Crawley admits Romney was right on Libya

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Congrats on getting your candidate to show up and open his mouth. The general phrase "acts of terror" does not refer to Benghazi as an "act of terror."

Seriously? The president gives a speech the next day mourning the loss of brave Americans and saying that acts of terror will not shake our resolve and you are complaining that he didn't say "this act of terror"? That's pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Iraq & the draw down in Afghanistan

Military spouse here... don't delude yourself into thinking either war is over.
You can trade places with my DH, then you can decide for yourself if the war is over or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats on getting your candidate to show up and open his mouth. The general phrase "acts of terror" does not refer to Benghazi as an "act of terror."

Seriously? The president gives a speech the next day mourning the loss of brave Americans and saying that acts of terror will not shake our resolve and you are complaining that he didn't say "this act of terror"? That's pathetic.

It's called semantics.
You must be unfamiliar with Bill Clinton's line "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

O knew he didn't call it what it was. AND he's a lawyer; knew what he was doing. You, it seems, are simply naive.

Romney was right: Obama and his administration DID NOT call it what it was until nearly 2 weeks later. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I remember another terror attack about 11 years ago that was predated by briefing memos warning of the very occurrence that eventually took place. That seemed like a bigger deal to me.

Yeah, I remember that, too, and was disappointed when Clinton got that information he did nothing about it. And nothing about the several other instances of attacks on the US on his watch with no meaningful response. Democrats' handling of US interests abroad is deplorable...Carter, Clinton, now Obama. Geesh, what a track record.

Really?

You are faulting Clinton for letting September 11 happen?

And Bush was what in your mind? Absent?
An unbriefed bystander?

Oh no, he was the president. It was not his first day either.
But somehow Americans let him get out of that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats on getting your candidate to show up and open his mouth. The general phrase "acts of terror" does not refer to Benghazi as an "act of terror."

Seriously? The president gives a speech the next day mourning the loss of brave Americans and saying that acts of terror will not shake our resolve and you are complaining that he didn't say "this act of terror"? That's pathetic.

It's called semantics.
You must be unfamiliar with Bill Clinton's line "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

O knew he didn't call it what it was. AND he's a lawyer; knew what he was doing. You, it seems, are simply naive.

Romney was right: Obama and his administration DID NOT call it what it was until nearly 2 weeks later. Period.

And why are you so hung up about what it was called when?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iraq & the draw down in Afghanistan

Military spouse here... don't delude yourself into thinking either war is over.
You can trade places with my DH, then you can decide for yourself if the war is over or not.

Fair enough-- but officially the Iraq war was declared over in Dec 2011. Troops are leaving Afghanistan. Romney talking last night is ready to start wars throughout the middle east when he spoke of Syria & Iran and maybe even Libya. Those could me two more 10 year wars & for what purpose?

[Anonymous]

11:21, you may have forgotten that Clinton bombed targets in Sudan and Afghanistan following the Al Qaeda attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Of course, some on the right claimed he was trying to divert attention from the Lewinsky situation. The reality is that the GOP never accepted his presidency and did everything they could to discredit Clinton. They went so far that they ended up taking down one of their own speakers (Gingrich), then his replacement (Livingston). We then got to learn about affairs and love children sired by Dan Burton, Henry Hyde, etc - all because a party became obsessed with taking down a democratically-elected leader.

You may not like that Obama is the one who had OBL hunted down and killed, but he ordered it. And for a helluva lot less money than what the Bush administration squandered on wars in Afghanistan (poorly prosecuted) and Iraq (wholly unnecessary).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, what she said after the debate was pretty much what she was trying to say at the time. That he did say it was an act of terror, but Romney is correct that it took another 2 weeks to fully embrace that claim. and I don't think she was trying to help Obama by fact-checking Romney. I think she was trying to shut him up and get him to stop embarrassing himself so that they could finally move on.

I don't get why everyone is picking apart the timeline of the Libya attack.

Seriously. I have a hard time believing that these events deserve the amount of play that they have gotten in this campaign.

[Anonymous]

Romney is going to win. I'm freaking out because I think he sucks but Obama just looks tired.

[Anonymous]

No need to freak out. He's not going to win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats on getting your candidate to show up and open his mouth. The general phrase "acts of terror" does not refer to Benghazi as an "act of terror."

Seriously? The president gives a speech the next day mourning the loss of brave Americans and saying that acts of terror will not shake our resolve and you are complaining that he didn't say "this act of terror"? That's pathetic.

It's called semantics.
You must be unfamiliar with Bill Clinton's line "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

O knew he didn't call it what it was. AND he's a lawyer; knew what he was doing. You, it seems, are simply naive.

Romney was right: Obama and his administration DID NOT call it what it was until nearly 2 weeks later. Period.

And why are you so hung up about what it was called when?

Because the president out and out lied about a terrorist attack but the country is full of sheep who view him as some Illuminated King and might vote him back into office for 4 more years of lies and incompetence??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iraq & the draw down in Afghanistan

Military spouse here... don't delude yourself into thinking either war is over.
You can trade places with my DH, then you can decide for yourself if the war is over or not.

yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats on getting your candidate to show up and open his mouth. The general phrase "acts of terror" does not refer to Benghazi as an "act of terror."

Seriously? The president gives a speech the next day mourning the loss of brave Americans and saying that acts of terror will not shake our resolve and you are complaining that he didn't say "this act of terror"? That's pathetic.

It's called semantics.
You must be unfamiliar with Bill Clinton's line "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

O knew he didn't call it what it was. AND he's a lawyer; knew what he was doing. You, it seems, are simply naive.

Romney was right: Obama and his administration DID NOT call it what it was until nearly 2 weeks later. Period.

And why are you so hung up about what it was called when?

Because the president out and out lied about a terrorist attack but the country is full of sheep who view him as some Illuminated King and might vote him back into office for 4 more years of lies and incompetence??

You're wrong. Our president did not LIE about a terrorist attack. But thanks for playing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iraq & the draw down in Afghanistan

Military spouse here... don't delude yourself into thinking either war is over.
You can trade places with my DH, then you can decide for yourself if the war is over or not.

Fair enough-- but officially the Iraq war was declared over in Dec 2011. Troops are leaving Afghanistan. Romney talking last night is ready to start wars throughout the middle east when he spoke of Syria & Iran and maybe even Libya. Those could me two more 10 year wars & for what purpose?

And I could declare myself Queen of England, declaring and reality are 2 different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats on getting your candidate to show up and open his mouth. The general phrase "acts of terror" does not refer to Benghazi as an "act of terror."

Seriously? The president gives a speech the next day mourning the loss of brave Americans and saying that acts of terror will not shake our resolve and you are complaining that he didn't say "this act of terror"? That's pathetic.

I would agree with you if he hadn't gone to the UN and talked about the video days later and had Susan Rice to talk about the video or had Clinton talk about the video when the bodies were received in the US.

I actually don't think they thought it was an act of terrorism. I haven't decided how scared that makes me feel.