• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2012 Debates

AlBell said:
An intelligent attempt at a cya ... seems to be working for some of you too.

So far I've missed Obama saying "Benghazi was a terrorist attack.'.
Click to expand...

So your claim is that Obama mentioned the word "terrorism" in his Rose Garden speech just in case in turned out to be terrorism and someone would try to call him on it at a later time?

:boggled:

Obama's advisors: Mr. President, make sure during your speech you mention the word "terrorism" in connection with the Benghazi incident.

Obama: Why?

Obama's advisors: Just in case it actually turns out to be an act of terrorism and someone - say, Mitt Romney - tries to suggest that you took to long to acknowledge that. As long as you make sure to mention terrorism in your speech today, you'll be able to make that person - possibly Romney - look like an idiot in - I don't know - maybe one of the debates a month from now.

Obama: Wow. You guys think of everything.

Obama's advisors: That's our job. Also, three days from now, you'll be having sushi for lunch. Pass on the tuna roll. You'll thank us later.
 
If this issue, when and how he used the word terrorism, suggests a foreign policy vulnerability Republicans can exploit, they are even more desperate and pathetic then I thought.
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
I did watch a little Fox News and the guys there said it was a tie, except the detestable Charles Krathammer who said Obama won on points. Then Hannity came on said "We're gonna tell you how the president lied on Libya and oil in a minute, but now let's go to Frank Luntz...."
Click to expand...

**** you, Frank! :mad:
 
DavidJames said:
If this issue, when and how he used the word terrorism, suggests a foreign policy vulnerability Republicans can exploit, they are even more desperate and pathetic then I thought.
Click to expand...

I know, it's absurd that this is even an issue, and if they dared to be consistent they wouldn't be pointing fingers.

It makes me think back to when we were told by Cheney and other politicians about all the possible terrorist attacks on American soil they thwarted and never told the American public about for reasons of national security.

This really does seem like nothing more than a semantic niggle blown out of proportion.
 
johnny karate said:
So your claim is that Obama mentioned the word "terrorism" in his Rose Garden speech just in case in turned out to be terrorism and someone would try to call him on it at a later time?
Click to expand...
To be fair, that might not be entirely without an element of truth, though I wouldn't put it quite that way. At the time, the White House was not in possession of enough information to definitively declare one way or the other whether it was a "terrorist" attack, defining that as an orchestrated attack by an organized terrorist group or groups. At the same time, it was appropriate that the President make some remarks. With that in mind, a leader with experience should recognize that there are good reasons for being cautious about public statements issued early in the course of developing events -- and this is true whether he happens to be in the middle of a re-election campaign or not. His remarks have a way of turning into actual policy statements.

On the other hand, a mere hopeful who has already made "Etch-a-Sketch" practically his middle name may feel that he can afford to be a bit more daring, especially if polls suggest that he has little to lose. He can stick his neck out with statements that are not well supported at the time by the sort of facts that can only be aquired through a full and detailed investigation. If he turns out to be wrong, many people will dismiss it as just ambition taking a shot anyway; you know: "Candidates say the darndest things".

After all, while it is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility that careless statements on the part of a mere candidate may actually influence international events, it's certainly much less likely for them to do so in any significant way than is the case with careless statements by the person who already holds the official title of President of the United States. Sure, he may aquire the occasional unflattering label like "Mitt the Twit", or draw sharp remarks from foreign leaders (which has to sting when it's coming from the leader of one of our closest allies), or receive a TIC thank-you from the likes of Vladimir Putin for greasing the arms negotiation wheels for him by naming Russia as the "number one geopolitical foe of the US", but no one really takes that sort of thing very seriously, especially if they were watching the bizarre clown circus that was the race for the GOP nomination. I mean, who knows what might come out of the mouth of any one of those nutjobs, right?

From a standpoint of game theory, I don't see the relative risks and payoffs being the same for a candidate as they are for a sitting President.
 
AlBell said:
An intelligent attempt at a cya ... seems to be working for some of you too.

So far I've missed Obama saying "Benghazi was a terrorist attack.'.
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait let me get this straight. The president had no inkling that this was terrorist related but decided it would be wise to describe it as terrorist related because "Heck you never know."

Thats your interpretation? Really?
 
Biscuit said:
Wait wait wait let me get this straight. The president had no inkling that this was terrorist related but decided it would be wise to describe it as terrorist related because "Heck you never know."

Thats your interpretation? Really?
Click to expand...
No. My interpretation is that he knew for a fact it was a terrorist attack. He just doesn't want to say so, then or now.

He's afraid that would detract from bin Laden's death as hindering al queda.
 
AlBell said:
He didn't in that jpg. Got something with actual content?
I stated earlier that had he done so I missed seeing it.
Click to expand...


You mean like the transcript of the rose garden speech, the video, the presidents own words?

Got anything other than a blind hatred of the President?
 
AlBell said:
An intelligent attempt at a cya ... seems to be working for some of you too.

So far I've missed Obama saying "Benghazi was a terrorist attack.'.
Click to expand...

Keep saying things like that.

The reason I suggest that is that I want Obama to win. I think there is some real vulnerability for Obama over the handling of the Benghazi incident, but as long as his detractors keep emphasizing irrelevant sentence parsing, it comes out as a winning issue for him.

Mitt grabbed the shovel last night. If everyone pitches in, he can be all the way to China when he realizes he has missed an opportunity.

(At least he can tour his investments while he's there.)
 
By the way, did Romney call it a "terrorist attack"?

Here, he seemed to take it--as most everyone did at the time--as a violent response to the film. Then went on to claim Obama's remarks were wrong. . . somehow. And blames everything on a lack of American leadership.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom