PDA

View Full Version : Romney Stunned by Debate Moderator's Fact Check



Qtec
10-17-2012, 05:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GOP hopeful Mitt Romney found himself backtracking during the second presidential debate after moderator Candy Crowley challenged his assertion that President Barack Obama had not referred to recent attacks on Americans in Libya as terrorism.

"The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime," Obama explained following Romney's suggestion that the president had been more concerned with fundraising than national security after the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

"I think it's interesting that the president just said something, which is on the day after the attack he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror," Romney replied. "Is that what you're saying? I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."

"Get the transcript," Obama insisted.

"He did, in fact, sir," Crowley pointed out to Romney.

"Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" the president asked Crowley as the audience applauded.

"He did call it an act of terror," the moderator agreed. "It did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out."

"The administration indicated that this was a reaction to a video," Romney said, rephrasing his attack with a slight stutter. "It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And -- and to suggest -- am I correct in that regard?"

"I want to move you on," Crowley told the candidates. "People can go to the transcripts." </div></div>



Transcript.




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>No acts of terror</u></span> will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>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 <u>for this terrible act.</u> And make no mistake, justice will be done. </span></div></div>

Huge smack down.

Q. link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/romney-stunned-debate-moderators-fact-check)

eg8r
10-17-2012, 08:03 AM
"For this terrible act" is not the same as saying "For this terrorist attack". He missed his chance to really drive it home. What was the context of this last quote? Was he talking about terrorists attacking or a mob attacking?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-17-2012, 08:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GOP hopeful Mitt Romney found himself backtracking during the second presidential debate after moderator Candy Crowley challenged his assertion that President Barack Obama had not referred to recent attacks on Americans in Libya as terrorism.

"The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime," Obama explained following Romney's suggestion that the president had been more concerned with fundraising than national security after the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

"I think it's interesting that the president just said something, which is on the day after the attack he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror," Romney replied. "Is that what you're saying? I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."

"Get the transcript," Obama insisted.

"He did, in fact, sir," Crowley pointed out to Romney.

"Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" the president asked Crowley as the audience applauded.

"He did call it an act of terror," the moderator agreed. "It did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out."

"The administration indicated that this was a reaction to a video," Romney said, rephrasing his attack with a slight stutter. "It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And -- and to suggest -- am I correct in that regard?"

"I want to move you on," Crowley told the candidates. "People can go to the transcripts." </div></div>



Transcript.




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>No acts of terror</u></span> will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>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 <u>for this terrible act.</u> And make no mistake, justice will be done. </span></div></div>

Huge smack down.

Q. link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/romney-stunned-debate-moderators-fact-check)
</div></div>

The right can't or won't read.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"NO ACTS OF TERROR"</span> is more than clear enough for people with brains!

Loved the way the president set him up, and the PIG took the bait like a hungry HOG!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

hondo
10-17-2012, 08:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GOP hopeful Mitt Romney found himself backtracking during the second presidential debate after moderator Candy Crowley challenged his assertion that President Barack Obama had not referred to recent attacks on Americans in Libya as terrorism.

"The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime," Obama explained following Romney's suggestion that the president had been more concerned with fundraising than national security after the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

"I think it's interesting that the president just said something, which is on the day after the attack he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror," Romney replied. "Is that what you're saying? I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."

"Get the transcript," Obama insisted.

"He did, in fact, sir," Crowley pointed out to Romney.

"Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" the president asked Crowley as the audience applauded.

"He did call it an act of terror," the moderator agreed. "It did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out."

"The administration indicated that this was a reaction to a video," Romney said, rephrasing his attack with a slight stutter. "It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And -- and to suggest -- am I correct in that regard?"

"I want to move you on," Crowley told the candidates. "People can go to the transcripts." </div></div>



Transcript.




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>No acts of terror</u></span> will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>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 <u>for this terrible act.</u> And make no mistake, justice will be done. </span></div></div>

Huge smack down.

Q. link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/romney-stunned-debate-moderators-fact-check)
</div></div>

The right can't or won't read.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"NO ACTS OF TERROR"</span> is more than clear enough for people with brains!

Loved the way the president set him up, and the PIG took the bait like a hungry HOG!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

LOL! SOOOEEE!

Qtec
10-17-2012, 09:17 AM
What Everyone Should Know About The Benghazi Attack (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/15/1014241/timline-benghazi-attack/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New York Times Stands By Early Report Of Demonstrators At Libya Consulate Attack

The State Department's description of events, and a congressional hearing on Wednesday, raised more questions over security prior to the attack and the Obama administration's public response to it. During Thursday's vice presidential debate, moderator Martha Raddatz began with a tough question for Vice President Joe Biden on Benghazi, noting, "the State Department has now made clear, there were no protesters there."

But the Obama administration wasn't alone in tying protests over the anti-Islam video, "The Innocence of Muslims," to the deadly attack that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Early news reports also suggested a link.

On Sept. 12, The New York Times reported having spoken with "fighters involved in the assault," who told the paper "in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon."

Reporters David Kirkpatrick, in Cairo, and Steven Lee Myers, in Washington, wrote the Sept. 12 article, which included reporting from Osama Alfitory and Suliman Ali Zway from Benghazi, Mai Ayyad from Cairo, Eric Schmitt and Scott Shane from Washington, and Alan Cowell from London.

The article described how<span style='font-size: 17pt'> "a group of armed assailants mixed with unarmed demonstrators gathered at the small compound that housed a temporary American diplomatic mission" in Benghazi. "Interviewed at the scene on Tuesday night, many attackers and those who backed them said they were determined to defend their faith from the video’s insults," the Times reported.</span> </div></div>

At the same time, all over the ME there were protests about this video. What is clear now is that these terrorists took advantage of this and instead of a protest, they launched an violent attack.

This was in Libya.

How did the Bush admin fare in <u>their</u> response to an attack on NYC in the heart of America?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush’s own recollection of the first crash only complicates the picture. Less than two months after the attacks, Bush made the preposterous claim that he had watched the first attack as it happened on live television. This is the seventh different account of how Bush learned about the first crash (in his limousine, from Loewer, from Card, from Rove, from Gottesman, from Rice, from television). On December 4, 2001, Bush was asked: <u>“How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?”</u> Bush replied, “I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower—the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself,<span style='font-size: 26pt'><u> and I said, well, there’s one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.</u></span> But I was whisked off there, I didn’t have much time to think about it.” [White House, 12/4/01]

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>There was no film footage of the first attack until at least the following day,</span> and Bush didn’t have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] The Boston Herald later noted, “Think about that. Bush’s remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit—which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit.</span>” [Boston Herald, 10/22/02] Bush’s recollection has many precise details. Is he simply confused? It’s doubly strange why his advisors didn’t correct him or—at the very least—stop him from repeating the same story only four weeks later. [White House, 1/5/02, CBS, 9/11/02] On January 5, 2002, Bush stated: “Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida… and my Chief of Staff – well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane…” [White House, 1/5/02]

<u>Unfortunately, Bush has never been asked—not even once—to explain these statements.</u> </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>YES.......Bush originally called 9/11 an accident!!!!!!!</span>!!!!

Romney is so desperate he will politicize anything to achieve his obsession, including disrespecting the dead.
He's a low life. I don't care how much money he has.

Q

eg8r
10-17-2012, 10:09 AM
LOL, so all you have to say is tha Romney's campaign is correct that the Obama administration is weak on calling this terrorism. As for Bush, he certainly did not wait 14 days to come out and emphatically call 9/11 a terrorist act. LOL, I love it when you choose exmaples that prove you are a retarded. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

hondo
10-17-2012, 10:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, so all you have to say is tha Romney's campaign is correct that the Obama administration is weak on calling this terrorism. As for Bush, he certainly did not wait 14 days to come out and emphatically call 9/11 a terrorist act. LOL, I love it when you choose exmaples that prove you are a retarded. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

Exhibit 448. Where does it end?

hondo
10-17-2012, 10:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> LOL, I love it when you choose exmaples that prove you are a retarded. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

me are eg and i are very smarte but youse librals are a retarded.
I are a Pentecostic hooley rollr and i belive honduh are a dum hillbily hicck.
he not sufishtakated like me are.

Soflasnapper
10-17-2012, 11:44 AM
re: "emphatically"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection, your Honor." "Overruled" "No, no. I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. You strenuously object. Then I'll take some time and reconsider."
Lt. Sam Weinberg

FinestQuotes: http://www.finestquotes.com/movie_quotes/movie/A%20Few%20Good%20Men/page/0.htm#ixzz29Zz8IRC0
</div></div>

eg8r
10-17-2012, 01:09 PM
Quit hypocritically shadowposting.

eg8r

Sid_Vicious
10-17-2012, 02:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What Everyone Should Know About The Benghazi Attack (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/15/1014241/timline-benghazi-attack/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New York Times Stands By Early Report Of Demonstrators At Libya Consulate Attack

The State Department's description of events, and a congressional hearing on Wednesday, raised more questions over security prior to the attack and the Obama administration's public response to it. During Thursday's vice presidential debate, moderator Martha Raddatz began with a tough question for Vice President Joe Biden on Benghazi, noting, "the State Department has now made clear, there were no protesters there."

But the Obama administration wasn't alone in tying protests over the anti-Islam video, "The Innocence of Muslims," to the deadly attack that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Early news reports also suggested a link.

On Sept. 12, The New York Times reported having spoken with "fighters involved in the assault," who told the paper "in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon."

Reporters David Kirkpatrick, in Cairo, and Steven Lee Myers, in Washington, wrote the Sept. 12 article, which included reporting from Osama Alfitory and Suliman Ali Zway from Benghazi, Mai Ayyad from Cairo, Eric Schmitt and Scott Shane from Washington, and Alan Cowell from London.

The article described how<span style='font-size: 17pt'> "a group of armed assailants mixed with unarmed demonstrators gathered at the small compound that housed a temporary American diplomatic mission" in Benghazi. "Interviewed at the scene on Tuesday night, many attackers and those who backed them said they were determined to defend their faith from the video’s insults," the Times reported.</span> </div></div>

At the same time, all over the ME there were protests about this video. What is clear now is that these terrorists took advantage of this and instead of a protest, they launched an violent attack.

This was in Libya.

How did the Bush admin fare in <u>their</u> response to an attack on NYC in the heart of America?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush’s own recollection of the first crash only complicates the picture. Less than two months after the attacks, Bush made the preposterous claim that he had watched the first attack as it happened on live television. This is the seventh different account of how Bush learned about the first crash (in his limousine, from Loewer, from Card, from Rove, from Gottesman, from Rice, from television). On December 4, 2001, Bush was asked: <u>“How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?”</u> Bush replied, “I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower—the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself,<span style='font-size: 26pt'><u> and I said, well, there’s one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.</u></span> But I was whisked off there, I didn’t have much time to think about it.” [White House, 12/4/01]

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>There was no film footage of the first attack until at least the following day,</span> and Bush didn’t have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] The Boston Herald later noted, “Think about that. Bush’s remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit—which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit.</span>” [Boston Herald, 10/22/02] Bush’s recollection has many precise details. Is he simply confused? It’s doubly strange why his advisors didn’t correct him or—at the very least—stop him from repeating the same story only four weeks later. [White House, 1/5/02, CBS, 9/11/02] On January 5, 2002, Bush stated: “Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida… and my Chief of Staff – well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane…” [White House, 1/5/02]

<u>Unfortunately, Bush has never been asked—not even once—to explain these statements.</u> </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>YES.......Bush originally called 9/11 an accident!!!!!!!</span>!!!!

Romney is so desperate he will politicize anything to achieve his obsession, including disrespecting the dead.
He's a low life. I don't care how much money he has.

Q </div></div>

In my sincere opinion...George Bush was the king conspirator from beginning to end, either by his active participation or his selective not-listening to the events to come. Ol' Bushy would not have had a second term had it not been for the attact. I absolutely give no credit to this man having a single moral to stop him from murder. Our system was the fault though. How more obvious of a trail of crimes does it take to convict a poor, dumb crook like Bush. Our justice system is broken.

Bush knew,,,it was supposed to happen, and so did Johnson know in JFK. We have big problems in our country. Only good to come out of this thing with Bush is that he's stayed invisable. What a dumbass face on that guy, I'm happy he's gone. Clinton still dazzles though ;-) sid

Qtec
10-18-2012, 04:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Bush knew,,,it was supposed to happen, </div></div>

That's debatable. My point was that when these things happen, the story constantly changes as new info comes in. Just like in Libya.

One thing is for sure, the Bush admin knew there were terrorist cells in the USA and they were planning something.

Some say /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif, that the Neo-Cons thought these terrorists were planning on high-jacking planes and holding hostages to have their demands met. Some say that they were willing to let this happen as an excuse to invade Iraq...then it all went wrong!

I think anyone who has really delved into the circumstances surrounding 9/11 ends up with more questions than answers.
Its not as clear cut as they claim.




Q

eg8r
10-18-2012, 08:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's debatable. My point was that when these things happen, the story constantly changes as new info comes in. Just like in Libya.</div></div>I agree the story changes in most cases. The difference is that the story never really changed for Libya if you walk around and ask the everyday person. For 14 days the White House told the American people it was a riot because of the video. 14 days seems like a long time before Obama's intelligence community learned the truth and passed it on to him and gave Carney the go ahead to announce it the people.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-18-2012, 09:31 AM
As has been made clear by the most recent reporting, the on-the-ground comments of the militia that did the attack was that they were incensed at the youtube video and engaging in the same protest activity that spread across the region.

If that's what was said, and there is no reporting against this evidence to date, then it was exactly true, as stated, that the video was the proximate cause.

And those crying perjury, and coverup, are full of it.

Given Myth's craven attempt to use it without any full picture, with the ambassador's body not yet cold, and then the full court press the GOP has once again laid upon a stone snipe hunt, there becomes less and less reason to ever take anything that party says as anything but partisan lying. Which is what they'll accuse others of, naturally.

eg8r
10-18-2012, 09:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">then it was exactly true, as stated, that the video was the proximate cause.
</div></div>You will believe anything but reality.

eg8r

LWW
10-18-2012, 10:13 AM
You are aware that Crowley has retracted her statement.

Soflasnapper
10-18-2012, 10:58 AM
No she hasn't. I've heard her comments afterwards. Her only alleged take back was exactly what she said at the time, when acknowledging Romney had some point, even as what he said that she did correct was false.

hondo
10-18-2012, 11:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are aware that Crowley has retracted her statement. </div></div>

I heard her the next morning. What you saying is simply not true.

Stretch
10-18-2012, 01:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are aware that Crowley has retracted her statement. </div></div>

I heard her the next morning. What you saying is simply not true. </div></div>

Of course this revelation is true! It was on Fox News! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif St.

Sid_Vicious
10-18-2012, 03:45 PM
"Given Myth's craven attempt to use it without any full picture, with the ambassador's body not yet cold, and then the full court press the GOP has once again laid upon a stone snipe hunt, there becomes less and less reason to ever take anything that party says as anything but partisan lying. Which is what they'll accuse others of, naturally.?"

Exactly.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As has been made clear by the most recent reporting, the on-the-ground comments of the militia that did the attack was that they were incensed at the youtube video and engaging in the same protest activity that spread across the region.

If that's what was said, and there is no reporting against this evidence to date, then it was exactly true, as stated, that the video was the proximate cause.

And those crying perjury, and coverup, are full of it.

Given Myth's craven attempt to use it without any full picture, with the ambassador's body not yet cold, and then the full court press the GOP has once again laid upon a stone snipe hunt, there becomes less and less reason to ever take anything that party says as anything but partisan lying. Which is what they'll accuse others of, naturally. </div></div>

hondo
10-29-2012, 05:04 PM
No attacks on larry from Hondo here.

LWW
10-29-2012, 05:27 PM
Repent, for the day of judgement is nigh.