Mitt Romney, Oct. 22nd, 2012: “In the 2000 debates there was no mention of terrorism, for instance. And a year later, 9/11 happened. So we have to make decisions based upon uncertainty.”
Sen. Joe Lieberman, Oct. 5th, 2000: “In fact, this administration has begun to transform the American military to take it away from being a Cold War force to prepare it to meet the threats of the new generation of tomorrow, of weapons of mass destruction, of ballistic missiles, terrorism, cyber warfare.”
Vice President Al Gore, Oct. 17th, 2000: “In the Congress, in the House of Representatives, I served on the House Intelligence Committee and I worked hard to learn the subject of nuclear arms control and how we can diffuse these tensions and deal with non-proliferation and deal with the problems of terrorism and these new weapons of mass destruction. Look, we’re gonna face some serious new challenges in the next four years.”
Now, if Romney had said that terrorism hadn’t been mentioned in the 2000 debates by George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, he’d be right.
Sorry, Mitt. Your point about terrorism is more like errorism.
Cutting our education budget is not a smart choice
- President Obama on Mitt Romney’s Policies
Can we just talk about the fact that he’s even considering this?!(via ihadwishesonce)
‘After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately,’ says the 61-year-old Ladka, who works at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola, N.Y. According to Ladka, Obama gave him ‘more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terrorist attack.’ … The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the ‘intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,’ recalls Ladka.
He’s going to be all like “I know the debate is over but let me say…”