Darn! Just enough time to tell us that there’s “strong evidence”, but not enough time to tell us what it is. Busy, busy, busy, as the Bokononists say…
Any of our conservative posters licking their lips at the prospect, now that Obama has apparently woken up?
I reckon Mitt will try to turn foreign policy back towards trade…
Look at the evil currency manipulating China
We need to bully the middle east more to get cheaper oil
The price of oil is an example of Obama failed middle east policy
What I find funny is that Republicans are making the exact same argument I made, that they laughed about and said I was just in the tank for Obama. They argue that Obama lost because he lied.
What’s really funny is that, if he did lie, I’d agree with them. But he didn’t.
Given that Romney has been invested in China, the Middle East and Iran, it will be interesting to see if he actually goes there.
I’m thinking he’ll try to plant his flag on ‘You hate Isreal’ mountain and try to stay there screaming about what a good business CEO he is as long as he can.
Proverbs* 26:11
All the simple answers have been tried or are obviously flawed.
See post 1172.
In brief, the Republicans sorely need to punch a hole in the president’s foreign policy cred which is about as good as I’ve seen since Reagan and they think they can do it by showing that the Benghazi attack was not some random spontaneous attack on a small consulate in eastern Libya but the well orchestrated, pre-planned attack by known terror groups. An attack that we should have detected but failed to because Obama sucks. Then after the fact, Obama and his team is making it seem like random violence so that they don’t have to deal with the fact that any reasonable person would have stationed an aircraft carrier inside the consulate and resurrected Patton to form a tank perimeter around that consulate.
What choice does he have? If he had a better argument, he’d use it but you have to play the hand you’re dealt.
Looked at charitably, Romney was overeager to apply a macro storyline to micro facts and tried to catch Obama on specific words that Obama actually said.
Looked at uncharitably, Obama used a rope a dope and Romney got roped.
I don’t think it was an accident that Obama causally inserted the fact that he called it an act of terror in the middle of a sentence because its just buried enough to make Romney think it might have been a mistake or something like that.
Lets face it, Romney looked like a somewhat slow witted deer in headlights at that moment and all the bitching and moaning about moderator bias or semantics about how the words “act of terror” in a speech about Benghazi wasn’t referring to Benghazi ring very thin.
I don’t think it was a rope-a-dope. In a rope-a-dope you actually pretend the other guy is up. Obama didn’t even do that. He just said “proceed”. It couldn’t have been more obvious that he had prepared for the question if he had handed Romney a note saying so.
“Could you stand about two feet to the right, Governor? Good. You know where the rope goes, right? Good. Now, see that lever in front of you? Give it a good pull…”
You can bet Romney’s people are going to know exactly what words Obama has said and not said in the next debate.
Yes, but will Romney know them?
No way was this a trap. Obama knew he’d be accused of not calling it terrorism, because that was a current Republican talking point. He had a very easy response: he had repeatedly called it terrorism, including calling it terrorism the day after it happened during his major statement on the subject. He used that response, but instead of talking about his repetition of the term, he focused on the most important time he’d used it.
He probably thought either that’d be the end of it, or he thought (more likely) Romney would try to weasel on the subject, saying something like, “But the PAAAAAAttern! There’s no PAAAAAAttern of calling it terrorism!” at which point he’d be ready to trot out all the other examples of his calling it terrorism.
But Romney got confused, and used the totally wrong approach.
Republicans could say, “Yes, this was a gaffe.” That is, of course, what most Democrats do when Dems make a gaffe–it’s our famous self-loathing. But just as we’re famous for self-loathing and infighting, Republicans are famous for Our Party, Right or Wrong. So they decided to double-down in what is sincerely the most ridiculous talking point I have ever encountered from a major party in my entire life. I mean, this makes the whole “sexual relations” nitpicking look like good solid argument by comparison.
More ridiculous than “We built it”? 
Obama said, “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.”
At the debate…
Romney: “You said in the Rose Garden, the day after the attack, it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration? Is that what you’re saying?”
Obama: “Please proceed, Governor.”
11-Dimensional Chess. 
Heh. It’s only a trap inasmuch as Obama watched Romney tie the rope into a snare, attach it to a bent sapling, and stick his own foot into it. Obama’s only participation in the trap was that he said, in effect, “Dude, your foot is in a trap,” and when Romney said, “Nuh uh!” the president decided not to argue with him about it.
I wonder if Obama could Jedi Romney by saying “please proceed” again in the middle of something. Even if it was just a bluff it could throw Romney off his game. Mess with his head.
Now that’s hilarious. I’d freakin LOVE to hear him toss that line out on Monday, just to watch Romney’s expression.
That’s definitely going in the drinking game.
Actually, I think it was a trap, though one that was only made possible by Republican stupidity. Obama knew that one of Romney’s pre-programmed talking points was going to be “You didn’t call those bad guys terrorists!” (as an aside, this is why it’s incredibly stupid to publicize your debate soundbites before the debate). And, in a nitpicky sense, that’s true: Obama did not use the exact word “terrorists”. So what Obama did was that he primed the pump for the talking point, but he did so in a way that removed even that silly little nitpick: He said “I called it an act of terror”, at which Romney tried to make his talking point fit into the debate by saying “You did not call it an act of terror” (instead of the pre-scripted “you did not call them terrorists”), which was easily proven false.
Now, any opponent intelligent enough to be worthy of the Presidency would not have been so stupid as to telegraph their punches that way, and if they did, would not have been so stupid as to keep going ahead with the attack even after Obama prepared and baited his trap, and even if they failed both, would not have been so stupid as to continue full-steam ahead with “Calling it an act of terror doesn’t count as calling it an act of terror”. It’s not a very robust trap. But it was an appropriate trap for the prey it was intended to catch.