The Debates!

[bmags]

You do realize this press conference was called in response to what happened in Libya...one day after the incident. Gee, I wonder what his vague and ambiguous mention of "act of terror" was referencing. He should have literally held our hands and spelled it out as it's obvious not a single conservative in America had any idea what he was talking about.

 

 

You didn't build that

[NorthSideSox72]

Go read the transcript of that speech man. He says "act of terror" 5 minutes into his speech and it's only a general reference like "these acts of terror won't stand." The point isn't that he did or did not say it was an act of terrorism with all the details that very morning. I get that, and Romney was dumb for pushing it. What's been lost here, and ignored by you, is the administration total political hackery that occurred over the next weeks, when they decided it was better foreign policy to blame a youtube video for inciting an attack than to just call it what it was from the rose garden speech forward. It's incredibly sad that you're holding onto this belief that it was definitive when his own press secretary couldn't say that it was a terrorist act the following day. Instead they made it seem like it was just some spontaneous reaction.

 

1. President Obama's leadership style is very different from W's - Obama actually prefers to get the facts and see the whole picture before shooting off about something important. I would say this is a good thing, not a bad thing. It isn't political hackery - if they had gone off the handle about their best guess right then and there, now that would be political hackery.

 

2. The idea that "all the details" were known by the next morning, only hours after the attacked, is ridiculous. That just isn't even possible.

 

3. No one is holding onto the belief that the "act of terror" line was "definitive". It was what it was - a general statement, which is exactly what was required in that situation.

 

4. Why do you keep touting this idea that the US foreign policy is bend over and apologize? It is completely unfounded in anything resembling fact.

 

[MexSoxFan#1]

I actually thought it was a good debate. You guys are just acting too cool.

George F Will called it the GOAT presidential debate BTW...

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/201..._have_seen.html

Edited October 18, 2012 by MexSoxFan#1

[Jenksismyhero]

1. President Obama's leadership style is very different from W's - Obama actually prefers to get the facts and see the whole picture before shooting off about something important. I would say this is a good thing, not a bad thing. It isn't political hackery - if they had gone off the handle about their best guess right then and there, now that would be political hackery.

 

2. The idea that "all the details" were known by the next morning, only hours after the attacked, is ridiculous. That just isn't even possible.

 

3. No one is holding onto the belief that the "act of terror" line was "definitive". It was what it was - a general statement, which is exactly what was required in that situation.

 

4. Why do you keep touting this idea that the US foreign policy is bend over and apologize? It is completely unfounded in anything resembling fact.

 

This would make sense if the administration didn't blame the video and falsely report a protest occurred before the attack. That's the problem - wouldn't you want to claim it's a terrorist attack before you contend it was just a reaction to a video? In either case you're reporting something before all the facts come in. That was my issue with it. They started off basically calling it a response attack when it reality it was a straight up terrorist attack.

 

As to 4., the US embassy in Cairo basically made an apology for the video. The admn can deny there was ever approval to send it, but that's bulls***. That's a philosophy of this administration, starting from his first days in office when he went around the world apologizing for Bush. Yes, I agree with you, he has a different style than Bush, and in some ways I agree with the change. But any hint of apologizing for an American expressing his free speech rights is bulls***. So yes, condemn the attacks, but do that first. Don't qualify it with "yeah, we're sorry some Americans are douchebags. We understand."

[MexSoxFan#1]

No one thinks that. Stop being dumb. The issue here is that the administration's foreign policy is to bend over and apologize for everthing Americans ever do. Muslim extremists don't exist,

 

What a crock of you know what, tell that to Osama Bin Laden...oh wait, you can't because he's dead along with countless more cronies of his.

 

W saying he didn't give a f*** about the mastermind behind 3,000 dead Americans.

http://www.google.com.mx/url?sa=t&sour...7LZ5NX61tAtcllw

 

Obama telling everyone that we were gonna hunt OBL down.

 

 

Weakness, yeah ok...

[mr_genius]

Obama actually prefers to get the facts and see the whole picture before shooting off about something important.

 

Haha. I hope u meant that as a joke.

[EvilMonkey]

I don't know what RedState or Hot Air is, so I don't need to step away from them. I'm tired of reading your liberal spin in the filibuster where you pretend like certain issues are 100% clear or that there's no counter argument when that's not the case.

Those are sites that people who live on Koz or DU like to references as right-wing extremist places.

[Jake]

At least I don't see InfoWars links on here like I do on my facebook feed.

[southsider2k5]

At least I don't see InfoWars links on here like I do on my facebook feed.

 

Or so the Bilderbergs would have you believe...

[StrangeSox]

Or so the Bilderbergs would have you believe...

Lol

[StrangeSox]

Oh please, read between the lines. After this became a story she was suddenly out the next morning taking the blame. I'm sure she totally wanted to look like the idiot here.

 

I don't know what RedState or Hot Air is, so I don't need to step away from them. I'm tired of reading your liberal spin in the filibuster where you pretend like certain issues are 100% clear or that there's no counter argument when that's not the case.

It is 100% clear that Obama called it an act of terror twice in two days immediately after the attack.

 

This has been a story for weeks now, so i won't read between the lines to come to the political conclusion you like.

[NorthSideSox72]

This would make sense if the administration didn't blame the video and falsely report a protest occurred before the attack. That's the problem - wouldn't you want to claim it's a terrorist attack before you contend it was just a reaction to a video? In either case you're reporting something before all the facts come in. That was my issue with it. They started off basically calling it a response attack when it reality it was a straight up terrorist attack.

 

As to 4., the US embassy in Cairo basically made an apology for the video. The admn can deny there was ever approval to send it, but that's bulls***. That's a philosophy of this administration, starting from his first days in office when he went around the world apologizing for Bush. Yes, I agree with you, he has a different style than Bush, and in some ways I agree with the change. But any hint of apologizing for an American expressing his free speech rights is bulls***. So yes, condemn the attacks, but do that first. Don't qualify it with "yeah, we're sorry some Americans are douchebags. We understand."

Well first, there was a protest - that turned out to be a diversion. So there it was.

 

Also, I have no problem with the US apologizing for certain things. The way I see it, its as if that crazy uncle in your family (all of us have one of those I think) did something incredibly dumb to one of your neighbors. So you say to the neighbors, hey listen, sorry about moron over there. We can't control everything he does, and I realize it was less than ideal for him to piss all over your Christmas decorations last night. Our apologies.

 

Notice how, nowhere in there, is anyone apologizing for THE FAMILY? They are apologizing for the moron. Just like in this case. No one apologized for free speech, or American principles... they apologized for the embarrassing behavior of their crazy uncle. I have no issue with that at all.

 

[bmags]

They apologized for the video, but then defended how important the 1st amendment is to democracy. You can't really disagree with that (though you will).

 

Clinton had a whole speech about how important free speech was after the video.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well first, there was a protest - that turned out to be a diversion. So there it was.

 

Also, I have no problem with the US apologizing for certain things. The way I see it, its as if that crazy uncle in your family (all of us have one of those I think) did something incredibly dumb to one of your neighbors. So you say to the neighbors, hey listen, sorry about moron over there. We can't control everything he does, and I realize it was less than ideal for him to piss all over your Christmas decorations last night. Our apologies.

 

Notice how, nowhere in there, is anyone apologizing for THE FAMILY? They are apologizing for the moron. Just like in this case. No one apologized for free speech, or American principles... they apologized for the embarrassing behavior of their crazy uncle. I have no issue with that at all.

 

Unless there's MORE misinformation, as of a week ago no, there wasn't:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/attack...80#.UIBHy5jA-b5

 

Though the timeline of events outlined on the call was similar to the last official account of the incident, which was given on Sept. 12, some stark differences and new details were revealed.

 

The biggest difference was a clear statement that there were no protests before the attack. Also it was revealed that former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods died from a mortar attack and that officials still do not know how Stevens, who was suffering from severe smoke inhalation, made it from the compound to the hospital.

 

The officials gave a vivid narrative of the events of the night, painting a picture of exactly what the compound looked like.

 

There were four buildings in the main compound, according to the State Department's narrative: The barracks where the local guards were housed; Building C, which is the main building that contained Stevens residence; Building B, a building on the compound; and the TOC (Tactical Operations Center) that served as the main security and communications center for the compound.

 

The area of the compound was about the size of a football field, with a nine-foot-high wall, topped by three feet of barbed wire.

 

On Sept. 11, Stevens did not leave the compound because of security fears due to the 9/11 anniversary. He had arrived in Benghazi the day before with five guards in total. Two additional Diplomatic Security agents from Tripoli were with him in addition to the three agents normally detailed to the compound.

 

Though some administration officials had initially said that the attack grew out of protests over an anti-Muslim film, the senior State Department official told reporters today that "nothing was out of the ordinary" on the night of the attack.

[bmags]

What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?

 

According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place.

[lostfan]

You do realize this press conference was called in response to what happened in Libya...one day after the incident. Gee, I wonder what his vague and ambiguous mention of "act of terror" was referencing. He should have literally held our hands and spelled it out as it's obvious not a single conservative in America had any idea what he was talking about.

 

My son threw a ball at my cat. I said DON'T MESS WITH THE CAT AGAIN.

 

Somehow he didn't need me to explain that I was referring to him throwing the ball at the cat. I wonder why. Does my 5 year old son have superior comprehension ability to the entire conservative base?

[mr_genius]

[Y2HH]

 

Hehehe, this is awesome.

[Y2HH]

My son threw a ball at my cat. I said DON'T MESS WITH THE CAT AGAIN.

 

Somehow he didn't need me to explain that I was referring to him throwing the ball at the cat. I wonder why. Does my 5 year old son have superior comprehension ability to the entire conservative base?

 

Your son probably has superior comprehension ability and than the entire base of either party.

[SOXOBAMA]

Gary Johnson asks DC Federal Court to intervene and get him in 3rd Presidential Debate Monday

[NorthSideSox72]

Gary Johnson asks DC Federal Court to intervene and get him in 3rd Presidential Debate Monday

Good. Him and the Green candidate are both getting a few % points on some polls, they should be included.

 

[Y2HH]

Good. Him and the Green candidate are both getting a few % points on some polls, they should be included.

 

Agreed.

 

As a matter of fact, they should be included on ALL the debates.

[StrangeSox]

Jill Stein (Green) was arrested outside of the last debate

 

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly...ttle_sunday.php

[bmags]

Good. Him and the Green candidate are both getting a few % points on some polls, they should be included.

 

bleh. It's not the candidates it's the institutions.

[StrangeSox]