• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

"Act of Terror"- Libya

That's just spin, artfully done. But it's pure fan fiction. If you think we had solid, actionable intel -- and the GOP chair of the House Armed Services Committee categorically disagrees -- such that the administration was "negligent" in preventing a rocket attack on an outpost in an unstable Middle Eastern country, then you must have been literally irate at the terror attacks that occurred under the Bush administration's watch. The attack was a tragedy, and in hindsight more could have been done to prevent it -- when isn't that true? -- but this "asleep at the switch" line of attack is just playing politics with the reality of our diplomatic apparatus being spread out in a very dangerous world. Romney forced that "blame the president!" narrative before we'd even identified the bodies, and the right just keeps revising that initial partisan hackery in a rather regrettable gambit to pin this tragedy directly on the POTUS.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
That's just spin, artfully done. But it's pure fan fiction. If you think we had solid, actionable intel -- and the GOP chair of the House Armed Services Committee categorically disagrees -- such that the administration was "negligent" in preventing a rocket attack on an outpost in an unstable Middle Eastern country, then you must have been literally irate at the terror attacks that occurred under the Bush administration's watch. The attack was a tragedy, and in hindsight more could have been done to prevent it -- when isn't that true? -- but this "asleep at the switch" line of attack is just playing politics with the reality of our diplomatic apparatus being spread out in a very dangerous world. Romney forced that "blame the president!" narrative before we'd even identified the bodies, and the right just keeps revising that initial partisan hackery in a rather regrettable gambit to pin this tragedy directly on the POTUS.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, Tim.

Even if everything you said is true, that doesn't explain the reason to go on five (5? Yes, 5) different Sunday morning shows, plus a UN Speech by "somebody connected with the Administration", with a story that Joe Biden would charitably characterize as "Mularkey." They knew exactly what happened, and yet tried to sell something else. That's not a good look.

I don't think they are responsible for preventing every attack before it happens. I refuse to hold a sitting Administration to the unreasonable standards of presumptive omnipotence when it serves my purposes (Hey, what's up, RJ? When did you get in?), but that's not what has bothered me this entire time. I was bothered by the compulsion to devote great effort to mislead. If you'll recall, RJ was so proud of the misinformation campaign that he was sure (sure!) that it was consciously done to try to lull the perps into a false sense of security. When even RJ is acknowledge that they didn't shoot it straight, it's time to concede the manifestly obvious.
 
Here's my debate question for jmh and those obsessed with this issue: How does this "lie" compare to W and the War in Iraq and why is it different?
 
This issue just demonstrates how repubs go for the throat, what would have happened to Al Gore if 9/11 had happened on his watch? When you have the corporate power behind you, it is easy to exploit things based on seizing the issue of the moment for political gain.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I don't think so, Tim.

Even if everything you said is true, that doesn't explain the reason to go on five (5? Yes, 5) different Sunday morning shows, plus a UN Speech by "somebody connected with the Administration", with a story that Joe Biden would charitably characterize as "Mularkey." They knew exactly what happened, and yet tried to sell something else. That's not a good look.

I don't think they are responsible for preventing every attack before it happens. I refuse to hold a sitting Administration to the unreasonable standards of presumptive omnipotence when it serves my purposes (Hey, what's up, RJ? When did you get in?), but that's not what has bothered me this entire time. I was bothered by the compulsion to devote great effort to mislead. If you'll recall, RJ was so proud of the misinformation campaign that he was sure (sure!) that it was consciously done to try to lull the perps into a false sense of security. When even RJ is acknowledge that they didn't shoot it straight, it's time to concede the manifestly obvious.
Click to expand...

This is the false assumption, implying deceit, made for political purposes.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
Here's my debate question for jmh and those obsessed with this issue: How does this "lie" compare to W and the War in Iraq and why is it different?
Click to expand...

How is that in any way relevant to this campaign? I hope Obama poses that question to Romney next time it comes up..
 
The takeaway point is that it's politically hip to describe every incorrect statement made by the other party as a lie/conspiracy/coverup, but you shouldn't really believe it.
 
tigerswood said:
How is that in any way relevant to this campaign? I hope Obama poses that question to Romney next time it comes up..
Click to expand...

It's relevant because it shows that in the grand scheme of things, even if Obama "lied" about it, it really doesn't matter that much at all.
 
tigerswood said:
How is that in any way relevant to this campaign? I hope Obama poses that question to Romney next time it comes up..
Click to expand...

How is this thread in any way relevant to this campaign?
 
I'm pretty sure that in her five (5?, yes 5) appearances, this is the one statement she is being vilified for:

"We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned." that's the worst of it. And there did happen to be a violent protest and embassy storming a few hours before that in Cairo that was related to the video. And there were fighters at Benghazi who said they were attacking because of the video:

"Fighters involved in the assault, which was spearheaded by an Islamist brigade formed during last year’s uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, said in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html

Crazy to think the Benghazi attack might be related to the video and to mention that fact while still indicating that you're continuing to investigate. Crazy.

Let's also not forget about the "lie" (as long as we're using that word extremely loosely) Romney told in his press release after the attack. Romney condemned the administration's response to the attack, problem was the statement he was condemning came before the attack happened. Romney said the administration sympathized with those who waged the attacks -- which would be pretty over the line and offensive even if not a complete falsehood. More a lie than anything Obama did, especially considering Romney stuck with the lie after being shown it was a complete falsehood -- as he is wont to do. Wrangor the moderate was outraged.

Also, this:

September 13: President Obama, at a campaign rally in Denver, CO, reiterates the previous day’s statement, referring to the events in Benghazi as an act of terror:
OBAMA: So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.
 
Last edited:
This issue is done for Romney. The fact he was directly and concisely busted for making up shit means if he brings it up again, all Obama has to do is say,"There you go again. Should the public believe your assertions more or less than in the previous debate when you were wrong?"
 
ONW said:
How is this thread in any way relevant to this campaign?
Click to expand...

The President is running for re-election based upon (well..., ideally based upon) his record. His record should (...ideally...) be subject to some comparison to his campaign promises. At an absolute minimum, this issue is relevent b/c it is a poor fit with his promise to return transparency to the government.

More to the point, if I can't trust you to tell me the truth about the problems, how can you be worthy of the trust needed to find the solution?

Finally, in a competitive political environment on the eve of a close national election, it's not often that one side catches their opponent in a pants-down lie about life and death matters. I understand that lately the term "lie" means "anything Rachel Maddow disagrees with", but this is a no-kidding, I did not have sex with that woman whopper, about life and death matter of national security. You're telling me that if the Dems had something like that in 2004 they wouldn't have done the same thing? Heck, their buddies at See B.S. literally tried to make something up about W in the hopes that they could get it to stick at the right time. You guys are old enough to know better.

P.S. But if you don't think this is relevant, we could always return to talking about marathon times and small time college football posers.
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
This issue is done for Romney. The fact he was directly and concisely busted for making up shit means if he brings it up again, all Obama has to do is say,"There you go again. Should the public believe your assertions more or less than in the previous debate when you were wrong?"
Click to expand...

"This will all be over by Friday." - B. Davis, Chapel Hill, NC circa 2009
 
This is so totally bizzare. It isn't like Republicans to pick a loosing argument. Why not attack the way it was handled? This stupid argument over whether he used the word "terror" as opposed to "terrorism" is only appealing to those that want to find it appealing.
 
Ball State Deac said:
This is so totally bizzare. It isn't like Republicans to pick a loosing argument. Why not attack the way it was handled? This stupid argument over whether he used the word "terror" as opposed to "terrorism" is only appealing to those that want to find it appealing.
Click to expand...

Romney may have messed up the argument last night around "terror" but the larger points still stand regarding what the Administration knew, when they knew it, why they didnt provide additional security and why they were stuck on the video explanation. Obama doesn't seem to have many answers to those questions and Romney has a week to come up with a more coherent argument and re-direct the focus to the questions I mentioned. This will not go away in my opinion.
 
Tin Cup said:
Romney may have messed up the argument last night around "terror" but the larger points still stand regarding what the Administration knew, when they knew it, why they didnt provide additional security and why they were stuck on the video explanation. Obama doesn't seem to have many answers to those questions and Romney has a week to come up with a more coherent argument and re-direct the focus to the questions I mentioned. This will not go away in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Those are the topics I'd be focusing on. And maybe it is just this board, but why the focus on the particular nomenclature? Doesn't make sense to me.
 
Ball State Deac said:
Those are the topics I'd be focusing on. And maybe it is just this board, but why the focus on the particular nomenclature? Doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in the passing reference to terrorism. Everybody knew it was terrorism. No one should get points for pointing out that water is wet. That's never been the point to me (and why I found Romney's fixation with the "buzzword" misplaced).
 
Ball State Deac said:
Those are the topics I'd be focusing on. And maybe it is just this board, but why the focus on the particular nomenclature? Doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

I think Romney will clean up the argument and focus on the correct items, which are legitimate questions. And he will hammer away on them.
 
Amazingly, Obama won this question last night before Romney made the claim about the lack of "terror" in Obama's statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top