Proof Obama Lied in Debate

[freedombecki]

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.

Don't you ever mention the term 'mongoloid idiot' again. You may have no idea what the North Koreans did in the fifties, but I do, because my father was injured by one of them, and to put it mildly, they don't play nice. Those who escaped S Korea and other areas in the vicinity of the NK nutters may well one day be all that's left of the genocidal rage the NKoreans insist on inflicting on their neighbors rather than getting along with them, an item, which if they practiced would probably make them a very wealthy nation. Unfortunately, they can't seem to channel their angst into positive means, and wind up cutting off their own nose to spite their own face.

Some people have seen things you wouldn't know unless the bullet you were hit with left a shrapnel digger in 15 different places on your body if one of them didn't outright kill you. Some are inoperable, and they dig harshly for the rest of your pain-filled life.

Ethnic smears are not acceptable, nycarbineer. Get used to it or you are going to pay a price for it.

Are you through? Can I go back to my cereal and newspaper now, Mother?

Not until you apologize to your sister. And don't speak until spoken to.

 

[TemplarKormac]

True. Now can we spend our resources drilling into that a little further to find out WHICH terrorists?

Or are too many people just too concerned with trying to make political opponents look bad?

Ansar-al-Sharia, Al Qaeda linked terrorist cell. Do some freaking research.

No, Obama was too busy trying to preserve what little standing he had by covering this up. We are all concerned that we are witnessing unprecedented amounts of government corruption taking place.

I could care less about politics.

Can you prove who carried out the attack and why they carried out the attack when they did?

Can you detail that for us with reliable sources?

Just Fucking Google It

 

[TemplarKormac]

What is the difference between an act of terror and a terrorist attack, in the context of this discussion.

Name some acts of terror that were not terrorist attacks.

Explain how the killings in Benghazi were a terrorist attack, but not an act of terror.

Newtown connecticut was an act of terror but not a terrorist attack.

Driving drunk on a crowded road is an act of terror, but not a terrorist attack.

Benghazi was an act of terror as well......conducted by terrorists.....thus a terrorist attack.

In todays "lingo", we all know the difference between a terrorist and one who commits an act of terror.

So your distinction is that act of terror could mean other things than terrorism in the familiar sense, i.e., politically or ideologically motivated,

but it does include such terrorism.

So if someone calls, for example, 9/11 an act of terror there is nothing wrong with that.

Look at carbine trying to rationalize this. You aren't going to be able to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ansar-al-Sharia, Al Qaeda linked terrorist cell. Do some freaking research.

No, Obama was too busy trying to preserve what little standing he had by covering this up. We are all concerned that we are witnessing unprecedented amounts of government corruption taking place.

I could care less about politics.

Can you prove who carried out the attack and why they carried out the attack when they did?

Can you detail that for us with reliable sources?

Just Fucking Google It

So, predictably, your answer is, 'I can't'.

lol, at least you're consistent.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Newtown connecticut was an act of terror but not a terrorist attack.

Driving drunk on a crowded road is an act of terror, but not a terrorist attack.

Benghazi was an act of terror as well......conducted by terrorists.....thus a terrorist attack.

In todays "lingo", we all know the difference between a terrorist and one who commits an act of terror.

So your distinction is that act of terror could mean other things than terrorism in the familiar sense, i.e., politically or ideologically motivated,

but it does include such terrorism.

So if someone calls, for example, 9/11 an act of terror there is nothing wrong with that.

Look at carbine trying to rationalize this. You aren't going to be able to.

Did you try the quiz?

But we again thank the hospital, the docs, the nurses and, of course, again tell the families that the nation prays for those who have been injured by this unbelievable act of terror.

Who said that? and when?

 

[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.

The WaPo article I read this morning gave Barack Obama four pinnochios. That's a polite way of saying he lied his butt off.

So? He's just some blogger at the WP. If you agree that his word is indisputable I'll show you all the times he's said conservatives have lied. lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, the inmates around here have decided that an 'act of terror' is not the same as a 'terrorist attack' and anyone using 'act of terror' when describing what was in fact a 'terrorist attack' must be using those weasel words for some sort of nefarious motive???

"But we again thank the hospital, the docs, the nurses and, of course, again tell the families that the nation prays for those who have been injured by this unbelievable act of terror."

Just for fun, without googling, who can guess who said that and when it was said?

Oh comon, none of you can guess who?

Do you need another clue!? Okay okay, here you are:

Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.

Now again, who said both of the above quotes, and when were they said???

No googling now, just use your bean and figure it out.

 

[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.

Apparently you didn't see the speech and are just counting on the far right pundits to tell you what he said.

I saw and heard the speech for myself.

I KNOW what he said.

You and an entire army of punditry can stomp your feet, hold your breath, and turn apoplectically purple for all I care. Doesn't change a thing.

This president has legitimate weaknesses - why focus on trying to invent one where it doesn't exist? You only hurt your own credibility. Haven't you ever heard the story about the little boy who cried wolf?

1. "I saw and heard the speech for myself."
Well, then you've admitted to an astounding lack of perception.


2. "Apparently you didn't see the speech and are just counting on the far right pundits to tell you what he said."
So....you didn't read the OP?

From same:

"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."


Did I just make you look really, really stupid???

 

[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?

Why are those of you on the right so thick that you need Obama to tell you that such an attack is an act of terrorism. The same with the Boston bombings.

"....you need Obama to tell you that such an attack is an act of terrorism."



What the heck is wrong with you?

The Right knew what is was.....which is why we've identified Obama as a liar.
He claimed it was otherwise.



I don’t know what your problem is, but I bet it’s hard to pronounce.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No he didn't.

Apparently you didn't see the speech and are just counting on the far right pundits to tell you what he said.

I saw and heard the speech for myself.

I KNOW what he said.

You and an entire army of punditry can stomp your feet, hold your breath, and turn apoplectically purple for all I care. Doesn't change a thing.

This president has legitimate weaknesses - why focus on trying to invent one where it doesn't exist? You only hurt your own credibility. Haven't you ever heard the story about the little boy who cried wolf?

1. "I saw and heard the speech for myself."
Well, then you've admitted to an astounding lack of perception.


2. "Apparently you didn't see the speech and are just counting on the far right pundits to tell you what he said."
So....you didn't read the OP?

From same:

"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."


Did I just make you look really, really stupid???

Once again, you edit the quote to remove the direct reference to Benghazi as one of those 'acts of terror':

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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.

You see? Four MORE Americans killed in an act of terror.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is an odd phenomena that occurs on the fringes of politics... A delusion that occurs when the reality doesn't fit the preffered talking points. Some become more committed to the talking points than they are to reality.

I'm guessing this phenomena is the root of the term "lunatic fringe."

Don't believe your own eyes ... don't believe your own ears ... just believe the talking point(s).

It would be funny ... except it's kinda sad.

"A delusion that occurs when the reality doesn't fit the preffered (sic) talking points. Some become more committed to the talking points than they are to reality."


It appears you haven't a clue as to the details of this discussion....which identifies you as being on the Left.

Begin your education here:

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

"When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack."
Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference - ABC News



Try not to embarrass yourself like this again.
'Else, you fall into the 'stupid' or 'bald-faced liar' category....and it's already crowded in there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No he didn't.

Apparently you didn't see the speech and are just counting on the far right pundits to tell you what he said.

I saw and heard the speech for myself.

I KNOW what he said.

You and an entire army of punditry can stomp your feet, hold your breath, and turn apoplectically purple for all I care. Doesn't change a thing.

This president has legitimate weaknesses - why focus on trying to invent one where it doesn't exist? You only hurt your own credibility. Haven't you ever heard the story about the little boy who cried wolf?

Can you explain these people's behaviour. They seem to me to be programmed, especially since they're not just some clowns on USMB making these ridiculous claims,

it's all across conservatism.

I liken it to the mass hysteria, albeit on a much smaller scale, that happened at the Salem witch trials.

Which monogram did you wish?

Both?.... liar and stupid?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Can you prove who carried out the attack and why they carried out the attack when they did?

Can you detail that for us with reliable sources?

Just Fucking Google It

So, predictably, your answer is, 'I can't'.

lol, at least you're consistent.

No. I'm frankly tired of trying to explain the obvious to a hopelessly obtuse individual such as yourself.

I am fully capable, but so are you. Go Google it if you please. You needn't be coddled any longer. Either you're serious about finding this information, or you are just simply interested in arguing with me. Whatever the case, stop being so damned lazy and look it up yourself!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Washington Post 'factchecker' is a guy named Glen Kessler. What special authority or qualifications make him an unimpeachable source of the truth? His column is essentially a blog.

Here's his answer:

" The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word."
The Obama-Romney clash over Libya - The Washington Post


Of course, that hardly compares to your credentials as "Obama Boot-Licker."

Try to answer this question with no more than a 'yes' or a 'no'.

Are you aware that 2 years ago I said unequivocally that President Obama was WRONG to get us involved in Libya in the first place.

Now stop retreating!!


I like seeing you in full 'dishonesty' mode!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You seem to have forgotten the claim in the title of your thread,

that Obama lied in the debate.

Where did you actually quote the alleged lie?

A conscious and continued effort to mislead.


" Our timeline noted that only after Matt Olsen went to Capitol Hill on Sept. 19 and called it a terrorist act did White House spokesman Jay Carney on Sept. 20 tell reporters that it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
In the same briefing, Carney acknowledged that the White House had never before said it was a terrorist act..."
The Obama-Romney clash over Libya - The Washington Post


"You seem to have forgotten the claim in the title of your thread,

that Obama lied in the debate.

Where did you actually quote the alleged lie..."


So....I guess you don't have to answer the question I asked earlier....Obama's a liar,and so are you.

1. You claimed Obama lied IN THE DEBATE.

2. Post the lie. Find the transcript of the debate, use your mouse to copy the lie, then post it here, in quotes, with a link to the transcript.

3. Please.

This is all you have left?
Well, actually, you have been beaten from pillar to post in this thread.....

Yup, he lied in the debate in claiming that the identified Benghazi as a terrorist attack, when what he did was push the lie that it was the video.

But you knew that, didn't you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's his answer:

" The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word."
The Obama-Romney clash over Libya - The Washington Post


Of course, that hardly compares to your credentials as "Obama Boot-Licker."

Try to answer this question with no more than a 'yes' or a 'no'.

Are you aware that 2 years ago I said unequivocally that President Obama was WRONG to get us involved in Libya in the first place.

Now stop retreating!!


I like seeing you in full 'dishonesty' mode!

I'll take that as a 'no'.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Try to answer this question with no more than a 'yes' or a 'no'.

Are you aware that 2 years ago I said unequivocally that President Obama was WRONG to get us involved in Libya in the first place.

Now stop retreating!!


I like seeing you in full 'dishonesty' mode!

I'll take that as a 'no'.

What are you doing? I'll take your taunting as a lack of argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A conscious and continued effort to mislead.


" Our timeline noted that only after Matt Olsen went to Capitol Hill on Sept. 19 and called it a terrorist act did White House spokesman Jay Carney on Sept. 20 tell reporters that it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
In the same briefing, Carney acknowledged that the White House had never before said it was a terrorist act..."
The Obama-Romney clash over Libya - The Washington Post


"You seem to have forgotten the claim in the title of your thread,

that Obama lied in the debate.

Where did you actually quote the alleged lie..."


So....I guess you don't have to answer the question I asked earlier....Obama's a liar,and so are you.

1. You claimed Obama lied IN THE DEBATE.

2. Post the lie. Find the transcript of the debate, use your mouse to copy the lie, then post it here, in quotes, with a link to the transcript.

3. Please.

This is all you have left?
Well, actually, you have been beaten from pillar to post in this thread.....

Yup, he lied in the debate in claiming that the identified Benghazi as a terrorist attack, when what he did was push the lie that it was the video.

But you knew that, didn't you.

Since it's already been proven here that he did in fact identify Benghazi as an act of terror,

what are you claiming the lie is?

Quote the debate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Washington Post 'factchecker' is a guy named Glen Kessler. What special authority or qualifications make him an unimpeachable source of the truth? His column is essentially a blog.

Here's his answer:

" The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word."
The Obama-Romney clash over Libya - The Washington Post


Of course, that hardly compares to your credentials as "Obama Boot-Licker."

1. Can you name any relevant examples of 'acts of terror' that cannot with reasonable accuracy also be described as 'acts of terrorism'.

2. Can you name any relevant examples of 'acts of terrorism' that cannot with reasonable accuracy also be described as 'acts of terror'?

3. Referencing my other post about Bush and Hamas, can you tell us why Bush CHOSE to call those Hamas attacks on Israel an 'act of terror' instead of an 'act of terrorism'?

So you admit that the FactChecker knows and understands nuance?

Therefore his conclusion that Obama didn't indict terrorism, rather he shifted the blame to the video, is the case?


So glad you didn't concede that earlier....I wouldn't have had as much fun.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's his answer:

" The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word."
The Obama-Romney clash over Libya - The Washington Post


Of course, that hardly compares to your credentials as "Obama Boot-Licker."

1. Can you name any relevant examples of 'acts of terror' that cannot with reasonable accuracy also be described as 'acts of terrorism'.

2. Can you name any relevant examples of 'acts of terrorism' that cannot with reasonable accuracy also be described as 'acts of terror'?

3. Referencing my other post about Bush and Hamas, can you tell us why Bush CHOSE to call those Hamas attacks on Israel an 'act of terror' instead of an 'act of terrorism'?

So you admit that the FactChecker knows and understands nuance?

Therefore his conclusion that Obama didn't indict terrorism, rather he shifted the blame to the video, is the case?


So glad you didn't concede that earlier....I wouldn't have had as much fun.

No. since you cannot answer any of the three questions above, it proves that there is no relevant difference between calling an attack an act of terror or an act of terrorism.

You've quietly proven me 100% right.