By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 19 October 2012
Edit Thread
Crazymann said:
Kasz216 said:
Crazymann said:

 


Nah.  Obama was still wrong.  He never directly called anything a act of terror or terrorist event.

He even admitted so after the debate.  He later when to the woman who asked the question and said off camera the reason why he waited weeks to link it with terror in any way was that he watned to make sure the intel was correct.

Even Obama knew he was lieing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219398/Kerry-Ladka-Voter-probed-Libya-attack-debate-slams-Presidents-response.html

 

"According to the blog, Mr Ladka said President Obama grabbed a private moment with him after the debate.

Mr Ladka said the President gave him 'more information about why he delayed calling the attack a ter(r)orist attack.'

Mr Obama then explained that the rationale for the delay, was to make sure that the 'intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,' according to Mr Ladka.

Well, from the transcript, it seems to me that Obama was not referring to the 2012 attack, but the 2001 attack as a terrorist attack.  However, he worded it in such a way that he would easily be able to convolute the issue if challenged.  The real issue is that the entire administration was linking the video to the attack and calling it UNpremeditated for days afterward... which shows the true agenda.

However, Romney's wording was such that it was easily foiled, had he said something more akin to, "Your administration was still claiming a dubious connection to the video and lack of premeditation for days if not weeks after the attacks," his wording would have been impregnable.  All I am saying is that (due to wording and battles over semantics) this is not nearly as clear or politically effective as it could have been.

 

That was Romney's wording... initially.

Which got Obama's "act of terror" reply.