I’m trying to understand the Benghazi thing. Let’s assume that Obama didn’t say what he actually did say. Please complete the following statement:
What, exactly?
I just watched a recording of the debate. After his lackluster first debate, Obama had to come through this time and I thought he did so convincingly hitting all the right notes. Obama was very assertive but also smooth and presidential. I thought he won on both style and substance.
Romney was outclassed with his awkward style, a tax plan that no one understands, and his “binders full of women” gaffe.
I doubt many undecided voters are fired up about Benghazi. I think it was a mistake for Romney to turn it into the centerpiece of his campaign.
That’s not at all true. She corrected him on his wording, but also pointed out that his argument was essentially correct.
Why not mention the second part?
Yes, he accepted responsibility, but he is not the only one, nor the most important, to deserve blame. Embassy security is not run out of the White House. And the idea that anyone was out there lying as part of some sort of cover-up is ridiculous. Do you seriously think a cover-up would be undertaken without having a very good idea of what actually happened in this tragedy? Doesn’t it make more sense that the reason different accounts came out of the White House was they were reacting to new info as it came available? Hell, the FBI didn’t get there for what, weeks? But if you have any real evidence of a conspiracy of some sort, then let’s see it.
No, he didn’t. See a couple of my links in some older post. The context of that quote was not only not in reference to Libya, but in the two weeks prior he refused to label it as a terrorist attack. Members of his own staff plain said “this was not a terrorist attack”. When asked if Libya was a terrorist attack on ‘The View’, he refused to say it was. The WH spent two weeks dancing around the issue before someone said it was a terrorist attack and, iirc, it was Hillary who first said it was.
I’ve produced about four different cites for this now. How about you guys produce some?
We don’t have to produce cites to show you what the transcript says. You can read the transcript.
It’s awesome that the Republicans are so utterly without merit that only this horseshit is what you can pretend to be outraged about.
What would be any different? Would the victims no longer be dead? Would we be much closer to knowing who to bomb? I already know the motives of the perpetrators, their motive is terror. If the motive is a general hatred not focused on any particular event, so fucking what?
I want them found and persuaded to see the light and rejoin the community of reasoning men. If that proves to be impractical, dead will do.
Yes, while there was an investigation going on, the President didn’t jump the gun and f-up the process by declaring the attack something it possibly wasn’t.
I guess I can see how one could get outraged by this - well, not really.
ETA: addressed to OMG.
Obama accepts responsibility.
So he didn’t label it specifically as a “terrorist attack.” So what? This is a phony argument ginned up to make the President look bad, when in fact it makes more sense to believe the admin, lacking clairvoyance, chose to respond to the facts as they knew them at the time.
I thought it was a gaffe, but for a different reason: he was endorsing a practice of Affirmative Action in hiring!
Somebody on MSNBC made the point that Obama missed a chance here - Mitt sent a team in to negotiate these rules, agreed to them, then ignored them once he felt it was appropriate. The MSNBC guy pointed out that, once again, the 1% think the rules don’t really apply to them, even the ones they agreed to honor.
Romney got shut down pretty decisively over the Benghazi thing. Trying to make additional hay of it now will only serve to make him look more petty.
There could very well be some legimate, reasonable and credible reasons for not announcing all that is known about the attack. It would be a shame to see the pursuit of the perpetrators, the investigation and the general well being of any people actively investigating this in Benghazi compromised for the sake of satisfying talking points.
Not to say that this absolves the administration of blame, nor that they shouldn’t be honest, or that mistakes weren’t made - just that there might be a whole lot more at play here than the soundbite of “Obama would be damaged by a premeditated terror attack” on one side or “Waiting for all the information is best” on the other.
That there is some balance between pre-meditation and a general angry reaction over the video is also clear. To argue so much about where that balance lies - seems to be missing the forest for the trees to me.
Personally, I like the fact that the President’s diplomatic team waited until all the facts are in. You can lie in a campaign like Mitt Romney, but when you do it in the Oval Office, it can become an international incident.
And we gave the cite. Here it is again. President Obama: As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. Romney thought he could make something up and nobody would call him on it. It’s worked in the past. But it doesn’t always work, and those who don’t live in a fantasy world care about the facts.
ETA: And here’s the debate transcript:
ht kevin drum
It’s also (total shocker!) not exactly true:
So, he didn’t actually request binders full of women.
Perhaps. But that’s not what he said:
According to Romney, he asked for names of qualified female cabinet members, and got what he asked for: binders full of women.
Reading the article, I was a bit surprised that it’s not exactly a defense of Romney…
Fuck that, I did that during the VP debates and I didn’t wake up until Saturday.
Where the fuck was this guy during the last debate?
The question is how many American THINK they pay a capital gains tax. During the estate tax debate, the Republican had my sister convinced that my mother’s estate was going to be subject to the estate tax because it was a death tax.
No shit. I’m almost more pissed now than after the first debate. After the first debate I thought, “I didn’t know Obama sucked so hard” now I realize he wasn’t trying. WTF!!! Well I donated some money to his superpac in the hopes that he can keep this up. This is like American Idol with money. BTW I did play the Obama calling Romney a liar drinking game and I am HAMMERED.
Its hard to make the math add up.
No, but my wife found it offensive that the Romney plan for pay equality for women was making the economy so fucking good that companies will be desperate enough to pay women what they pay men.
Are you serious? You don’t honestly think that you can count the last Bush budget, there was RECESSION then!!!
Der de der der, you didn’t come out and say that this was a premeditated terrorist attack until TWO WEEKS after the event when it was obvious to EVERYONE on fox and friends that it was.
Its amazing how many Republicans think this is an effective counter to 4 years of awesome foreign policy… and killing Osama bin Laden.
Seriously it is a BAD idea to monday morning quarterback someone with Obama’s foreign policy record.
And the next debate is to be focused on foreign policy, which hasn’t been Mitt’s strong point so far…
Thought game was drink every lie. Not every say “liar”. Took me thirty minutes to tipe this. Fck!
Still waiting for a real republican answer to this. Seems like a reasonable question, IMO. My whole political life has been a fight between republican supply-side trickle-down theories and democrat demand-side bubble-up theories, so for one side to give that up in any form is somewhat significant.