In fact, when several in the media and on the internet questioned if it was a planned terror attack, these types of conclusions were dismissed and declared to be false. In fact, just a few days later the buzz around this story concluded that not only were the attacks planned but that the administration was warned about them some 24-48 hours before they occurred.
Now Jay Carney is now telling us the attack was an act of terror.
Mitt Romney got a chance to bring up this topic during the debate because of a question asked by a person in the audience. Romney stated that it took two weeks for the president to state that the attacks were those made by terrorists and had nothing to do with a movie as originally stated.
If you saw the debate, you know first hand that the moderator Candy Crowley was none too thrilled with Romney bringing this up and actually went so far as to say Obama did call the attack one of terror.
The moderator in Tuesday night's presidential debate, after appearing to side with President Obama on the question of whether he called the Libya strike a terror attack from the start, conceded afterward that Mitt Romney was "right" on the broader point -- that the administration for days insisted it was a spontaneous act.
"He was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word," Candy Crowley said of Romney on CNN shortly after the debate ended.Read more here.
However, Obama didn't explicitly label the Benghazi strike terrorism in those Sept. 12 remarks. What he did say is: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."
Crowley, during and following the debate, pointed out that despite Obama's Sept. 12 remarks his administration was peddling a different story to the public. She said it took two weeks for officials to say more definitively that the attack was more than an out-of-control protest.
And she continued to clarify on CNN that Romney was making a legitimate point.
"Right after that I did turn around and say, 'but you are totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape'," she said.Well, gee I'm glad she made that so clear because there were people in the audience that were actually applauding and so many more like them watching from home that now believe Obama did say it was an act of terror. Let's face it, Obama relies on people to not pay attention. This is and always has been the strategy of the left in this country. What an awesome group of people we have running this country -- into the ground.
After the debate Tuesday, Obama tried to clarify his remarks. The man who posed the Libya question, Kerry Ladka, told Fox News that the president approached him after the debate to explain he delayed explicitly labeling the attack terror because "he really wanted to take the time to be deliberate, to make sure he had all the information."Well, well, well, this is interesting. First he says in the debate with full confidence that he did indeed label the attack one of terror and now he's telling this man that he didn't do that originally? I guess the democrats will call this man a liar too, right?
More stupidity:
Obama also informed us that our gas prices were low when he came into office because the economy was in a state of ruin. He seems to think that we are now on the right track. Our gas prices now are almost 4 dollars a gallon here in the Midwest. So is he suggesting that rates will become even higher if we improve, or that high gas prices is what he has been working towards?
Whatever the reason for Obama's remarks, it's clear that he wasn't very comfortable during the debate. Several times he sort of trailed off. When Romney had a chance to mention Fast and Furious, Obama actually called out for Candy to stop Romney and she complied and was insistent about shutting Romney up.
Obama looked a little hopped up on speed or something. He was too aggressive and once again, seemed like a man about to come unhinged. Both Biden and Obama have made it crystal clear during the past debates that they are unable to control themselves for short periods of time. They both appear to be very angry when they are asked to explain and defend their actions. It is almost as if they truly feel they are above reproach.
My opinion overall was that Obama seemed desperate to do whatever it took to put in a good performance but, once again, we got the same old rhetoric mixed with an over-inflated ego. He gives the audience the impression that he is insecure and he seems to be fully aware of what a failure his administration has been the last four years. It looks like all his ideals, when applied, simply do not work. Had he taken the time to read history a little more and invested some more time in the area of economics, he would have known his old, tired ideas do not work prior to running for office. His knowledge of the economy has proven to be extremely sophomoric. He took a problem and simply amplified it.
On the other hand, I did like Romney's performance overall but there were times that I could see he may not have come off as sincere. I believe him to be sincere, but I was trying to do my best viewing him as someone who is liberal or undecided. He did demonstrate his knowledge and he definitely came off much more presidential. Perhaps if Obama had some facts on his side, he would have done much better during the debate.
