Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obama?s claim he called Benghazi an ?act of terrorism? - The Washington Post
Lib newspaper, lib fact checker.
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.
Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12
Obama?s claim he called Benghazi an ?act of terrorism? - The Washington Post
Lib newspaper, lib fact checker.
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.
Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12
Obama?s claim he called Benghazi an ?act of terrorism? - The Washington Post
Lib newspaper, lib fact checker.
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.
Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12
Go argue with the Washington Post.
The Pinocchio Test
During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said act of terror, since he did use those words though not in the way he often claimed.
It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.
But the presidents claim that he said act of terrorism is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack.
He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.
Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administrations phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.
Obama?s claim he called Benghazi an ?act of terrorism? - The Washington Post
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.
Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12
Go argue with the Washington Post.
The Pinocchio Test
During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said act of terror, since he did use those words though not in the way he often claimed.
It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.
But the presidents claim that he said act of terrorism is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack.
He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.
Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administrations phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.
Obama?s claim he called Benghazi an ?act of terrorism? - The Washington Post
No intelligent person would commit to a narrative while the investigation is still going on, that doesn't make him a liar....but I'm not surprised a privileged rich middle aged white guy would attack Obama.
The speech in the Rose Garden was September 12th. obama continued to blame the video until September 25th. He not only blamed the video but called the President of Libya a liar when he said it was a terrorist attack.
The speech in the Rose Garden was September 12th. obama continued to blame the video until September 25th. He not only blamed the video but called the President of Libya a liar when he said it was a terrorist attack.
link ?
The speech in the Rose Garden was September 12th. obama continued to blame the video until September 25th. He not only blamed the video but called the President of Libya a liar when he said it was a terrorist attack.
link ?
you need a link to prove that Rice was on the same shows as the PM where she was saying "it was, in fact a protest to the video......" while the PM was saying ..."it was an organized and premediated terrosit attack....?
Really?
How can you debate this topic if you are not aware of the basic facts?
"Act of terror" vs "Act of terrorism"
I see grounds for impeachment and definite grounds for 400 threads
403 threads now.
wow, it must really bother you to take the time to count the number of threads...
No comment on the thread?
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.
Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12
Go argue with the Washington Post.
The Pinocchio Test
During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said act of terror, since he did use those words though not in the way he often claimed.
It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.
But the presidents claim that he said act of terrorism is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack.
He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.
Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administrations phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.
Obama?s claim he called Benghazi an ?act of terrorism? - The Washington Post
No intelligent person would commit to a narrative while the investigation is still going on, that doesn't make him a liar....but I'm not surprised a privileged rich middle aged white guy would attack Obama.
403 threads now.
And 403 times Liberals failed to come up with an argument.
"Act of terror" vs "Act of terrorism"
I see grounds for impeachment and definite grounds for 400 threads
Sacrifice Obama to save Hillary
403 threads now.
wow, it must really bother you to take the time to count the number of threads...
No comment on the thread?
It's a non-story...didn't bother to read it...had yoga this morning. Nobody cared last week nobody cared this week and nobody will care next week.
As for the "count", you do a 2 parameter search--takes 5 seconds. Pointing out conservative double-standard is a hobby that I've elevated to an artform.
403 threads now.
wow, it must really bother you to take the time to count the number of threads...
No comment on the thread?
It's a non-story...didn't bother to read it...had yoga this morning. Nobody cared last week nobody cared this week and nobody will care next week.
As for the "count", you do a 2 parameter search--takes 5 seconds. Pointing out conservative double-standard is a hobby that I've elevated to an artform.
link ?
you need a link to prove that Rice was on the same shows as the PM where she was saying "it was, in fact a protest to the video......" while the PM was saying ..."it was an organized and premediated terrosit attack....?
Really?
How can you debate this topic if you are not aware of the basic facts?
Rice is not Obama.
Go argue with the Washington Post.
The Pinocchio Test
During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said act of terror, since he did use those words though not in the way he often claimed.
It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.
But the presidents claim that he said act of terrorism is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack.
He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.
Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administrations phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.
Obama?s claim he called Benghazi an ?act of terrorism? - The Washington Post
No intelligent person would commit to a narrative while the investigation is still going on, that doesn't make him a liar....but I'm not surprised a privileged rich middle aged white guy would attack Obama.
But "the police acted stupidly".
403 threads now.
And 403 times Liberals failed to come up with an argument.
Well, it was pointed out the 10 times it happened under Bush with not a peep from the right wing. It was pointed out that support was sent.
So it's a non-story. I'm pretty happy many on the left haven't given it any more attention that the tragedy of such low magnitude deserves. 403 right wing nutjob threads not withstanding.
