (my mother told me it takes one to know one !)

he clearly called it a terrorist act. (when.., just last week..., hummmmm or was it yesterday ?)

you are a part of the cult that is programmed to believe what they are told to believe, whether the facts support it or not. (sorry, but the cult is the democrat/liarberal party, ok ? )

once the right collectively decided that it was great propaganda to claim that president obama did not call it an act of terror, a decision that was foolishly made in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary,

the cult of followers - the people like you - were forced to defend the decision, no matter what; that is how your programming works. That is where we are today,

people like you in the manner of holocaust deniers and birthers, denying the undeniable.

wow !!! the above underlined is a nearly perfect description of the democRAT party and it's never ending herd of lemmings

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does anyone else find it somewhat amazing that PoliticalChic apparently does not know

that the word 'acts' is the plural of the word 'act'?

Even allowing for the fact that she's an immigrant with only secondhand command of the English language,

that is still an amazement.

Apparently whatever form of pig latin they speak in whatever horribly illiterate place she came from doesn't account for the fact that words have plurals that are meant to describe a collection of more than one item.

In PC's world, if you say that you bought a dozen eggs, you really didn't say you bought each individual egg in the carton,

because you didn't specify, one by one, the eggs you bought.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why Benghazi now?

Gun Control,
An economy in recovery,
Hilary Clinton's popularity,
A do-nothing Congress,
A focus on the Midterm Election and not on problem solving.

Expect more God, Gun, Gays and Taxes once Benghazi hysteria subsides.

Hate and Fear, that's all they got, that's all folks - the same old wedge issues and demagoguery.