Wow, did Obama kidnap the Lindbergh Baby too?
No, very bad. Remember this maxim:
“When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout.”
This is known in Pubbieland as an appropriate and measured first response.
Um, no, that isn’t what happened, Wikipedia:
Yeah, deliberatly not rushing to conclusions and waiting until the facts came in. It is also becoming clear that the video may have in fact incited the militant group to attack and that it may have only been planned a few hours in advance. That’s pretty spontaneous when it comes to military action, I think. (link)
That’s just the thing. There wasn’t a riot.
It didn’t happen. It was either a mistake or a lie to claim there was a riot depending on how much you trust the administration.
There was an organized terror attack in Libya on 9/11/2012, not a mob rioting. No one disputes this anymore.
I guess we can put to bed the argument that Obama Administration couldn’t possibly have been hoping to deceive the American people about the nature of the attack since there’s someone right here in this thread who still insists that some riot took place, rather than an organized and planned terror attack.
Have you been reading the thread? You should make some effort to have knowledge of the basic facts before participating.
My guess is friend Debaser isn’t hung up on facts and reality. Attack Obama with every breath, ignore the details. Rinse, later, repeat.
Edited to add: What the fuck are you even talking about, Debaser?
There was a public protest used as a cover for the attack. I know that the juxtaposition of a large angry crowd of protestors and a violent attack might lead some to jump to the conclusion that it was a riot but not the likes of you, sir, oh no, you saw right to the truth of the matter.
To quote Peggy Seeger
In fact there is plenty of dispute.
I liked some of the debate tweets:
Summary of Debate: “I can create jobs if you make me the head of government, which cannot make jobs.” - Mitt Romney
“One of the things I find most troubling about Obamacare is my inability to decide whether or not to take credit for it.” - Romney
There was no riot in Libya at all? This is literally the first time I’ve heard this. I tried several Google searches using variations on “Libya riot,” but I haven’t found anything that indicates that there were no riots at all. What source am I missing for this story?
Libya seemed like workplace violence to me.
Just going by Fort Hood.
He did. In the part where he called it an “act of terror.”
Since when are “acts of terror” confined only to actions of al Qaeda anyway? Is mob violence not terroristic?
Today’s Boston Globe
Can we at least agree on the basic facts of the matter before we start debating the motives of those involved?
Sheesh.
You mean to say that we should gather and evaluate the evidence before rushing to assign labels?
The chances that Candy would admit wrongdoing if there was none at Obama’s expense is as likely as her not going for a fifth trip to the Golden Corral buffet line.
Yes. Because Candy Crowley has a clear track record of being in the bag for Democrats.
Wow. That’s just downright nasty.
This debate was certainly more lively than the first one. I think Obama eeked out a small victory. It wasn’t a slam dunk, though. Obama had a few great moments, but he petered off towards the end, and there were a few questions where he just kind of segued into general talking points that were only peripherally related to the question. And the one time he really insisted going over time because ‘it’s important’ he didn’t really have anything important to say.
Romney came across as an arrogant douche a lot of the time. When he stayed on point, he did OK, but he was way too overbearing in his fights with the moderator. Most of the supposed instances of her “interrupting” him were when he went over time and refused to concede the floor. And his first answer was silly. “How will you make me feel more secure about job opportunities?” “Jobs are important! I love job! I haz all the jobs!” Sure, you like jobs… but how?
The whole “acts of terror” thing was silly. It’s clear that Obama was correcting Romney about his actual quote, and then Romney clarified that he was talking about the two weeks thing, and at that point Obama let him continue without correcting him. And the moderator made the same point, the same clarification, that Obama’s quote was correct, but that the two weeks thing was also correct. This was all just clarifying a point, making clear as to what they were referring to, and there’s no actual thing to get worked up about.
"Near the end of her program State of the Union, and well after a somewhat contentious interview with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) that dealt with amongst other things the recent national security leaks controversy, Crowley stated, “Usually you kind of give the President a pass on leaking confidential stuff”
Ah, adding “State department” to the search criteria got me a lot more hits. Thanks.