Are Republicans seriously claiming Romney was right on Obama's Libya comment
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:38:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Are Republicans seriously claiming Romney was right on Obama's Libya comment
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Author Topic: Are Republicans seriously claiming Romney was right on Obama's Libya comment  (Read 6822 times)
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: October 17, 2012, 06:37:19 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just so we have this straight and for future reference - you're ok with regime change so long as your guy is at the helm?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: October 17, 2012, 11:45:11 PM »
« Edited: October 17, 2012, 11:46:57 PM by Senator North Carolina Yankee »

There was a legitimate point that Romney was trying to make, but it wasn't about what Obama said the next day. He most certainly wasn't intentionally lying. His point should have been to weave together miscommunications over the next 14 days, the testimony about what the State Dept supposedly knew the day of the attack, the post attack fundraisers, and the judgement call within the Administration not to send in extra security, to cast doubt on Obama's foreign policy credentials and put a question mark on internal communication within the administration. He also should never have openly hinted that Obama is trying to cover something up and provide him a chance to get outraged, you let the undecided Virginia or Ohio voter draw that conclusion on his own based around the points you make.

The answer to all of Mittens blunders on Libya, rests in the fact that Romney was thrown off kilter early on by his bad start. When you are on the defensive like that, you slowly lose the focus needed on certain questions, and Libya was towards the end. If he had the choice to elect to go second after winning the coin toss on the first question, he should have taken it. That way his first remarks could have been geared based upon having full knowledge of much force Obama was bringing and thus could have crafted his words accordingly. That may have made the difference between them being on a even keel at the beginning or Romney being at a disadvantage.  

Libya, Autos, Not Like Bush, and Things Still Aren't Good, should have been his strongest moments. Going in there was no way of knowing whether these things would have come up or not, but Romney had good opportunities on all four and blew all but 1, maybe 2 of them. He also came out worse on style because he too often panicked when Obama was throwing crap at him, and then sought to use time from the next question to defend himself. He should have made efforts to respect questioners more and make Obama look bad in contrast as he tried to make up for lost ground from Denver at the expense of the questioners.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: October 17, 2012, 11:49:25 PM »

Yes, it's called the plane of 'Reality'.

I'll repost my previous statement.

Let's look at that section of the transcript, shall we. 

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
 

Used Fox so no one can accuse me of only using liberal sources or something.  Also, the link was on hand cause a Facebook friend had it, but let's get into it.   

In the transcript, Obama clearly refers to the attack in Benghazi in the same paragraph as 9/11.  He talks about 9/11 and says "AND THEN last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi."  He tied 9/11 back to Benghazi in the very text of the transcript.  The "acts of terror" line applies to the attack on Benghazi just as much as 9/11.

Are you really going to try and argue that line only refers to 9/11 when he brought Benghazi up in the same paragraph in a clear comparison to 9/11 and doesn't switch the topic back to 9/11 before referring to "acts of terror?" 

Is referencing the text of the transcript to show Obama DID refer to the Benghazi attack as an "act of terror" a good enough dose of reality for you?

If Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” in his Rose Garden speech, then he also said the victims of that attack were buried in the “hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery” and that he had visited them at Walter Reed — other comments in that speech not specifically referring to the Benghazi attack.


You are guilty of wishful thinking shadow.  My guess is you want Obama to have been right (even though it really doesn't explain why he than flipped to being wrong again for 14 days) so you are willing to believe this unbelievable lie he told yesterday.   
Logged
SirMuxALot
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 368


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: October 17, 2012, 11:52:09 PM »

I figure by noon tomorrow Candy will have to walkback her walkback of her walkback.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: October 17, 2012, 11:55:02 PM »

I figure by noon tomorrow Candy will have to walkback her walkback of her walkback.
It's a weird position, by all professional standards she should be fired, but here peers aren't exactly beyond hackery.  So she probably both wants to apologize and claim she did the right thing.   
Logged
5280
MagneticFree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,404
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: October 18, 2012, 12:07:03 AM »

Im not reading through the entire thread, but I believe moderators ought be abolished.  My preference is an automated robotic moderator that asks the questions for each challenger and president in a non opinoined way, gives them both 2-3 minutes to answer each one in the most thoughtful way possible.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: October 18, 2012, 12:13:09 AM »

You had statements from the White House, Hillary and Rice that assumed that the attack was part of a protest against the video, when you also have statements from the State Department saying that narrative had not been their position on what happened.  With that and the requests for additional security that didn't seem to get to where they needed to be, there is some real dysfunction in communication in the State Department.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: October 18, 2012, 12:40:37 AM »

Im not reading through the entire thread, but I believe moderators ought be abolished.  My preference is an automated robotic moderator that asks the questions for each challenger and president in a non opinoined way, gives them both 2-3 minutes to answer each one in the most thoughtful way possible.

A robot moderator would be unfairly biased toward Mitt.
Logged
Cryptic
Shadowlord88
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 891


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: October 18, 2012, 10:50:40 AM »
« Edited: October 18, 2012, 10:52:11 AM by Shadowlord88 »



If Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” in his Rose Garden speech, then he also said the victims of that attack were buried in the “hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery” and that he had visited them at Walter Reed — other comments in that speech not specifically referring to the Benghazi attack.


You are guilty of wishful thinking shadow.  My guess is you want Obama to have been right (even though it really doesn't explain why he than flipped to being wrong again for 14 days) so you are willing to believe this unbelievable lie he told yesterday.   

That's an interesting interpretation of the statement, since Obama clearly mentions it is the troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who are buried in Arlington and whom he visited at Walter Reed.  Here, I even highlighted it for you. 

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
 

Don't see how it's a lie when its right there in the transcript that the Benghazi attack is being compared to 9/11.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: October 18, 2012, 10:57:20 AM »

Blaming the moderator??

lol
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: October 18, 2012, 11:20:29 AM »

Im not reading through the entire thread, but I believe moderators ought be abolished.  My preference is an automated robotic moderator that asks the questions for each challenger and president in a non opinoined way, gives them both 2-3 minutes to answer each one in the most thoughtful way possible.

I agree that our moderators should be abolished.

All joking aside, this is part of the reason why we have more than one debate, with different moderators.
Logged
Northeast Rep Snowball
hiboby1998
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,098
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: October 18, 2012, 11:26:04 AM »

Im not reading through the entire thread, but I believe moderators ought be abolished.  My preference is an automated robotic moderator that asks the questions for each challenger and president in a non opinoined way, gives them both 2-3 minutes to answer each one in the most thoughtful way possible.

I agree that our moderators should be abolished.

All joking aside, this is part of the reason why we have more than one debate, with different moderators.
The sceond debate was really well moderated, and that kind of response is incredibly useful.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,222
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: October 18, 2012, 12:51:03 PM »

Just flipped past Fox and they're still spewing this desperate nonsense. Hilarious and sad.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: October 18, 2012, 01:16:09 PM »

Just flipped past Fox and they're still spewing this desperate nonsense. Hilarious and sad.

The Fox News wing of the Republican Party has been actively anti-realitarian since at least 20Jan 2009, so yeah, no surprise.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: October 19, 2012, 07:42:35 AM »



If Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” in his Rose Garden speech, then he also said the victims of that attack were buried in the “hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery” and that he had visited them at Walter Reed — other comments in that speech not specifically referring to the Benghazi attack.


You are guilty of wishful thinking shadow.  My guess is you want Obama to have been right (even though it really doesn't explain why he than flipped to being wrong again for 14 days) so you are willing to believe this unbelievable lie he told yesterday.   

That's an interesting interpretation of the statement, since Obama clearly mentions it is the troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who are buried in Arlington and whom he visited at Walter Reed.  Here, I even highlighted it for you. 

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
 

Don't see how it's a lie when its right there in the transcript that the Benghazi attack is being compared to 9/11.


LOL, he didn't specifically say Libya was a terrorist attack.  He goes on to say it was a protest of a youtube video for the next 13 days.  He attempted to completely manipulate the speech (and reality), thus it is fair for me to completely manipulate the speech in order to expose his manipulation.  Turnabout is fair play.  'If, than' statements aren't that hard to understand.  IF: Obama wasn't being misleading in claiming he said it was a terror attack in the Rose Garden speech,
THAN: He also said the victims of that attack were buried in the “hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery” and that he had visited them at Walter Reed
BECAUSE: those are all comments in that speech specifically NOT referring to the Benghazi attack.   

Leave it to Obama to take himself out of context.

I'll let Charles explain it to you:     
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YMwY5zIc4s&feature=g-all-u
Logged
BringinTheTruth
Rookie
**
Posts: 115
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: October 19, 2012, 03:47:25 PM »

Better to get in late, than never, but the Republicans ARE seriously claiming not that Romney was right, but that the President was both wrong and intellectually dishonest.

Let's break this down, in the fashion of the truth:

First....Harry's quote, while accurate, is inapposite to the issue.  The issue is not whether Barack Obama CONDEMNED the act in Bhengazi.  The issue is two-fold:

1)  Did the actions of the administration make us susceptible to attack, and
2)  Did the administration then try to cover up the attack. 

I believe the answer to both is yes.  So does Romney. 

Now....after B.O. said he called this an act of terror in the rose garden, which I believe was a bait, Romney's response should have not been to ask a question he didn't know, and focus on what we DO know:

1)  The administration did not know if this was a preplanned, concerted attack on the consulate the next day....evidence suggests they did, but they claim they did not...so let's give the administration the benefit of the doubt and assume they did not.  If they did not, the question is....when did they?

2)  We KNOW that prior to 9/14 and 9/15 the administration had information that there was never any spontaneous crowd in front of the consulate, that the streets of Bhengazi were quiet an hour before the attack, and that this is the position of the state department because that is what they testified to before Congress last week.  So....

3)  On 9/16 Susan Rice, after having been briefed, went on FIVE television shows to tell the American people that there was NO evidence of an attack, and that the only information that was available was that this was a spontaneous demonstration.  WHY?Huh

I ask WHY, because we now know that wasn't true.  We now know the State Department knew it was not true.  And we know that the administration's response was to harass and detain an American citizen who made a film and published it, which has generally been recognized as well within the First Amendment.  I also ask WHY because Rice didn't act alone....so who above her briefed her and upon whose orders.  I suspect the names, Gibbs, Plouffe, Jarrett and/or Axelrod are involved.  If so, then this is a direct political cover up.  Recall also the furor Dems had when Karl Rove became involved in policy....same difference.  If this was not those guys....was it the NSA team?  If so...then why did the NSA team not have the intel that State did when it is their job to protect America?  Finally, was it the President himself?  Because if he did this, then that is a breach of his duty as the Chief Executive and as a political leader.  Also, is it possible he did not have proper information....if not...why not?  We KNOW he went on The View AFTER State knew this was not a spontaneous act and said there was an investigation....that was wrong.  Was it intentionally wrong, or did the President not have command of his intel and State teams?  Any way...it looks bad.


Now....as for the debate.

Romney was in the midst of attempting (poorly) to make the above point.  What he should have said was "The President did not declare this act to be an intentional act against the US interests for two weeks, when we knew that it was within hours of the attack itself.  He did not keep us safe from terror, and for 14 days he either was failed by his own team, OR he was not truthful with the American people."  Simple.  However, Wide Wanda made a clear error in "fact-checking Romney," and doing so erroneously.  She later said Romney was right in the main, but chose the wrong word.  However, a responsible moderator, or a competent Romney in the moment, would have said, "WHY, if this was an intentional act/terror attack, did you go on the View days later and say it wasn't....WHY did Susan Rice go on every TV show around and say the intel was exactly the opposite of what we now know to be true."

The President had and has no answer for that.

So yes....the President said "act of terror" in the vicinity of "Bhengazi attack," however, he did not identify the day after the attack what the attack was, and he still didn't for two weeks.  Crowley stunned Romney, clearly, and in the course of doing so, did it erroneously herself, and Romney laid an egg on the question.  Moreover, because of Crowley's poor and inaccurate actions, and Romney's inability to correct, this issue has not, and I suspect won't, be properly framed, and in that sense he was entirely wrong - what should have been his strongest debate opportunity became his weakest answer.

But in the end, that is still being talked about, which the President did not want to happen, and that favors Romney the more the media begin to do their job and press these proper questions.   
Logged
Stirring Wolf🥣🐺
Xiivi
Rookie
**
Posts: 133
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: October 19, 2012, 03:52:51 PM »

I feel the whole issue has been blown out of proportion from both sides for political purposes at this point.
Logged
BringinTheTruth
Rookie
**
Posts: 115
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: October 19, 2012, 03:56:41 PM »

The reason why is that the story isn't properly being framed, and the Reps are insisting it is, while the Dems push back with nothing but shout-downs.  Iran-Contra nearly ended the Reagan presidency.  And in a world where we know a central issue is whether the President can keep us safe, which relies upon good and quality intel, Bhengazi represents a very, very central issue.  Replace "Bhengazi" in the story with, say a Saudi oilfield....all of a sudden gas prices are $9 a gallon and these sorts of explanations become central. 
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: October 19, 2012, 05:37:45 PM »

It was one of those semantical cf's.  The Obama administration did handle the matter poorly. They look incompetent. Does anyone disagree with that?
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: October 20, 2012, 10:23:02 AM »

It was one of those semantical cf's.  The Obama administration did handle the matter poorly. They look incompetent. Does anyone disagree with that?
It plays into a long running pattern.
Did BO call fort hood a terrorist attack?  No.
Did BO attend daily security briefings? No.  
Did BOs administration get a continuing forces agreement in Iraq?  No.
Did the admin ignore the loud chorus shouting concerns about who the rebels in Egypt and Iraq are?  Yes.
Did BO want the trial of KSM in lower Manhattan? yes
Did BO want to move Gitmo to Illinois AND give the detainees constitutional rights? yes
Did BO campaign on how the detainees deserve Geneva convention rights, despite meeting zero requirements of that convention?  Yes.  
etc, etc, etc,

BO has displayed a combination of neglect and incompetence on security issues that can't be ignored.  Lying and covering up on security to boot is another layer of failure.  

Obama at least pretends to be interested in domestic policy.  His comments "Bump in the road" and "not optimal" highlight his chilling lack of perspective/interest/competence on security and foreign policy.  
Logged
BringinTheTruth
Rookie
**
Posts: 115
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: October 20, 2012, 11:20:42 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it's called the plane of 'Reality'.

Obama indisputably called it an act of terror the next day. You lose.

He didn't?  Why do you say he did, because Candy Crowley said so.  The next day he condemned the attacks and later said generally, "no act of terror will blah, blah, blah."  Later that week he went on the view and when specifically asked was this an act of terror he said we are investigating and don't know.  Even assuming you are right, accepting your false premise as true, WHY does he change stories then, and WHY does he have Susan Rice pitch that story if it was not true?  You can't claim he identified this as a terrorist act of Al Quaeda without also getting an answer to why the story changed.  He can't claim he got it right without explaining why he later got it wrong.  You, sir, are the loser.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: October 20, 2012, 11:49:37 AM »

Susan Rice was briefed by the CIA after the attack that it may have been linked to the video riots in Cairo.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: October 20, 2012, 12:25:22 PM »

Did BO want the trial of KSM in lower Manhattan? yes
Did BO want to move Gitmo to Illinois AND give the detainees constitutional rights? yes

Only in AN-land are constitutional rights a bad thing.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: October 20, 2012, 12:58:15 PM »

Very good FAQ here.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/cutting-through-fog-benghazi-brief-qa
Logged
BringinTheTruth
Rookie
**
Posts: 115
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: October 20, 2012, 02:32:34 PM »


Except the VERY FIRST paragraph is entirely wrong.  j

In the immediate aftermath of any attack, the first question is "what happened here?!"  Obama did not say, as even the quote indicates, that this was a planned attack by Al Quaeda.  He simply didn't.  Candy Crowley acknowledged this herself.  Moreover, if he wants to claim he called it an act of terror the day after the attack, please tell us why that same following weekend and the following days he and Ambassador Rice were telling America it was specifically NOT an act of terror.  THAT is the Bhengazi issue in its entirety - not what he said the day after, but what he knew, when he knew it, and why his story has never once been consistent.

Nice try.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 13 queries.