Final debate

92 posts / 0 new
Last post
AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561
Final debate

How do you think the final debate went?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

I will confess I stopped paying attention to the debate about half way through. Ugg, I wish there was someone else to vote for.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

Mitt wasn't on his game at all.

It obviously didn't change who I was voting for.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

It was on in my house but i wasn't really paying attention. Seamus and I agreed that i think we are both debated out. Its the only one that i really missed....I'll have to read up today. (I watched the 2nd presidential debate even though i didn't discuss here, i was on a business trip at the time)

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

As I've said before, I think it's generally hard to declare a clear winner and loser in most debates. I will say that I enjoyed Obama's performance more, but I completely recognize that is because I already like and support Obama.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

I didn't watch much of it because it was on while I was getting Weston to bed, and then we were flipping back & forth with the Giants game. I think Obama did great, and once again I was unimpressed with Romney. And Romney got four "pants on fire" ratings by the fact-checkers, which I really think people need to hold him accountable for all the lies he's telling, which coupled with his complete lack of details about what he plans to do, is so scary. I can't believe this guy even has a chance, and that shows just how utterly stupid and/or blinded-by-religion the American people have gotten.

Also, now having seen Romney debate again with an older, male moderator, I'm really steamed with the disrespectful way he treated Candy Crowley, interrupting her all the time, failing to shut up when she called time, and he didn't do that at all with the moderator last night. That confirms for me what he *really* thinks about women.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

I think Romney accomplished the goal he set which was to steer things back to the economy as much as possible. I think Obama looked like a petulant child trying to be sarcastic and act like he knows everything, especially with the horses and bayonet remark. The funny thing is that the military still do have bayonets and horses.

And the apology tour is a matter of opinion. I think he WAS apoligizing for America.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

Yeah, please explain how "steering things back to the economy" was a good thing when this was supposed to be a debate about foreign policy. It just made Romney look like he'd studied the wrong crib notes. Not to mention that a huge part of the problems with the economy is that the Republican Congress refused to work with Obama. So you're creating the mess in the first place, then saying Obama shouldn't be President because of the this big mess, and then you try to turn the focus of a foreign policy debate back to the failed economy that you refuse to acknowledge your part in creating. Nice try.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Spacers" wrote:

Yeah, please explain how "steering things back to the economy" was a good thing when this was supposed to be a debate about foreign policy. It just made Romney look like he'd studied the wrong crib notes. Not to mention that a huge part of the problems with the economy is that the Republican Congress refused to work with Obama. So you're creating the mess in the first place, then saying Obama shouldn't be President because of the this big mess, and then you try to turn the focus of a foreign policy debate back to the failed economy that you refuse to acknowledge your part in creating. Nice try.

Of course. It is all because the Republican Congress which has only been in place for the last 2 years, but the Democratic congress that was in place the 4 years before that had nothing to do with it right?

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"Spacers" wrote:

I didn't watch much of it because it was on while I was getting Weston to bed, and then we were flipping back & forth with the Giants game. I think Obama did great, and once again I was unimpressed with Romney. And Romney got four "pants on fire" ratings by the fact-checkers, which I really think people need to hold him accountable for all the lies he's telling, which coupled with his complete lack of details about what he plans to do, is so scary. I can't believe this guy even has a chance, and that shows just how utterly stupid and/or blinded-by-religion the American people have gotten.

Also, now having seen Romney debate again with an older, male moderator, I'm really steamed with the disrespectful way he treated Candy Crowley, interrupting her all the time, failing to shut up when she called time, and he didn't do that at all with the moderator last night. That confirms for me what he *really* thinks about women.

I agree with you, except the woman thing. Romney did it incessantly to Lehrer...enough for me to already mention it a couple of times in the other debate threads. And he does it non-stop to Obama too.

I mean...not that I feel like he's got my back as a woman, but if I think he doesn't, it wasn't because of his interrupt-itis.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Spacers" wrote:

Yeah, please explain how "steering things back to the economy" was a good thing when this was supposed to be a debate about foreign policy. It just made Romney look like he'd studied the wrong crib notes. Not to mention that a huge part of the problems with the economy is that the Republican Congress refused to work with Obama. So you're creating the mess in the first place, then saying Obama shouldn't be President because of the this big mess, and then you try to turn the focus of a foreign policy debate back to the failed economy that you refuse to acknowledge your part in creating. Nice try.

I agree with this. I remarked to DH last night that it seemed like Romney was really stretching to try to bring it back to the economy in any way he could, which makes it seem like he doesn't have a lot of good or at least different things to say about foriegn policy which is what the debate was about.

Personally, I thought the "horses and bayonettes" comment was spot on. (By the way Gloria, he didn't say that we had no horses and bayonettes, just that we probably had less of them since 1915 or whatever year Romney was throwing out there.)

The context is that Romney has said repeatedly that the Navy has less ships now than we did in 1915 (or whenever) as proof that Obama has weakened our military. Obama replied "We also have less horses and bayonettes" and went on to explain that we have less ships because the way our military works has changed a lot since 1915. Which is spot on. The whole "less ships" thing was a really dumb talking point for Romney (if nothing else, the ships we *do* have are way more advanced than the ones we would have had in 1915), and Obama shot it out of the water (battleship pun intended!) Biggrin

Can I also say I am sick of hearing about the Democratic congress that didn't do anything for two years? It's not even true.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.

The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:

To define terms, a Filibuster-Proof Majority or Super Majority is the number of votes required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. According to current Senate rules, 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster.

Here is a time-line of the events after the 2008 election:
1. BALANCE BEFORE THE ELECTION. In 2007 – 2008 the balance in the Senate was 51-49 in favor of the Democrats. On top of that, there was a Republican president who would likely veto any legislation the Republicans didn’t like. Not exactly a super majority.

2. BIG GAIN IN 2008, BUT STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. Coming out the 2008 election, the Democrats made big gains, but they didn’t immediately get a Super Majority. The Minnesota Senate race required a recount and was not undecided for more than six months. During that time, Norm Coleman was still sitting in the Senate and the Balance 59-41, still not a Super Majority.

3. KENNEDY GRAVELY ILL. Teddy Kennedy casts his last vote in April and leaves Washington for good around the first of May. Technically he could come back to Washington vote on a pressing issue, but in actual fact, he never returns, even to vote on the Sotomayor confirmation. That leaves the balance in the Senate 58-41, two votes away from a super majority.

4. STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. In July, Al Frankin was finally declared the winner and was sworn in on July 7th, 2009, so the Democrats finally had a Super Majority of 60-40 six and one-half months into the year. However, by this point, Kennedy was unable to return to Washington even to participate in the Health Care debate, so it was only a technical super majority because Kennedy could no longer vote and the Senate does not allow proxies. Now the actual actual balance of voting members is 59-40 not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster.

5. SENATE IS IN RECESS. Even if Kennedy were able to vote, the Senate went into summer recess three weeks later, from August 7th to September 8th.

6. KENNEDY DIES. Six weeks later, on Aug 26, 2009 Teddy Kennedy died, putting the balance at 59-40. Now the Democrats don’t even have technical super majority.

7. FINALLY, A SUPER MAJORITY! Kennedy’s replacement was sworn in on September 25, 2009, finally making the majority 60-40, just enough for a super majority.

8. SENATE ADJOURNS. However the Senate adjourned for the year on October 9th, only providing 11 working days of super majority, from September 25th to October 9th.

8. SCOTT BROWN ELECTED. Scott Brown was elected in November of 2009. The Senate was not in session during November and December of 2009. The Senate was in session for 10 days in January, but Scott Brown was sworn into office on February 4th, so the Democrats only had 13 days of super majority in 2010.

Summary: The Democrats only had 24 days of Super Majority between 2008 and 2010.

Discussion: The Democrats had a super majority for a total of 24 days. On top of that, the period of Super Majority was split into one 11-day period and one 13-day period. Given the glacial pace that business takes place in the Senate, this was way too little time for the Democrats pass any meaningful legislation, let alone get bills through committees and past all the obstructionistic tactics the Republicans were using to block legislation.

Further, these Super Majorities count Joe Lieberman as a Democrat even though he was by this time an Independent. Even though he was Liberal on some legislation, he was very conservative on other issues and opposed many of the key pieces of legislation the Democrats and Obama wanted to pass. For example, he was adamantly opposed to “Single Payer” health care and vowed to support a Republican Filibuster if it ever came to the floor.

Summary:
1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 - 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster
4. 8/09 – 9/09 - 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies)
5. 9/09 – 10/09 - 60-40 – Super Majority for 11 working days.
6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days

Total Time of the Democratic Super Majority: 24 Working days.

In the meantime, Republicans did more fillibusters (that the Democrats, lacking 60 votes could not break) than ever before. Way, way more. They basically halted congress from making any progress for 2 freaking years.

The history of the filibuster, in one graph - The Washington Post

I'm done with hearing about the Democratic super majority.

smsturner's picture
Joined: 05/11/09
Posts: 1303

That was some great information Alissa. Thank you.

I confess to not watching most of last night's debate. I didn't want to get all scream-y. It was a rough night in the household before that already!!

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I'm done with hearing about the Democratic super majority.

Who said anything about a super majority? I said that the Democrats held the house for the 4 years before the last 2 years that the Republicans have held it. Is that false? They sure managed to ram Obamacare through didn't they. But of course they had nothing to do with the economy it is all the Republicans fault. ooookay.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Who said anything about a super majority? I said that the Democrats held the house for the 4 years before the last 2 years that the Republicans have held it. Is that false? They sure managed to ram Obamacare through didn't they. But of course they had nothing to do with the economy it is all the Republicans fault. ooookay.

If you look at the graph, the republican filibusters start under Bush. Smile Also, under Bush, while the Dems had a (slim) majority (I think it was 51-49) they not only had the filibusters going on, but a republican president to enforce vetoes. Awful hard to get anything done if one party literally won't let anything get done. I read somewhere that the Affordable Health Care Act actually did get put through during the very short perdiod time where they did have a filibuster proof majority, so I believe you would be correct about that. I'll try to find the article that said that again; there are lots out there if you google "the myth of the Democratic supermajority."

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Personally, I thought the "horses and bayonettes" comment was spot on. (By the way Gloria, he didn't say that we had no horses and bayonettes, just that we probably had less of them since 1915 or whatever year Romney was throwing out there.)

The truth of the matter is that Obama is not fully funding the military to the point that "They are not asking for more." This is something that Romney should have been all over but wasn't. I have had family members in Afghanistan. I just lost a close friend in Afghanistan. Every person that I have spoken to who has actually been there has said that they do not have the things they need. Either we are there and are fully supporting the troops, or bring them home. There have been over 2,000 American deaths in Afghanistan in the last few years. Almost every day since my friend Jon died at least one American has died. Ok, they brought some troops home. Great, however, they left the remaining troops there in extreme danger by removing them.

Obama has a terrible foreign policy. However I can see from the debate that Romney's is just as bad.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Bonita- I agree that they should bring the troops home.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Personally, I thought the "horses and bayonettes" comment was spot on. (By the way Gloria, he didn't say that we had no horses and bayonettes, just that we probably had less of them since 1915 or whatever year Romney was throwing out there.)

Which is also wrong. Since we still use bayonets I'm pretty sure we have more now than in 1916.

The United States Marine Corps, however, still trains every Marine with traditional bayonets and issues them as standard equipment. Special Forces also have intensive training with knives and bayonets as tactical weapons. As the size of these forces using bayonets have grown, one can easily argue that there are more bayonets in use now than in 1916.

In Defense of Bayonets & Horses! 5 Problems With The President’s Zinger Last Night | TheBlaze.com

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

If you are going to take that joke comment and very seriously try to attack it (instead of addressing the actual point, which is that just because we have few ships doesn't automatically make our military weaker) you need to show actual stats on bayonet usage in 1916 vs today. Smile Just because Marines are trained on their usage today doesn't automatically imply that there are more bayonets today than ever.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

the point is entirely missed if people are actually searching around to compare numbers of bayonets then vs. now.

The point is technology changes.....our military changes and just because we have 'less of something' now, doesn't mean that we need more....because you have to look at the military as a whole. If we have more bayonets now...and we used to have less...just because we had less back then doesn't mean having less now would make sense.

Seriously...his point was not that complicated and it was totally sound.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

I get what he was trying to say and it was funny, but I disagree that he is fully funding/backing the military.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

I think that if you like O then you though he won, if you like R then you thought he won. The undecided voters that I know did not feel any different after last nights debates, and they really hoped to have a clear picture after last night.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

"Spacers" wrote:

I didn't watch much of it because it was on while I was getting Weston to bed, and then we were flipping back & forth with the Giants game. I think Obama did great, and once again I was unimpressed with Romney. And Romney got four "pants on fire" ratings by the fact-checkers, which I really think people need to hold him accountable for all the lies he's telling, which coupled with his complete lack of details about what he plans to do, is so scary. I can't believe this guy even has a chance, and that shows just how utterly stupid and/or blinded-by-religion the American people have gotten.

Also, now having seen Romney debate again with an older, male moderator, I'm really steamed with the disrespectful way he treated Candy Crowley, interrupting her all the time, failing to shut up when she called time, and he didn't do that at all with the moderator last night. That confirms for me what he *really* thinks about women.

I think you were looking to see something that "proves" Romney is sexist. I do not think the treated Crowley and different than the other moderate, I think he was just being very respectful to Scheiffer.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

"Spacers" wrote:

I didn't watch much of it because it was on while I was getting Weston to bed, and then we were flipping back & forth with the Giants game. I think Obama did great, and once again I was unimpressed with Romney. And Romney got four "pants on fire" ratings by the fact-checkers, which I really think people need to hold him accountable for all the lies he's telling, which coupled with his complete lack of details about what he plans to do, is so scary. I can't believe this guy even has a chance, and that shows just how utterly stupid and/or blinded-by-religion the American people have gotten.

Also, now having seen Romney debate again with an older, male moderator, I'm really steamed with the disrespectful way he treated Candy Crowley, interrupting her all the time, failing to shut up when she called time, and he didn't do that at all with the moderator last night. That confirms for me what he *really* thinks about women.

Oh and to the bolded, I am one of the people that will be voting for Romney. Not out Utter stupidty, but based so much on Romneys business experience and what he was able to do with the Olympics.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"mom3girls" wrote:

I think you were looking to see something that "proves" Romney is sexist. I do not think the treated Crowley and different than the other moderate, I think he was just being very respectful to Scheiffer.

My thought is that perhaps they had both (Obama and Romney) been coached to not interrupt each other or the moderator so much because people found it off putting. I didn't think it had anything to do with gender, more just adjusting their styles to play better for an audience.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

My thought is that perhaps they had both (Obama and Romney) been coached to not interrupt each other or the moderator so much because people found it off putting. I didn't think it had anything to do with gender, more just adjusting their styles to play better for an audience.

I agree with this. I think it was an attempt to tone it down some.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

If you are going to take that joke comment and very seriously try to attack it (instead of addressing the actual point, which is that just because we have few ships doesn't automatically make our military weaker) you need to show actual stats on bayonet usage in 1916 vs today. Smile Just because Marines are trained on their usage today doesn't automatically imply that there are more bayonets today than ever.

Ya I am much more concerned with the REAL lies he has told. Like the whopper about Libya.

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails | Reuters

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

I wish people would stop blowing this militant claim thing out of proportion. Do you know how many times groups claim to be responsible for things and how unreliable immediate information of that sort is?

If the government had uses this information as fact immediately after the incident and it had proven to be untrue, people would still be crying foul.

This whole mess is because people want immediate answers for things that should not be immediate and require proper investigation, and now we are suggesting that emails that happened when the attack was still unfolding should be considered an immediate reliable source to be digested by the public.

Genius.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"KimPossible" wrote:

I wish people would stop blowing this militant claim thing out of proportion. Do you know how many times groups claim to be responsible for things and how unreliable immediate information of that sort is?

Seriously? Al Queda claims responsibility for an attack ON 9/11 and it is not credible? LESS THAN 2 HOURS after the attack began you are saying they would find out soon enough to claim responsibility if they were not involved? And it mentions nothing about a demonstration about a movie that Obama blamed it on for TWO WEEKS!

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But Unclassified."

The text said the State Department's regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was "under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well."

The message continued: "Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four ... personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."

A second email, headed "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi" and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that "the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared." It said a "response team" was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

"KimPossible" wrote:

I wish people would stop blowing this militant claim thing out of proportion. Do you know how many times groups claim to be responsible for things and how unreliable immediate information of that sort is?

If the government had uses this information as fact immediately after the incident and it had proven to be untrue, people would still be crying foul.

This whole mess is because people want immediate answers for things that should not be immediate and require proper investigation, and now we are suggesting that emails that happened when the attack was still unfolding should be considered an immediate reliable source to be digested by the public.

Genius.

People are mad that our president lied to us, and still wont come out with the whole truth

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Seriously? Al Queda claims responsibility for an attack ON 9/11 and it is not credible? LESS THAN 2 HOURS after the attack began you are saying they would find out soon enough to claim responsibility if they were not involved? And it mentions nothing about a demonstration about a movie that Obama blamed it on for TWO WEEKS!

Honestly, i can't believe you are even suggesting that something received 2 hours after the attack doesn't need proper investigation before public digestion. And organizations take claims for attacks often and are found out to be lying later.

And you should read more closely, the early emails did not point to Al Queda. (Not important to the main point, but still, its a perfect example of why things spread by emails, originating from FB and Twitter shoudl be investigated before passed on)

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"mom3girls" wrote:

People are mad that our president lied to us, and still wont come out with the whole truth

I don't think this has been handled well as it could have been, but like i said...its people's insistence on immediate information that got us into this mess in the first place. When people want things right away, there will be inaccuracies. And now our administration has to handle the consequences of providing information while still investigating, and they didn't do that well.

My main point is people are blowing certain pieces of information out of proportion. Do you know how many leads are likely to come in about situatison like the ones described in todays news? Probably tons, that you never know about...and many of them dismissed as false.

Yet all of a sudden we are all experts and make it sound like the obvious thing to do would have been to offer up that information like its credible right away.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"KimPossible" wrote:

And you should read more closely, the early emails did not point to Al Queda. (Not important to the main point, but still, its a perfect example of why things spread by emails, originating from FB and Twitter shoudl be investigated before passed on)

These emails were from the State Department's Operations Center. There weren't just random emails sent around. It is documentation that proves that they KNEW what was going on.

The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department's Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"KimPossible" wrote:

Yet all of a sudden we are all experts and make it sound like the obvious thing to do would have been to offer up that information like its credible right away.

No the obvious thing would have been not to lie about it for TWO WEEKS. Blaming it on a movie and making ads to run on TV in Pakistan when they knew that movie had NOTHING to do with it.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/islam-video-pakistan-obama/2012/09/21/id/457046

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

These emails were from the State Department's Operations Center. There weren't just random emails sent around. It is documentation that proves that they KNEW what was going on.

It doesnt' matter Gloria, they were based on what was found on FB and twitter. They are reporting information....that requires investigation. You honestly believe the State Department is certain they are providing FACT while the attack is still happening?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"KimPossible" wrote:

It doesnt' matter Gloria, they were based on what was found on FB and twitter. They are reporting information....that requires investigation. You honestly believe the State Department is certain they are providing FACT while the attack is still happening?

Well the sure weren't shy about putting it out there that it was about a movie were they when they had no evidence of it. But they failed to put out the real reason that they knew about within 2 hours. How long do you think it was acceptable that they should have lied about it?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

My memory is failing me, but did Biden say that they did not know during the VP debate?

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Well the sure weren't shy about putting it out there that it was about a movie were they when they had no evidence of it. But they failed to put out the real reason that they knew about within 2 hours. How long do you think it was acceptable that they should have lied about it?

What i think is that they should have been more upfront that they were still investigating it and could not give definitive answers. Of course, wording is typically very careful during the early stages, but that is not enough for the average person to realize that the investigation is still ongoing. But you know, had they not given an answer, people would be throwing a different sort of fit...about how long intelligence takes. Too bad, they should have gone with that.

I can see two reasons to put belief in the riot story over a planned attack. One not very respectable, one more understandable.

1)It looks better for the administration (in a situation that doesn't look good at all). Protection from something spontaneous is more understandably difficult than protection from something that should theoretically leave a paper trail. I think they were hoping out of the many mixed pieces of information coming from the attack, the ones pointing to this explanation were true and likely persued them more vigilantly in the early stages of the attack. Not so respectable.

2)I think its far worse to accuse a group with certainty for being responsible for an attack, only to find out later its not true, than to accuse a spontaneous riot of anonymous people, only to find out later for it to be not true. Sending out false information about specific groups of people is not good for our public's social mentality towards middle eastern issues here at home. That to me is more understandable.

What i would have preferred is that the message was more clear to people in the early weeks that they were not providing a definitive answer. Even if it meant that people would whine and complain that they were getting answers fast enough.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"KimPossible" wrote:

1)It looks better for the administration (in a situation that doesn't look good at all). Protection from something spontaneous is more understandably difficult than protection from something that should theoretically leave a paper trail. I think they were hoping out of the many mixed pieces of information coming from the attack, the ones pointing to this explanation were true and likely persued them more vigilantly in the early stages of the attack. Not so respectable.

2)I think its far worse to accuse a group with certainty for being responsible for an attack, only to find out later its not true, than to accuse a spontaneous riot of anonymous people, only to find out later for it to be not true. Sending out false information about specific groups of people is not good for our public's social mentality towards middle eastern issues here at home. That to me is more understandable.

It did affect people though. The makers of that video had to go into hiding, it was so terrible for them.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

It did affect people though. The makers of that video had to go into hiding, it was so terrible for them.

I think they would have had to do that anyway. Remember there was a lot more going on in the Middle East after that video came out than just what happened in Libya. No question they should have been in hiding, even if Libya didn't exist.

ETA: And just to be clear....there is no tugging of hearstrings on me that they had to go into hiding. It was so terrible for them.....like they expected anything else would come of this production.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"KimPossible" wrote:

1)It looks better for the administration (in a situation that doesn't look good at all). Protection from something spontaneous is more understandably difficult than protection from something that should theoretically leave a paper trail. I think they were hoping out of the many mixed pieces of information coming from the attack, the ones pointing to this explanation were true and likely persued them more vigilantly in the early stages of the attack. Not so respectable.

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. HUGE MISTAKE that they had to cover for. They had asked MULTIPLE times for more protection. Obama even tried to bring it up in the debate saying Romney wants to cut the budget to embassies, when it came out later they haven't even spent the money they had in the budget to spend. They KNEW it wasn't a spontaneous attack and these emails prove it. They purposely tried to mislead people thinking it would blow over by the time the truth came out.

“Based on information provided to the committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012,” they wrote. “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

Diplomatic Cables: Hillary Clinton Refuses Security; Stands Down Prior To Benghazi Embassy Attack | Alternative

"KimPossible" wrote:

2)I think its far worse to accuse a group with certainty for being responsible for an attack, only to find out later its not true, than to accuse a spontaneous riot of anonymous people, only to find out later for it to be not true. Sending out false information about specific groups of people is not good for our public's social mentality towards middle eastern issues here at home. That to me is more understandable.

What i would have preferred is that the message was more clear to people in the early weeks that they were not providing a definitive answer. Even if it meant that people would whine and complain that they were getting answers fast enough.

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. 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?

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?

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

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.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"KimPossible" wrote:

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.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

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.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"KimPossible" wrote:

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.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

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.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"KimPossible" wrote:

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.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

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.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

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!)

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

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

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

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.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

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.

You are seriously going to throw something out that was deliberately twisted by the media? No sane person could believe that he meant that God intended for the rape to happen instead of God intended for the pregnancy to happen. It is just disgusting that Democrats would stoop that low and twist his words to mean something he obviously didn't.

I am glad he is standing by his comments even when people are trying to twist what he said into something else. Every child is precious to God. Even those conceived by rape. If they are going to fault him for that belief at least be honest and fault him for what he actually believes.

Mourdock, meanwhile, dove into damage control Wednesday, explaining that he abhors violence of any kind and regrets that some may have misconstrued and "twisted" his comments. But he stood behind the original remark in Tuesday night's debate.

"I spoke from my heart. And speaking from my heart, speaking from the deepest level of my faith, I would not apologize. I would be less than faithful if I said anything other than life is precious, I believe it's a gift from God," Mourdock said at a news conference Wednesday.

http://www.koaa.com/news/gop-s-murdock-stands-by-rape-abortion-comment/

Pages