Are Republicans seriously claiming Romney was right on Obama's Libya comment

[AmericanNation]

She walked back her mess up short of admitting she was wrong.  For her, that quickly, is basically admitting wrongdoing though.  This Obama screw up will dominate the news the next few days.  Even if he said Bengazi was a organized terror attack on 9.12, he and his administration than lied for the next 14 days which is worse than not saying it on 9.12 in some ways.    

I think in the context, where Rice and the Press Secretary said it was a (nonexistent) mob, after Obama's comment, it clearly wasn't regarded as an "act of terror," and certainly not a terrorist attack.

That said, I think someone screwed up, and I can't for the life of me figure out why they kept the story going for two weeks, why Biden gave his statement in his debate and why Obama just didn't use a Bay of Pigs line (and this was no where nearly as serious as the Bay of Pigs).

exactly, even their cover up/ screw up is epically bad. 

[AmericanNation]

You think arguing about the placement of a phrase in a statement... is going to be the story tomorrow?

Ah, ha.

Have you been awake the last month?  Romney went from 5 down to 5 up and this story has been going the entire time.  Add an epic lie by the president in front of a national audience and you think it will go away???  why would it go away?

[AmericanNation]

I think the story will the GOP whining about the moderator... and even if the specific story gets a lot of exposure - they play the video of Obama's speech, which wraps Benghazi VERY clearly into the 9/11 discussion.

There was no epic lie.

than 14 days completely contradicting your narrative,  Joe Biden's comments last week.  You lose three ways and you aren't even making an argument 1 way effectively. 

[AmericanNation]

While I'm hurt by your intellectual superiority... you haven't made a comment that discredits the president's story.

The president referred to Libya as 'an act of terror', but if you don't realise that there is a huge difference between 'an act of terror' and a planned act undertaken by a specific organised terrorist cell. An act of terror doesn't have to be undertaken by an organised terrorist cell.

It took 14 days to confirm it as a clear act perpetrated by a terrorist cell, as opposed to what they mistakenly thought was an act of terror brought about by incitement from the video and related to the video....

They are different...

The administration might adopt that story today, I don't know they've changed 20 times in the last month.  They might change to something else before the day is over. 

It will be very easy for Obama to make an ad of this clip from the debate, and of the clip from him clearly labeling it an act of terror in the Rose Garden.  Too easy almost.

Actually that would be extremely hard to do and will draw attention to this disaster for the president that I'm sure they want to "just go away". 
The truth writes ads much more easily:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFf0dUH3OtU&feature=related

[AmericanNation]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it's called the plane of 'Reality'.

"you can't win but there are alternatives to fighting"

It's like dems all know this deep down and will never (overwhelmingly) engage in logic or facts or reality.  They are always reaching for an alternative to truth.   

[AmericanNation]

Yes, it's called the plane of 'Reality'.

I'll repost my previous statement.

Let's look at that section of the transcript, shall we. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

Used Fox so no one can accuse me of only using liberal sources or something.  Also, the link was on hand cause a Facebook friend had it, but let's get into it.   

In the transcript, Obama clearly refers to the attack in Benghazi in the same paragraph as 9/11.  He talks about 9/11 and says "AND THEN last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi."  He tied 9/11 back to Benghazi in the very text of the transcript.  The "acts of terror" line applies to the attack on Benghazi just as much as 9/11.

Are you really going to try and argue that line only refers to 9/11 when he brought Benghazi up in the same paragraph in a clear comparison to 9/11 and doesn't switch the topic back to 9/11 before referring to "acts of terror?" 

Is referencing the text of the transcript to show Obama DID refer to the Benghazi attack as an "act of terror" a good enough dose of reality for you?

If Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” in his Rose Garden speech, then he also said the victims of that attack were buried in the “hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery” and that he had visited them at Walter Reed — other comments in that speech not specifically referring to the Benghazi attack.

You are guilty of wishful thinking shadow.  My guess is you want Obama to have been right (even though it really doesn't explain why he than flipped to being wrong again for 14 days) so you are willing to believe this unbelievable lie he told yesterday.   

[AmericanNation]

I figure by noon tomorrow Candy will have to walkback her walkback of her walkback.

It's a weird position, by all professional standards she should be fired, but here peers aren't exactly beyond hackery.  So she probably both wants to apologize and claim she did the right thing.   

[AmericanNation]

If Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” in his Rose Garden speech, then he also said the victims of that attack were buried in the “hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery” and that he had visited them at Walter Reed — other comments in that speech not specifically referring to the Benghazi attack.

You are guilty of wishful thinking shadow.  My guess is you want Obama to have been right (even though it really doesn't explain why he than flipped to being wrong again for 14 days) so you are willing to believe this unbelievable lie he told yesterday.   

That's an interesting interpretation of the statement, since Obama clearly mentions it is the troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who are buried in Arlington and whom he visited at Walter Reed.  Here, I even highlighted it for you. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

Don't see how it's a lie when its right there in the transcript that the Benghazi attack is being compared to 9/11.

LOL, he didn't specifically say Libya was a terrorist attack.  He goes on to say it was a protest of a youtube video for the next 13 days.  He attempted to completely manipulate the speech (and reality), thus it is fair for me to completely manipulate the speech in order to expose his manipulation.  Turnabout is fair play.  'If, than' statements aren't that hard to understand.  IF: Obama wasn't being misleading in claiming he said it was a terror attack in the Rose Garden speech,
THAN: He also said the victims of that attack were buried in the “hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery” and that he had visited them at Walter Reed
BECAUSE: those are all comments in that speech specifically NOT referring to the Benghazi attack.   

Leave it to Obama to take himself out of context.

I'll let Charles explain it to you:     
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YMwY5zIc4s&feature=g-all-u

[AmericanNation]

It was one of those semantical cf's.  The Obama administration did handle the matter poorly. They look incompetent. Does anyone disagree with that?

It plays into a long running pattern.
Did BO call fort hood a terrorist attack?  No.
Did BO attend daily security briefings? No.  
Did BOs administration get a continuing forces agreement in Iraq?  No.
Did the admin ignore the loud chorus shouting concerns about who the rebels in Egypt and Iraq are?  Yes.
Did BO want the trial of KSM in lower Manhattan? yes
Did BO want to move Gitmo to Illinois AND give the detainees constitutional rights? yes
Did BO campaign on how the detainees deserve Geneva convention rights, despite meeting zero requirements of that convention?  Yes.  
etc, etc, etc,

BO has displayed a combination of neglect and incompetence on security issues that can't be ignored.  Lying and covering up on security to boot is another layer of failure.  

Obama at least pretends to be interested in domestic policy.  His comments "Bump in the road" and "not optimal" highlight his chilling lack of perspective/interest/competence on security and foreign policy.