So - apart from “strongly-worded statements” what exactly will that commander-in-chiefness entail?
I think you guys are a perfect example of an “echo chamber”
Preventing this from escalating into anything even nastier. Which is apparently much more than Romney could do in his shoes.
Ah I see. Another “If it wasn’t for Obama, we’d be even worse off” kind of argument.
So far this entire debate has been about statements. Romney hasn’t proposed doing anything different either except talking.
This is such an empty headed line of attack. First, it’s stupid in that any greater immediate response would be foolhardy.
Secondly, is the implication supposed to be that Obama has a poor track record of responding forcefully to threats or attacks on the US? Because if you believe that, there’s a walled compound in Pakistan I’d like to sell you.
Funny thing is, none of them think Obama is a Muslim.
Perfect example of an “echo chamber”.
What realistic options are there? The interim government is at the least playing lip service to condemning the attacks. If the actual perpetrators lose themselves into the crowd (even with somewhat complicit security forces), then what?
What can/should Obama, Romney, McCain, or even President Palin do?
Where is the line between sending in enough military forces to secure the building/compound and sending in so many forces to escalate the situation? And if escalation be damned, to what end would the escalation be targeted at?
What possible pressure do you bring on the interim government to find the perpetrators? Do you give a shit whether they’re handing over tortured shlubs with false confessions or whether you actually find those who pulled the trigger? (This assumes a lack of easy evidence, such as video footage, willing confessor, etc.)
What “attack”? I was told, in the post to which I was responding, that “Obama will be in full commander-in-chief mode where he has a big advantage”. So I asked exactly how that “commander-in-chiefness” will manifest itself. Is that an attack?
And that’s a pretty compelling kind of argument.
Suuuure. An unfalsifiable one, too.
That brain colored stain on the floor will come out with some soap and water.
The last 24 hours Romney seems to be doing his best to prove it. He weighed in much too soon on this, and now he’s now bending over backwards to justify a criticism that didn’t mean much of anything in the first place and which has become really tacky because people have died and the Cairo statement had nothing to do with those deaths. None of that speaks well for Romney’s judgment.
He will deploy the diplomatic and intelligence assets of the US to ensure the attackers are caught and punished.
But since this is an election thread, I was actually thinking about the optics. Obama is going to look presidential and statesmanlike. Romney is going to foolish and desparate, someone who can’t get his facts straight and who is politicizing a national tragedy.
Nonsense. If the available drivers are you and your friend who is drunk off his ass and you proceed to drive home and get into a fender-bender, by this “logic” your friend can assert that you might as well have let him drive.
Only if you think that issuing strongly-worded statements and being unable to do anything else (that is visible) is “presidential and statesmanlike”. Most Americans whose noses are not stuck up Obama’s behind will view it as weak as ineffectual. Which is a bit unfair, since Obama can’t do anything, but that’s the way it is.
I don’t have my nose up anyone’s behind.
You might want to consider that you are without merit attacking Obama’s actions in order to paint a picture that suggests that Romney’s vapidly stupid and bumbling actions are the same.
You aren’t rationally thinking about this. You are simply screaming at Obama because the guy you support just shit on his own shoes.
Also, hundreds of marines are on the way to Libya. So your fantasies of Obama doing nothing are, well, fantasies.
“echo chamber”
Save this kind of thing for the Pit thread, please.