Thread: Final debate

Originally Posted by GloriaInTX

This is exactly the reason. Obama purposely didn't provide extra security to Libya because he wanted it to look like relations between our countries was so good that it wasn't needed.

Okay this is NOT what i was saying, so i just want to make that clear. Thats not what i said at all. That is your opinion. I think a spontaneous attack looks better then a planned one because a spontaneous one is harder to defend. Just want to restate that.

HUGE MISTAKE that they had to cover for. They had asked MULTIPLE times for more protection.

It has been reported that the actual requests that were made for the protection would not have been enough to help them the night of the attack. I heard it a couple of weeks ago on the Diane Rehm show..i'm sure i could dig up more references if you really need them. They were not making those requests in preparation of a known pending terrorist attack.

Really? It is worse to claim it was a terrorist attack from the beginning? Something that was self evident since it happened on 9/11.

YOU are saying it was self evident. It was not, those reports that you are clinging to..and we have already discussed, were not the only reports they got that night. How many times do i have to say that it would be ludicrous to present that as fact. I said it would be worse to claim a terrorist attack from the beginning....when they have no completed enough investigation to be certain it was true.

They didn't have to actually name the group responsible (of course everyone would have known anyway). Weird if that was the worse course of action than why is the President trying to claim now that is what he did?

Its no better leaving people to assume which groups it might be. It has the same effect.

What would have been better for our relations with Pakistan? Airing Ads on TV apologizing about a movie trailer that we had nothing to do with and wasn't even involved, or announcing that it was Al Queda and that we are going to step up our efforts to bring them to justice?

This is really a different albeit related topic...and my frustration levels at the moment can't endure going down that road right now.

Originally Posted by KimPossible

It has been reported that the actual requests that were made for the protection would not have been enough to help them the night of the attack. I heard it a couple of weeks ago on the Diane Rehm show..i'm sure i could dig up more references if you really need them. They were not making those requests in preparation of a known pending terrorist attack.

Really that is an excuse? It may have not been enough to stop the attack but it is very possible that they could have saved the life of the ambassador. I guarantee you that 12 marines would have been better than none.

Originally Posted by GloriaInTX

Really that is an excuse? It may have not been enough to stop the attack but it is very possible that they could have saved the life of the ambassador. I guarantee you that 12 marines would have been better than none.

You routinely miss the point being made, in order to over-dramatize and make it sound like someone is saying something they weren't. People are acting like that request had something to do with THIS attack...and it didn't. People are acting like response to that request would have saved their lives...and it wouldn't have. I trust people more knowledgeable on that situation to make that call than i trust you to. I trust the people who have to consider heightened security requests on a regular basis and figure out which ones to turn down and which ones not to more than i trust you to.

People are running with this like a golden ticket...like they know so much about what would be obvious to do in these situations...and that it, in one blow, destroys Obama's foreign policy record. To me thats ridiculous, as a citizen with what the media chooses to share on such a complex issue as foreign policy and terrorism happening far away from home is probably the least equipped person there could be to analyze what 'should have happened'. Its a conveniently timed stores for the anti-obama crowd to focus a lot of their energy on...I'll give you that.

Originally Posted by KimPossible

People are running with this like a golden ticket...like they know so much about what would be obvious to do in these situations...and that it, in one blow, destroys Obama's foreign policy record. To me thats ridiculous, as a citizen with what the media chooses to share on such a complex issue as foreign policy and terrorism happening far away from home is probably the least equipped person there could be to analyze what 'should have happened'. Its a conveniently timed stores for the anti-obama crowd to focus a lot of their energy on...I'll give you that.

It is true though that the Obama administration was not completely honest in two counts. First he was not honest when he said he was giving the military everything they have asked for, and second, they were not honest with what was known when. If they didn't know, they should have said "We don't know", instead of blaming it on something they knew not to be true.

Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers

It is true though that the Obama administration was not completely honest in two counts. First he was not honest when he said he was giving the military everything they have asked for,

Diplomats are not the military. You are taking something he said about something else entirely and trying to use it in this situation.

and second, they were not honest with what was known when. If they didn't know, they should have said "We don't know", instead of blaming it on something they knew not to be true.

Saying "We believe this to be...." really isn't lying, especially in a matter of 14 days when investigations are still going on. However, it is misleading...because people need to be told things explicitly in order for them to understand. Administration should have emphasized more in that 14 day time period that nothing was set in stone because they were still working on it. But like i already acknowledged, the aftermath wasn't handled well.

Originally Posted by KimPossible

YOU are saying it was self evident. It was not, those reports that you are clinging to..and we have already discussed, were not the only reports they got that night. How many times do i have to say that it would be ludicrous to present that as fact. I said it would be worse to claim a terrorist attack from the beginning....when they have no completed enough investigation to be certain it was true.

That also doesn't work as an excuse when they claimed something as the cause that they had NO evidence of. The reports were about an attack and said nothing about any demonstrations that would lead them to believe it was spontaneous. But yet they said that over and over again when they KNEW it wasn't true, let alone have enough investigation to be certain. They had knowledge within 2 hours that it was a coordinated attack but instead of not calling it one or the other... called it spontaneous. No matter how you spin it that is the same as lying.

Originally Posted by GloriaInTX

No matter how you spin it that is the same as lying.

I have to agree with this. I am sure most if not all politicians lie at some point including Mitt Romney and every politician before him. However, it is what it is.

Originally Posted by GloriaInTX

That also doesn't work as an excuse when they claimed something as the cause that they had NO evidence of. The reports were about an attack and said nothing about any demonstrations that would lead them to believe it was spontaneous. But yet they said that over and over again when they KNEW it wasn't true, let alone have enough investigation to be certain. They had knowledge within 2 hours that it was a coordinated attack but instead of not calling it one or the other... called it spontaneous. No matter how you spin it that is the same as lying.

It has been said over and over again in the media that they received mixed messages about the attack from the beginning. You don't want to believe it? Or want to ignore that information...that is up to you. But don't try to use that in a debate because i can find it stated countless times across many newspapers.

You want to insist that the 'knew' it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. That is also false no matter how much you want to try to spin it.

If there is a murder in your town and they get a hot tip that someone claimed they did it...do you investigate that claim? Or do you start telling everyone that they did it.

Really...i don't want to debate this anymore. Its one story among a million issues...and in the context of who will be elected next its tiresome to waste so much time discussing it with someone who really has no intentions of changing their mind who they are voting for (that would be both you and me). I mean, if Obama had passed wind in the wrong direction while overseas that probably would have been enough for you to say foreign-policy-wise you wouldn't be voting for him....because i mean, you wren't going to vote for him in the first place.

Between the presidential election and the Treworgy Farm thing i posted in a different thread and Same Sex Marriage being on our ballet...i think i'm just mentally exhausted at this point.

Debating with someone who i don't agree with and will never agree with is just not fun for me at the moment (even though sometimes it is!)

Guess Obama can't remember the promises he made even 24 hours after the debate. Not only that, but he is telling employers not to send out layoff notices for something that he expects to happen.

At Monday's third presidential debate, President Obama pointedly promised that sequestered budget cuts that will affect defense spending "will not happen."

OBAMA: First of all, the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen. [emphasis added]

The next morning, in an off-the-record interview with the editors of the Des Moines Register, President Obama reversed course, taking credit for a sequester that he anticipates will be "in place.":

OBAMA: "So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent -- at least Governor Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit -- but we’re going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business." [emphasis added]

After loud complaints from new and mainstream media alike, the transcript of the President's interview with the Des Moines Register was made public today. Since these comments on the sequester represented a complete reversal of the position he took at the debate less than 24 hours earlier, it's easy to understand why the President's campaign initially wanted to keep them off the record.

Obama Privately Touts Sequester After Denying Responsibility in Debate

After Mourdock's comments regarding rape, and Romney's refusal to pull his support of him, I think all Obama should do is keep his mouth shut and just let the republicans win the election for him.