I would say, though, that on a few occasions, Romney used his turn to question Obama, thus ceding some time. But on the other hand, Obama interrupted Romney repeatedly. Not that Romney didn't interrupt. It seemed as though there was a continual insertion of factual disagreements. That's what they were doing and once it got started it was hard for either one stop, because it would give the other guy an advantage... except to the extent there are voters out there who recognize and credit politeness.
I wonder what would have happened, during the part of the debate about Benghazi, if Candy Crowley had not intervened. What if she'd kept her mouth shut and let the 2 men work it out amongst themselves? Here's the segment of the transcript in question (boldface added):
OBAMA: The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime....
Checking afterwards, we learned that Obama never came out and said "this was an act of terror," though he did at one point say "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation," so there's a factual assertion here that's going to come into question, and it's subtle enough that Obama can think he'll get away with saying that, but Romney feels sure Obama is making a misstatement.
ROMNEY: Yes, I — I...Did he really not hear her, or did he want even more support from her? Whatever... she seems to have felt impelled to throw a little help to Romney, to appear more even-handed:
CROWLEY: ... quickly to this please.
ROMNEY: I — I think interesting the president just said something which — which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.
OBAMA: That's what I said.
ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?
OBAMA: Please proceed governor.
ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror...
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.Obama calls out to Candy for a ruling on what the facts are! She should have taken that as a cue to keep quiet and let the drama play out. It would have been a chance to see how the 2 men differ in their ability to resolve interpersonal conflict.
ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.
CROWLEY: It did.
ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the — your secretary —
OBAMA: Candy?
ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how —You're interrupting is what you're doing. He's all about breaking Romney's stride at this point, and Candy will help him.
OBAMA: Candy, I'm —
ROMNEY: — this was a spontaneous —All of these wonderful folks. Wow. Candy and Obama double-teamed Romney and shut him down. Crowley introduces the next questioner.
CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me —
OBAMA: I'm happy to have a longer conversation —
CROWLEY: I know you —
OBAMA: — about foreign policy.
CROWLEY: Absolutely. But I want to — I want to move you on and also —
OBAMA: OK. I'm happy to do that, too.
CROWLEY: — the transcripts and —
OBAMA: I just want to make sure that —
CROWLEY: — figure out what we —
OBAMA: — all of these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some of their questions answered.
পোস্টগুলি
৪০৪টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 404 এর 201 – থেকে 400 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»We'll know the real winner of the debate on Nov 6.
Yep, we sure will.
There it is, Inga, screw the 1st Amendment.
You've jumped the shark.
We have to watch what WE say so someone doesn't get killed.
So 300 million people have to shut up or...........
I found it rather suspicious both that Crowley convenienly happened to have the transcript (the complete transcript, mind you, not the official White House transcript) AND that Obama knew she had it.
Sofa King: I found that odd too.
In a similar vein, a few of the commenters last night (Pogo for one, I believe) mentioned that Obama was unusually articulate in this debate, compared to the last one and most of his unscripted performances. The commenters suspected that Obama had a copy of the debate questions ahead of time.
I try to avoid conspiracy thinking, but I've got to say, after watching Crowley's moderation last night, it wouldn't surprise me if Obama got to prepare with the actual questions.
And the Libya moment sure looked like a spring-loaded trap set up for Romney.
Seeing Red, to hell with the innocent Americans over there, right?
Inga wrote: What about the attack over a perceived insult to their prohpet at the Italian mission in Benghazi in 2006? Why would his be hard to believe its been done before.
Here's a description of what happened at the Italian Embassy:
The unrest began on Friday evening, when a crowd of about 1,000 protesters surrounded the consulate, Italian officials said.
Libyan police tried to hold them back by firing bullets and using teargas, he said.
'At least 10 demonstrators have been killed according to the police who sent me that toll,' said the first secretary of Italy's embassy Dominico Bellatoni.
According to police, the crowd splintered off from a larger, peaceful demonstration in downtown Benghazi and headed towards the consulate. link
Sounds like a different animal to me and no mention of RPGs. But you tell me the similarities. You're the one saying they're alike.
Someone who trades freedom for safety not only doesn't deserve either freedom or safety but they don't *get* either either.
It's what Obama did with his extra three minutes that contrasts so poorly with Romney (least of the Republicans you must always remember and closest to Democrats) goes like this in his new pipsqueak pleading trying to convince me teleprompterless voice
There
arrrrrre
alotofwomenouthere
who
use
PlannedParenthood
foralotofotherthingsbesidesbirthcontorol likebreastscreeningandotherthings
[a voice in the back of my head kicks, voters object to an abortion industry, and killing govt support for PP isn't the same thing as killing PP, unless you think PP is nothing without govt support.]
Romney looks directly at Obama and says, this is what you're doing and Obama objects, gets up and cannot even look at Romney as he returns to his straw version of Romney, he must look away at Candy or at supporters while describing Romney when Romney is right there to look at, and stand for his misdescription, but he walks away from the person he's talking about, misdescribing, leaving him standing right there. Without realizing, apparently, how totally schoolboy that looks. Short pants. He can't even look at him. He has not once stated his opponents position accurately and now it's so obvious with his opponent right there. He's ridiculous the next day to get right back to his straw creation, his entire reality is straw he insists INSISTS on details and then INSIST they don't exist when details are provided. They are, Obama is, insanely hellbent on insisting on his version of Romney's reality he says this, "Romney says he has a 5 point plan. Well it's a one point plan. Tax cut for his friends in the 1% and kick to the middle class"
This is coming through on mute. Check me where I'm wrong. I watch hands. He has lady hands. They bug me when he pokes. I'm certain his handlers told him not to poke, but he's Democrat and that baked into the genes, the urge to poke is irresistible so the hands are poking away but held back except for when they break through and AAAAAH THERE GOES MY GODDAMN EYE I wish you would stop doing that but you cannot. It's quite a psychological storm going on there and it's not pretty.
The President claimed it was the video for two weeks. Rice. Clinton did. They all did.
They want to abridge our first amendment rights because of it. To placate barbarians and terrorists.
And now the Jug Eared Jesus lies about it.
And his flying monkeys lie right along with him.
It's not Obama's problem Romney didn't notice.
Not even Crowley noticed. She just made that shit up last night because she's a liar like you.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/333937.php
I'll be blunt Inga: If the thugs win and get to blame even one act of terrorism on perceived insults and we oblige by somehow banning free expression--no matter how atrocious--they win. The succeed in imposing de facto an aaspect of Sharia law--all without ever taking a vote. That's why your position is reprehensible--because you basically agree with them and refuse to distinguish yourself from them.
The President has totally tanked in WI, squandering an 11 point lead. Stunning.
Link
Seems like only 4 years ago, they were telling us that his main qualification to be President was running a campaign.
It's pretty impressive how Obama with the abetment and general incompetance of Crowley managed to misdirect and muddy things by referring a hedged phrase near the end of a long statement ("acts of terror"). Of course the mildest form of discernment can pierce this flimsy construction. But what's more impressive is how some people are able to argue that all this mess is somehow Romney's at fault or failure? Good god, some of the rhetorical acrobatics I've read here are bananas.
I said people should realize we are still at war and their STUPID speech could get someone killed.
If STUPID speech is the problem, you should cease and desist.
"To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence
To those on the ground, the circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to the group. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound.
The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.
At a news conference the day after the ambassador and three other Americans were killed, a spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as the proper response to such an insult to Islam. “We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the prophet,” the spokesman said. “The response has to be firm.” Other Benghazi militia leaders who know the group say its leaders and ideology are all homegrown."
No, Inga, to Hell with the 1st Amendment.
The world is an ugly place, Inga. I can't believe you haven't learned that yet.
1 of the reasons people want us dead is because of the 1st Amendment.
They're gonna kill us no matter what the excuse is.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
God Bless George McGovern. Great American.
"The Future must not belong to those that slander the prophet of Islam."
That is what is most important to people liike Obam and Cedarford and Inga.
Your first amendment rights mean nothing.
You must change what Americans do to kowtow to barbarians and terrorists.
It is as simple as that.
If you think that is the way to go, then bow down and vote for the Jug Eared Jesus.
Romney won. Romney will win. Benghazi will turn out to be Obama's Watergate.
Even at that, I wish with all my heart it had never happened.
I have learned some ugly things about what the media and partisans are willing to excuse for the sake of getting Obama elected.
Of course, maybe Obama had a visit from Dr. Feelgood before the debate. That would explain his vim, vigor and fast talk.
I'm amazed that Romney does so well on hot chocolate.
Me, I drink a lot of Twinings Earl Grey.
WELL, YEAH, BUT WHO LISTENS TO JAY CARNEY? Jay Carney on 9/20: The White House “hadn’t” called Benghazi a “terrorist attack.”
Not even Crowley noticed. She just made that shit up last night because she's a liar like you:
In a sane world, linked sources, with the official transcript, in easy to read black and white text would be enough to settle it. Wingers live int heir world though.
Keep on choking that chicken I guess.
Good god, some of the rhetorical acrobatics I've read here are bananas.
Isn't this Althouse's school of rhetorical acrobatics? I'm not a "team player" myself--just a curious onlooker and unaffiliated participant.
Twinings Earl Grey
My favorite hot tea.
You've now reiterated in this thread what ST and the others continually pointed out in the other threads, Inga.
Context, comprehension & nuance, GM.
with the official transcript
I looked up the official transcript. He didn't say it was a planned terroist attack. In Kentucky you can be charged with "terroristic threatening" if you wave a gun around or make otherwise threatening gestures and remarks. Is that the type "terrorism" you're talking about.
In a seine world, people would be honest and objective instead of partisan liars like you.
Oh the angst that Mitt was not allowed to run the debate like a board meeting that he chairs. This is how he bulldozed Leher, going over his time and ignoring Leher as though he were a reporter at a Newt Gingrich rally. But still, it would have been ridiculous to blame Leher for the poor showing Obama had. And it is ridiculous now, to see you all wailing and gnashing teeth, blaming Crowley.
But Romney was ersatz from the get go. His tactic of pretending to be something he is not on economics, which "worked" in the first debate, had run dry by last night. And he looked craven and uninformed on the Libya issue because he is craven and uninformed on the Libya issue.
As he is on so many things.
I looked up the official transcript. He didn't say it was a planned terroist attack.
See Romney was RIGHT! Obama didn't say the attacks were terror related for 14 days!
Wheeeeeeee!!!!
@ edutcher "Col David Hunt has some revelations on Libya to turn your stomach in terms of what the Administration knew and when.
I quote from Sarah Hoyt's post on Insta, What happened in Benghazi is, was an operational leadership failure on an entire government chain of command that did not act and had six hours to do so and did nothing.
They heard the whole 6 hour firefight."
That is truly horrifying. Worse than I thought. They all sat and listened to that for six hours and did nothing to help. Well, some of them listened to it. The President went to bed.
The odious Axelrod, in an interview with Chris Wallace, was asked whether Obama had a national security briefing in the morning, before jetting off to Vegas to party. He tap danced around the question and never did answer it. Which means no. I think the guy - Obama not Axelrod- is a cold hearted son of a bitch. Just bumps in the road to his re-election.
It seems like the left thinks it is a good idea to discus Libya ad infinitum.
Good luck with that.
Just to feed the fire, when will it all be explained that the President was trying to show everyone how important it is to "get back to normal" when he went to bed after learning that the Ambassador had been killed, and then woke up and went to party in Vegas?
Soon I hope. People are starting to wonder...
Jesus, did the CNN Poll really show that voters trust Romney more on health care?
Wow.
Inga: I am said before that you appear to be poorly educated and not widely read. The more you go on with your sophomoric counter attack on free speech the more it becomes clear that you do not understand the concept or if you do you think it should be reigned in . It has stood as a bulwark against stupidity and tyranny for over two hundred years and you appear to be willing to curtail it for the special purpose of protecting innocents abroad from the moronic violence of primitives. A lot of people died to put it in place. It would be a shame to dilute it so that barbarians won't be annoyed. And on that note I will leave you to ponder the concept further.
@harrogate: You must be elated!
"It's not Obama's problem Romney didn't notice."
Obama's own ambassador didn't notice. Heck, it was so subtle that even Obama himself wasn't quite sure what he'd said until weeks later.
I bet if we go back and listen super-closely to all of Obama's speeches we'll find the secret to perpetual motion, the truth about JFK, and the cure for cancer all hidden in plain sight. He's a master orator, you know.
It was my anniversary last night, so I didn't see much.
I think I had more fun than everyone here.
Inga I Have Said, not I am said
Garage: ROSE GARDEN:
Uh, yeah, already busted that one. You should thank me for providing you the link.
Next day:
But you said "twice the next day"
...no act of terror
As generic as the first utterance.
Three strikes -- you're out.
I think I had more fun than everyone here.
Maybe you did have more fun than me, but the Tigers did beat the Yankees, so I had fun too.
It's bad enough the administration can't get its story straight, but when the trolls don't even get the memo...
I guess Oop goes back to fetching coffee at the White House.
Don't think I didn't enjoy that too, Callahan.
FBI Foils Plot to Blow Up New York Fed
Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis , 21, was arrested this morning in downtown Manhattan after he allegedly attempted to detonate what he believed to be a 1,000-pound bomb at the New York Federal Reserve Bank on Liberty Street in lower Manhattan's financial district.
Thanks for keeping us safe, Mr. President.
From Fox News
The simplest explanation is that the attack by al Qaeda didn't fit the campaign narrative and coming alongside the Cairo events and with an expectation by Axelrod, et al counting on the MSM to not look too hard, the "video excuse" would work until after the election. I mean Susan Rice had a specific reason for saying what she said in a well planned series of interviews. Who is her boss?
If Obama said and believed that the Benghazi attack was a planned attack on our embassy and our ambassador it looks even worse for him. If it was intended to be a Wag the Dog moment and he blew it it's twice as bad. There is no good outcome here for Obama. He proved conclusively his utter incompetence and failure to lead on every level, and continues to make it worse.
But you said "twice the next day"
You're right, Obama said the words "act of terror" on consecutive days, not in the same day.
What did the gamer who died tweet?
CTmom, Hunt was on O'Really last night, as well. I'm sure there's video on Fox.
wyo sis said...
Romney won. Romney will win. Benghazi will turn out to be Obama's Watergate.
More like Waterloo, but i like the thought.
Imagine what we'd be talking about if Hulk hadn't stepped in when Zero was cornered.
Has any MSM commentator -- or anyone here at Althouse -- over the last two weeks in any way alluded to that obscure phrase in Obama’s Libya statement as a way of rebutting claims of his administration’s denial of it being a terrorist act? I could have missed it, but it doesn’t ring a bell.
If not, it sure does seem like something Candy and the Obama team worked on together for the debate.
LOLOLOL she had to go to Faux News?
Quite amusing.
Inga wrote: Fuck the damn "protest", they are saying the ATTACK was in retaliation for the video. What do you not understand?!
The only named source said no such thing. All we know is that a stringer for the NYT claims a bunch of unnamed people said it was about the video. Say, Obamadupe, I had a ghost over for dinner last night. If you don't believe me I'll show you his plate.
More importantly, the issue is that Obama's consorts said over and over that the attack was "spontaneous," not planned. Clearly false.
You just don't get it do you? The Administration was trying to cover up the fact that it was a preplanned attack by a terrorist organization. Who the hell cares what the NYT claims the terrorists' motive was?
(Although I should add that you have to be a complete simpleton to believe that these people think the US government is responsible for the video and retaliates accordingly. What is that? Let's see, the liberal "soft bias of low expectations.")
More from the NYTs regarding Benghazi
The New York Times would have us believe that everywhere in the middle east the mob demonstrations against the movie trailer were spontaneous and consisted of the normal screaming and flag burning except in the special circumstance of Benghazi where the spontaneous mob waited until late in the evening and spontaneously attacked, on 9-11, using sophisticated weapons and tactics. I see. Because of the snuff film
@Inga: I wonder what they're telling the parents of the people who died these days: was the video guy's fault or it was lax security?
wyo sis said:
I have learned some ugly things about what the media and partisans are willing to excuse for the sake of getting Obama elected.
You are so right. The attack at Benghazi and loss of American lives was horrible. And in the month since, there has been little assurance to the American people that our leaders are serious about the security of US interests in the ME. Instead, there have been lies, obfuscation, weasel-wording, "videos", etc.
And most of the press couldn't act less serious if they tried.
If you want to protect US lives in the ME, then provide the level of security required. It has a much better chance of success than tip-toeing around perceived terrorist sensibilites.
What did he say on The View when asked if it was terrorism, Garage? Inga?
What did he say in front of the United Nations Garage, Inga?
What did he say about terrorism on David Letterman, Inga? Garage?
Jesus. What does it feel like to have your brain completely washed? And stupid to boot? Confusing I would think
Inga - you're so full of shit. Are you with us or the terrorists?
Only liberals care about what the terrorists' motivation is.
This campaign needs another Big Bird ad to really show us that it's serious.
let me second Patrick's comment on George McGovern. I didnt agree with his politics, but if I recall correctly he flew B25s in Germany against the axis. He was an American Hero in WWII. Irrespecive of his politics, he deserves approbation of his heroism. Although it is a bit premature, condolences to his family and may his end come peacefully
Michael
Maybe Romney will take a different line of attack in the next debate.
But his "gotcha moment" last night remains an epic fail.
Much less the scoping out the night before the spontaneous protests.
LOLOL
Didn't the gamer tweet they were being scoped out the night before?
I'm heartened and cheered that polling trends show that people in swing states aren't falling for O'Bama's malarkey.
As for Candy Crowley: she went from being a fly on the wall to being a fly in the anointment.
I said people should realize we are still at war and their STUPID speech could get someone killed.
Anybody want to bet that Three Faces of Allie went batshit when Ari Fleischer said that people need to watch what they say?
So Inga & Garage want us to believe a lot of people who own cars in the ME drive around with RPGs & the necessary equipment in their cars just because?
We're wayyyy behind on this, we need to play catch-up - oh, wait, those are bad things here, only uncivilized people do that.
Do we want cheese to go with the pretzels on this site?
They probably should tell the truth, which in my opinion is BOTH, lack of security and retaliation by a local terrorist group for the video.
Neither one brings back their loved ones.
So why did she have the transcript in front of her, GM?
Whatta coincidence, don'tcha think?
And Barry suggesting check the transcript?
If you're scoping out the places beforehand & your safehouse was compromised, do you think that stuff happes while a spontaneous protest is going on?
Or did they just get lucky?
My question for the Obama administration regarding Benghazi is as follows.
Security for the American consulate was contracted out to a Welsh company who, in turn, hired local Libyans to provide security. As a result, four Americans are dead including the first American ambassador to be assassinated since the 1970s.
So, President Obama, why did you outsource American security and now that Americans have died as a result, do you regret it?
Allie/Inga--I disagree with your assessment on the role of the video. I looks to me like AQ forces staged a very well organized assault on the American Consulate--nothing spontaneous about it. If you think the video was the sparkpoint, so be it. I think you are wrong.
The "local" terrorist group which happens to be in 21 countries?
@ Inga You edited some contradictory stuff out of your "quote" at 3:37 without noting that. In some circles they call that "dishonest."
Here, we call it "typically dishonest."
OBAMA: Get the transcript.
That is kind of crazy.
Patrick said...
This campaign needs another Big Bird ad to really show us that it's serious.
Romney killed on energy policy--the number one reason why the economy is faultering. Did you notice that he blamed Obama holding up the fracking in ND because of the fate of 20-25 birds? It's Romney's personal war on birds.
@Seeing Red:
Yep. Two counts of conspiracy because (a) out of all the docs she could have had, she had that one and (b) POTUS knew she had it.
Roger, did you read the linked articles?
First dogs now birds. Romney is hell on wildlife. ;)
I think the only thing you can do if you object to Crowley's speech, and you should do it now as they are making relatively final media decisions, is to contribute to the Romney campaign to make for 'more speech.'
In a seine world, people would be honest and objective instead of partisan liars like you.
In a Seine world, people would be honest and objective, instead of Parisian liars like you.
Fixed it for you?
Two counts of conspiracy because (a) out of all the docs she could have had, she had that one and (b) POTUS knew she had it.
LOL. I wish you could see how foolish you guys are looking. This election is going to send you over the edge. And you'll probably talk yourself right out of a win.
And that spontaneous protest had enough materiel to lay siege for 6 hours.
Why can't we pack like that?
HEY, MAMMOUD! I'm running out of RPGs here, can you go to your basement and get a few more?
It's for the children!
Much less the scoping out the night before the spontaneous protests...
Nothing says "spontaneous" like pre-sighted, crew-served mortars.
Thanks for tracking this so thoroughly, Ann. Here's my take: Univision's Jorge Ramos would have made a better moderator. And I doubt H.L. Mencken would have appreciated the idea of a journalist intervening to defend a president. http://wp.me/p1XBRa-zN
What furious said.
Inga "They probably should tell the truth, which in my opinion is BOTH, lack of security and retaliation by a local terrorist group for the video.
Neither one brings back their loved ones."
Does it make any difference at all to you that the fault and the coverup are causing the people who failed to protect the people who were killed to be held unaccountable and to be presented as people we should continue to trust?
Garage: Maybe. It won't be an epic fail when he notes that Obama outsourced security at the Consulate to a company based in Wales, UK. That should be a good one don't you think? Outsourcing? Libya? Choice move, right? Saved up for the next debate. Hide and watch. And you should send Candy a Christmas card with something to eat attached, candy, to thank her for saving the liar's ass.
Yeah, Roger, it is sad to see that generation pass. To the extent that McGovern needed any redemption for his politics (very little indeed, in my opinion), he earned it by noting publicly the difficulty he had with bureaucracies while trying to open a B & B. He flew B-24's, by the way, a very dangerous plane.
Godspeed.
This is descending into farce and nothing will change either side's mind.
Inga--I have read all the documents associated with the AQ attack on the embassy. As an ex military guy I am capable of recognizing a well conducted raid by opposing forces. I am saddened by the result, because of the lack of countermeasures that should have been in place that resulted in the death of 4 Americans.
But to you question: I have read the various descriptions, including the testimony of those before the house committe.
I can assure you I have read and disgested the various statements and documents.
Now you can reach other conclusions as is your right. Please do not condemn me for reaching other conclusions.
"The critics insist the Obama administration outright lied. One minute, administration officials were claiming that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was motivated by that anti-Islam video circulating on YouTube. The same video, that is, that sparked rioting and/or protests in Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon and Pakistan. President Obama even referred indirectly to the video in his statement on Sept. 12, when he acknowledged the death of the U.S. ambassador and three other embassy staffers. Obama said that, no matter what the basis is for the anger and outrage, it doesn’t justify these killings.
But no, the video couldn’t be the reason, the critics said. So they demanded the truth. Mitt Romney joined the chorus.
Several days after the attack, the Obama administration still insisted that the intelligence on the ground pointed to the video as the motivation. But as the criticism continued, officials reluctantly acknowledged that, in fact, a terrorist attack had occurred. The problem is, critics saw it as an either-or proposition. It couldn’t possibly be both a terrorist attack and an attack inspired by the anti-Islam video.
So when the terrorism acknowledgement finally came from the State Department, that opened the administration up to even more criticism that it was deliberately obfuscating to avoid criticism. Those liars, look at how they change their story like slithery chameleons.
The problem was that, in the aftermath of the attacks, pretty much all State Department and CIA assets had to be removed from Benghazi. The congressional investigation — the one designed to expose the administration’s lies and get to the truth — wound up blowing the CIA’s cover in Benghazi. Good job, guys.
So The New York Times sent some of its staffers and stringers to double check what, exactly, were the motivations of the attackers. According to them, it was the video that prompted their outrage. The story today is the same as it was in the days after the Sept. 11 attack: The video prompted it. Terrorist or not, the group that launched the attack wasn’t affiliated with al-Qaeda.
Oh, but that’s the liberal New York Times, the critics will splutter with indignation and outrage.
The Times report also happens to conform with what people on the streets of Benghazi told Reuters reporter Hadeel al-Shalchi on Sept. 12. But I guess she’s a liar, too.
All lies, I guess, unless and until Fox News reports it."
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2012/10/what-do-the-libyan-attackers-say-about-their-motivations.html
--------------------------------
How ironic, Fox news DID report it, see my link above.
Synova said...
Someone who trades freedom for safety not only doesn't deserve either freedom or safety but they don't *get* either either.
===============
A stupid cliche spouted by Benjamin Frankin in 1759 - before he was in an actual war and saw the wisdom of lots of things not apparant to him in peacetime 1759. He and most Revolutionaries thought their lives were on the line.
So:
Ben Franklin organized the burning of pro-British American's printing presses.
As head of the Committee on Secret Correspondence - set up opening all mail passing through the Colonies the Revolution controlled, infiltrated eavesdroppers.
Advocated the arrest and imprisonment without trial of sedetious Americans like his son.
Later, we went past this when we decided winning war was so important we had to Draft people against their will, take away most their Sacred Freedoms and send them into harms way to suffer and die for the collective good.
If we can do that in wartime to millions of men to suspend many of their Precious Constitutional Rights and Freedom!! to live Free! and avoid service if they don't feel it is convenient? Or they are vexed and scared their precious asses are now owned by the military for the duration? Seems to me we can also occasionally request certain people giving aid and comfort to the enemy to shut their fucking mouths.
God Bless George McGovern. Great American.
Amen. 35 missions over occuppied Europe in his B-24, DFC and an Air Medal with three oak-leaf clusters.
Entered politics after the war.
What everyone should know about the Benghazi attacks
"In a Seine world, people would be honest and objective, instead of Parisian liars like you."
In a seine world fish would be caught up by a net that hangs in the water, instead of Picayune liars like you.
FIFY again.
So The New York Times sent some of its staffers and stringers to double check what, exactly, were the motivations of the attackers.
So they said their motivation was the video after the President claimed it was the video?
That's not really that convincing, Inga.
Also, it's interesting to note the NYT can ID the attackers quickly and locate them.
in interviews during the battle
Am I supposed to take this seriously?
furious, and others--we should really praise Mr McGovern's heroism. Thank you for your comment--when politics interfere with acknowledging a good man, we have crosed the divide. It is possible to disagree with one's politics, but it is essential to acknoledge the individual. I salute Mr Govern's heroism. God grant him peace.
Waitaminute... the NYT identified and located the actual attackers?
WTF?
@Inga The NYT article you cite at 4:04 is an even worse example of makeweight, illogical argument to help Obama out.
I have little doubt that the editors at the NYT know the difference between an oblique reference to "an act of terror" and a direct reference to the Benghazi incident as "a terrorist attack," particularly because Carney declined on 9/14 to characterize it as a terrorist attack when asked directly.
From the WaPo Fact Checker today:
... By our count, it took eight days for an administration official to concede that the deaths in Libya were the result of a “terrorist attack.”
Roger, you know I would never condem you.
The fact that the ambassador's diary was found by a news reporter days after the attack demonstrates the casual nature of the security around the compound. This is not normal. Something is rotten, and it stinks.
Indeed. Rest in peace, Senator McGovern.
I could imagine him running for office today.
McGovern. Like McLovin'
Michael
I hope Romney talks about Libya as much as possible in the next debate. It's not his element at all.
The average viewer will probably ask themselves why Romney is again attacking Obama over terrorist attacks after getting his ass handed to him on the subject the last time.
WTF!
They should tell Obama so he can bring them to "justice" like he promised he would do. Whoever the heck it is who is supposed to be investigating this should lose their job if the identities of the attackers are so easily known.
Thank you Inga--and I know you wouldnt--sorry my words werent better chosen--we are both americans and we can disagree. Peace, my lady.
Sofa King--I agree, how did Obama know that she had the transcript? And the word "terror" did not appear in the first paragraph of the transcript, so how did she find it so quick?
Sofa King--I agree, how did Obama know that she had the transcript? And the word "terror" did not appear in the first paragraph of the transcript, so how did she find it so quick?
"Does it make any difference at all to you that the fault and the coverup are causing the people who failed to protect the people who were killed to be held unaccountable and to be presented as people we should continue to trust?"
The people who failed spectacularly to protect our ambassador are being let off the hook and are allowed to keep asking for our vote without any accountability.
There that's better.
@Inga Re your 4:34 post: Think Progress? Oh, please.
I agree with Synova. We will soon know if the NYT reports are reliable. The Prez has promised to hunt the attackers down and prosecute them. The NYT stringer can just identify them.
Or if they are locals, surely the FBI can find them, perhaps through prints or DNA from the scene. Oh, wait. The Administration folks forgot to secure the scene. Unbelievable!
Hombre, I could say oh please to the Fox link, but I linked it didn't I? Did you say oh please to the Fox link?
chickelit said...
I'll be blunt Inga: If the thugs win and get to blame even one act of terrorism on perceived insults and we oblige by somehow banning free expression--no matter how atrocious--they win.
======================
I'm pretty sick of both the liberals and progressive Jews on one side declaring the enemy wins! the enemy has won! if we do something like fail to Mirandize Al Qaeda.
Or Right Wing nuts pracing about claiming Hitler won! because we Drafted people and took away their precious freedoms to fight him and had a war board in Hollywood to muzzle racist stuff the censors knew the Japanese could turn against us and cost lives - so the Japanese win! they win!
We go to war not magically blessed by the special love of Jesus or likely to prevail because we Venerate our Sacred Parchment.
We win by having better force and tactics and logistics and the will to make the enemy suffer. And by control of our civilian population to say and do things that assists and does not undermine the effort to prevail.
We don't fight and prevail because the Constitution is some Ark of the Covenent that we carry with us into battle and vanquish the enemy with golden rays of Goodness from the Holy Founders themselves or the ACLU advisor telling troops what is Constitutionally blessed.
In Michelle Obama's mind, this election isn't about "we the people", it's about king and queen Obama. Using our money to party.
We are going to party hard."
Cedarford preached: We don't fight and prevail because the Constitution is some Ark of the Covenent that we carry with us into battle and vanquish the enemy with golden rays of Goodness from the Holy Founders themselves or the ACLU advisor telling troops what is Constitutionally blessed.
Wow. Just Wow. Maybe you're also for changing the very words of the Oath of Office, getting rid of those inconvenient references to the "Sacred Parchment"?
Your constant reference to "Progresso Stews" makes me hungry.
"From the WaPo Fact Checker today:
... By our count, it took eight days for an administration official to concede that the deaths in Libya were the result of a “terrorist attack.”
An inconvenient fact, which of course means it will be disregarded.
As long as there's a video to blame, that's where the morons will hang their hats.
It would be a great day in America if the Inga's of the world were as tolerant of constitutional supporting Americans as they are of the sensitivities of overseas Muslims.
Tim, you want to know how tolerant I am of Islamists? I would send a squadron of drones to pay a visit upon their heads, that's how tolerant. It's not tolerance that has driven me to argue this for weeks now, that is incredibly disingenuous. I AM sensitive about the lives of Americans and Christian Coptics in the ME who are directly affected by stupid speech.
How prescient.
Crowley had a transcript of the the Rose Garden address to refer to on her desk...y'know...just in case.
..and whaddya know Obama asks her to
refer to it in the midst of the Libya question.
How did he know she had it?
H/T commenter DocMartyn at Harry's Place
Even Reuters knows what this is really all about:
In the months before the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies warned the White House and State Department repeatedly that the region was becoming an increasingly dangerous vortex for jihadist groups loosely linked or sympathetic to al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.
Despite those warnings, and bold public displays by Islamist militants around Benghazi, embassies in the region were advised to project a sense of calm and normalcy in the run-up to the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States.
“project a sense of calm and normalcy”
Appalling.
Garage. No, Romney will just inquire why the security of our consulate, American soil, was outsourced to a firm in Wales. Meanwhile Marines guarded our Embassy in Barbados.
Why, Garage? Why would our government outsource the vital function of security?
I think people will be interested in the answer.
Inga will do what the Islamists tell her to do by way of their barbarism. For now its "shut up". Later when they say they are slaughtering children because Westerners are wearing short skirts she will argue for the long skirt. She is already in favor of not drawing anything that would annoy the barbarians.
@ Inga: The congressional investigation — the one designed to expose the administration’s lies and get to the truth — wound up blowing the CIA’s cover in Benghazi. Good job, guys.
Except the Committee got into the CIA presence on October 13 and the NYT ran a story on September 23 blowing their cover.
Among the more than two dozen American personnel evacuated from the city after the assault on the American mission and a nearby annex were about a dozen C.I.A. operatives and contractors, who played a crucial role in conducting surveillance and collecting information on an array of armed militant groups in and around the city. NYT, 9/23/2012
You really are an Obamadupe aren't you?
@Inga: September does come before October, doesn't it?
"I would send a squadron of drones to pay a visit upon their heads, that's how tolerant."
Drones.
That's cheap and easy.
One point you fail to get is not conceding American values to avoid offending enemies.
The larger point is, the president and his sycophants are lying about the import of the video as as an excuse for their failure to provide American personnel predictably necessary security.
You may relish your defense of those who would lie about such things; your conscience is your own, so own it.
Michael wants to forget we are still fighting a WAR, how convenient for him. It's so easy to forget the fact that Americans are at the mercy of big mouths here in this country.
The thing everyone is forgetting is that the voter asked a great question: Who refused the request for added security?
Obama never addressed it at all. Romney never should of let him get away with that. And, wasn't that exactly what Crowley said she was going to prevent - asking about oranges and getting apples?
Her need to bail out the poor little underdog child got in the way.
"It's so easy to forget the fact that Americans are at the mercy of big mouths here in this country."
No.
Do not be stupid.
They are at risk because of our enemies, who will kill them as they can, when they can.
Inga. War? Says,who? Obama? You are out of your fucking mind.
Leon Panetta said the attack was planned by terrorists which would mean it wasn't a spontaneous response to a movie. And the fact that it took place on 9/11 means it was planned to coincide with 9/11 and must have been planned earlier.
Does Inga not know the storyline now? I can see the confusion as Inga seems to still be sticking ot the spontaneous theory that the administration has moved from.
The nice thing is the 3rd debate will be 100% foreign policy, so Romney can really nail Obama to the wall on:
Libya
Fast & Furious
Loose lips sink ships, what does this mean and when was it used? Was it an assault on free speech?
Really futile arguing this with ideologues.
jr565 said...
"Leon Panetta said the attack was planned by terrorists which would mean it wasn't a spontaneous response to a movie. And the fact that it took place on 9/11 means it was planned to coincide with 9/11 and must have been planned earlier.
Does Inga not know the storyline now? I can see the confusion as Inga seems to still be sticking ot the spontaneous theory that the administration has moved from."
Defending Obama matters more to Inga than the truth; not offending the sensitivities of Muslims matters more to Inga than the truth; attacking Romney for pointing out Obama's dereliction of duty is more important to Inga than the truth.
She is religiously committed to this; the truth matters not.
"Loose lips sink ships, what does this mean and when was it used? Was it an assault on free speech?"
There is no comparison to that and this.
None at all.
Anyone drawing such a comparison is either historically illiterate, a fool, or both.
Michael you truly are a selfish bastard. We have troops in the region that are in a shooting war, or did you forget about that inconvenient war? We are still battling terrorism in the region as well as here.
Blind ideology.
Inga wrote: Michael wants to forget we are still fighting a WAR, how convenient for him. It's so easy to forget the fact that Americans are at the mercy of big mouths here in this country.
Well let's just muzzle those muthas. Right, Inga? Screw the First Amendment (and the rest of that document. What's it called again?).
You are so out of your depth, Inga. It's not just this blog. It's the subject matter.
Inga said...
Loose lips sink ships, what does this mean and when was it used? Was it an assault on free speech?
We discussed that already back here.
Inga. Libya is not in the region of our war in Afghanistan. FYI.
Libya is not a war, it is a kinetic military action.
Withyouanon,
You made me watch The View! Ugh. That article you linked is wrong. She did not say she had the transcript in front of her. She said she remembered it.
Washington Post:
From the guy who asked the question Obama never addressed:
“After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately,” says the 61-year-old Ladka,... According to Ladka, Obama gave him ”more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terorist 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.
So Obama himself says you guys are all wrong, and that he did, in fact, delay calling it a terrorist attack. Of course, Obama is not a reliable source like you guys or the NYT, but he knows stuff about the Obama mind I think.
Inga wrote:
Michael wants to forget we are still fighting a WAR, how convenient for him. It's so easy to forget the fact that Americans are at the mercy of big mouths here in this country.
If we're fighting a war, wont' the fact that we are fighting a war put us at the mercy of their reprisals for our acts of war? i.e. Should we then not fiht that war, since that would put Americans at the mercy of our actions in this country or abroad?
You wrote earlier:
I would send a squadron of drones to pay a visit upon their heads, that's how tolerant. It's not tolerance that has driven me to argue this for weeks now, that is incredibly disingenuous. I AM sensitive about the lives of Americans and Christian Coptics in the ME who are directly affected by stupid speech.
Do you really think that somehow stupid speech would galvanize those at war with us to do things that might harm Americans, but SENDING SQUADRONS OF DRONES TO PAY A VISIT ON THEIR HEADS wouldn't? Should we therefore not send that squadron of drones? You seem to totally discount the fact that your response would endanger American lives more so than any video would. As would any action that we took in a war with those we are fighting.
bagoh20 wrote
“After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately,” says the 61-year-old Ladka,... According to Ladka, Obama gave him ”more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terorist 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.
So Obama himself says you guys are all wrong, and that he did, in fact, delay calling it a terrorist attack. Of course, Obama is not a reliable source like you guys or the NYT, but he knows stuff about the Obama mind I think.
Wow, nice catch. So what do you say Inga, is Obama himself lying about his response?
" is Obama himself lying about his response?"
Now THAT I could believe. He's either a liar or he's a liar, but I don't claim to know which.
Stop making the President look so weak with your talk!
Loose Lips Sink Ships
Inga wrote:
Seeing Red, to hell with the innocent Americans over there, right?
What's the correlation? I mean really, do you think that absent this video innocent Americans over there had nothing to worry about?It was a utopia with eveyrone teaching the world to sing and buying each other Cokes?
If it wasn't this then it would be another thing. Maybe the drone strikes you wanted to rain down on their heads. Maybe those innocent Americans should be in fear for their lives because you are advocating bombing potential innocents. Or maybe they should be in fear for their lives because the Jews havent yet been driven into the sea? Or because they are Christian missionaries prostelytizing in a muslim countyr. or because a danish cartoonist made a cartoon with Allah wearing a turban with a bomb in it.Or maybe it was a beauty pageant where one of the contestants said something unbecoming of the prophet, and because of that innocent americans in the regino must suffer.
Really now, if all of those things are setting off people to MURDER Americans, maybe the problem is not those things but the reaciton to those things from people who are incapable of controlling their reaction and who take the slightest offense as a call to riot and kill.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
" What we really need is a written debate. Each campaign gets to submit the same number of questions, which both sides must asnwer. They have a couple days to come up with their answers, which are then posted online at the same time. The can each then respond to the other's answers. No space limit. No limit to the number of times they can reply to each other's answers. They can provide links to sources to back up their arguments.
Since there is no time or space limit, we can even let 3rd party candidates ( or blogresses, if they like ) participate in the debate. ( although they would probably not get to submit questions for the other candidates. )
10/17/12 1:52 PM "
--- I *love* this idea.
Republicans simply have less to say. There are only so many different ways in which they can keep repeating the same old lies.
Libya is not a war, it is a kinetic military action.
Apparently Chickelit pines for the opportunity to spend as much blood and treasure and time on it as we did in Iraq.
Do you have an erotic obsession with war or something? You can't seem to get over the fact that we can accomplish a military-political aim while using much less.
It's not a good place to start for the party of alleged fiscal discipline.
"Republicans simply have less to say."
This probably true and it's definitely true of conservatives. So now do you want words or action? Obama's entire career consists of nothing but words. If that's what you want, he's your man.
See we can agree on stuff.
Ritmo. Read up thread regarding your intellectual cohort, Inga, and her views on war, free speech and other topics. You are in good company.
The idea that Obama used the phrase "act of terror" in addressing the attack in Libya as a way to deny that it was a terrorist attack is beyond lunacy. Also, who the fuck cares?
This is parsing of Clintonian proportions, and Mittens looked like a desperate fool because of it. Just move on. Real-time fact-checking will put all your tricks to shame, so get used to getting to an actual point for the American people to care about.
Or IOW, "Please proceed, Governor."
O Ritmo wrote;
Apparently Chickelit pines for the opportunity to spend as much blood and treasure and time on it as we did in Iraq.
Do you have an erotic obsession with war or something? You can't seem to get over the fact that we can accomplish a military-political aim while using much less.
Yeah like drone strikes. Which are pretty much war when you think about it. Those who are having bombs dropped on their heads, I'm sure are not making distinctions about kinetic actions and wars. And how is Libya somehow a success story? We deposed Qadafffi but didn't pay the slightest attention to what came next? At least George Bush laid the framework for a transition to something else and then stuck it out till we moved in that direction.
I love liberals, as if Libya and Afghanistan are not military actions so Ritmo doesn't have to question Obama about his war mongering since those are just republican traits.
So now do you want words or action?
I certainly don't want thoughtless, mindless action. Words are good for avoiding that.
Lol, Bag. IOW, read my 6:44 comment on how Mittens used words to avoid acting on any actual points.
He's a pro at that.
O Ritmo wrote:
I certainly don't want thoughtless, mindless action. Words are good for avoiding that.
Not really. Or at least not Obama's words. Considering shit is going to hell in Liby, in Syri, in Iran. Maybe they just aren't drinking the Obama Kool Aid and thus the words are like a tree falling in the forest.
jr's trying to convince me that the political outcome that Bush took painstaking preparations to devise in Iraq (but not being "greeted as liberators") dwarfed whatever political outcome and goodwill that followed in Libya.
You know. Because one attack occurred. So many more than the thousands of insurgent actions in Iraq.
In jr's mind, needing a humongous counter-insurgency must prove the goodwill of the populace.
Are these minds really that backwards?
Ritmo should think about the phrases, All Talk no action and He talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. (Not sure though if Obama even talks the talk).
Clearly words in and of themselves when not backed by action are not in fact really good for much at all. Except sounding nice.
Now where did that pixie go who was looking like an erotic vulture? link
Considering shit is going to hell in Liby, in Syri, in Iran.
Good. You can go there and take care of all three simultaneously and forever if need be. Or maybe just invent the Bush narrative and predict instant goodwill. Or spend trillions on three new American forever-states in the Mid-East. Six of one half dozen of the other. And doesn't cost the American people a penny. Endless war-rage and military impositions are soooo cheap.
Even Newt Gingrich knew this shit cost money. You'll end up ruing your shunning of him and of Ron Paul.
And Ritmo, you can read my 6:06 comment that quotes the WP article where Obama flat out admits that he lied in the debate, just seconds after he did it. No camera, so it's cool.
O Ritmo wrote:
In jr's mind, needing a humongous counter-insurgency must prove the goodwill of the populace.
Do you think Obama's drone strikes are proving the goodwill of the populace? DO you think Obama's kowtowing to political correctness in speaking kindly of Islam at the expense of our first amendment rights is in fact proving the goodwill of the populace? Why then the attacks on our embassies?
You're telling me whats bad about Bush's response, but you're not showing that OBama's response is remotely efficient. After all, when you look at all the Middle east hotspots right now they are all pretty much inflamed and Obama is incapable of doing anything except fiddling (or playing Golf) while it all burns.
Just because Obama's diplomacy is labeled "smart diplomacy" by him and his compadres doesn't make it so.
Do you think Obama's drone strikes are proving the goodwill of the populace?
I thinking that minimizing civilian casualties avoids greater ill will.
You have got to be the least informed and most confused yokel on these threads. Seriously, you will just bitch about anything Obama does using any ideological approach and argument you can find, and your writing/thoughts is/are just as meandering. It is pointless to respond to you with any thought. Still, that won't make me try to prevent your right to vote - so be grateful to Democrats for at least THAT.
Ok, Baggie. So he used language that the wonkers might call "deliberately vague" for the expressed purpose of being as factually accurate about the event, and not to change the narrative about why it happened. Which I thought was the entire point of the Althousian faux-trage last night.
And that's even assuming the article's true.
Seriously, isn't there a better point to come up with. I know that there's not much honesty on these threads, so I'll use the psychology that seems to substitute for it here and conclude that this obsession is just butt-hurt massaging over the fact that Chief Executive Outsourcer Mittens didn't do the bang-up job that you'd hoped he would.
Do you have an erotic obsession with war or something?
Here's Ritmoron bringing sex into the conversation again.
He's been this way ever since someone here told him to "go fuck himself" and he took it seriously.
So says a guy who removed the Spanish definite article from "hombre" because it could morph into "Elle" and tickled his own mental funny bone by inventing the moniker "Ritzy Brassiere" in addressing me.
But really, he THINKS he has a SERIOUS POINT to make! He really does!
He's a desperately serious guy, you could say.
"Ok, Baggie. So he used language that the wonkers might call "deliberately vague" for the expressed purpose of being factually precise about the language, not to change the narrative about why it happened. Which I thought was the entire point of the Althousian faux-trage last night."
Obama habitually uses deliberately vague language. Always has. That way he always has deniability when he insults someone in an outrageous manner and people who like him can project anything they like onto what he says.
But are you claiming he did so in his rose garden statement in order to be factually correct? Maybe not overstating his confidence level in his information?
Maybe.
But the rest of what you say doesn't follow at all.
The "narrative about why it happened" is the problem because the narrative he told was something he knew was a lie. The narrative his State Department told was a narrative he knew was a lie.
And last night he claimed that his narrative was consistent with what we *now* know that *he* knew at the time... and it wasn't.
O Ritmo wrote
Do you think Obama's drone strikes are proving the goodwill of the populace?
I thinking that minimizing civilian casualties avoids greater ill will.
Greater is a relative term. It's not as if drone strikes cause no ill will. Even Obama himself said back when Bush was using drone strikes that we have to stop air raiding villages and killing civilians. Meaning, he recognized that such a response was not in fact endearing us to those being bombed.
So what does he do? Escalate drone strikes all around the middle east.
I suppose I should say of his response, he really should do more than just air raid villages and killing civilians.
And I bet when he did say that you, Ritmo, were all like "Yes! We're emoldening terrrorists every time we kill civilians. Speak to to power Obama!" And then when Obama does even more drone strikes you're like "Ho hum. Man that Romney is a liar".
No Ritmo, you're the liar. You're full of shit all the way down to your shtick.
It's not as if drone strikes cause no ill will.
No one said they did, liar.
But I'm glad to see this invention of yours catalyzed many more meandering sentences about nothing. I mean, some poorly thought-out idea had to serve to prompt the others.
Obama habitually uses deliberately vague language. Always has. That way he always has deniability when he insults someone in an outrageous manner and people who like him can project anything they like onto what he says.
You know, Synova - since you're one of the few committed cons who at least tries to come across as a believer in good will, I'll humor you a bit here.
See, there is no such thing as absolute knowledge in the real, empirical world. The supernatural and theological worlds might be different. But most of us don't think it's a good idea to appoint/elect politicians based on those frameworks.
So, we make use of what I learned in a statistics class. There's a difference between accuracy and precision. Precision means you have a very close and well-defined field of results, accuracy means you actually know where the target is. Big difference.
Politicians should be allowed to be as vague as our empiric knowledge allows for. ANd those of us who live in the real, natural, empiric world understand that events, and the state of our knowledge about things, change. That's life.
I would expect a politician to be more vague about a matter of which less is known than about a matter of which more is known.
I take it you disagree, but I'm not going to be convinced to endorse your view on an empiric or rational basis, of course.
There is a difference between being vague about how Romney intends to make mathematical sense of his secret budget plan and Obama being slightly vague in describing matters of national security before the facts came in.
But keep insisting that we conduct our national security based on gut-feeling and truthy pre-facts. THat seemed to work political wonders last time.
Until it didn't.
That's the problem with ignoring reality and the demands of respecting it with accurate language. It catches up to you, and then you're caught going on about women having defender vaginas against rape sperm. Which sucks because it makes you look like a total asshat and leads to great abandonment at the polls.
Sucks.
O Ritmo wrote:
No one said they did, liar.
But I'm glad to see this invention of yours catalyzed many more meandering sentences about nothing. I mean, some poorly thought-out idea had to serve to prompt the others.
YEt you seem to be able to determine the amount of hate generated from boots on the ground versus having your family blown up by a drone strike. ANd ignore that Obama has in fact increased drone strikes (not to mention boots on the ground in Afghanistan).
Why are you so reluctant to view Obama's actions with anything close to criticism. THE SAME ACTIONS MIND YOU that would, I'm sure get you to scream out truth to power if it were done by a repub or specificall Bush.
Same thing with Obama. His shit doesn't stink. When Bush raisses the debt its unconscionable and unpatriotic even (yes he did make that argument). But when Obama then raises the debt to levels undreamed of by Bush it's "ho hum" from you.
Synova nails it.
Synova nails it.
You can criticize Obama. I'm not like one of those Republicans who will resent your right to speak freely. But agreeing with your criticisms takes persuasive logic and accurate facts. Most speech lacks that - at least most political speech does. I accept your right to criticize, I don't accept that they are the most meaningful criticisms. Some may have limited merit - (i.e. drone strikes aren't cost-free)... I certainly don't agree that some kind of typically greater Republican all-or-nothing warmongering is better, though.
Considering good will... I've been arguing all along that Obama made an ambiguous statement. Fine. It was appropriate.
But he can not *then* try to claim that he named the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack in that speech. He didn't do so.
And as his administration made less ambiguous statements in the days that followed the "narrative" was that it was an attack of opportunity, essentially a riot with bigger guns, brought on by a video and the take-away from that was that we ought to respect and not insult other people.
He and his administration continued with this "narrative" even so that it seemed they were discounting and countering statements by the president in Libya and some government fellow in Egypt that this was not about a video. Here we've finally got some strong statements against terrorism from Muslims and we're unable to capitalize on the opportunity because it conflicts with Obama's narrative.
Fine. Some people probably thought that was a good thing and we can disagree.
But Obama can NOT then make a bold statement that he identified the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack. He DIDN'T. And that was a blatant and utterly shameful lie to tell.
At least you're not trying to argue that, Oh yes, Obama really did identify it as a terrorist attack and not a riot over a movie, so you've got that going for you.
It's just that at the debate last night Obama made that claim.
Michael missed nailing the idea of how to post a comment.
O Ritmo wrote:
You can criticize Obama. I'm not like one of those Republicans who will resent your right to speak freely
YOU can criticize Obama. Especially for the things you criticized Bush for. But you don't. Nor do you criticize Obama for his many failings which are self evident to all but hyper partisans (of which I count you as one)Obama's economic record for example is so bad, that it's almost laugable when he brings up how the repubs are for the rich and that he champions the poor. You certainly wouldn't know it if you looked at the outcome of his policies, that's for sure.
At least you're not trying to argue that, Oh yes, Obama really did identify it as a terrorist attack and not a riot over a movie, so you've got that going for you.
It seemed like it to me. Bag says the wonks (and Obama's audience) disagree. Big deal. I couldn't care less. But then, I have other frames of reference for conflict in a global economy than 1979 Iran. Others, perhaps not so much.
ANyway, who cares about your false dichotomy in the last sentence. An attack could have been both terrorist and in response to an "offensive" event. Or maybe feigned as such by al Qaeda. All of this matters little to me when I can see that we spend very little in Libya to aid the ousting of a dictator while incurring far less resentment locally for doing so. Republican, OTOH, care about swinging their big imperial dick around the world and having complete control or no control over every little event there. It's as if no such thing as degrees of influence or moderation in how coercive we are exist to them. They are black-and-white thinkers and that is why they can never really successfully handle one complicated problem, let alone a number of them at the same time.
YMMV.
O Ritmo wrote;
Some may have limited merit - (i.e. drone strikes aren't cost-free)... I certainly don't agree that some kind of typically greater Republican all-or-nothing warmongering is better, though.
We can argue all night about the merits of on policy over another when it comes to military actions. You could say that putting feet on the ground was overkill in Iraq. I'll note that Obama put more feet on the ground in Afghanistan. And I'll note us not putting our feet on the ground in Libya didn't exactly produce a democracy nor did it prevent our ambassador from being murdered. So the idea that all or nothing warmongering is somehow a republican thing is suspect, but also there is no evidence that a limited engagement with little to no feet on the ground is remotely effective.
If you look at the various conflicts we are in in the middle east thoe ones where we have feet on the ground have produced the best results, but also at the greater cost.
Libya right now is a powder keg about to explode yet again, and thiere is no evidence of an arab spring that will take place. So it's kind of silly for Obama to put those eggs in his basket considering he had no real way of knowing who would succeed Qadaffi, and becaues he didn't invest the manpower that Bush did to get Iraq stable and moving towards democracty, he can't exactly take credit for where it might go. He certianly can take credit for its failure though.
Not doing enough can be as big a problem as doing too much.
Synova is such the better thinker and writer,Ritmo. You can banter and snipe but you cant think and you cant write.
O Ritmo wrote:
All of this matters little to me when I can see that we spend very little in Libya to aid the ousting of a dictator while incurring far less resentment locally for doing so
And yet our ambassador is dead in Libya. And those stoking the fires hate us there. Note, that we seem to be stoking an awful lot of resentment from a certain portion of that world because of a You Tube video.
I guess Obama thought that by not calling it a terrorist act, and by stressing how this movie was a hate crime, would ameliorate somewhat the festering hatred directed at us over there. But how did that work out?
@Ritmo: I appreciate your point about accuracy and precision. Did you know that Robert Mulliken invented the word "orbital" in quantum mechanics because "an orbital is as much like an orbit as quantum mechanics permits."
You've stated over and over again that you wish politics could be more scientific and rational. But it's just not. It's irrational--based on fears and half-baked notions. You can't change that. And right now your guy is starting to scare people with what has happened to the economy and what has happened to foreign policy (it shouldn't be transparent argues an "anonymous" over at Althouse's son's blog). His deliberate parsing of words to fit the accuracy just doesn't fly with the flyover types.
Is it really too difficult for Obama to explain his reasoning for being vague?
How about "I intentionally avoided specifics in the days after the attack in Benghazi until we were able to say, definitively, that it was a terrorist attack independent of demonstrations such as those in Cairo."
Which actually may have worked for him except that now we do happen to know, because we've found out now, that within 24 hours Obama *knew* that there was no riot at the consulate in Benghazi which is why Obama is being pressed on the issue. And he doesn't get to pretend *now* that he gave us correct information *then*.
If he's going to lie about something he could get up there and tell us all that the staff at Benghazi was able to complete their protocols and nothing of a sensitive nature was stolen.
Not that he should lie, but at least it would be about something important instead of claiming he'd made a definite statement he never made.
The next episode of Arrow is supposed to be on tonight.
Maybe in a couple minutes.
:-D
How about "I intentionally avoided specifics in the days after the attack in Benghazi until we were able to say, definitively, that it was a terrorist attack independent of demonstrations such as those in Cairo."
There was no reason to. All that would do would be to give succor to political enemies (i.e. "those who snipe") while clarifying little to anyone who felt his true understanding of events was lacking. Those who want to (are predisposed to) see the president as weak on foreign affairs have their minds made up and are hard-core Republican voters no matter what.
But apparently I can't think and can't write so according to MIchael there's no point to explaining this. I apologize for the imposition of having to explain something to (after having been asked to do so by) my obvious better, Synova. Please forgive me.
You've stated over and over again that you wish politics could be more scientific and rational. But it's just not. It's irrational--based on fears and half-baked notions.
I don't deny that emotions play a role in all areas of life, politics non-exempted. Nor should we propose that they be prevented from doing so. I just don't think that they should be allowed to permanently overwhelm and over-rule reason.
ALso, positive emotions should be allowed at least as important a role as the baser emotions, (such as fear), that rule guys like Michael.
By the way, if this attack was because of the video, why was the embassy attacked twice - once in April and once in June. Why was the British consulate attacked, why did the Red Cross leave, all before the video surfaced?
Clearly, the previous two attacks were terrorist based, and signaled a resurgence of al Qaeda and groups like that in Libya, and the fact that security wasn't enhanced prior to the attack killed our ambassador already shows that at last the state department dropped the ball. But really, there was already a history of terrorist attacks only recently at that embassy, and this attack took place on 9/11!
As Goldfinger told James Bond, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.
And the reason for Obama trying to ratchet down the idea that this was a terrorist attack? Because it u deduct his argument that killing OBL essentially defeated Al Qaeada, and it undercut the idea of tis administrations Libya venture which was falling apart under their feet.
Saying it was just an event that materialized that day due to an event they had nothing to do with get them off the hook for policies and questions of how they were handled.
That should have said a British embassy convoy not the British embassy itself. But our embassy had in fact been attacked twice before. We're those terrorist attacks? Why would the administration then have some shock as to how to define the attack that killed our ambassador, since they were already aware that our embassy had already been targeted multiple times.
By the way, for Inga and Ritmo, at least one of the previous attacks seemed to have been in response to Obama's drone attacks.
For example, following a May 22 early-morning attack on a facility that housed the International Committee on the Red Cross, a Facebook page claimed responsibility, and said the attack was a warning and a “message for the Americans disturbing the skies over Derna.” That reference was likely to American surveillance drones over a city that provided fighters to al Qaeda in Iraq in the last decade.
So Inga, considering you are on record calling for drone strikes can we say your loose talk is the reason why innocent Americans are threatened over there?
Jr. My talk here isn't reaching millions of Muslim people in the ME, it isn't insulting their prophet. Should we be in a war and not use what is at our disposal? Would they like it better if it were a manned plane that dropped a bomb on them?
I think it's time to leave the region and leave them them to their own devices. We won't have to blow them up, they'll blow each other up.
As long as they're busy fighting each other, maybe they'll leave Israel alone.
Upon reflection, I am convinced that this is one of the dirtiest debates I have ever seen.
I believe that Crowley arranged the questions to favor Obama, gave him the questions ahead of time, and with Obama set up the Libya trap for Romney.
Then during the debate, she interrupted Romney three times as much as she did Obama, gave Obama the last rebuttal most of the time, and favored Obama with three plus minutes of time to speak.
I figured it would be dirty but Obama and Crowley exceeded my expectations.
Of course, none of this can be proven short of a deathbed confession, but Romney battled to a draw in spite of these handicaps.
This debate was a disgrace and was transparent enough that Crowley career as a respectable journalist is over, whether Obama wins or loses.
Ritmo, Michael is a lazy thinker, a lazy writer, most of his comments are simply sniping, no substance at all. He isn't your better and neither is Synova ( no offense meant to you Synova).
And Creely knows this...how? Wishful thinking.
Those who want to (are predisposed to) see the president as weak on foreign affairs have their minds made up and are hard-core Republican voters no matter what.
The 53%
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,”
So his administration puts Nakouly's life in more jeopardy while they figure shit out?
Loose lips sink ships, what does this mean and when was it used? Was it an assault on free speech?
Inga forgets when they frog marched Friz Freleng into custody for this stupid speech.
Remember when Walt Disney was called to the carpet to explain putting American lives at risk with this offensive "video"?
That bastard Walt was such a bombthrower.
And now those fuckin' assholes at National Geographic are recklessly putting us all in danger.
Shut 'em down, for the common good.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন