President Obama won the second debate against Mitt Romney last night by managing to defend elements of his first term record and articulate a second term agenda, while his opponent struggled with specifics and was haunted by the spectre of George W. Bush, who he probably thought was disappeared for electoral purposes in this country.
We’ll get into other aspects of the debate later, the good and the bad, and the caveat must be made that there’s pretty much always a variance between rhetoric and action among approximately all politicians. But for starters, let’s focus on the key takeaway moment of the debate, not for what it illuminated about the particular issue but because it served as a microcosm for this campaign and American politics in the 21st century in general.
President Obama must have expected a question on the Libya attack, which the Romney camp previewed by saying he would tell the President to “man up” and take responsibility. Obama pre-empted that by stating that “I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has too greet those coffins when they come home.” Romney followed up with a meandering answer that tried to fit in his entire foreign policy critique of the President, which is mostly stylistic, that the President “shows weakness” and “apologizes for America,” amorphous concepts that are not grounded in any actual policy differences. But Romney added one clean hit. “There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack,” he said. Here’s how the President responded, and the rest of this crucial exchange (which probably looks better in video form, above, than it reads):
PRESIDENT OBAMA: The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we were going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror, and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime. And then a few days later I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families, and the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as President, that’s not what I do as Commander-in-Chief.
CANDY CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to reply quickly to this please.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: I think it’s interesting the President just said something which is that on the day after the attack he went to the Rose Garden and said this was an act of terror.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: That’s what I said.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an attack of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record. Because it took the President 14 days before he called it an attack of terror.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CANDY CROWLEY: He did in fact, sir, let me call it an act of terror.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
CANDY CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out, you’re correct about that.
There’s one other important element not labeled in the transcript that I will come back to later. But first, on the substance. You can read the remarks by the President on the deaths of the four Americans in Benghazi, from the next day. Indeed, the President says, reacting to the attack, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”
Like Josh Marshall, I’m borderline nauseated about the silly, totemic quality afforded to the word “terror” in this respect, as if it’s a magic shield that by its very utterance projects resoluteness and leadership. Whether this was called a terrorist attack immediately or once the evidence came rolling in doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. You don’t get cookies and milk for saying “terrorism” first. I also think there’s reason to criticize the White House’s post-attack handling to an extent.
But on this narrow point, the facts are the facts, and that’s what this sequence was all about. Throughout the campaign, Mitt Romney has developed a hate-hate relationship to facts, altering or outright ignoring them to suit his needs. Here, he actually thought he caught the President in a lie, or at least in a lie as he sees things in his right-wing radio funhouse mirror of the universe, and he let ‘er rip. But this was the key point. After Obama says “Get a transcript,” and you think this will have to play out later in dueling fact-checks, Candy Crowley gets involved. She corrects the record, the way a journalist might, coming in on the side of the truth. And that’s what prompted the audience, made up of 80-odd undecided voters, to cheer. They cheered because it’s been so long since a media figure decided not to balance an argument with the utmost objectivity, but to actually call balls and strikes. The audience cheered a media personality doing her job, paying attention and forcing a politician to reckon with the truth rather than bluster on with his talking point. It’s so rare, the public is so starved, that they let out a burst of spontaneous emotion.
Right-wing hacks are trying to spin this as if Obama just generically brought up acts of terror in the Rose Garden in the context of a speech about the Benghazi attacks as if the two had no relationship whatsoever. That’s not going to fly.
And the sequence was all the more resonant because of the way in which Romney has played fast and loose with the facts throughout the campaign, and throughout last night’s debate. There was a cathartic quality to him finally getting his comeuppance.
But ultimately, this represented an expression of gratitude to a Beltway journalist actually sticking with the truth instead of allowing the predictable he said/she said. More of that and we’ll actually creep closer to a functioning democracy.
UPDATE: And John Dickerson reminds us why we won’t have a functioning democracy. Transcripts are now he said/she said. Congratulations, guys.
…Crowley couldn’t take actually being right, either. What a country.
UPDATE II: Obama also used the same line in a speech in Colorado September 13. But I guess it was just a cliche then too.




99 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Reince Priebus one total mofo on Chuck’s show re Benghazi. Put on your man-up pants, Rancid.
The original question from the audience got my antenna up. The questioner asked about requests for more security at Bengazi. If I were POTUS I would have started by debunking that urban myth and said “although there were requests for more security, it was more security for our embassy in Tripoli. There was no request for more security for our consulate in Bengazi.”
And then the rest it would have played out.
Also, he could have pointed out that the early intel reports conflated the riots in Egypt with the atttack in Bengazi, and that when emergencies happen it’s not unusual for reports to be inaccurate. We have all experienced that in out everyday lives, when there is a fire or a train wreck or some other emergency. Why would you think this emergency would somehow not be the same?
Watching Romney talk to “The Help” (i.e., the President) was mind-boggling.
“You’ll get your chance in a moment. I’m still speaking.”
There’s a case to be made that only women should be moderators of these debates. Not tired ol’ white guys phoning it in.
Rmoney returning to his lizard brain where “certain people” are inferior to his patriarchal self.
a “this one” moment
What I would now like to see is either the Democratic party or one of the PACs pick up the film footage with the full context of the statement in the Rose Garden, along with one of Mitt’s accusations that Obama didn’t say it for 14 days.
At the end of the full context re-play, I’d like to see a ‘Black Screen of Justice’ saying ‘Mitt Romney. Wrong, again!’
And then play that thing for about a week, frequently.
Two things that really stunned me:
1) Romney interrupting POTUS, totally denigrated the office. I could understand if things were getting hot and Romney forget himself for a moment, exp. if he later apologized and pointed out the NO ONE interrupts POTUS. But his interruptions seemed entirley calcualted.
2) Romney would not sit down when it was POTUS’s turn to talk. It was like he would not acknowledge that POTUS had rights to any speaking time at all.
I think he came off too ruthless and bullying. Cut throat rather than commanding.
POTUS needs to find his Al Green vibe for the 3rd debate. He’s still seemed too testy, like Romney gets under his skin.
He needs that teflon, Ronald Reagan semi mocking “there you go again”.
In fact, I think he should plagerize that wholesale.
“tired old white guys”?
you mean like the old white guy Noam Chomsky whose outstanding article on the Cuban Missile crisis is on these pages?
Or Massacio, who appears to white, and on the older side, and seems to be somewhat tired these days?
I’m a tired old white guy.
that’s an expression that divides.
Is it because the Admin/President et al don’t want to add to the outing of the “consulate” that they don’t make this distinction? I can’t figure it out. Two edged sword?
Also, why doesn’t the President talk about Bain? Is it because Mitt is not part of it somehow with a “blind trust” and can’t be accountable for outsourcing jobs Right Now to China?
So, I’m loving these two updates. POTUS said it was a terrist act on both the 12th and the 13th, but it doesn’t count b/c an underling delivered a cotrary message on a Sunday show. She flubs her talking points and it means the words POTUS actually spoke somehow go down the memory hole?
MOTUs thik they can re write history. You know why? SEC and DOJ keep letting them do it.
Yeah, but I think Mitt Romney sees everyone else as “the help,” not just Obama.
Charlie Pierce said it best this morning.
What do you mean by “outing the consulate”? I am not gettig your reference
Is it not true that the consulate was a CIA operation?
“They cheered because it’s been so long since a media figure decided not to balance an argument with the utmost objectivity, but to actually call balls and strikes.”
This pervasive meme right here is the root of the problem. What is NOT objective about calling balls and strikes, if done right? An umpire is supposed to OBJECTIVELY call balls and strikes by applying the same standards to both teams, not stand there dumb as a stump!
Silence only LOOKS more objective if you actively call “bullshit” on bullshiting, and one side in the debate is *consistently more prone* to shoveling it out. Inevitably, you’ll be calling the Repugs on their “balls” more frequently, since the Dims have a reality-based view on at least SOME subjects.
(I kinda hate spectator sports culture in genereal, and baseball in particular, so gagging throughout.)
I saw a compelling interview (sorry, no time to hunt the link, but I think it was on UP with Chris Hayes) in which an actual diplomat stated that if security was so tight that diplomats were “bottled up” they couldn’t go out and do their jobs.
I thought that was the strongest message to come out of the whole debate. Romney showed he thinks his fmoney makes him better than anyone else. I was thinking about this yesterday in the context of reading some French classics (La Rochefoucauld abd Balzac)’ which were directed in large part to an educated aristocratic elite, who also certainly believed themselves superior to the common people. But the thing was, their superiority, though rooted in birth really depended on their education and capacity to maintain the literate humanistic traditions. There was a ‘there’ there. Romney and his like are nothing but money, and are fundamentally nihilist, like the majority of our ruling class.
That’s not a lizard brain, it’s a cerebral Mormon construct. Remember, in his mind, Romney is a god-too-be.
He Never Answers any question, never. I don’t know how he gets away with that.
The sad part is that Romney’s base probably applauds that behavior, because that is exactly their perception.
All embassies and consulates have CIA embeds at one time or another. That’s not news. All nations embed spies in their embassies. What’s ther to “out”?
We already know about the nearby safehouse, too. POTUS could have talked about any of that, if only by refrring to press reports about it. He could have said “you may have read X inthe press, now I cannot officially confirm or deny it until the investiagtion is complete, but this is the information that the press has already made availble to the public”
From the transcript.
The incident is specifically referred to several times.
The more general “acts of terror” was appended at the end.
Did he call this attack and “act of terror”? Very Clintonian, depends on what your definition of the word “this” is.
There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack,
“I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has too greet those coffins when they come home.”
I thought Hillary took responsibility a few days ago….and last night Obama did. I just found the juxtoposition of the previous two phrases interesting.
One wonders (perhaps no more than one) why there was never any interst in pre 9/11 increased (or decreased) security.
Keep shoveling that shit, Chuckles.
It has been discussed, during the Issa hearing last week, so nothing to “out” exactly, and I guess your point is really better and I don’t know why it is not made, that the resources were requested for Tripoli, not for Benghazi.
Maybe the point is too fine.
And, of course the Rs forced the budget cuts on security, and that point has also been made, but not sufficiently. Maybe it is that Obama just does not want to whine about the matter, he said he was in charge and the buck stops there.
The correction was almost incoherent, then she told Romney he was basically correct as well. No idea what people are so excited about.
So it all comes down to whether or not Obama’s phrase “No act of terror” was meant to include “This act of terror.” The GOP are slicing the bloney mighty fine, when they criticize Crowley for her call.
More importantly, Romney was trying to bully her all evening, and she pushed back. These one-percenters don’t think that the rules apply to them.
alan 1 tx @22
The next day, September 12th, in Colorado, President Obama said this:
“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 all the people around the world to hear me: to all the people 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.”
Our very own Teddy Partridge wins the internets for the day. He just posted this picture on facebook. ‘Nuff said.
Maybe it’s just me but when you kill four people amid all that destruction it is something a little more than a demonstration. Someone was out to kill them. The word we use these days, albeit reflexively for want of a better one I suppose, is terrorism or maybe al Queda, if nothing else suffices. So I wondered for a bit there what all the fuss was about. But I admit to being very pleased when MR Know it all got burned.
Given all the heat there in Cairo I suspected the same thing there. These demonstrations just don’t happen. Someone is using them for their own ends. Or at least that’s how I see it.
I didn’t watch the debate,however, for me Romney won, i don’t waste my time
in futile babbling. “Romney showed he thinks his money makes him better than anyone else. ”
I don’t understand why i have to apply criticism to Romney because he has money and not apply criticism to all rich puppets politicians in the spectrum,the democrats and republicans who make a buck out of lobbism, if a guy make money,congratulations.Anyway,Obama is squeezing the poor better than anyone, he is an specialist on that chapter although he yells otherwise,made banks rich and is a marionette of WS,etc,etc.
Obama showed that his demeanor can’t fool people anymore,he says blue and acts red.Both are suboptimal,no doubt,but if one tried and couldn’t then the other deserves a chance.
Of course, and if he did not use the word “terror” would you suppose he did not see the gravity of the situation. It was murder. Certainly he would be expected to seek justice.
This post is about as wrong as it can get. And will be obvious very shortly.
Obama’s statement brought up and highlighted how the administration lied.
If he thought it was terrorism, why the hell did he send Susan Rice out to say it was a spontaneous demonstration and nothing to do with terror??
Admittedly, Romney missed a big chance to end Obama’s campaign right then and there.
It is now more obvious than ever that Obama knew it was never a demonstration and lied about it to keep anyone from questioning his policy being wrong or his statements about Al Quida being on its heels wrong.
If you said it was terrorism–which he didn’t actually, just a general reference to terrorism–but, if he insists he did, then why send Susan Rice out 4 days later to tell everyone it wasn’t.
Many people have picked up on this. Obama caught himself in his own lie.
A non-issue from a non-Human.
Yes, yes, give the other guy a chance. He is so much better equipped to handle it – - er I mean squeezing the poor better than anyone.
They killed our Ambassador. It’s an act of terror. The distinction between a planned terrorist attack and a mob committing a violent act is utterly irrelevant yet emblematic of the irrelevancy of everything out of Romney’s lying mouth.
Oh yeah, he just can’t tell the difference from murder to a demonstration especially without his drone sites. So you just gotta let him get his gun you know.
So, why did he send Susan Rice out to say it was some spontaneous demonstration?
He basically confirmed they’ve been lying about it.
AND, that reference is ONLY a very general one. But, if he wants to say he said it was terror and then, after, mislead us to believe it was just a spontaneous demonstration, so be it.
Because, I am sure that Al Quida thinks that their assassination of an Ambassador proves they are NOT on their heels.
And, that thousands demonstration in other cities saying, “Obama, we are all Osamas,” proves he accomplished very little killing Osama.
It ever cross your mind that initial, confused, intelligence reports may have indicated one thing. Then further investigation indicated another?
How about tired old white guys with thin skin.
I’m kidding of course. That said, I can appreciate the point-of-view that the tired old white guys are running the show.
The following quotes are from an excellent article by Hayes Brown and Ben Armbruster at ThinkProgress.
On Sept. 11 Romney’s campaign issued this statement to the press:
The next day:
Then on September 19:
Then on September 21:
He is a lying sack of shit I guess. Or – just spit balling here – - maybe he didn’t want to have the other side of the aisle running for the guns until he had more facts.
Oh please. Did it occur to you they weren’t positive what happened? Perhaps Obama is a little more measured and cautious than his chickenhawk Neocon brethren. One attack proves he accomplished very little getting Bin Laden? He’s also taken out most of Al Queda’s leaders. Btw, R’s cut the embassy security funding D’s asked for in half. What a ridiculous phony topic.
Far from it.
A successful planned attack by the very people Obama has been trying to convince us he vanquished is NOT something the administration wanted anyone to know. So, the bulls..t story about spontaenous demonstrations, etc.
And, since Clinton’s Deputy was watching and in real time contact during the attack, they damn well know it had nothing to do with a citizen’s demonstration.
Now, I am sure you might not know a lie when you see it.
He’s done no such thing. Trying to convince us he vanquished Al Queda entirely? What planet do you live on? Would you prefer he lied us into a 3 Trillion buck war?
He is one evil mutha fucker there eh? Do you suppose Cairo was a demo or more terrorism? Lets go get those bastards. We got all we need to know.
Yes, except there is plenty of evidence that they knew within a day.
AND, only the media pulling it out tooth by tooth revealed it. NONE of the changes in the story came from the Administration until AFTER the media uncovered a true piece the data the Administration couldn’t deny.
Face it; they put put a BS story to prevent people from discussing EXACTLY what have been discussing with the true information out there–that AQ is very alive and well, and that the Obama’s policy has not resulted in anyone in the Mid East liking us any better than before. And Pew polling shows they like us about 10% less than in 2008.
UH, he and other administration people has used the phrase ‘back on their heels” a number of times.
By this act, and also other accounts, they are as strong as ever.
Thanks for your usual good analysis. I actually watched snippets of this debate, and of course, this sequence was the “BIG” reveal supposedly.
I dunno. From where I sit, all it looked like was the usual “Cue the Kabuki Show.”
FWIW, I thought Willard RMoney looked & acted like who he is: an mega-entitled rich greedy shithead who talks down to everyone in sight and is a bullying aggressive creep. Quelle surprise… NOT.
I thought Obama played his usual “role” of appearing to be more in the corner of the peons, but in reality, he’s not. Obama, though, is better able to play this role, perhaps because his background was not quite as privileged as RMoney’s, plus he’s considered a minority, so he had to deal with all that entailed… so possibly some real empathy there, even though he’s out for himself and his 1% pals on Wall ST & in the banks.
As for the Benghazi thing: this has typically been turned into the usual bullshit hype craptastic nonsense that passes for some kind of infotainment or something.
When 9/11 happened, it was still “blamed” on Democrats despite overwhelming evidence that the W Admin knew all about it (or enough about it) and did fuck all and then let all the Saudi’s and the bin Laden’s fly out of the country. Yet the dittoheads are happily satisfied to blame it all on Clinton & Gore just because.
Now we have Benghazi and we’re all dancing on a pinhead to determine who said the MAGIC word “terror” firstist and whether it was said with the correct intonation or whatever. FEH. What a load of hooey.
If the exact same thing had happened & McCain was POTUS, the “rightwing” side of the UniParty would totally exonerate itself and “blame” it somehow on Clinton or someone similar and the dittoheads would weep with joy, and the corp-owned propoganda wurlitzer would comply.
It’s merely Kabuki Show, and the usual buttons are being pushed and the authoritarians on the left and right dance to the tune.
There will be ongoing attacks by so-called “terrorists” on Team USA Fuck Yeah’s embassies or whatever until forever because that’s the way things are now… and in no small part, due to how the Imperialistic Empire of Doom operates and “treats” the dusky hued around the world. Drone strikes, anyone??????
Attempting to parse out whether Barry Zero had big enough clanging balls or not is bullshit and worthless and stupid. I don’t even want to go there with Willard.
ptoui!!!! bah humbug.
I’m still voting third party.
Boy you’re really grasping at straws over a non-issue. How sad.
That was funny.
Bullshit! This was a response to that American-made film by a local Libyan malitia, Ansar al Alsharia, not affiliated with Al Qaeda. See #42.
Romney got in a lick when he talked about the price increase of so many things: food, medicine, insurance…
And picking up some hamburger-flipper jobs isn’t likely to change that. Of course, the facts are that as a republican-lite, for four years, Obama has presided over that steady climb in the cost of living, and that as a republican, Romney’s policies will surely continue and increase them.
Same-old-same-old: we are screwed.
You are quite an interesting fellow. You asign all kinds of evil purposes and plots to the GOP, yet believe all others are like little puppies.
Do you think Occupy came from nowhere? A lot of good people planned that movement.
Cairo was no different.
No matter the motivation, it, and the other demonstrations, showed in spaded that the US is no better liked than before Obama took office. Video? What does the chanting of “Obama, we are all Osamss,” have to do with a video? It is directly aimed at Obama policies that ocntinue to piss off Mid East people.
He claimed he knew a better way, but he f’d it up. According to Pew polling, they like us even LESS than when Bush was President.
THAT is what he didn’t want you, or I or anyone seeing or discussing.
Never realized Glenn Beck posted here. Or is it Alex Jones.
That’s gotta be the answer. We need someone who can get those people to like us.
Your idea of AQ is laughable. Do some independent research. The media and the American Intelligence Community are labeling every brown person with a grudge as an AQ operative, when in reality AQ is a headless, disorganized, underfunded, tattered remnant.
I think you’re on it, On it. :o)
Last night, Tweedle-dum did a little better, but he’s still nothing but the brother of Tweedle-dee.
That shitty little question of:
“What’s he gonna do if he DOES win re-election???” is still sitting in the middle of the “Obama sucks less!” chiffon congeal bowl, and it aint going away.
I think it is sad that you like to be played for a fool, and don’t care.
Lying about the assassination of an Ambassador is not a small issue.
When the facts come out, it will be known that they knew what they were telling the public was not true.
The “ongoing investigation” thing is the oldest trick in the book.
At least Nixon only lied about a break in where no one died.
I guess.
Now I know you have no answer. Thanks for confirming it.
I agree. we need to start a war with these muthas. Send the troops in.
Regarding angry Libyans, I think there are a lot of them who were grateful for our support in getting rid of Khadafy and his thugs, but they are increasingly pissed at having the U.S. Embassy turned into a CIA station for the purpose of manipulating the situation to the benefit of the amurkan empire.
Oh shit, you mean he done that too? What a fuck. He has a hell of a lot of power this guy. Causes floods, drought, demand shocks all to screw us over.
Yes, I saw that poll. They want the CIA out. I’m not surprised.
Exactly! And it is a lie to say that this assassination was done by AQ, when it was done by a local Libyan malitia, not affiliated with AQ, that was pissed off about that American-made anti-Muslim video and that the locals ran out of town.
I agree 100%
It would be nice if our security policies could decrease the (often deserved) hatred…you know, and actually increase security. But then I guess that would also decrease profits for the MICC. Can’t have that.
Romney is in up to his magic underwear in the movie and the attempt to rile up anti American sentiment and acts in the middle east.
It is the Mormon/Cia/Neocon attempt to Carterize Obama before the elections.
Very interesting, the legalistic parsing, the adoption of ambiguity, the approval of tactical misrepresentation.
Sure smells like partisanship.
Links?
Hillary took responsibility in the same sense that Janet Reno took responsibility for the incident in Waco (FBI and ATF roasting children alive). Absolutely great when you can fess up and nothing happens.
When was the last time a cop on the scene pronounced murder/suicide/accident? They always say, WE DON’T KNOW YET.
Nice try, but this is a 100% bullshit non-issue.
Let’s try talking about something that matters; like what the Entitled, Privileged, golden boy mitt likes to do to people who work at companies he just bought with borrowed money.
Start listening to tarpleydotnet.
He lays out all the connections. You’ll have to listen to his past broadcasts. He does them once a week.
He is masterful at rooting out “the company’s” connections and doings.
Thanks very much for supplying the transcript, David. The interesting moment, or series of moments, for me was the segment in which the following question was posed:
QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?
Ms. Crowley followed up on this by adding that ‘they once were banned and are no longer banned.’
I thought both candidates really pussyfooted around this one, and thanks to an examination of the transcript it becomes abundantly clear they both have very little sympathy for the general public exposed to these weapons. Obama had a sob story to conceal his indifference, and an adroit shimmy into ‘keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals’ and ‘reducing violence in general’ (One might imagine day one of his presidency the troops came home would have been a great start.) Romney had ‘we don’t need more laws’ plus an obfuscation about ‘bringing both sides together’ in Massachussetts that had me thoroughly confused about what went on there.
On the domestic front, I think this parallels, and is perhaps more important than, anything that went on in Libya, where we should not have intervened, period. Just my opinion, of course.
If Mitt the Mighty wins all those low info Right wing voters are going to get a real taste of the elites’ “getting the economy growing”.
And I’ll be laughing my ass off when they do through my tears.
“Carterize” Obama? Are you comparing Raygun/Bush’s finagling of the delay of hostage release with stirring up Muslims with some shitty movie or with assassinating an ambassador? Does not compute.
Please take the time to listen and you will see how it does indeed make sense.
Oh you! Stop it with your pesky facts! You’re ruining the argument for the ostriches!
All scary brown people who don’t like the US = AQ.
Hillary took the fall in behalf of Obama,i think she erased herself for president in the future.Obama was confident about Rice declarations,but he got it wrong,he lied.
Sorry, I read this instead. I might have missed it but I don’t see where he says CIA/Neocons/Mormons ordered a hit on Stevens. Nor do I see how some shitty movie could be anticipated to produce an attack on a specific “consulate” w/ CIA compound attached.
Not comparable to Bush flying to Paris to block release of hostages. And Tarpley does not “lay it out” well.
He does on his broadcasts.
You need to start about a month ago and listen up until now. Check what he is telling you as he goes along.
You don’t need a poll to know that most people don’t want the CIA mucking around in their country.
The gun control section was painful to watch.
All of which would have been pertinent and good points to make.
What is wrong with Obama that, even on his best debate ever (so far), he was unable to make them?
I blame his preparers somewhat as well, but his ability to think on his feet is not impressive. Coming up with a cheap, snarky one-liner on occasion is nowhere near as impressive as being in command of the facts.
Obama is trying to win the right to remain President, not auditioning for the new comic spot on the Tonight Show. And if he were, “your pension’s bigger than mine” would not make the grade in that venue, either.
I just wish He would look Romney straight in the eye and ask him, “Do you really believe the rules do not apply to you?” Are you unable to control yourself to follow the rules?”
Please just ask that mr. President.
I am not sure if America cheered, but Obama supporters certainly did.
I am going to say something that Obama supporters will not like–unless a moderator helps Romney in the next debate.
She was supposed to be a moderator, not an arbitrator or a judge. And certainly not a participant in the debate.
We are supposed to see how Obama does vis a vis Romney and how Romney does vis a vis Obama. When a moderator’s weigh in on behalf of either one of them, it actually can make him seem weak. Either he can refute something on his own or he can’t.
David, this reads like a Greg Sargent article.
Glenn Kessler put together a comprehensive timeline in the Washington Post a few weeks ago (link) outlining the Obama administration’s ambiguous, heavily nuanced and contradictory statements on Benghazi.
As your economic-policy posts have pointed out for some time, this has been Obama’s m.o. on many position statements over the last four years. He then leaves it to his “Truth Team” and left-wing media hacks to tweeze out those parts deemed later on to be complimentary to the preferred narrative, ignore the uncomplimentary parts, and say things like “the facts are the facts.”
Leave it to the Greg Sargents of the world to shrug their shoulders at Obama’s intentional obfuscations and then say its a big fu*king deal when Romney runs the “wrong” way with it.
Romney can be criticized for plenty without resort to this shtick.
“The gun control section was painful to watch.”
It really was, David. Talk about an indecent dialogue; they were both turning themselves inside out to not offend the chicken-dick gun nuts.
Obama had a perfect opportunity to talk about assault weapons; banana clips; kevlar body armor and cop-killer bullets, and to ask why Joe and Jane Sixpak need access to them.
Also, to my knowledge, none of the massacres in recent years has been perpetrated with automatic weapons; the crazies have used semi-automatics…patting yourself on the back for being opposed to fully automatic weapons is just jacking off a straw dog.
Sorry, wrong. He did refute it, but since they are not allowed to bring any aids into the room, he had no way to prove it. She knew he was right, and knew that waiting for post debate to get it out there meant not everyone would see it. These journalists should do more, not less, fact checking the candidates on
egregious, obvious false claims by the candidates (” My plan covers pre-existing
conditions”).
It is clear that O is trying to paper over the reality of what happened there until post election. It’s also true that it is hard to know exactly what happened for a
while. I wouldn’t dismiss Ready @70 out of hand.
In any case, it was an attack by an enemy that killed U.S. citizens, and not an
appropriate topic for political carping. Did the opposition carp at FDR after Japan attacked? That was a massive security failure. Or Bush after 911?
Obama won that exchange not because of Crowley, but in his statement that Romney was offensive. I don’t like Obama, but I was moved by that statement.
I don’t like to be played for a fool. I also don’t like to intentionally be a fool by not using critical thinking. I suggest you try it.
Pup, I agree with most of your post, but I wasn’t moved by Obama’s (faux) outrage.
It’s like this:
Were the lives of the Ambassador and the other three americans who died in Benghazi worth more than those of our troops who died over there, just in recent days?
Were they worth more than the lives of the 8 Afghan women and girls who were killed in Obama’s drone attack about the same time?
How the heck did Romney denigrate the office? Obama’s not a god. Whoever is POTUS is a civil servant, and deserves no more or less obsequiousness than any reasonable human.
Even if you disagree with that, consider the situation: they were there to debate, and a debate only works when the conditions for all participants are equal. That debate was Obama versus Romney, not POTUS versus Romney. So it is biased to treat Obama as POTUS in that venue.
Finally, to really confuse this posting, let me say that I also dislike interruptions and discourtesy by ANY participant in a debate, and I would have preferred that it had not transpired in that last debate. That being said, I would overlook it in a heartbeat if they would hold a real debate with so-called “third-party candidates” included.
Oh, the irony. Obama should know a terrorist attack when he sees one, especially on Terror Tuesday, when Obama decides whom to terrorize with his own personal attacks.
Does it occur to anyone this whole incident would not have occurred at all if Obama hadn’t illegally gone to war in Libya without Congressional approval?
You said it. I’m in full agreement with you.
Ha! As if Obama hasn’t been denigrating the office himself these past four, long years.
Yes, this does seem a more important point to make about Benghazi and what actually happened there. I have been reading the Links at nakedcapitalism.com, and furnish this one from The Hill:
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/261839-timeline-of-libya-attack-reveals-administration-contradictions-
It is really worth a careful read as the timeline suggests far more important problems than came up in the ‘moment’ of the debate.
Reading this makes me even suppose that this ‘moment’ was orchestrated to obfuscate.
Don’t disagree, but off- point. He was asked about this specific incident.
Maybe the reason I responded to O’s outrage is that this was the one place where he was genuine.
Not a fan of the guy, but I suspect he feels the death of an Ambasssador, whom he had to have met personally, pretty keenly, as most human beings would. When he noted that Ambassadors are his personal representative, as well as the country’s, that felt real.
And his outrage that those deaths are being used to make petty political points also felt real (clearly there WAS a security issue, but how much of that can be laid at the Prez’s feet? That stuff is handled several levels down).
The Dems gave Bush a pass on 9/11, for crying out loud. This is four deaths in a
location distant from the main embassy in a small chaotic country, and it’s a major campaign issue?
He didn’t need Congress’ approval and we didn’t go to war with Libya.