The Debates!

[StrangeSox]

To me it's so plausible I don't understand why he's not explaining it that way to the public, so I'm assuming it's a BS response. Why continue this crap argument (lie) that they maintained it was an act of terrorism from day one if the real answer is that they knew it was an "act of terror" but couldn't yet determine if it was a legitimate, pre-planned attack by a terrorist group?

 

being a response to a dumb video and being an act of terror are not mutually exclusive

 

this was a good article in the nyt going over the attacks:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/af...;pagewanted=all

Edited October 17, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Romney also didn't even start the Binders Full of Women project, that was done by an independent group before he was elected.

 

And, while running Bain, women were seriously underrepresented in top positions.

 

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/20...-women-ctd.html

[RockRaines]

Romney also didn't even start the Binders Full of Women project, that was done by an independent group before he was elected.

 

And, while running Bain, women were seriously underrepresented in top positions.

 

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/20...-women-ctd.html

Investment firm, big money, duh.

[StrangeSox]

Romney nor his staff never met any smart, capable conservative women in their years of experience prior to taking office? Replace "women" with minorities and look how transparently awful his answer becomes.

 

Thank you. And — important topic and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the — the chance to pull together a Cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be white. And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, how come all the people for these jobs are — are all white?

 

They said, well, these are the people that have the qualifications. And I said, well, gosh, can’t we — can’t we find some — some minorities that are also qualified?

 

And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find minorities who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of minority’s groups and said, can you help us find folks? And I brought us whole binders full of — of minorities. I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my cabinet and my senior staff that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states and concluded that mine had more minorities in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.

 

The rest of his answer was about how women need more flexibility to both work and be in the kitchen, and how the only way women will get equal pay and opportunities is when we have full employment and a tight labor market because they're only marginally employable.

 

edit: but at the very least his Binders story is a very compelling argument in favor of affirmative action!

Edited October 17, 2012 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

[lostfan]

Ok so here's my read on the whole conservative freakout over Obama in the best way I can explain it. I haven't read the last several pages so I'm breaking a message board etiquette rule.

 

Basically, the Obama Administration doesn't like to throw around the word "terrorism" and it's a deliberate break from the way the Bush Administration used to use it, and they only will use it in specific circumstances. It's a deliberate strategy for counterterrorism policy that conservatives fundamentally disagree with and hate. That's the whole context of this, to begin with. Conservatives want Obama to immediately call just about every incident of violence by Muslims or Arabs a terrorist attack, and forcefully. To not do so is being weak at best, and complicit at worst. So Obama did actually say it was an act of terror, but in muted terms. (Sidenote: I'm not sure why people are even attempting to spin this like it's not what he said. If one of my kids hits the other, and I turn to the kid and say "hitting is wrong, don't do it again" it's pretty obvious what I was talking about even if I didn't say it. In a speech ABOUT attacks in Benghazi he mentions "acts of terror" then like 3 sentences later, mentions "attacks" and the dead Americans, it only means something else if you have the comprehension of a 6 year old, or if you want it to mean something else.) The day after that he said "Those who bring us harm, we'll bring them to justice, no act of terror..."

 

But then in the following days the administration officials are evasive, I really don't know why but they were very deliberate in what they said and waited a long time before they came out and more forcefully said "terrorists attacked our consulate" or some words to that effect. Then different facts come out and the intelligence picture gets clearer about what happened and eventually they finally do come out and say unequivocally "this was a terrorist attack" as part of the official White House position. From here comes the narrative "they took 14 days to finally call it a terrorist attack."

 

Fast forward to last night and that question comes up. Obama gives 2 minutes of bulls***ting because he knows he's at a disadvantage on this question, then Romney responds and Obama responds back with indignation and anger (he was actually pissed off for real. you can tell when he is, because he's almost never pissed off.) Then Romney sees an opening and comes the following exchange, paraphrased:

Romney: This administration took 14 days to call this an act of terror.

Obama: I said that? (recognizing Romney just said the phrase "act of terror" which he knows full well in his speech because he used specific phrasing, on purpose).

Romney: I just want to make sure you're on the record, because you didn't say it was an act of terror-

Obama: Please proceed.

Romney: I.. uhhhummm seewhathadummm

Obama: Please proceed, Governor.

Romney: I wanna make sure that's on the record because it took 14 days...

Obama: Get the transcript.

Crowley: Yeah actually he said that

Obama: Can you say that louder?

Crowley: He said it was an act of terror, however you're right about your more general point (this is being spun today as Crowley "admitted she was wrong" but she actually said basically the same thing)

 

Obama recognized that Romney stumbled, and pounced. Romney was supposed to score major points and ended up looking like a total lightweight. Trying to argue about the semantics or un-muddle it and re-muddle it doesn't mean anything... that's what everyone SAW.

[StrangeSox]

Well, I think it exposed that the Romney campaign is relying too heavily on Fox News narratives for their information. Nobody outside of conservative political media is pushing that flatly untrue story, yet Romney believed it to be completely true and couldn't believe that Obama would clearly and succinctly deny it. It's the echo chamber coming full circle.

[lostfan]

However, I'm getting some kind of sadistic amusement out of watching the GOP try to pivot from that and portray the Obama administration as incompetent and unprepared which led to the deaths of 4 people. Umm. Shall I?

 

Remember in 2001 when 3,000 people died? Who was in charge then?

 

Who remembers the war in Iraq which was supposed to be over quickly and ended up lasting 8 years, and we were later to find all of the reasons for going were wrong? How'd that happen? Who led that effort? Which party was in power then?

 

What about in 2005 when Katrina happened? The government's response was... lacking, wasn't it? Who was "responsible" for that one? Which party was running Congress?

 

Contrary to popular belief, the economy did not collapse on January 20, 2009 by executive order of President Obama... so, given that that's not what happened when did it happen? Whose administration was in power at the time? (To be fair, the response wasn't incompetent, but if something like that happened under Obama, certain people would be apoplectic)

 

These stones are shattering people's houses, they should be careful.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, I think it exposed that the Romney campaign is relying too heavily on Fox News narratives for their information. Nobody outside of conservative political media is pushing that flatly untrue story, yet Romney believed it to be completely true and couldn't believe that Obama would clearly and succinctly deny it. It's the echo chamber coming full circle.

 

God this is such liberal bulls***. It's not as cut and dry as Romney wanted to argue during the debate, but you're completely ignoring 2 weeks of the administration blaming a video for a premeditated terrorist attack on Sept. 11th. Yes, that's a significant problem given the complete FAILURE of the state department to react to the ambassador's request for more security IN f***ING LIBYA. This is not at all comparabale to "uh, hey guys, there's this guy Osama, I think he might do something soon....maybe."

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

A good read about the WH press secretary refusing to call it a terrorist attack a week after the attack, which sort of goes against ya know, what his boss supposedly claimed the day after the attack:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-...e6a4b_blog.html

 

 

[Soxbadger]

How does it compare to WMD in Iraq?

 

People make mistakes, maybe the administration wanted to divert attention from their real investigation so that they could catch the terrorists.

 

This isnt the US where you put out an apb, you have to be way more crafty. Maybe Obama cant talk about it because its a new security strategy and doesnt want to tip off terrorists.

 

If you really think Obama wanted those people to get murdered than make an issue of it. Otherwise it was a mistake, he admitted to it. Its silly. I could explain this away all day if I cared.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

How does it compare to WMD in Iraq?

 

People make mistakes, maybe the administration wanted to divert attention from their real investigation so that they could catch the criminals.

 

This isnt the US where you put out an apb, you have to be way more crafty. Maybe Obama cant talk about it because its a new security strategy and doesnt want to tip off terrorists.

 

If you really think Obama wanted those people to get murdered than make an issue of it. Otherwise it was a mistake, he admitted to it. Its silly. I could explain this away all day if I cared.

 

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, they just react to terrible videos made by Americans! They say it's a terrible thing while basically justifying the response. That, on top of the complete failure resulting in 4 Americans dead after weeks and weeks of intelligence saying pro-Al Queda extremists were forming in Libya. I love how we had 8 years of Bush f***ing up because 4 people in the entire intelligence communtiy predicted 9/11, but this was actually ignoring straight up requests from an ambassador and he gets zero blame for it. That's bulls***.

 

And yes, mistakes happen, so Obama own the f*** up to it. You wanted to spin this and it blew up in your face. Period. Move on. But that's not the position they are taking. Do you not remember Biden just a week ago claiming that the WH never knew about those requests? And then they had to beg Hillary to come out and take the fall? You seriously don't think this deserves some scrutiny?

[Jake]

This Libya stuff is so stupid to argue, it is only happening because it is an alternative to finding out the specifics of the Romney tax plan. Both plans will run a deficit, but they know people would rather have some benefits with their deficit rather than cut benefits and retain deficit. What happened in Libya was tragic, it is terrible for people to be murdered. How Mitt Romney could ever have enough information (especially in the moments immediately afterwards) to judge whether the President was acting appropriately using the most sophisticated intelligence organizations in the world is beyond me. He simply has no basis to critique the President beyond his own intuition. He lacks the intelligence data that leads to finding these events to be acts of terror vs random vs both, etc.

[StrangeSox]

God this is such liberal bulls***. It's not as cut and dry as Romney wanted to argue during the debate, but you're completely ignoring 2 weeks of the administration blaming a video for a premeditated terrorist attack on Sept. 11th. Yes, that's a significant problem given the complete FAILURE of the state department to react to the ambassador's request for more security IN f***ING LIBYA. This is not at all comparabale to "uh, hey guys, there's this guy Osama, I think he might do something soon....maybe."

 

I was explicitly referring to the dumb thing Romney said, where he falsely accused Obama of taking 14 days to call it an act of terror and looked like a god-damned fool when he kept going on it. He said it and was shocked that Obama would deny it. Why would his debate team prep him on this false information if they weren't stuck in the echo chamber?

 

What the state department cables show, by the way, was not "the ambassador" requesting more information but the security officials in Libya requesting more security mainly for Tripoli. What's bulls*** is the attempt to call this some massive foreign policy/intelligence failure while at the same time characterizing what the intelligence community was telling the Iraq-obsessed Bush administration in your hilarious fashion. Was it a failure? Yes, absolutely. Has the conservative media echo chamber completely blown many things out of proportion and focused on the dumbest aspect instead of anything important, namely how quickly was it called terrorism? Yes, absolutely.

[Soxbadger]

Then scrutinize those actions.

 

Dont waste my time about whether it was called terrorism, terror or a monkey dance. I dont care about semantics.

 

I completely agree with the fact that you catch more flies with honey and I think it does nobody any good to sabre rattle.

 

Would you prefer that he threatened extremists? That doesnt work, look at Israel. Israeli's flat out kill terrorists and terrorists still shoot rockets at them.

 

Words mean s***, I apologize all the time when I dont mean it. Its the path of least resistance.

 

As for

 

Muslim extremists don't exist,

 

 

Care to find a quote to back up that nonsense? Im pretty sure what most people think is that Muslim Extremists are nothing but a fly and that once in awhile under the perfect circumstances a fly can kill an elephant. It doesnt mean the elephant changes its entire life out of fear, the elephant says f*** it, I cant kill every fly.

 

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

A good read about the WH press secretary refusing to call it a terrorist attack a week after the attack, which sort of goes against ya know, what his boss supposedly claimed the day after the attack:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-...e6a4b_blog.html

 

you realize how silly you look when you say this, right?

[Jake]

Clarifying to people that don't understand the concept of non-state commissioned media that we have such a thing is important. As a non-religious government, we don't support the views of those that want to say mean things about Islam. We support positive messages, if anything. These things need clarifying when it might save lives (even if it has nothing to do with the Libya deaths, it still caused a violent reaction generally). We don't have to comment on everything, but it makes sense to clarify that the USA doesn't hate Muslims when much of the Muslim world hears that the USA is releasing movies about how Mohammed is an adulterer and whatever else.

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

lol, stop trying to channel Hannity

 

Muslim extremists don't exist, they just react to terrible videos made by Americans!

 

Yes, that's clearly the ideology of Mr. Drone-Your-Ass-Even-if-You're-A-US-Citizen

 

They say it's a terrible thing while basically justifying the response. That, on top of the complete failure resulting in 4 Americans dead after weeks and weeks of intelligence saying pro-Al Queda extremists were forming in Libya. I love how we had 8 years of Bush f***ing up because 4 people in the entire intelligence communtiy predicted 9/11, but this was actually ignoring straight up requests from an ambassador and he gets zero blame for it. That's bulls***.

 

"Four people," no. It was more than that. And we had 8 years of Bush f***ing up because he was a giant f***-up who was obsessed with Iraq from day 1.

 

Their were requests for additional security mainly in Tripoli, which wouldn't have meant s*** for Benghazi. More importantly, they were not "ignored" but denied, and they were made by security officials, not "the ambassador." Was that the right move? In hindsight, clearly not, and what should have been the right call pre-9/11 is a legitimate point of discussion. But every time dumb, easily refuted lies about never calling it terror and apologizing for America are repeated is a chance blown for actual discussion.

 

Obama has not gotten "zero blame" for this, but Romney has done everything possible to blow any opening here, from his original 9/11 attack to this latest fail at the debate.

 

And yes, mistakes happen, so Obama own the f*** up to it. You wanted to spin this and it blew up in your face. Period. Move on. But that's not the position they are taking. Do you not remember Biden just a week ago claiming that the WH never knew about those requests? And then they had to beg Hillary to come out and take the fall? You seriously don't think this deserves some scrutiny?

 

Who begged Hillary? You have some info here, or echo-chamber speculation? And Obama unequivocally owned up to it last night before Romney made a fool of himself.

 

Step away from the RedState and Hot Air for a couple of days, it'll do you some good.

Edited October 18, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Then scrutinize those actions.

 

Dont waste my time about whether it was called terrorism, terror or a monkey dance. I dont care about semantics.

 

I completely agree with the fact that you catch more flies with honey and I think it does nobody any good to sabre rattle.

 

Would you prefer that he threatened extremists? That doesnt work, look at Israel. Israeli's flat out kill terrorists and terrorists still shoot rockets at them.

 

Words mean s***, I apologize all the time when I dont mean it. Its the path of least resistance.

 

As for

 

 

 

 

Care to find a quote to back up that nonsense? Im pretty sure what most people think is that Muslim Extremists are nothing but a fly and that once in awhile under the perfect circumstances a fly can kill an elephant. It doesnt mean the elephant changes its entire life out of fear, the elephant says f*** it, I cant kill every fly.

 

Not to mention, how many people has Obama blown up with drones now?

 

[Jake]

Didn't I see it acknowledged that had their request for extra security been meet, they still didn't stand a chance at preventing loss of life?

[lostfan]

I was explicitly referring to the dumb thing Romney said, where he falsely accused Obama of taking 14 days to call it an act of terror and looked like a god-damned fool when he kept going on it. He said it and was shocked that Obama would deny it. Why would his debate team prep him on this false information if they weren't stuck in the echo chamber?

 

What the state department cables show, by the way, was not "the ambassador" requesting more information but the security officials in Libya requesting more security mainly for Tripoli. What's bulls*** is the attempt to call this some massive foreign policy/intelligence failure while at the same time characterizing what the intelligence community was telling the Iraq-obsessed Bush administration in your hilarious fashion. Was it a failure? Yes, absolutely. Has the conservative media echo chamber completely blown many things out of proportion and focused on the dumbest aspect instead of anything important, namely how quickly was it called terrorism? Yes, absolutely.

Benghazi is totally not hundreds of miles from Tripoli, so really it's the same

[Jenksismyhero]

you realize how silly you look when you say this, right?

 

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.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Then scrutinize those actions.

 

Dont waste my time about whether it was called terrorism, terror or a monkey dance. I dont care about semantics.

 

I completely agree with the fact that you catch more flies with honey and I think it does nobody any good to sabre rattle.

 

Would you prefer that he threatened extremists? That doesnt work, look at Israel. Israeli's flat out kill terrorists and terrorists still shoot rockets at them.

 

Words mean s***, I apologize all the time when I dont mean it. Its the path of least resistance.

 

As for

 

 

 

 

Care to find a quote to back up that nonsense? Im pretty sure what most people think is that Muslim Extremists are nothing but a fly and that once in awhile under the perfect circumstances a fly can kill an elephant. It doesnt mean the elephant changes its entire life out of fear, the elephant says f*** it, I cant kill every fly.

 

Is this a joke response? Look around you. You don't think we've changed our drastic parts of our life out of fear of a "fly?"

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Who begged Hillary? You have some info here, or echo-chamber speculation? And Obama unequivocally owned up to it last night before Romney made a fool of himself.

 

Step away from the RedState and Hot Air for a couple of days, it'll do you some good.

 

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.

[BigSqwert]

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."

 

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.

 

Edited October 18, 2012 by BigSqwert