2012 Debates

[NotJesus]

Tut-tut! Apparently, the proper question is, "How is Mitt going to prevent the destruction of jobs?" Perhaps also, "How is Mitt going to 'encourage' the private sector to create jobs?"

It seems that, in general, the only response is, "Let businesses keep more of their money."

Well there's always deregulation, but Mitt was a bit fuzzy about that in the first debate. It would seem that the current plan is to keep the good regulations and get rid of the bad ones.

 

[AlBell]

Al, why did the president bring up an unrelated issue during such an important moment? Would you please explain that?

I suspect he was distracted worrying about missing his scheduled fundraiser in Las Vegas.

What's your thought?

 

[not_so_new]

The idea that Obama is actively preventing the private sector from creating jobs is ludicrous.

What is his motivation for that? Higher unemployment is going to somehow help his reelection efforts?

 

[not_so_new]

Well there's always deregulation, but Mitt was a bit fuzzy about that in the first debate. It would seem that the current plan is to keep the good regulations (as in "none of them") and get rid of the bad ones (as in "all of them").

There.... IFTFY

 

[bedlin88]

I suspect he was distracted worrying about missing his scheduled fundraiser in Las Vegas.

What's your thought?

You know it just isn't important, we live in the information and communication age. It doesn't matter where the president went to, Vegas, or Washington, or Tim-buk-tu for that matter if he needed to make a statement he has a Google of press following him. If he needs to be informed about something there are plenty of people around him at all times to do that to. The whole Las Vegas thing is nothing but a red herring.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It would be pretty silly of Romney to claim that the government doesn't create jobs when he's spending hundreds of millions of dollars in order to get a government job.

...which will put the person holding the job out of work.

Net job gain = zero.

 

[AlBell]

This ^

It's incredibly hypocritical... unless, he and all the Republican politicians repeating this talking point are willing to do their jobs for free and with no benefits

You mean like ObamaCare expects doctors to do?

http://townhall.com/columnists/halscherz/2012/10/19/obamacare_may_be_around_but_will_your_doctor

Over dinner with an anesthesiologist friend, we discussed his new job -specifically his "on call" schedule. He explained that he needed to get one of his partners to take his next day on call, but that it shouldn't be a problem. In fact, he said that his partners vie for these call days. I was perplexed because this had not been my experience, so I asked him to elaborate. He said that the doctors in his group get paid according to how much they work, so they compete for extra call days.

In his former group, everyone was paid the same amount, regardless how much they worked. Hence, no one wanted extra call- it was a burden, and there was no incentive to work harder. By mid-afternoon, doctors attempted to remain inconspicuous so that they could slip out of the hospital unnoticed. In his new group, people volunteer to stay late and want to be sure that there are no patients still waiting for surgery before they call it a day.
There can be no better example illustrating the differences between a system which rewards hard work and personal responsibility versus one where all incentives are removed. Obamacare is emblematic of a system which destroys incentives to work and the reason why over 70% of physicians oppose it.

 

[PhreePhly]

I submit that our nation -- by adopting the stance that rights of free expression, association, and assembly are universal -- is obligated to regard peaceful demonstrations outside any of its embassies as a legitimate means by which the people of a host nation may express their grievances. I submit that our President would agree, as expressed by the spirit of statements such as these:

“I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.”

“we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence.”

“To be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”

“people are making their voices heard, insisting on their innate dignity and the right to determine their future”

But, I believe that the President also holds that in the instant that those protests turn to deadly violence against one of our diplomatic missions, regardless of whether that violence is fully spontaneous or carefully orchestrated (or any combination of the two) they become -- prima facie -- acts of terror. I further submit that his choice of words in the Rose Garden was intended to subsume the full range of that, and did so -- despite the lack of complete information at the time -- and that they are still just as valid now that we have more complete information.

++
I came here to basically make this same point. I think AlBell is correct (and Romney as well) in that the President's words in that Rose Garden speech do not say that this was a planned terrorist attack and that was Romney's point.

But, the bottom line is that this was a debate and Romney was not prepared enough to know the President's speech in the Rose Garden and so when he fixated on the phrase "acts of terror" and tried to catch Obama in an "oops" moment, it backfired terribly.

I admit I am biased towards Obama, but I really am having a hard time understanding what the right is hoping to achieve with this entire line of criticism. Benghazi is a consulate, not the embassy (which is located in Tripoli), so security at this location is going to very different and not as high as on the embassy grounds. Now, I do think there was a lapse in intelligence, but that is hardly the fault of the President.

It seems to me that Obama is not afraid to follow through in finding out who did this and an armed drone attack would not be out of the question to finish the job. The idea that Obama is somehow weak in regards to supposed attacks on the US by terrorist groups is really unfounded. If there is one criticism I have of the President, it would be his willingness to remotely kill suspected terrorist and accept the ensuing collateral damage.

 

[Unabogie]

You mean like ObamaCare expects doctors to do?

http://townhall.com/columnists/halscherz/2012/10/19/obamacare_may_be_around_but_will_your_doctor

A blog post with anecdotes? Wow, that's some persuasive evidence right there, Al!

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

We are all affirmative action supporters now?

 

[Ziggurat]

But, I believe that the President also holds that in the instant that those protests turn to deadly violence against one of our diplomatic missions, regardless of whether that violence is fully spontaneous or carefully orchestrated (or any combination of the two) they become -- prima facie -- acts of terror.

There's a bit of a problem with this position: under US law, terrorism requires premeditation. If it's not premeditated, it cannot be terrorism.

I further submit that his choice of words in the Rose Garden was intended to subsume the full range of that, and did so -- despite the lack of complete information at the time -- and that they are still just as valid now that we have more complete information.

I think that's generally correct: the statements were kept vague to allow for different possibilities. And I don't have a problem with what he said at that point in time.

But he spent far too long before he did specifically call it terrorism, and his attempt to categorize that original statement as calling the attack terrorism is just ass-covering for what he failed to do in the following days. The administration's response was a train wreck of conflicting accounts and buck passing for a security failure of monumental proportions.

 

[Biscuit]

A blog post with anecdotes? Wow, that's some persuasive evidence right there, Al!

Give him a break, it's all he's got.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

++
I came here to basically make this same point. I think AlBell is correct (and Romney as well) in that the President's words in that Rose Garden speech do not say that this was a planned terrorist attack and that was Romney's point.

So what exactly was Romney's criticism?

He was technically wrong (that Obama did refer to it as a terrorist action the day after the attack), but he was right that the administration couldn't discern for sure whether it was a planned attacked or part of spontaneous protests against the film.

So?

Is Romney criticizing Obama for not being omniscient? Does Romney think Obama should have said something in certain terms when he wasn't yet certain?

Or is he claiming that he, as President Romney, would have been able to get this information faster than the existing intelligence apparatus could?

Exactly what is Romney's point, and exactly what would he have done differently?

 

[SezMe]

You mean like ObamaCare expects doctors to do?

http://townhall.com/columnists/halscherz/2012/10/19/obamacare_may_be_around_but_will_your_doctor

If my counting is correct, that is the second time in this very thread alone where you have tried to change the subject.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's a bit of a problem with this position: under US law, terrorism requires premeditation. If it's not premeditated, it cannot be terrorism.

That's premeditation in the criminal sense. It means someone had to go to the embassy meaning to do harm. That decision could have been made by someone more or less spontaneously after the protests against the film started. [ETA: That is, a premeditated murder could be the result of a decision made the same day as the murder. It could well have been an act of terrorism that wasn't planned days or weeks in advance by any organized entity.]

But he spent far too long before he did specifically call it terrorism,

Too long compared to what? Should he have said it was certainly a planned attack before he was sure it was? Could we expect a President Romney to act before having the information?

Or is he saying he should have been able to get the information sooner than he did? If so, specifically what should he have done differently? Will a President Romney re-organize intelligence agencies somehow? Is this perhaps why he wants to increase military spending beyond what the Pentagon is even asking for (to beef up intelligence so that he can get quicker answers to questions like this)?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

But he spent far too long before he did specifically call it terrorism, and his attempt to categorize that original statement as calling the attack terrorism is just ass-covering for what he failed to do in the following days. The administration's response was a train wreck of conflicting accounts and buck passing for a security failure of monumental proportions.

There have 5 previous murders of US ambassadors. Three of them happened during a single presidential term, the 1973-76 Nixon/Ford term. Would you then say that the administration was totally inept by allowing three ambassadors to be murdered?

ETA: Any idea of how many attacks there have been against American diplomats in the past 40 years?
http://motherjones.tumblr.com/post/32806809328/peace-through-strength-didnt-stop-attacks-on-us

 

[Ziggurat]

He was technically wrong (that Obama did refer to it as a terrorist action the day after the attack)

Except that he didn't. He spoke generically about terrorism, but did not actually label the attack itself as a terrorist attack.

but he was right that the administration couldn't discern for sure whether it was a planned attacked or part of spontaneous protests against the film.

If the administration didn't know if it was a planned attack or part of a spontaneous protest, then it didn't know if it was a terrorist attack (which, by law, requires that it NOT be spontaneous), and calling it a terrorist attack would have been unwarranted.

Is Romney criticizing Obama for not being omniscient?

No. He's criticizing Obama for not getting the information our government already had, and for not being able to keep his own people on the same page. It was a failure of leadership.

Or is he claiming that he, as President Romney, would have been able to get this information faster than the existing intelligence apparatus could?

The existing intelligence apparatus knew that it was a terrorist attack long before Obama ever said it was.

 

[Ziggurat]

There have 5 previous murders of US ambassadors. Three of them happened during a single presidential term, the 1973-76 Nixon/Ford term. Would you then say that the administration was totally inept by allowing three ambassadors to be murdered?

You might be able to convince me of that, but I'd have to know more details of how those deaths happened before I reached that conclusion. For example, was security wholly inadequate to the known risks they faced? I'm open to arguments to that affect, but your post doesn't contain one.

But if you just want to try for some sort of tu quoque argument, then this has no relevance.

 

[Morrigan]

Except that he didn't. He spoke generically about terrorism, but did not actually label the attack itself as a terrorist attack.

lol, so what? Is that really the best you got? "He wasn't specific enough in labelling it a terrorist attack!". Puh-lease.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Except that he didn't. He spoke generically about terrorism, but did not actually label the attack itself as a terrorist attack.

No. In his Rose Garden speech he tied "this attack" to his observation about "terrorist actions".

If the administration didn't know if it was a planned attack or part of a spontaneous protest, then it didn't know if it was a terrorist attack (which, by law, requires that it NOT be spontaneous), and calling it a terrorist attack would have been unwarranted.

No. This is the point I made above (mostly in my ETA).

If, for example, someone (or even a group of someones) at the protest recognized that the embassy's feeble security was swamped by the protest and/or that the protest would provide a diversion, and he ran home to get his gun, came back and entered with the intention of killing the ambassador, that would in fact be a premeditated crime that would qualify as an act of terrorism. Something like that could have been the case. It would be an act of terrorism, but not something planned out days or weeks or months ahead of time.

[ETA: In fact, the alternative--that protesters throwing rocks and bottles managed to kill the ambassador with no premeditation at all--seems highly unlikely. Enough so that he was fine in assuming that wasn't the case.]

As information came in Obama seemed to give an honest assessment of it. I don't recall the words, but in one statement I recall him saying something like we don't know for sure yet, but based on the kinds of weapons used, it's more likely that it was a planned, organized attack.

The existing intelligence apparatus knew that it was a terrorist attack long before Obama ever said it was.

If this was Romney's point, he surely didn't communicate it. And if it is, my response would be, what is the evidence that the information was available to Obama but Obama somehow put himself outside the loop (or refused to reflect that information in his public statements)?