Skip to main content

View Diary: Note to Mitt: When Obama calls something an 'act of terror,' he's called it an 'act of terror' (167 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think so (16+ / 0-)

    It looked to me like Romney had been rattled by the relentless and on target attacks, and that he truly believed Obama had delayed in characterizing the Benghazi attack as an act of terror.  He felt he was behind and needed a hail mary, so he just threw it up thinking it would work.

    The biggest surprise for me was that Crowley called him out on it, which I think is actually beyond her role as debate moderator but was also absolutely appropriate under the circumstances.

    Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
    ¡Boycott Arizona!

    by litho on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 04:59:15 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Romney doesn't care about facts (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Danali, sethtriggs

      He never bothered to look at a transcript. Why should he? It has no bearing on what he's going to say.

    •  Even so, so what? (0+ / 0-)

      Why do they care if it was labeled an act of terror immediately, or if they waited for an investigation to determine if it was an act of terror or a spontaneous violent mob?

      Well, just typing that out sort of answered my own question... Republicans immediately label everything and everyone they disagree with as Terror or Terrorists.  See "palling around with terrorists" and "terrorist fist bump" from 2008.

      Damn these people are sociopaths.  They have absolutely zero respect for reason and for making a measured response. They're dangerous.

      [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

      by rabel on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 07:38:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site