Furthermore, look at Crowley's statement:

"He did call it an act of terror," Crowley said of the president's remarks, but then told Romney, "you are correct" that it took the White House two weeks to fully admit that the attack was the result of planned terrorist operation and not part of protest against an anti-Islam video.

So she's saying that Obama called it an act of terror in the Rose Garden and that he lied about it. Note the use of "fully admit"

Anonymous wrote:Crowley on Romney"

“He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” Crowley concluded. She went on to say that her instinct forced her to correct Romney even though his “thrust” was correct.

The bolded holds the crux of the issue, one Jeff won't address. Crowley, as a moderator, blatantly sided with one candidate by correcting another. That was her 'instinct'

No surprise

Assuming that you are proficient in English, you obviously understand that being "right in the main" is different from being "right". Similarly, while the "thrust" of Romney's remarks were correct, in their entirety, they were wrong.

Here is what Romney said:

ROMNEY: 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.

In fact, as Crowley points out, Obama had called it "an act of terror" on Sept. 12. However, as Crowley later pointed out, Obama hadn't called it an act of "terrorism" so Romney's remarks were correct in the main -- there had been a two-week delay before Obama called it "terrorism", but wrong because, as you quote Crowley saying, Romney "picked the wrong word". Had he said "terrorism" instead of "terror", he would have been entirely correct.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

Link to Rose Garden speech on Sept 12. "Act of terror" is a couple of paragraphs from the bottom

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:total letter not spirit of the law . Did he mention terror, yes. was he referring to Benghazi as an act of terror perpetrated by hostile terrorist groups, no. I guess you get letter of the law when lawyers meld with politicians
"I never had relations with that woman" yadda yadda

Talking about lawyers. Obama clearly said the phrase "act of terror". He was clearly talking about Benghazi. He did not mention "hostile terrorist groups", but who else commits acts of terror?

We have been here before. Where it the exact quote, "act of terror"?

Talking about lawyers. Obama clearly said the phrase "act of terror". He was clearly talking about Benghazi

"clearly" was not so clear. In the paragraph before this statement, he referred to the anniversary of 9/11

Crowley on Romney"

“He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” Crowley concluded. She went on to say that her instinct forced her to correct Romney even though his “thrust” was correct.

The bolded holds the crux of the issue, one Jeff won't address. Crowley, as a moderator, blatantly sided with one candidate by correcting another. That was her 'instinct'

No surprise

Anonymous wrote:total letter not spirit of the law . Did he mention terror, yes. was he referring to Benghazi as an act of terror perpetrated by hostile terrorist groups, no. I guess you get letter of the law when lawyers meld with politicians
"I never had relations with that woman" yadda yadda

Talking about lawyers. Obama clearly said the phrase "act of terror". He was clearly talking about Benghazi. He did not mention "hostile terrorist groups", but who else commits acts of terror?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The topics of discussion are pre-picked. It doesn't matter who brought it up first. The issue is a neutral moderator not being neutral, then admitting she did it in error

Actually, I went back to check this because I have learned when you repeat things with such certainty, you are most assuredly wrong. Sure enough, Crowley never admitted an error. She offered an explanation that right-wingers have jumped on and mischaracterized, but she stands by what she said.

Why don't you put out her exact words here?

total letter not spirit of the law . Did he mention terror, yes. was he referring to Benghazi as an act of terror perpetrated by hostile terrorist groups, no. I guess you get letter of the law when lawyers meld with politicians
"I never had relations with that woman" yadda yadda

Anonymous wrote:
The topics of discussion are pre-picked. It doesn't matter who brought it up first. The issue is a neutral moderator not being neutral, then admitting she did it in error

Actually, I went back to check this because I have learned when you repeat things with such certainty, you are most assuredly wrong. Sure enough, Crowley never admitted an error. She offered an explanation that right-wingers have jumped on and mischaracterized, but she stands by what she said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no doubt that Crowley had the transcript as she picked the questions, so it would make sense for her to have it.

The real issue is Obama saying to her "get the transcript", her doing so, then using it to beat up on Romney.

And in fact, she admitted the next day on CNN that Romney was right. Which to me shows further bias.

Disgusting.

Wow, assuming that your idea was true, you are accusing her of the crime of having the truth in her own two hands, and then somehow botching it anyway. Completely believable!

She lied on CNN?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no doubt that Crowley had the transcript as she picked the questions, so it would make sense for her to have it.

The real issue is Obama saying to her "get the transcript", her doing so, then using it to beat up on Romney.

And in fact, she admitted the next day on CNN that Romney was right. Which to me shows further bias.

Disgusting.

Man, you guys really do live in your own parallel universe. Romney is the one who brought up the topic of what Obama said in the Rose Garden. It was the fact that he lived with you in your parallel universe that prevented him from knowing that Obama had called the attack an act of terror.

Who cares who brought it up? How does that change that Obama said "get the transcript" and that Crowley did, and then used it against Romney, only to admit the next day she was wrong?

Can you stick to the topic please?

You: "There is no doubt that Crowley had the transcript as she picked the questions"

Me: "Romney is the one who brought up the topic"

You: "Who cares who brought it up"

Burn! Also, Crowley didn't have the transcript. That's just your hallucination. Why would she need a transcript? Do you think she is not capable of remembering "act of terror"?

The topics of discussion are pre-picked. It doesn't matter who brought it up first. The issue is a neutral moderator not being neutral, then admitting she did it in error

Anonymous wrote:There is no doubt that Crowley had the transcript as she picked the questions, so it would make sense for her to have it.

The real issue is Obama saying to her "get the transcript", her doing so, then using it to beat up on Romney.

And in fact, she admitted the next day on CNN that Romney was right. Which to me shows further bias.

Disgusting.

Wow, assuming that your idea was true, you are accusing her of the crime of having the truth in her own two hands, and then somehow botching it anyway. Completely believable!

Anonymous wrote:Crowley had an earpiece which Obama's staff controlled. She was an Obama puppet. See you missed that.

Can't tell if you are serious or not.

Crowley had an earpiece which Obama's staff controlled. She was an Obama puppet. See you missed that.