Public Wants Obama To Wait On Immigration Action

A new poll shows that Americans would prefer President Obama to wait to act on immigration until after the new Congress has had a chance to act on the issue.

US-SYRIA-CONFLICT-OBAMA

A new USA Today poll finds that a plurality of Americans would prefer that the President wait until the new Congress has convened and been given an opportunity to act before taking unilateral action on immigration:

President Obama’s plan to sign an executive order on immigration, expected as early as this week, will meet more resistance than support, a new USA TODAY Poll finds. Close to half of those surveyed, 46%, say he should wait for the new Republican-controlled Congress to act, and another one in 10 are unconvinced either way.

Just 42% of Americans say he should take action now, findings that reflect a familiar partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans. The president is considering an order that would prevent as many as 5 million people from being deported.

Admittedly, these numbers aren’t horrible for the President, and it may be the case that, when he does act, the details of the policy will be such that the public will largely support what he’s planning to do. However, it does indicate that there is, as I’ve mentioned before, some degree of political risk for President Obama in acting here just as there is for the Republican Congress. If the President acts and Republicans succeed in characterizing it as executive overreach rather than a step forward on immigration reform, then things are likely to inure to their political benefit with many Americans even if they end up being favored by certain segments of the public such as Latino voters. By and large, for example, the public seems to disfavor the idea of the President going it alone on any issue, and that could end up hurting the President regardless of whether or not the details of the President’s proposed policies are something that the public is likely to support generally. Indeed, when you look at the details that have been leaked from the White House, it probably is the case that Americans are more likely to favor than disfavor what the President is thinking of doing. However, the support for the general policy ideas seems as though it will run headlong into the public’s desire that the President and Congress work together to get things done rather than engage in the kind of partisan battles that the President would likely set off if he were to act alone here. As I’ve noted, if President Obama were to go forward with the action threatened here, it would make the odds of the new Congress actually acting on immigration reform somewhere between slim and non-existent. Admittedly, the odds that Republicans will act in this area are low to begin with but, if the logic behind the President’s threats of executive action are meant to prompt action from Congress then acting in the manner that he is threatening before the new Congress has even convened and been given a chance to act then you can write off the possibility of Congressional action on the issue for the next two years entirely. More importantly, as Speaker John Boehner, such action is likely to make the relationship between the new Congress and the President even worse than it might have been otherwise, making cooperation on even simple matters like the budget even more difficult.

Given all of this, it seems to me that there is almost no reason for the President to act now, in the waning weeks of the 113th Congress when it is quite obvious that the House is not going to take up a Senate bill that has laid dormant since July 2013. Notwithstanding the claims of the President and immigration activists, there is no great urgency that requires acting today rather than waiting until January when the new Congress convenes. At that point, the President can set forth a challenge to the new Congress, perhaps as part of the State Of The Union, perhaps earlier, to put forward an immigration reform bill that addresses the points of concern to him, Latino voters, and others, and threaten that if they don’t act, then he will do what he has the legal authority to do in order to provide some form of intermediate, temporary relief. Yes, it would be the same challenge he issued in July, but at this point, with the delay that was issued prior to the election there doesn’t seem to be any logical reason not to wait for the new Congress to act. If they don’t, and the President has made his case clear, then the American public would likely be behind him. If he acts before then, then he may just end up handing the GOP a political victory of sorts while simultaneously contributing to the very gridlock that is the cause of so much public frustration with Washington.

FILED UNDER: Barack Obama, Borders and Immigration, Congress, Politicians, Public Opinion Polls, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. munchbox says:

    to provide some form of intermediate, temporary relief.

    is this what it means to create incentives for more illegal immigration? Just like what happened with his dreamer executive action?

    Public Wants Obama To Wait On Immigration Action

    of course it does that’s why the republicans were just elected in mass along with a host of other issues created by the zero aka the w0rst…or…oh what weren’t you just saying they were elected to compromise? My bad.

  2. munchbox says:

    It’s must be the other 2/3rds of the public that’s got the zeros back?

  3. Rick DeMent says:

    Well the “public” wants reasonable gun control and a higher minimum wage as well but are the Republicans going to do anything about that? No? Why does the GOP hate freedom?

  4. LaMont says:

    By and large, for example, the public seems to disfavor the idea of the President going it alone on any issue, and that could end up hurting the President regardless of whether or not the details of the President’s proposed policies are something that the public is likely to support generally.

    This is where I disagree. The GOP has to have a position on immigration that is palatable to the public in order for this to backfire onto the President. Without a position the GOP just looks like a bunch of whiny douchbags especially if what the President will push is popular to liberals and conservatives alike. The risks you are acknowledging are extremely low and the GOP has to show an ability to be extremely disciplined to make that work – a discipline they have yet to show since the tea party poisoned the republican base…

  5. James Pearce says:

    Notwithstanding the claims of the President and immigration activists, there is no great urgency that requires acting today rather than waiting until January when the new Congress convenes.

    I guess that depends on your viewpoint. Congress has neither the will nor the capability to tackle such things.

    In that sense, “Wait until January” is little different than “wait until hell freezes over.”

  6. stonetools says:

    I think he should just go ahead and act. Congress has had more than enough time to act on the existing Senate bill, and I think that even Doug would agree (if you gave him truth serum) that the next Congress is even less likely to act on the Senate bill.

    What Doug leaves out here is that thousands of people will be deported while the President delays. What about those people and their family members?Why go through the motions of waiting to Congress to act, if thousands of people are going to suffer while you go through legislative theater?

    If there is to be delay,I think the President should set a date. January 31 seems right to me.That’s enough time for the House to act, if it wants to.

  7. LaMont says:

    with the delay that was issued prior to the election there doesn’t seem to be any logical reason not to wait for the new Congress to act.

    There was also no logical reason that the House couldn’t act on the Senate bill. An immigration bill has been lying dormant in Congress for a significant amount of time. Now we have a wave of republicans that were elected on “We have to stand up to Obama” rhetoric with no known position on immigration and you think it is in President Obam’s best interest to wait until the new Congress have input? Get outta here dude!!!

  8. LaMont says:

    @stonetools:

    …thousands of people will be deported while the President delays. What about those people and their family members?Why go through the motions of waiting to Congress to act, if thousands of people are going to suffer while you go through legislative theater?

    A very easy and understandable articulation in the President’s defense. Add on the fact that the GOP, in general, have no position worth waiting for and we have a no brainer here. If President Obama can’t get that message across he deserves the backfire.

  9. stonetools says:

    Here is Senator-elect Tom Cotton on immigration:

    “But it’s not just Republicans who have spoken on this. The American people have spoken. Immigration was a central issue in my campaign. I won by 17 points. Kay Hagan, Mark Begich, Mark Udall all supported President Obama’s amnesty bill. They lost,” Cotton said.

    “Mary Landrieu is about to lose. Greg Orman, Alison Grimes, Bruce Braley, Michelle Nunn, they lost when they supported that bill. The voters of Oregon, not exactly a conservative state like Arkansas, voted 2-1 against driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants,” he said.

    “So, the American people have spoken loudly about the kind of immigration reform they want, and it’s not what the president is proposing,” Cotton added.

    Frankly, it’s not even clear the new Senate won’t withdraw its bill.I doubt it would pass the new Senate, and I have even greater doubts the new House would act on the bill. Dunno where Doug gets the idea that the new Congress would ever pass immigration reform.

  10. gVOR08 says:

    I’ve seen a string of punditry to the effect that Obama should do one thing or another to demonstrate his willingness to work with the new GOP congress. I don’t remember seeing any column to the effect that Boehner and McConnell should pass something quickly designed to demonstrate their willingness to work with Obama.

  11. bill says:

    46% is less than those who didn’t want obamacare- and he didn’t let that stop that mess.

  12. LaMont says:

    Doug

    I can’t repeat this point enough – When President Obama acts and the GOP cry foul, the next logical thing everyone will want to know will be what is the republicans stance on immigration. If those leaks are accurate, the GOP stance will either be unpopular to the public or simular to aspects of the executive action. And if they are similar, then the GOP could be tasked with explaining why the House did not act on the 2013 Senate bill which appears to be simular in nature to the executive action that is leaked.

  13. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @stonetools:

    Cotton makes the same leap that most far-righters seem to be making post this more recent election – they see the votes of 17% of the electorate (which is realistically what they got) as being an overwhelming mandate.

    Which is just fine with me – because it will lead them to overreach and hang themselves politically.

    I don’t see Obama acting on immigration prior to January. If he were inclined to do so, he would have taken that road prior to the election. At this point there is nothing to be gained politically by acting before January, so I expect that he’ll wait, use the interregnum (and the bully pulpit) to frame the terms of the debate, and allow Congress to mire itself up in GOP internecine warfare (which is absolutely in our future) before acting.

  14. stonetools says:

    Wonder what did Saint Ronaldus do on immigration :

    Today’s right-wingers don’t want to mention that their Republican hero, President Ronald Reagan, signed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which gave up to 3 million unauthorized immigrants a path to legalization if they continuously had been in the U.S. since January 1982. The Reagan White House also issued executive orders that deferred deportation of children of non-citizens in more than 100,000 familes, and also told immigration authorities not to deport up to 200,000 Nicaruaguan war refugees

    Let’s see what GHWB did:

    Another Republican president whose immigration policies could be an “impeachable” offense, according to Republican congressmen like Texas’ Joe Barton or Washington Post columinist Charles Krauthammer, would be President George Herbert Walker Bush, who in 1990 announced a blanket deferral of deportations for 1.5 million spouses and children of unauthorized people, which accounted for 40 percent of the nation’s undocumented population. That step was very similar to President Obama’s DACA executive order in 2012.

    Huh. I guess using executive orders to shield deportees is not politically dangerous if you are Republican.

  15. LaMont says:

    if President Obama were to go forward with the action threatened here, it would make the odds of the new Congress actually acting on immigration reform somewhere between slim and non-existent.

    And who would that hurt more – the President or the republican controlled Congress? Heck forget about the public’s concern of a President acting like a “dictator”. Before that perception can even gain legs Congress will have to decide whether they want to act to move the popular policy forward or obstruct. So tell me Doug – How much more value does the President get by waiting on Congress?

  16. Moosebreath says:

    I think Ed Kilgore has the correct response:

    “Give me a break. The Senate acted on comprehensive immigration reform seventeen months ago. Since then the principal Republican cosponsor of that bill, Marco Rubio, has practically toured the country in sackcloth and ashes, recanting his heresy. The House has done nothing, other than a hasty symbolic “response” to the summer border refugee crisis that wound up being shaped by Steve King and Michele Bachmann. The GOP’s center of gravity on immigration has steadily shifted to “deport ‘em all.” So what will further delay mean? A big debate over how much to spend on police dogs and box cars?”

  17. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    How totally… expected. Once again, President Obama is at odds with himself. Will anyone call Obama on all those statements he made about how he couldn’t do what he’s now planning to do?

  18. LaMont says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Right because “I actually have the executive power to act” would have really gone over well with a Congress that ultimately didn’t pass anything anyway. What benefit would it have given President Obama to throw around his weight during negotiation time? That article is biased crap void of all context…

  19. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @LaMont:

    That article is biased crap void of all context…

    What else would you expect from Hot Air (a more aptly named organization there has never been …) and/or someone who cites them as an authority?

  20. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @LaMont: So, Obama had to lie in order to do the right thing. Because telling the truth would have been politically damaging, and he had to say that just to keep the rubes from realizing the truth, and he has to protect us from harsh truths.

    Why is that such a recurring theme with this administration? Why do we keep hearing variants of “of course he lied, he had to lie!” from his defenders?

  21. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @HarvardLaw92: What else would you expect from Hot Air (a more aptly named organization there has never been …) and/or someone who cites them as an authority?

    You’re right, I should have looked more carefully at that article. Three of the four sources linked to it are “whitehouse.gov,” and we all know how little respect for honesty THAT group has.

  22. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    No, you should just give up this parsing political rhetoric as gospel thing you have going on. Apparently, in Jenosworld, no president other than Obama has ever spoken rhetorically or equivocated based on the reality of a political environment in which every syllable uttered by a president is endlessly parsed for partisan benefit.

    You don’t like Obama. We get it, believe me. We get it, but do us the courtesy of applying the same standards to him that you apply to the presidents that you like. The whole righteous indignation thing got old a long time ago.

  23. Slugger says:

    I have probably been reading too many internet comments recently, and this has caused a loss of respect for the opinions of the American public. Consequently when a poll is cited, I tend to discount it as the voice of the uninformed.
    Everything is not political hardball. Is not there some right path for the issues that confront America, and damn the polls?
    I would be interested in thoughts about the right way to address the immigration problem. I would prefer thoughts without a side of frothy spittle. Mr. Mataconis, perhaps you can start with your analysis.

  24. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Slugger:

    You can start with “what would be the net effect of removing 12 million consumers from the economy?”

    They avoid that one like the plague.

  25. al-Ameda says:

    Public: The President should act on immigration!
    President: Okay, If Congress doesn’t act soon, I will
    Public: No wait.
    President: Wait for what, Congress to act?
    Public: No, another poll, we’re confused

  26. Tyrell says:

    @Slugger: What are factors of reform? What are the main issues? Where are areas of agreement? Spell these out. And no small print. None of this “pass it to find out what is in it” garbage.
    One idea would be to revisit the Dream Act and see what can be done there. Another plan is by the Evangelical Immigration Table. This plan has no specifics, but has a framework that most would agree on. It includes fairness, accountability, and a process.
    How about forming an independent committee that would take a look at this and come up with some reasonable, fair, practical, and legal solutions. Solutions that do not put a heavy financial burden on already struggling towns, counties, and states.
    Last spring the people saw the bus loads rolling through this country like it was 3:00 dismissal time at the middle school.That caught the leaders completely by surprise, which seems to be normal these days. That image seemed to cause a lot of second thoughts and hesitation toward reform that includes any broad amnesty.
    Read the article in the Atlantic.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/five-reasons-obama-shouldnt-declare-amnesty-immigration-executive-order/382845/

  27. LaMont says:

    @Tyrell:

    What you spelled out would actually require the GOP to govern. Problem is, their not intersted in that!

  28. wr says:

    @stonetools: “What Doug leaves out here is that thousands of people will be deported while the President delays. ”

    Yes, but they’re not him. So there is no need to act quickly.

    Remember, Doug is a libertarian!

  29. wr says:

    @Tyrell: “This plan has no specifics, ”

    Hey, then it’s just like the Republican’s plan to replace Obamacare. Let’s enact it immediately!

  30. Guarneri says:

    “No, you should just give up this parsing political rhetoric as gospel thing you have going on. Apparently, in Jenosworld, no president other than Obama has ever spoken rhetorically or equivocated based on the reality of a political environment in which every syllable uttered by a president is endlessly parsed for partisan benefit.”

    Aha! Obama was pulling a Gruber. He speak-o’d, multiple times. You know, it happens. Especially when a president is commenting on something so fundamental to our governance. Maybe he’d had a couple pops, like when he let his security advisor go on national TV and babble about a video, or said something crazy about keeping your doctor, or how hell, I’ve been across the pond, who’s this Gruber dude you folks are all talking about ?!? But come to think of it, he must drink a lot……..c

  31. Guarneri says:

    It IS wonderful to see congress working in harmony, what with the subject of the next essay. Funny thing, though, no complaints about presidential inaction. I guess that’s GOOOOOOD inaction, not BAAAAAD inaction.

  32. Guarneri says:

    Enjoy your clams, c………….s.

  33. C. Clavin says:

    The Senate has acted. The mud-terms have no impact on this. The House has refused to act. So someone tell me what waiting accomplishes?

  34. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Guarneri:

    See previous response, which you (unsurprisingly) sidestepped.

  35. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    If only there was some kind of secret decoder ring or blinking light that would tell us when Obama is saying what he actually believes, and when he is saying the exact opposite of what he actually believes but has to lie for political expediency. Like when he said “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” or when he opposed gay marriage or when he said he couldn’t legally grant amnesty…

  36. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    If only there was some kind of secret decoder ring or blinking light

    For most of us, intellect fills that role. You’ll have to make do with the limited tools G-d gave you.

  37. Tillman says:

    @Slugger:

    I have probably been reading too many internet comments recently, and this has caused a loss of respect for the opinions of the American public.

    Nothing truer has been written today. 🙂

  38. Tillman says:

    While never a good strategy, it’s probably worth waiting for the new Republican Congress to make a mistake first before acting. Get that thin veneer of legitimacy. Worst that can happen is they churn out a half-assed proposal that can be signed into law for doing something, if not doing enough.

  39. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Like when he said “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” or when he opposed gay marriage or when he said he couldn’t legally grant amnesty…

    Like when he said, “I had no idea the Republican Party would go on a 6 years vomitting binge when a centrist Black president was elected, did you?”

  40. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @HarvardLaw92: For most of us, intellect fills that role. You’ll have to make do with the limited tools G-d gave you.

    That you champion a president for whom such gross dishonesty is almost an instinctive thing is something you probably shouldn’t be overly proud of…

  41. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @al-Ameda: Like when he said, “I had no idea the Republican Party would go on a 6 years vomitting binge when a centrist Black president was elected, did you?”

    Why don’t you get back to us when we get a centrist black president?

  42. Moosebreath says:

    Another good response to Republicans’ collective hissy-fit, this time from Kevin Drum:

    “Look: Republicans can decide for themselves if they want to go to war. If they want to pass yet another bill repealing Obamacare, that’s fine. If they want to sue the president over the EPA or immigration, that’s fine. If they want to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, that’s fine. I assume Obama will win some of these battles and lose others, but in any case will treat them as the ordinary cut and thrust of politics instead of declaring them calculated insults that have infuriated him so much he can’t possibly ever engage with the GOP again. In other words, he’ll act like an adult, not a five-year-old.

    This is what we expect from presidents. Why don’t we expect the same from congressional Republicans? Why are they allowed to stamp and scream whenever something doesn’t go their way, and everyone just shrugs? Once and for all, why don’t we demand that they act like adults too?”

  43. Moosebreath says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    “Why don’t you get back to us when we get a centrist black president?”

    Sorry, my time machine does not have a setting for 2008.

  44. jukeboxgrad says:

    Guarneri:

    like when he let his security advisor go on national TV and babble about a video

    Rice said what the CIA said. Obama et al blamed the video because the video was to blame. Link.

    The “babble” is all yours.

  45. jukeboxgrad says:

    Jenos:

    when he is saying the exact opposite of what he actually believes but has to lie for political expediency

    GWB, 10/11/2000:

    I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation building. … I mean, we’re going to have some kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.

  46. jukeboxgrad says:

    Jenos:

    Why don’t you get back to us when we get a centrist black president?

    Link: “Obama revealed: A moderate Republican … President Obama, if you look closely at his positions, is a moderate Republican of the early 1990s.”

  47. C. Clavin says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    If anything in this comment was true it would warrant the dignity of a response.

  48. stonetools says:

    The sad part about it is that the President has clearly signalled that he would rather do immigration reform through legislation by achieving Reasonable Bipartisan Comromise. His earlier statements were IMO intended to nudge Republicans in that direction and he has waited patiently for two years hoping the Republicans would see reason on immigration. Instead, the Republicans moved away from compromise in favor of fanning hatred toward the browns as a way of driving the base to the polls. So now the President reluctantly has to act.

    It’s noteworthy that not once has Jenos indicated that the Republicans were ready to move on immigration reform. His silence on that possibility speaks volumes. Even he does not believe the Republicans intend to act on immigration reform.

    In the end, executive action is the ONLY way left to achieve movement on immigration reform. Even Obama’s critics admit this-both by what they choose to say and what they choose NOT to say.

  49. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Oh, look, jukey’s here, with his Media Matters sources to edjumicate all of us.

    Oh, jukey? The 1990s called. They want their context back.

  50. C. Clavin says:

    @jukeboxgrad:
    there are no more moderate Republicans. Frum, Bartlett, Sullivan…all ostracized by the tea baggers.

  51. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    But back to the topic at hand: Obama will do whatever he wants to now, regardless of what anyone else says. Especially what he himself said, on numerous occasions.

    Because eff you, that’s why. It’s how he rolls.

  52. C. Clavin says:

    @jukeboxgrad:
    There are no more moderate Republicans. Frum, Bartlett, Sullivan…all ostracized by the people who like to wear tea bags dangling from their tricorns..

  53. jukeboxgrad says:

    with his Media Matters sources

    There’s nothing wrong with citing Media Matters, but I almost never do, and in this instance I did not, so you are making sh*t up, as usual.

  54. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: You’re correct; you didn’t directly cite Media Matters. But your assertion that Obama is a “moderate Republican” is from noted conservative Ezra Klein.

    Whoops, that’s JournoList and Vox founder Ezra Klein, a noted authority on what constitutes conservatism.

  55. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @stonetools: It’s noteworthy that not once has Jenos indicated that the Republicans were ready to move on immigration reform. His silence on that possibility speaks volumes. Even he does not believe the Republicans intend to act on immigration reform.

    That’s because I’m not included in what the Republicans are thinking or planning. I don’t ask them, they don’t tell me. And that seems to work out pretty well for both parties.

    And I’m still waiting for what “comprehensive immigration reform” actually means. It’s a magic phrase, meaning whatever the speaker wants it to mean at that moment. From what I’ve deciphered, to liberals it means “amnesty now, maybe enforcement later — we’ll get back to you on that.”

  56. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    And I’m still waiting for what “comprehensive immigration reform” actually means. It’s a magic phrase, meaning whatever the speaker wants it to mean at that moment. From what I’ve deciphered, to liberals it means “amnesty now, maybe enforcement later — we’ll get back to you on that.”

    Interesting, the Obama Administration has deported more illegal immigrants than any recent administration.

    The fact is, Republican leadership wanted no part of the Rubio-Schumer bipartisan immigration reform proposal because it was not punitive enough, despite it having a thirteen year path to citizenship and the imposition of fines.

  57. C. Clavin says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    But your assertion that Obama is a “moderate Republican” is from noted conservative Ezra Klein.

    It’s from everyone that has a sense of reality.
    Here’s an article from former Bush guy Bruce Bartlett.
    http://www.salon.com/2014/10/21/reagan_adviser_bruce_bartlett_face_it_obama_is_a_conservative/
    Here’s the Fiscal Times
    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/08/05/Obama-The-Covert-Conservative-Liberals-Have-to-Love
    Your perspective is just off…because you look at things from way off the starboard bow. You are an extremist. From where you sit the middle is so fwcking far away it just looks like it’s left of center. I know there’s no way you will ever be able to comprehend anything Einstein said…but he made it pretty clear that everything is relative.

  58. Grewgills says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    A bill was passed by the Senate over a year ago.

  59. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @al-Ameda: Interesting, the Obama Administration has deported more illegal immigrants than any recent administration.

    Which, of course, depends on your definition of “deported.”

    Here are more details of just how those numbers were cooked up. It turns out that it’s akin to the old question “if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?”

  60. C. Clavin says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    So you link to a far right rag that uses a far right policy center as it’s source?

  61. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Here are more details of just how those numbers were cooked up. It turns out that it’s akin to the old question “if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?”

    The fact is he’s deported many, as opposed to doing nothing. And, The National Review? Conservatives love to redefine things in order to dismiss them.

    Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
    Democrat: “Well, 4+ 1 = 5, so by your definition, 5 legs.”
    Republican: “God created dogs 6,000 years ago, but give me time to check with the National Review”

  62. Grewgills says:

    Close to half of those surveyed, 46%, say he should wait for the new Republican-controlled Congress to act, and another one in 10 are unconvinced either way.
    Just 42% of Americans say he should take action now

    A majority of Americans either support Obama taking action now or don’t care would have been a more accurate headline. That or you could have accurately stated that a plurality of Americans want Obama to wait… The split is partisan, why are you not as interested in holding Republican’s feet to the fire on this?

  63. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    jukey

    Seriously dude, are you 11 years old?

  64. stonetools says:

    @Grewgills:

    Good catch! So Doug is using that conservative math, where “46%” becomes “the public”.
    Now if memory serves me well, Doug dismissed 90% of the public wanting universal background checks as not reflective of public sentiment. That should have put me on guard.

    Wow, Doug sure has interesting ways with headlines and mathematics…

  65. Will says:

    @anjin-san:

    Hey Whats up Ass clown! I see You and the liberal gang are Bullying people again with your liberal talking points. Where’s your pope Reynolds today? I really do enjoy watching you fools insult the intelligence of everyday Americans with your elitist comments. The only thing worse than an elitist is a wannabee elitist which describes you to the T. At least Reynolds has the education and the money.

  66. C. Clavin says:

    @Will:
    Wow. Just wow.
    You are flying an extremely oppressive and racist avatar…and calling someone else a bully.
    Self-aware, much?

  67. Will says:

    @C. Clavin:

    That’s rich coming from you. I’m glad you like my “racist” avatar. It’s especially for you liberal PC jerkoffs. This is an open board no matter how offensive you find my avatar and comments.

    Now, here comes the part where you get your buddies and comment how awful I am while you bully Jenos and others with your “moral superiority”. I’ll be here till 5:00 today Clifford!

  68. al-Ameda says:

    @Will:

    Hey Whats up Ass clown!

    You must be in House Republican leadership.

  69. Will says:

    @al-Ameda:

    You mean the majority House. It really does pain you that we control Congress. Biggest majority in over 60 years! That’s America speaking. You and your brethen speak for the minority.

  70. anjin-san says:

    Ah, I see it’s sock puppet time again. Whatup little man?

    This one’s for you

  71. C. Clavin says:

    @Will:
    Not moral superiority.
    Just basic, general, overall, superiority….and thank you for recognizing it.
    Now that you have…make use of the opportunity and try to learn something…expand your horizons…broaden your knowledge.
    Or not.
    Your choice.

  72. al-Ameda says:

    @Will:

    You mean the majority House. It really does pain you that we control Congress. Biggest majority in over 60 years! That’s America speaking. You and your brethen speak for the minority.

    I’m happy that guys like Louie Gohmert, Steve King, and Steve Stockman speak for you, and not for me.

  73. anjin-san says:

    .

  74. Will says:

    @anjin-san:

    i dont click on links from losers. Have any original thoughts today or waiting for Michael as usual?

  75. Will says:

    @al-Ameda:

    Cool, you can take Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders. You can help them come up with ideas on how to take peoples money and give it to illegal immigrants and to people who abuse the welfare system.

  76. Will says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Hows the job search?? I hear Chick-fil-A is hiring. I don’t know if they’d take you, but maybe some of your buddies would write you a reference. The only job listed that fits you is cleaning the toilets.. It’s still better though than being unemployed..

  77. C. Clavin says:

    @Will:
    OK…I’m not sure where you get that…I have a graduate degree from a top University…passed a 5 day test to get a license to practice my profession…and am in the 97th percentile of income.
    Chick-fil-A must pay folks a boat load of money to clean terlets. Hard to see how they could make a profit…but if you say so.
    Maybe you should try growing up a bit…then get back to us.

  78. Will says:

    @C. Clavin:

    RLMAO

  79. anjin-san says:

    @ Will

    It’s good you’re here bro, we needed someone to play the Charlie Runkle character.

  80. jukeboxgrad says:

    Jenos:

    You’re correct; you didn’t directly cite Media Matters.

    It’s not just that I “didn’t directly cite Media Matters.” You’re implying that I cited them indirectly, but I didn’t do that, either. So you are once again full of sh*t.

    But your assertion that Obama is a “moderate Republican” is from noted conservative Ezra Klein.

    He makes that claim based on facts, and I can’t find the part of your comment where you lift a finger to address those facts.

    that’s JournoList and Vox founder Ezra Klein

    Thank you for this classic example of the ad hominem fallacy. You have so many.

  81. Tillman says:

    @Will: So you consider Jenos an every day American, eh? That’s somewhat insulting to Jenos, isn’t it?

  82. Grewgills says:

    In comes the troll and out goes any rational discussion. Please everyone just ignore the troll and he’ll go back under his bridge.

  83. Will says:

    @Tillman:

    You used to have the occasional funny comment, but now nothing.
    Jeff Bridges would be ashamed to see you as the Dude. I know a number of us are

  84. wr says:

    @Grewgills: “Please everyone just ignore the troll and he’ll go back under his bridge.”

    Or at least go back to posting as Jenos, where he will play stupid rhetorical games then declare he’s the winner of some non-existent combat… which is actually preferable to slogging through stacks of his toothless, adolescent insults as “Will.”

  85. anjin-san says:

    Jenos and the peanut gallery are coming pretty close to ruining OTB. I suspect that is the point of the exercise.

  86. Tillman says:

    I can’t tell if that downvote is for implying Jenos could be considered smarter than average or for just being a smartass.

    @Will: A lot of people tell me I’d disappoint Jeff Bridges.

  87. munchboxgrad says:

    @junkboxgrad
    Wow?! you are still peddling that crap that Benghazi happened because of a youtube video? Good thing you crawled out from your under your rock to defend that lie. What would the zero do without “stupid American voters” like you?
    @harvard law “g-d” lol you are one piece of work….

  88. munchboxgrad says:

    @junkboxgrad
    Wow?! you are still peddling that crap that Benghazi happened because of a youtube video? Good thing you crawled out from your under your rock to defend that lie. What would the zero do without “stupid American voters” like you?
    @harvard law “g-d” rofl you are one piece of work….

  89. munchboxgradd says:

    @junkboxgrad
    Wow?! you are still peddling that crap that Benghazi happened because of a youtube video? Good thing you crawled out from your under your rock to defend that lie. What would the zero do without “stupid American voters” like you?
    @harvardlaw “g-d” rofl you are one piece of work….

  90. munchboxgradd says:

    @junkboxgrad
    Wow?! you are still peddling that crap that Benghazi happened because of a youtube video? Good thing you crawled out from your under your rock to defend that lie. What would the zero do without “stupid American voters” like you?
    @harvardlaw0 “g-d” rofl you are one piece of work….

  91. munchboxgraddddd says:

    @junkboxgrad
    Wow?! you are still peddling that crap that Benghazi happened because of a youtube video? Good thing you crawled out from your under your rock to defend that lie. What would the zero do without “stupid American voters” like you?
    @harvardlaw0 “g-d” rofl you are one piece of work….

  92. munchbox says:

    @junkboxgrad
    Wow?! you are still peddling that crap that Benghazi happened because of a youtube video? Good thing you crawled out from your under your rock to defend that lie. What would the zero do without “stupid American voters” like you?
    @harvardlaw92 “g-d” rofl you are one piece of work….

  93. jukeboxgrad says:

    Wow?! you are still peddling that crap that Benghazi happened because of a youtube video?

    Daniel Pipes is a conservative and a contributor to National Review, and he has been described by Breitbart as one of “the most respected Islam watchers in conservative circles.” Pipes said this (link, 7/8/13, updated 1/13/14):

    In an article, “Rampaging Islamists,” I listed Libya as one of the over thirty countries where the Innocence of Muslims video had prompted demonstrations, rioting, or violence in September 2012; it seemed obvious at that time that the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi fit into the much larger context of agitation and hostility sweeping so many Muslim communities.

    But then, after Barack Obama nominated Susan Rice as his national security adviser, her having repeatedly stated that the attack had been a “spontaneous” response to Innocence, a demonstration that “spun out of control,” prompted a backlash against this account of what happened on Sep.11, 2012. The conservative interpretation focused entirely on Al-Qaeda and rejected any role for Innocence.

    Despite this consensus, I stood by the contention that Innocence played a part in the events that night. Now, the journalist John Rosenthal confirms this connection at “New Evidence Links Benghazi Attack to Anti-Muslim Movie,” where he argues that Innocence served as a “catalyst” for the attack on the US mission.

    No one has been able to address this “New Evidence,” which goes along with plenty of other evidence. Link.

    The “crap” is all yours.

    What would the zero do without “stupid American voters” like you?

    What a surprise to learn that one of “the most respected Islam watchers in conservative circles” is in the category of “stupid American voters.” Thank you for this vivid demonstration of how conservatives reflexively reject all inconvenient facts.

  94. munchbox says:

    Junkie Oh please
    Pipes also thinks zero is a muslim…..Which is it? Has 0bama “always been a Christian” or did he “become a Christian” after college? …who knows he is a know liar.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/11/obama-my-muslim-faith/?page=all

    http://www.danielpipes.org/11952/obama-muslim-childhood

    And there was no spontaneous riots they were planned in advance….link….link…link….

    The protest was planned by Salafists well before news circulated of an objectionable video ridiculing Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, said Eric Trager, an expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012/09/12/deadly-embassy-attacks-were-days-in-the-making/57752828/1?fullsite=true

    What a surprise to learn that one of “the most respected Islam watchers in conservative circles” is in the category of “stupid American voters.”

    No junkie that is only you and your ilk….link. …link….link..

  95. jukeboxgrad says:

    Pipes also thinks zero is a muslim

    Which proves that he’s no friend of Obama. Learn something about the concept of admission against interest.

    there was no spontaneous riots they were planned in advance

    The original CIA memo said this:

    We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo

    “The protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” is an obvious reference to the video, because those protests were undoubtedly about the video. And the Senate report said essentially the same thing:

    Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning … Intelligence suggests that the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic

    So both these sources say there wasn’t much planning, and both these sources reference the video, either directly or indirectly. No one has ever presented evidence of more than three days of planning. Three days is what they had, because the video was seen by millions on Egypt TV on 9/8/12. Less than 48 hours later the massive riots in Cairo began, and over the course of several days the violence spread to about 30 countries, killing at least 30 people.

    Rush and Sean and Bill like to repeat the mantra ‘planned attack,’ but CIA and the Senate both say there was hardly any planning. CIA said that at the time, and the Senate reiterated that finding in their 2014 report. ‘Spontaneous,’ in this context, doesn’t mean there was no planning whatsoever. It just means there was, at most, 3 days of planning.

    The protest was planned by Salafists well before news circulated of an objectionable video

    It’s true that there was already a plan for a protest in Cairo, but what turned it into a massive riot was the video. Your own article explains this. Here’s an idea: read what you cite before you cite it.

  96. munchbox says:

    Throughout 2012, violent jihadist activity became increasingly commonplace in Benghazi

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1755

    Ansar al-Sharia, laid siege to a U.S. State Department mission in Benghazi, the very target jihadists had detonated an IED against only three months earlier, on June 6.

    .

    So that attack was also because of the video?

    Consulate in Benghazi was attacked and threatened 13 times before the incident last month that killed four Americans

    http://thehill.com/policy/international/259677-report-libya-consulate-subject-to-previous-threats-attacks

  97. jukeboxgrad says:

    Throughout 2012, violent jihadist activity became increasingly commonplace in Benghazi

    I’m glad you’re so interested in the prior attacks. Maybe you should learn more about them (link):

    That specific group [Ansar al-Sharia] had been involved in a similar but obviously much smaller scale incident at the end of June involving the Tunisian consulate in Benghazi where they stormed that facility and it was in protest to what they claimed was an anti-Islamic film

    So what you’re claiming could not possibly have happened had already happened. And then it happened again.

  98. munchbox says:

    Wait .. wait.. wait I think your link there says it was an art?! installation that offended….almost like the recent “nondenominational” mass beheading?
    Which Least of all had to do with Islam end quoteth the “my muslim faith” 0bama

    Benghazi was in shambles due to zero’s enabling of extremists through his policies of “I Will stand with the muslim s” ….13 previous attacks….

    It was actually probably this video that helped the attack the most…if anything…so I guess wrong video then?

    One day before September 11, al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri posted a 42-minute video on Jihadist forums urging Libyans to attack Americans to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, the terror organization’s second-in-command, whom U.S. drones killed in June of 2012 in Pakistan.

    …But getting back to your… article… there it’s states not a shot was fired …but then goes on to say two days later “June 6th” an I d exploded. So you have proved nothing save for that islamists need nothing or anything at all to kill the “crusaders”

  99. jukeboxgrad says:

    One day before September 11, al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri posted a 42-minute video

    “One day before September 11” was two days after the Nakoula video was seen by millions on Egypt TV. Zawahri was trying to use events he didn’t create to make himself relevant.

    islamists need nothing or anything at all to kill the “crusaders”

    There are people who will use any excuse to attack us. That’s why it’s bizarre for you to insist that they didn’t use the video as an excuse to attack us.

  100. munchbox says:

    Zawahri was trying to use events he didn’t create to make himself relevant.

    Oh so now you are inside the mind of an known islamist? … Now that is something i can believe… that with your pathological urge to defend two of the best known liars of our public government …that claim…that on the 11th year of the anniversary of 9/11 was caused because of a youtube video…makes total sense now.

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10972

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-serial-liar/

    http://www.brooklyndaily.com/stories/2013/34/all_stan_clintongate_2013_08_23_bd.html

  101. munchbox says:

    Zawahri was trying to use events he didn’t create to make himself relevant.

    Oh so now you are inside the mind of an known islamist? … Now that is something i can believe…. that with your pathological urge to defend two of the best known liars of our public government …that claim…that on the 11th year of the anniversary of 9/11 was caused because of a youtube video…makes total sense now.

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10972

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-serial-liar/

    http://www.brooklyndaily.com/stories/2013/34/all_stan_clintongate_2013_08_23_bd.html

  102. jukeboxgrad says:

    on the 11th year of the anniversary of 9/11 was caused because of a youtube video

    The timing is not mysterious when you realize that the video was seen by millions on Egypt TV on 9/8/12, and less than 48 hours later there were massive riots in Cairo and elsewhere. The video caused riots in about 30 countries, causing about 30 deaths. The Cairo events were part of this wave of outrage.

    The folks who put the video on Egypt TV on 9/8 were probably thinking that this would be the right timing to get maximum attention and public response, since 9/11 was coming up. Another reason to understand that the 9/11 timing is no mystery.

    Do you think it’s a coincidence that the Benghazi attack took place at the same moment that the video was triggering riots in 30 countries? Did you forget that there have been a bunch of other 9/11 anniversaries, and no such attack took place until a video triggered riots in 30 countries?

    This ‘coincidence’ thing cuts both ways. Explain why there was no such attack on any previous 9/11 anniversary.

  103. munchbox says:

    there were massive riots in Cairo

    yes we already know they were planned in advance….see above

    Did you forget that there have been a bunch of other 9/11 anniversaries, and no such attack took place

    no I haven’t. But let’s look at that.. so for all those years prior zero wasn’t occupying the white house.. ‘coincidence’?

  104. jukeboxgrad says:

    they were planned in advance

    Riots in about 30 countries, causing about 30 deaths “were planned in advance?”

    for all those years prior zero wasn’t occupying the white house

    Who was president on 9/11/09? Who was president on 9/11/10? Who was president on 9/11/11? Thanks for proving, again, that your grip on reality is exceptionally tenuous.

  105. munchbox says:

    Junkie correct, islamists like to protest/celebrate on 9/11 so they plan it. So three short years go by …then it turns to crap. During which time the zero was busy planning the biggest lie ever foisted on the people. Then he starts his Libyan campaign which he gave himself a big old pat on the back for…then one year later the black flag of the islamists fly at our embassy. Then between this year and last zero has helped them along in the islamist’s special form of nation building in Syria and Iraq. And here you are defending the indefensible like the stupidest of American voters. But back to the video it may have helped in the rigor of said protests..but it had nothing to do with the attack on the annex. There was no protest outside then as soon as it got dark they attacked. And was attacked over arms deals/ transfers.

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/29/email-shows-white-house-planned-benghazi-video-deception/

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/17/benghazi-when-america-switched-sides-in-the-war-on-terror-and-armed-al-qaida/

  106. jukeboxgrad says:

    There was no protest

    I’m glad I can count on you to regurgitate the standard collection of bogus right-wing talking points.

    This is from the Senate report:

    CIA’s January 4, 2013, Analytic Line Review found that “[a]pproximately a dozen reports that included press accounts, public statements by AAS members, HUMINT reporting, DOD reporting, and signals intelligence all stated or strongly suggested that a protest occurred outside of the Mission facility just prior to the attacks.”

    Also (link):

    Witnesses in Benghazi said a small crowd gathered Tuesday night outside the consulate, a villa in a walled compound, to protest the anti-Muslim video… Some in the crowd had learned of the protest through Facebook. Others had heard of the video from Libyan students abroad or seen TV images of the Cairo protest. About 10 p.m., Abdel Monem Monem, a former advisor to the leader of the rebels’ transitional government, went to check and found about 50 people demonstrating without violence.

    Also (link):

    a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film

    Also (link):

    The US ambassador and three other US consulate staff were killed when the consulate was set ablaze in protests over an anti-Islam film

    (continued)

  107. jukeboxgrad says:

    Also (link):

    How ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Spread Around the Globe and Killed a US Diplomat … the film … reportedly led to the angry protests that killed a U.S. ambassador to Libya

    Also (link):

    US envoy dies in Benghazi consulate attack … An armed mob attacked and set fire to the consulate building during a protest against an amateur film

    Also (link):

    In Benghazi, Libya, several dozen gunmen from an Islamist group, Ansar al Sharia, attacked the consulate with rocket-propelled grenades to protest the film, a deputy interior minister for the Benghazi region told the Al-Jazeera network.

    And Morell said this:

    what she [Rice] said about the attacks evolving spontaneously from a protest was exactly what the talking points said, and it was exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed

    Also, the question of the protest is separate from the question of the video. It’s fascinating to watch how these two separate questions are routinely combined, for no reason. Even if you were to establish that there was no protest, this tells you nothing about whether or not the attackers were motivated by the video.

  108. munchbox says:

    Good god muchie !? You are wrong and are defending serial liars….

    Initially, the attack was thought to be perpetrated by an angry mob responding to a video made in the U.S. which mocked Islam and the Prophet Mohammed, but it is later determined to be a terrorist attack.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/10/world/benghazi-consulate-attack-fast-facts/

    Even if you were to establish that there was no protest

    thanks for admitting I am right.

    tells you nothing about whether or not the attackers were motivated by the video

    no… but you and the zero know… kinda like your comment upstream … That I believe. Thanks for playing. You lose. er

  109. jukeboxgrad says:

    it is later determined to be a terrorist attack

    Thank you for yet another perfect example of how the GOP narrative relies entirely on the fallacy of bifurcation. Link. Where did you get the wacky idea that ‘terrorist attack’ and ‘motivated by the video’ are mutually exclusive?

  110. munchbox says:

    I am glad you wait with bated breath to defend lies. It’s shows your true colors…you’re a partisan hack cut from the same cloth as the mad cow. But anyway I guess you mean CNN is confused about it?

  111. jukeboxgrad says:

    I guess you mean CNN is confused about it?

    I’m glad you think CNN never gets confused. CNN and a lot of other people, including and especially you, have never explained where they got the wacky idea that ‘terrorist attack’ and ‘motivated by the video’ are mutually exclusive. That darn liberal media.

  112. munchbox says:

    Or maybe the Libyans on the ground are confused about it too?

    Five of the guards were employees of the British security company Blue Mountain, and three others were members of the Islamist-leaning February 17th militia who were tasked with providing diplomatic security for foreign missions. To protect them from possible retribution, their names have been changed. What is clear is that, as others have reported, there was no protest, simply a sudden siege of the compound;

  113. munchbox says:

    We must have gotten that idea straight from the liars mouth..? Zero told us it was the video ….duh.

  114. jukeboxgrad says:

    there was no protest

    I already cited plenty of evidence contrary to this. In your usual style, you are simply ignoring it.

  115. jukeboxgrad says:

    We must have gotten that idea straight from the liars mouth..?

    When did Obama say it wasn’t a terrorist attack? Both things are true: it was a terrorist attack, and it was motivated by the video. He said both these things because both these things are true.

    You are claiming to know that the attackers were not motivated by the video, even though I have shown you plenty of evidence that they were. Meanwhile, you have shown this much evidence that they were not: none.

  116. munchbox says:

    Wow are you kidding me? I will believe the Libyans on the ground that say there was no protest…over the lie of year award holder. And no he didn’t call it a specific terrorist attack …roll that beautiful bean footage Candy.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218841/Presidential-Debate-2012-Outrage-moderator-Candy-Crowley-sides-Obama.html
    0 refered to acts of terror in a broad sense at best.

    I already cited plenty of evidence contrary to this. In your usual style, you are simply ignoring it.

    I have also cited evidence that there was no protest…but that doesn’t stop you from claiming otherwise…http://world.time.com/2012/10/21/the-other-911-libyan-guards-recount-what-happened-in-benghazi/
    There you go straight from the guys that were there…plus I never said zero didn’t call it a terrorist attack(which he didn’t) you just mentioned it now..randomly.

  117. jukeboxgrad says:

    I will believe the Libyans on the ground that say there was no protest

    You quoted this many: zero. Meanwhile, I have quoted, by name, several “Libyans on the ground” who say you are wrong.

    no he didn’t call it a specific terrorist attack

    So they covered up the terrorist attack by repeatedly describing the terrorist attack as a terrorist attack? Within a week of the attack Obama made at least four statements where he described the Libya attack as terrorism. Link.

    Also, notice what Carney said on 9/20:

    It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack

    And notice what Hillary said on 9/21:

    What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack

    And notice what Obama himself said on 9/18:

    Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya

    This is sufficient to prove that there was no plot to avoid calling it terrorism.

    By the way, the original CIA memo used the word “terror,” in any form, this many times: zero.

    I have also cited evidence that there was no protest

    Your failure to grasp the difference between assertion and evidence is a key part of what makes you such a good conservative.

  118. munchbox says:

    LOL Right there up stream…..

    Five of the guards were employees of the British security company Blue Mountain, and three others were members of the Islamist-leaning February 17th militia who were tasked with providing diplomatic security for foreign missions. To protect them from possible retribution, their names have been changed. What is clear is that, as others have reported, there was no protest, simply a sudden siege of the compound;

    …CNN …world time ….it’s all right there. In fact I have cited at least three different sources …

    So they covered up the terrorist attack by repeatedly describing the terrorist attack as a terrorist attack?

    well I guess when Cowley admitted she was wrong …0 didn’t call it a terrorist attack

  119. jukeboxgrad says:

    Right there up stream

    I realize you don’t understand the meaning of the word “quote.” The reporters you quoted are not Libyan. Give me a quote from a Libyan. I did so. You did not.

    when Cowley admitted she was wrong

    On 9/18/12, Obama said this (link, link, link):

    Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya

    During the debate Mitt said this:

    for two weeks the President declined to call it terrorism

    Explain how what Mitt said was something other than a lie.

  120. munchbox says:

    Here we go again… So reporters aren’t qualified to “quote” people in your mind?….I mean that is their job?! So on to your first link there junkie

    My point, very poorly made, was that Obama once again emphasized the video and passed on an opportunity to very clearly declare: What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
    It seems clear that the White House wanted to avoid this kind of statement until it had no choice – after National Counterterrorism Center head Matthew Olsen said under oath that it was a terrorist attack.
    And on that point, I can add something to the timeline that makes that even clearer. American Crossroads highlights something from the 9/20/12 gaggle with Jay Carney that I’d been told (before the gaggle was transcribed) was off-the-record.
    Carney says twice that his use of the phrase “terrorist attack” was new for the White House.

    . You should do a better job of linking to things that disprove your narrative…So let’s take it from the top …there was no protest …assault only…the next day zero fails to call it a terrorist attack… Then on the 20the per your link link link they call it terrorism but then blame it on the video….per your “fact check link”

    Kroft noted that “you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.” Obama said, “Right.” Asked why, the president said that “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.”

    . YOU LOSE AGAIN JUNKIE THE MUNCHSBOXGRAD

  121. munchbox says:

    Also from “fact check”

    but the president misrepresented some facts at his May 13 press conference”

    . …the zero misrepresenting facts ….you don’t say? I thought we would get better than that from the lie of the year award winner…. Oh wait we are talking about serial liars

  122. jukeboxgrad says:

    So reporters aren’t qualified to “quote” people in your mind?

    You are proving, again, that you don’t comprehend the word “quote.” Find a dictionary and learn what it means. Your article quoted this many Libyans saying there was no protest: zero.

    his use of the phrase “terrorist attack” was new for the White House

    Which means nothing, because Obama had already said this:

    Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya

    Feel free to explain the difference between an “attack” by “terrorists” and a “terrorist attack.” I don’t have a microscope powerful enough to find the hair you’re trying to split.

    And I notice you haven’t bothered trying to explain why Mitt lied about this during the debate.