2012 Debates

[Ziggurat]

I don't think that's true. If your intent was to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, it's terrorism regardless of how many people (if any) you target with violence.

You misunderstood me, although I can understand the source of confusion. I meant "target" in the broad sense of who the arson was intended to affect (since unless you're burning an actual person, which wasn't part of the hypothetical, then you can only target people indirectly anyways). So if your intent was to intimidate or coerce a population, then they are your target.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's quite a claim, Zig. Do you have a source for what security measures are typically in place at consulates and embassies around the world? Or even in Islamic countries? Or even the Middle East?

Libya is not typical, not even for the middle east. It doesn't matter if those arrangements were typical, they were completely inadequate for the local conditions. The people on the ground knew that. The state department should have known that. It was their job to know that. Unless you want to claim that security arrangements WERE adequate, or that it was reasonable to think they were adequate (despite prior attacks and requests for more security), then you really don't have a point. Because the point you tried to make? It's complete nonsense.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not wasting my time with a semantics game...

Actually yes. You are.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Look, it's pretty clear that this is their whole game on Foreign Policy.

Batting leadoff - China. He's batting about .213 but is a great finger-pointer as long as the other guy doesn't get a turn at bat and someone like Ross Grimsley is on the mound throwing him looping 82 mph "fast" balls.

In second position - "You went on The View but didn't see Bibi". Oh-for his last forty at bats. Netanyahu was trying to paint Hillary and Obama into a corner with his "how long must we wait" nonsense. The admin smacked him down and he cleaned up his UN speech to the point that the State Department may have actually helped him write it.

Batting third... "We don't know anything about Syria but God Bless America and we'd sure have handled it differently'. Had a ground rule double in August, and was HBP and got on base in early October (but was picked off by Biden using the hidden ball trick).

And Batting Cleanup.... Rooooaaaaaar! Number 7. The Sultan of Significance. The Benghazi Bungle. Let's see if he can break his record for fouling off pitches and staying at the plate. So far, his best outing is twelve days. Can he keep it up for ninety more minutes. (And the crowd goes wild!)

Batting 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th..... Zilch. Nada. Null. Rien and DH No Idea.

In short, Romney's entire FP debate is going to have to be,... "Well, I think that expanding the NATO role in Lapland is significant, just as Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi....." Can he pull that off for ninety minutes?

 

[SezMe]

You're working too hard at this, Zig. You made a claim ....

But it doesn't compromise anyone else's safety to note that our ambassador had no Marine contingent, the security detail that was with him was too small, inadequately armed, and essentially untrained, and the consulate itself was protected by nothing more than ordinary door locks. These failures were all peculiar to that specific event, and do not represent the general state of diplomatic security.

... and all I did was ask for backup .....

That's quite a claim, Zig. Do you have a source for what security measures are typically in place at consulates and embassies around the world? Or even in Islamic countries? Or even the Middle East?

... and you replied with a complete evasion and closed with some mind reading ...

. Because the point you tried to make? It's complete nonsense.

.... because I did not attempt to make any point at all. I asked a question. Could you leave the Kreskin act behind and just support your claim?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Taxing Peter's private-sector company to pay Paul's government salary doesn't create any net jobs.

So my 10 years of service in the USN wasn't a job? How about contractors that build and service government contracts? What about arms manufacturers?

 

[Ziggurat]

You're working too hard at this, Zig. You made a claim ....



... and all I did was ask for backup .....

I do not know or claim to know what the general arrangement of security for our diplomats are, nor is that relevant to my argument. What I know is that the security at Benghazi was completely inadequate, and that was a massive failure. I suppose that I am making a bit of an assumption that we aren't currently making similar mistakes with our other diplomats. I make this assumption on two grounds: the first is that this attack is highly unusual, and the second is that I don't believe even Obama is that incompetent. If you would like to argue that my assumptions are wrong, and that such complete incompetence on security matters may be routine, be my guest. That does seem like a peculiar position for you to take, though, and I think it would make my criticism of Obama even more damning if true. So in that sense I'm taking the charitable interpretation, but I'm more than happy to concede the point that these problems could be widespread, if you wish.

 

[SezMe]

I do not know or claim to know what the general arrangement of security for our diplomats are, nor is that relevant to my argument.

I thought it was but maybe I missed why you brought it up.

I make this assumption on two grounds: the first is that this attack is highly unusual, and the second is that I don't believe even Obama is that incompetent. If you would like to argue that my assumptions are wrong, and that such complete incompetence on security matters may be routine, be my guest. That does seem like a peculiar position for you to take, though, and I think it would make my criticism of Obama even more damning if true. So in that sense I'm taking the charitable interpretation, but I'm more than happy to concede the point that these problems could be widespread, if you wish.

My problem in all that is the word "Obama". Do you really think that he is cognizant of, reviews and approves security arrangements in embassies and consulates around the world? Or even in the Middle East. I think not. In fact, I doubt he even knew of the request for more security in Benghazi. In that light, I am unclear how you could ascribe incompetence to Obama for something that he is completely uninvolved in.

Well, I suppose you are appealing to "the buck stops here" idea. If so, then you have to hold Obama (and Bush II and Clinton and Bush I, etc.) personally responsible for every single decision that their administration made. You have to judge the President "incompetent" if any decision at any level in the bureaucracy goes wrong. I'm more than happy to concede that you don't do that.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I thought it was but maybe I missed why you brought it up.


My problem in all that is the word "Obama". Do you really think that he is cognizant of, reviews and approves security arrangements in embassies and consulates around the world? Or even in the Middle East. I think not. In fact, I doubt he even knew of the request for more security in Benghazi. In that light, I am unclear how you could ascribe incompetence to Obama for something that he is completely uninvolved in.

Something like this doesn't necessarily go to Obama himself, it goes to his administration which the State Department is part of. I don't think it's unrealistic that the information didn't reach him beforehand, but the state department was in a position to have that information and act appropriately. What'd I'd rather understand from his point of view is what he would have done differently had he been given the information, or how he intends to move forward in correcting the mistakes made by those in the state department. Just my opinion

 

[zeggman]

In short, Romney's entire FP debate is going to have to be,... "Well, I think that expanding the NATO role in Lapland is significant, just as Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi....." Can he pull that off for ninety minutes?

Maybe. His TownHall debate consisted of little more than saying "I know what it takes to create new jobs" over and over again. Punctuated by "The government doesn't create jobs." So I guess if he was working in government, his knowledge would be more or less wasted anyway.

 

[Ziggurat]

My problem in all that is the word "Obama". Do you really think that he is cognizant of, reviews and approves security arrangements in embassies and consulates around the world? Or even in the Middle East. I think not. In fact, I doubt he even knew of the request for more security in Benghazi. In that light, I am unclear how you could ascribe incompetence to Obama for something that he is completely uninvolved in.

Obama is responsible for the people below him. If they are incompetent, he shares in the blame.

Well, I suppose you are appealing to "the buck stops here" idea. If so, then you have to hold Obama (and Bush II and Clinton and Bush I, etc.) personally responsible for every single decision that their administration made.

In a general sense, I do. Don't you? Sure, you can argue that the standard for organizational responsibility should be different, we can't really expect perfection, but doesn't the buck still stop at the top?

More specifically, though, the only time I recall using the word "incompetent" to describe Obama personally (rather than the administration as a whole) was when I rejected the idea that our diplomatic security was lacking across the board. And in that case, it's NOT every single decision that I'm evaluating, but a hypothetical pervasive pattern of failure across an entire department. And damned straight I hold a president more responsible for that sort of systematic failure than I do for any single individual decision by an underling. Again, don't you?

 

[Biscuit]

I agree with this completely. The argument being made seems to be that Obama failed in some way because he used the word "terror" in a way that is correct, yet different than some different, specific, and somewhat confused definition. This is what happens when one does not read for comprehension, but rather to confirm pre-drawn conclusions.

^This.

Is does not matter what the president said or how he said it and it did not matter until Romney was made to look foolish in the 2nd presidential debate by claiming the president never used the word "terror" in his address from he rose garden.

Had Romney not made a mistake no one would be trying to cover his ass for him through semantics.

Because Romney did make a mistake and the president made him look foolish on national television there is no phrasing the President could have used in the rose garden that would satisfy the right wing. Their pre-drawn conclusion is that Romney is a victim in this case and he will be defended through any amount of twisting required.

Make no mistake the argument being made is that Romney was victimized by the President and the moderator. This has very little to do with terrorism, the president, or the dead Americans - it is about defending Romney at all costs.

 

[Dymanic]

Premature? It's been over a month now since the attacks.

And you think that's plenty of time to not only have completed a full on-the-ground investigation into the events in Libya (which, don't forget, was hampered early on by the need to negotiate a deal with the Libyan government to allow American investigators to collaborate with Libyans -- as even Romney acknowledged during the debate) and to have identified any procedural failures by those responsible for providing diplomatic security, or flaws in the protocols for how that security is provided (as the case may be), or any combination of those -- but also plenty of time to have completed the process of taking whatever steps are necessary to correct any inadequacies which all of that inquiry may reveal about the inner workings of an agency that employs nearly 50,000 people?

What on earth are you talking about? The legislature plays no role in any of this except with respect to oversight, and the executive branch can get whatever they need to do done with or without that oversight.

Precisely my point. Contrast this with situation with regard to the success rate in achieving goals expressed by candidate Obama as "promises", made before he ran headlong into what is arguably the most hostile and obstructionist Congress in the nation's history. If the decision is made that heads must roll in the State Department, it's not a decision that's going to be blocked by filibuster.

I do not know or claim to know what the general arrangement of security for our diplomats are, nor is that relevant to my argument. What I know is that the security at Benghazi was completely inadequate, and that was a massive failure.

It's like saying "I don't know the first thing about cars, but the fact that my engine blew up indicates a failure on the part of my mechanic to take adequate steps to prevent that."

Obama's got a long trail of people he threw under the bus to get where he is today.

That argument might be stronger if you provided some examples.

They might have been sensitive beforehand. They sure as hell aren't sensitive now. If you don't understand why, I really can't help you.

The quality of the door locks was probably never really all that sensitive. If you don't understand that I'm not talking about those trivialities, I can help you -- by encouraging you to re-read my last few posts (as well as the first paragraph above).

I think that's quite likely. But I don't know why you think that gets the administration off the hook.

I don't see the administration even trying to get "off the hook". Obama and Clinton have both accepted responsibility.

US position should have been that the video simply doesn't matter, because honestly, it doesn't.

Based on that, I advise you not to seek a career as a diplomat. See, here's the thing: evidently, it does matter to some people, including a great many who live in countries with which we are engaged in ongoing efforts to maintain and improve diplomatic relations. That goal is seldom achieved by dismissively declaring that something "simply doesn't matter" -- especially when thousands of people are demonstrating against that very thing in front of your diplomatic missions in countries all over the world.

 

[Biscuit]

So my 10 years of service in the USN wasn't a job? How about contractors that build and service government contracts? What about arms manufacturers?

NASA keeps a lot of people employed in the private sector, my dad was one, and our manufacturing business benefited from numerous government contracts.

In fact look at all the people being employed in the private sector due to the space shuttle being retired.

 

[Tricky]

I still haven't had the chance to watch the (second) debate. I'm in India and because of limited media access and time zone challenges, I haven't been able to see more than a few brief soundbites in web videos. But I am encouraged by the consensus that Obama was more agressive in challenging Romney this time around.

What really interests me is how so many of my Indian co-workers are following it so closely and responding to it. Here democracy and elections are more extreme streetfights. For example, a friend was complaining about his car being stolen, and blaming the BJP (one of the dominant political parties here.) I didn't really understand the complaint, thought it was just "blame the other guy for everything," but apparently he really did have a gripe. In the weeks leading up to election time, auto theft increases dramatically. Apparently political hacks steal cars and swap the tags and change the VINs so they can paint them up to use for electioneering. They rip holes in the roof, rig up speaker systems, and drive around villages campaigning for their guy, handing out bidis (cheap cigarettes) and booze.

Anyhow, pretty much everyone in the office (except the boss) is a big Obama supporter. They were so excited to talk to me about the debate, that finally Obama is showing "that boot-ne-ka Romney" that he can't get away with "these bahen-chod lies." Very amusing. But moreover it indicates to me how much Obama has improved our standing in the world. They see Bush as they see their own corrupt politicians, a rich child of privilege who bought his way into the office and bungled his way through eight horrible years. They see Romney in the exact same light. Obama, for all his faults, represents democracy to them.

This whole "soft on terror" attack makes me wonder if Karl Rove is still running the show. At the least he has taught his disciples very well. The RNC and its pimp-PACs again are masterful at hitting the President on his strengths and their own candidates weaknesses. The immediate political fallout from the Benghazi attack was completely anti-Romney - it was just recently so we don't have to strain to hard to remember how quickly Romney seized the microphones, while the ambassador's body was still warm, to launch the whole Rovian surrender-monkey accusation. There was zero basis for it, and I think the majority of people were justifiably angry at him for doing so. It was a bad couple of days for Romney-Ryan. But now they have turned it on its ear by fabricating another "soft on terror" narrative out of whole cloth. There is nothing there. Like there was nothing to the swift boating of Kerry, or the "I invented the Internet" story about Gore.

Obama got Bin Laden. That would have been enough to win him the election right there. But they have been remarkably effective at marginalizing that long-awaited accomplishment, and even criticizing it by casting doubt on the exact circumstances regarding how many shots it took to kill him. Really? Is that important? Apparently it is more important to them than the fact that he is dead and gone.

Unemployment is <8%. There a good story. But they throw a senile old kook like Jack Welch under the bus by having him accuse the Obama administration to be in complicity with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. There is nothing there. But it sticks, in the "fair and balanced equal time for all sides no matter how true or false it is" media world we live in.

I wish this post could be read at the next debate, which is supposed to be mostly on foreign policy. Obama is respected worldwide among our allies and our enemies. So was Clinton. Both Bush II and Reagan were conisdered embarassments. True, Israel probably prefers Romney, but that is because they figure Romney is more likely to support them if they start a war with Iran.

Romney, by contrast, made a fool of himself and alienated our closest allies the first time he tried to step on the international stage. I think it is inevitable that the situation in the Mideast and north Africa is going to bite any administration. It is extremely complex, and none of the political entities are exactly aligned with American interests, so there are no good answers. Remember when the US propped up a murderous dictator called the Shah of Iran? Great plan, America. That worked out well, didn't it? But really, what was the alternative?

 

[Ziggurat]

And you think that's plenty of time to not only have completed a full on-the-ground investigation

Interesting you should mention that. Last time I checked, we didn't even have anyone on the ground in Benghazi to do an investigation. That is itself a massive failure.

But yes, we've had plenty of time to do a lot of investigating into what happened, which is why we already know quite a lot about what happened.

Precisely my point. Contrast this with situation with regard to the success rate in achieving goals expressed by candidate Obama as "promises", made before he ran headlong into what is arguably the most hostile and obstructionist Congress in the nation's history.

Complaints about Republican opposition to other things isn't really relevant to an issue Congress had basically no role in. I don't know why you persist in this attempted derail. That issue may be relevant to the thread, but it's not relevant to my posts.

It's like saying "I don't know the first thing about cars, but the fact that my engine blew up indicates a failure on the part of my mechanic to take adequate steps to prevent that."

No, it's nothing like that at all. It's more akin to knowing that pouring sugar in your gas tank is a really bad idea, even if you don't know the valve timings and spark plug gap tolerances on your car.

I don't see the administration even trying to get "off the hook". Obama and Clinton have both accepted responsibility.

Saying "I'm responsible" when any other response becomes impossible is hardly impressive. What would have impressed me is a statement along the lines of "We failed, and this is how we failed...". If they were really taking responsibility, they would be trying to act as the primary source of information about what went wrong. But they aren't.

Based on that, I advise you not to seek a career as a diplomat. See, here's the thing: evidently, it does matter to some people, including a great many who live in countries with which we are engaged in ongoing efforts to maintain and improve diplomatic relations. That goal is seldom achieved by dismissively declaring that something "simply doesn't matter" -- especially when thousands of people are demonstrating against that very thing in front of your diplomatic missions in countries all over the world.

I think your conclusion is naive. The videos are mere pretext. And responses which condemn the free speech rights of our own citizens are not only unAmerican, they are counter-productive. They send the message that such pressure is effective against us, and that merely encourages more of it. It's a losing strategy in the long run, even if you can get some short-term mileage out of it. But I don't see any evidence that we even got short-term benefit from such cowardice.

 

[RandFan]

NASA keeps a lot of people employed in the private sector, my dad was one, and our manufacturing business benefited from numerous government contracts.

In fact look at all the people being employed in the private sector due to the space shuttle being retired.

Either they are not really jobs or they are not really created. You lefty libs just don't get it.

 

[Dymanic]

Interesting you should mention that. Last time I checked, we didn't even have anyone on the ground in Benghazi to do an investigation. That is itself a massive failure.

But yes, we've had plenty of time to do a lot of investigating into what happened, which is why we already know quite a lot about what happened.

Looks to me like you're having trouble deciding which of two mutually exclusive possibilities you wish to embrace.

Complaints about Republican opposition to other things isn't really relevant to an issue Congress had basically no role in. I don't know why you persist in this attempted derail. That issue may be relevant to the thread, but it's not relevant to my posts.

Please accept my most profuse apologies. I clearly read far to much into your innocent response: "Promises, promises."

What would have impressed me is a statement along the lines of "We failed, and this is how we failed...".

Again, I see no reason to assume that the inquiry has yet proceeded far enough to permit any such definitive statement, and even if it had, there are very good reasons to assume that going public with the details might prove to be a very bad idea. I've already posted an example illustrating why a cautious approach to that would be prudent, but you have ignored it completely. Perhaps you just didn't see it. Here it is again:

"House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday, according to Obama administration officials."

"Issa posted 166 pages of sensitive but unclassified State Department communications related to Libya on the committee's website afternoon as part of his effort to investigate security failures and expose contradictions in the administration's statements regarding the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi that resulted in the death of Amb. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...ng_with_the_us

I think your conclusion is naive. The videos are mere pretext.

On whose part? Pretexts for demonstrating at US embassies in more than a dozen countries? What, were people in freaking France just itching to express their disdain for the US and all it stands for?

And responses which condemn the free speech rights of our own citizens are not only unAmerican, they are counter-productive.

Please provide quotes from the response by "the administration" which condemn the free speech rights of our citizens.

 

[Ziggurat]

Again, I see no reason to assume that the inquiry has yet proceeded far enough to permit any such definitive statement, and even if it had, there are very good reasons to assume that going public with the details might prove to be a very bad idea.

First, a lot if important details went public anyways, so the administration's reticence provided no protection even if those details were currently sensitive (and I see no reason to think that they are, nor have you provided any). Second, the details which have gone public are indeed enough to conclude that there was a massive failure. Where exactly the blame lies and what exactly to do about it might remain unclear, but that there was a massive failure is not seriously in dispute at this time, at least not by anyone being honest who has paid attention.

I've already posted an example illustrating why a cautious approach to that would be prudent, but you have ignored it completely. Perhaps you just didn't see it. Here it is again:

"House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday, according to Obama administration officials."

The administration could have easily avoided that by releasing appropriately redacted documents themselves. If specific details like names were really that sensitive, then I don't find it credible that the administration couldn't have avoided this problem. Hell, Fast & Furious proves that they're more than willing to keep information away from Issa if they want to, nor do I find it credible that he would have released names if the administration specifically asked him not to, and the quotes from your source doesn't allege that this happened.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...ng_with_the_us

Your link is broken. I suspect you copied and pasted from elsewhere on this or a similar forum, but the displayed link is a truncated version of the full link. If you simply copy and paste, the full link gets lost, and the truncated display-only version does not work.

On whose part? Pretexts for demonstrating at US embassies in more than a dozen countries? What, were people in freaking France just itching to express their disdain for the US and all it stands for?

Well, yes. You think Islamists are confined only to the middle east? Hell, the timing alone should have clued you in to that fact. The protest wasn't coincidentally on 9/11. That date was chosen for a reason, a reason that has nothing to do with the video.

Please provide quotes from the response by "the administration" which condemn the free speech rights of our citizens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6akGlF6g-Zw
Obama: "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others"

Clinton: "We absolutely reject [the Youtube video's] content and message"

 

[Richard Masters]

Are you suggesting he should change course? Why? His policies are working, the recovery is slow but its a recovery. He needs to do more of the same in my opinion.

How are Obama's policies working?

I don't buy this at all. How specific does one get in a debate? He was criticized for being to fact based in the first debate and now he is too emotional? How's this for emotional,

Stating facts is not the same as demonstrating cause and effect. I can assert that the economy will improve, but without an explanation connecting things logically, how can Obama hope to persuade anyone?

All I ever hear Romney say is "5 point plan" and "When I was in X city I meet Y person and she said Z about the economy."

I hear Romney explaining why reducing taxes for businesses is a better road to fixing the economy. I don't hear Obama explaining why increasing taxes unevenly is going to help the economy.

How about the fact that the economy is recovering?

I don't think that has been demonstrated, and just stating that it has, without logically explaining how Obama's policies have achieved this, is really not persuasive.

Obama hit hard on the social issues last night. From planned parenthood, to contraceptives, to LLA.

He talked about them. He didn't persuade anyone that Romney was wrong about them, or that he was right about them.