MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
anitram said:He also has black friends you know.
Exactly. That's what it reminds me of.
anitram said:He also has black friends you know.
He also has black friends you know.
I don't think you're biased, deep. Just wrong.
semantics.
Did he get fired?
I think it's clear that Mitt Romney had a giant, beach ball sized hanging curve thrown his way, and he went all A-Rod on us and swung and missed.
Benghazi.
Romney allowed a giant black mark on the Obama administration to be turned against him over a simple case of semantics. He took an easy zing and turned around and zinged himself.
There are incredibly important questions about why the security requests were denied, how an attack was allowed to take place on the anniversary of 9/11, and why the administration tried to lay the blame on a video that it now appears they knew full well wasn't the cause... yet Romney lost that easy, meatball of an argument because he focused on what the definition of the word is is.
Baffling... huge moment in the debate. The only thing Mittens has going for him on that one is that the next debate is all foreign policy focused... so he can turn the attention back on the questions that really matter, rather than Barry's use of the phrase terror... but wow what a giant whiff on that one tonight.
Who won the debate?
Barack Obama 40.18%
Mitt Romney 38.67%
Neither 21.15%
no one thought it was.
except apparently me.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just don't see the Libya attacks as quite the failure on the part of the Obama administration you're suggesting, largely because the implied answers are so terrible as to be implausible:
Why were the security requests denied? Because the Obama administration just doesn't care about the security of it's personnel? Come on. . . I'd have a lot of questions about the request, what was the nature of the denial, who made the decision to deny additional security and what the reasons were. But that doesn't add up to a callous disregard for the safety of diplomatic personnel by the administration as a whole.
Why did they lay blame on the video? Because the Obama administration wanted to hide what. . .? It seems more reasonable to conclude that the facts simply weren't clear at the time. Also reasonable, is that they may not have not wanted to admit that they didn't see the attack coming. Still it would be rather foolish to put the blame on the video when you know full well that the video wasn't responsible. They would have had to know the truth would come out so an intentional misplacing of blame would have been pretty dumb.
Finally, I just don't see the Libya attacks being the great game-changer when it comes to Romney vs. Obama on foreign policy. It wasn't in tonight's debate. I don't think it will be in the final debate either.
why did Bush say we were going to Iraq for WMD's, when they knew there weren't any? why did he do what he did in New Orleans?
it doesn't have to make sense.
it could be for sinister reasons... it could be just a plain and simple and horrible oversight. either way it was a fuck up.
how is it not plausible that the administration wanted to hide said fuck up? it's certainly worth a discussion. and that's the point... the discussion should have been about the handling of the incident, which there are serious questions about... not over the timing and use of the word terror, which is just plain stupid.
i think obama won the debate... but i don't think he stopped the momentum. slowed it, maybe, probably... but he still has work to do.
Bush said we were going to Iraq for WMDs because he knew that the real reasons for going wouldn't sell well with the American people. I also question that the Bush admin knew for certain that there were no WMDs. However, I believe the Bush admin believed going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do and would work in the best interests of the country. Of course they were wrong. I thought so at the time and of course I still think so now.
The response to New Orleans was not sinister. . .it was as you said a horrible oversight. It was not however, the worst thing Bush did in his presidency (the war in Iraq takes the cake for that).
I don't think it's implausible for the president's administration to try to hide a fuck up particularly if details are sketchy. It is implausible for the administration to hide something that clearly happened and that they knew clearly happened.
It's like blaming Bush for not stopping 9/11.
I don't buy that kind of argument.
Agree here. I'm much less optimistic about Obama winning the election than I was before the first debate.
so how is it implausible that Benghazi was an incredible oversight by the Obama administration?
how is it not plausible that the administration wanted to hide said fuck up? it's certainly worth a discussion. and that's the point... the discussion should have been about the handling of the incident, which there are serious questions about... not over the timing and use of the word terror, which is just plain stupid.
Disagree. The President needed a win, and I think he got one. He didn't need to completely reverse what happened in the first debate. If he wins the last debate, I think he will at that point have the momentum completely back.
so how is it implausible that Benghazi was an incredible oversight by the Obama administration? Nothing sinister... but a giant fuck up? .
I pretty much agree with thatthere are very few decisive wins in politics. the fist debate is the only one in my lifetime.
what needs to happen are "moments," and then for the targeted groups to hear specifics. everything else is noise.
Obama clearly made himself heard to women. and he got his "moments" too -- with Libya, ironically, being his high point. he got the moderator to fact check Romney, and the crowd applauded. twice.
Romney was, still, good. he's done his job, which is to seem presidential. but i don't see how anyone could conclude, on the merits, that this debate was anything but a win for the president.
as for the race, we'll continue to see it be close, but my guess is that Obama will shore up his small but clear 2% lead across the board.
also, the Dems are easily going to hold the senate.
maycocksean said:Our disagreement is over degree. I think it was an oversight, just not an incredible one. I agree that it was a fuck up, just not a giant one.
This is one of those uncomfortable truths that the American people don't want to hear:
No one can guarantee that there will never be another terrorist attack. No one. No matter what we do, we'll miss something at some point and a terrorist will exploit that weakness.
For that reason, situations like what happened in Libya are not "incredible failures of security" (deep made some good points on this). Not unless they are part of a pattern of failures and missed opportunities that allow terrorists to attack time after time. There is no such pattern with the Obama administration and as a result there is no "incredible failure."
i did hear callers on a particular radio talkers show ( an ? independent and leaning towards some progressivism person) after the (1st) debate saying how they liked that Obama didn't get all "agressive". Some thought he won, too by being that way.