I don't get the Libya thing

[manchambo]

It seems to me that there are two basically separate issues. First, there's the question of why additional security wasn't provided. A very serious question. Then there's this issue about when exactly the administration should have said it was a terror attack. Basically a side show compared to the first very serious question.

In the debate a guy asks a tough question about the first issue. Obama basically dances his answer. Romney, instead of going for the throat on that issue, goes after the second issue and flubs that attack. Why are they getting so side tracked on this issue?

[ant1999e]

Not what they should have said but what they knew. Claiming there was a protest over a video when there was no protest. They ran that story for over a week. They avoided admitting it was a terrorist attack. They either lied or were clueless. Either way it's a problem.

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Not what they should have said but what they knew. Claiming there was a protest over a video when there was no protest. They ran that story for over a week. They avoided admitting it was a terrorist attack. They either lied or were clueless. Either way it's a problem.

Maybe, but the actual issue the voter was concerned about was why security wasn't increased. Seems like a much more serious (and legitimate) issue to me.

[ZONA]

Facts will never get to the media that are not skewed to one party's liking or the other. Face it, you could say red and white make pink but somebody else will say it's light red or reddish white. It's all about what you want to hear and except for a very small amount of people in this country, most people will bend the truth and facts to favor their view. Just how it is.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by manchambo

It seems to me that there are two basically separate issues. First, there's the question of why additional security wasn't provided. A very serious question. Then there's this issue about when exactly the administration should have said it was a terror attack. Basically a side show compared to the first very serious question.

Obama didn't answer this point and chose to hide behind a torrent of manufactured outrage.

On the second point, Obama lied outright. I was howling HERE and elsewhere that it was an obvious terror attack when Washington was shuffling its feet. I was pointing out HERE and elsewhere that there were people in the US Embassy grounds in Egypt waving hundreds of AL QAIDA FLAGS while Washington was shuffling its feet.

Even NOW we are only beginning to hear that Washington is just now considering how to strike back.


WHAT THE HELL?

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by ZONA

Facts will never get to the media that are not skewed to one party's liking or the other. Face it, you could say red and white make pink but somebody else will say it's light red or reddish white. It's all about what you want to hear and except for a very small amount of people in this country, most people will bend the truth and facts to favor their view. Just how it is.

Mostly Democrats/liberals.

The media are curious animals. Due to them, the Western World actually has TWO versions of science: one from the scientists, and the other from the media.

Example.

The media keep harping on "sex addiction" as an unquestioned fact when in fact there is no such diagnosis or disorder as sexual addiction. Debate on this topic is ongoing among psychologists. There is no consensus and there is no designation as sexual addiction, period, yet you wouldn't know that by watching/reading the media.

These people are seriously screwed up.

[Kaylore]

It is two issues but they are related. 1. Not providing enough security on freaking 9/11 - that seems like a "durrrrrr" thing.

2. Mishandling explaining what went wrong. Rather than admitting the mistake, the administration first gave incorrect information (the right say they lied to cover themselves, the left says that was the information they were given, even when it was wrong.) then back tracked.

So yes, there are two issues. The chief is why wasn't more security provided. The second is why couldn't the white house get their facts straight.

[NUB]

Why wasn't the debate over it more nuanced? Simple. Because we still don't have a lot of answers about what happened. There was a lot of confusion over what was going on because of the Prophet Mohammed-movie pissing a lot of people off. And groups in these regions are so diverse that it can be difficult to track down the whos and whys. What's remarkable about the question is that Romney so badly screwed up in pressing the issue that he ended up receiving a debate-KO punch and the crowd was literally laughing at him. It was not a good moment. Other than that, the night was pretty even.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[lonestar]

I suspect that Nobama does not get it either.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by NUB

Why wasn't the debate over it more nuanced? Simple. Because we still don't have a lot of answers about what happened. There was a lot of confusion over what was going on because of the Prophet Mohammed-movie pissing a lot of people off. And groups in these regions are so diverse that it can be difficult to track down the whos and whys. What's remarkable about the question is that Romney so badly screwed up in pressing the issue that he ended up receiving a debate-KO punch and the crowd was literally laughing at him. It was not a good moment. Other than that, the night was pretty even.

The state department was watching it live time. Or so they said.

How could they not know what was going on ?

[NUB]

Originally Posted by lonestar

The state department was watching it live time. Or so they said.

How could they not know what was going on ?

Just because you witness a crime does not mean you automatically understand who is doing it or why.

[ZONA]

Originally Posted by NUB

Just because you witness a crime does not mean you automatically understand who is doing it or why.

I also think there is a HUGE misconception that even if security was beefed up a bit that it would have prevented the attack or even that Americans would not have died. That is probably not the case. As many have said, it was 9/11 and I'm pretty sure an attack was going to happen no matter what. Terrorists probably would have just increased their #'s if the security was increased. Let's not forget, Ryan as well as many other Republicans chose to reduce spending on security for over seas embassies. Hate to say it this way but you get what you pay for. You want to cut spending on security but cry wolf when something goes down. You can't have it both ways.

[Willynowei]

Slashing the budget for embassy security while pushing for hire pentagon spending?

I'm leaning Romney because i like the conservative economic policies... but this kind of stuff just makes me shake my head regardless of which side is doing it. Just obvious what's going on there...

As for white house reaction, or more specifically what the president should or shouldn't have said - i couldn't care less. it's not a spending issue, and its a joke trying to grill the man who caught Bin Laden on these type of things. He's got that area won until he make some serious mistakes.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Not what they should have said but what they knew. Claiming there was a protest over a video when there was no protest. They ran that story for over a week. They avoided admitting it was a terrorist attack. They either lied or were clueless. Either way it's a problem.

Why do Romney supporters keep repeating the same lie??

We all heard Obama's comments the day after the attack, when he clearly described the attack.

The facts: On September 12, the day after the attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Obama said in comments in the Rose Garden that he had learned about the attack on the consulate the night before.

"Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe," he said. "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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Why do Romney supporters keep repeating the same lie??

We all heard Obama's comments the day after the attack, when he clearly described the attack.

They also are using a pretty shabby false dichotomy. That it arose out of protests would not disqualify it from being an act of terror. That's why Obama said it was an act of terror while at the same time indicating that was related to the movie protests. But Fox News still says over and over again the administration was somehow covering up that it was a terror attack by saying it was related to the movie.

[ZONA]

Originally Posted by Willynowei

I'm leaning Romney because i like the conservative economic policies.

Yeah, because they were such good policies that Bush wiped out a huge surplus and left a nice chunk of debt. The policies were so good that Romney and folks didn't even want Bush and Chaney (among others) to even attend the RNC this year. There may be some differences between the Bush and Romney but they're virtually the same when it comes to economics. Tax cuts for the rich, promise to cut taxes for middle class (which we all know is a lie). Instead of closing corporate loop holes to force corporations to pay their fair share, instead, the choose to cut programs and deductions which heavily favor the middle class and not the rich. But, at least Bush didn't try to turn Medicare into a voucher program and seals it's fate by 2016. Also wants to increase military spending by 2 billion, so now instead of the US paying military almost 7 times the amount of the next 10 largest countries (as that's not ridiculous enough) it will go to something like 8 times the amount. That kind of spending is not needed, they are only doing it so those large military contractors get jobs. So say you like Romney for anything else but don't think his economic plan spells relief. Guaranteed the debt will not go down with him as president. Within hist first few years I promise he will go to war with Iran while China pays for it. He will continue to outsource jobs in China. He tries to say if you have a fund, some of it's investments could come from China. Yeah, fine, that's a fund dude. It's not being the president of the USA and moving jobs to China and putting American workers out on their butts, which he has already proven he is doing, even right now, he's got a company he's literally moving to China, now.

[maher_tyler]

If there wasn't an embassy there it wouldn't have gotten attacked. We need to let the people in the middle east figure their own problems out. What goes on in these embassies anyway? What is the point of them being there? Do we have other countries embassies here in the US??

[barryr]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Why do Romney supporters keep repeating the same lie??

We all heard Obama's comments the day after the attack, when he clearly described the attack.

, yes, despite Crowley and her pom poms trying to help Obama, he and his admin. went on airwaves for weeks stating as if fact, that the attack in Libya was a spontaneous response about a result of a clip from a movie that was 2 months old. We know that was wrong and since the Obama admin. was told at the start the movie had really nothing to do with it, they decided to use that narrative anyway. That is lying in my book at least.

[DenverBrit]

The day after the attack, Obama called it a terrorist attack.

But keep denying it if that makes you feel better.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by manchambo

It seems to me that there are two basically separate issues. First, there's the question of why additional security wasn't provided. A very serious question. Then there's this issue about when exactly the administration should have said it was a terror attack. Basically a side show compared to the first very serious question.

In the debate a guy asks a tough question about the first issue. Obama basically dances his answer. Romney, instead of going for the throat on that issue, goes after the second issue and flubs that attack. Why are they getting so side tracked on this issue?

Simple answer. Politics.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by manchambo

They also are using a pretty shabby false dichotomy. That it arose out of protests would not disqualify it from being an act of terror. That's why Obama said it was an act of terror while at the same time indicating that was related to the movie protests. But Fox News still says over and over again the administration was somehow covering up that it was a terror attack by saying it was related to the movie.

There was no way of knowing at that time if the attack was from a terrorist organization or one of the militias. There would have been no way to get out front of the story without more intel from the CIA. It was easy for Romney to play politics with the event while the administration needed to wait. Either way, it's really a non story, when getting it right matters.

The real story was whether it could have been prevented.

[zdoor]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

There was no way of knowing at that time if the attack was from a terrorist organization or one of the militias. There would have been no way to get out front of the story without more intel from the CIA. It was easy for Romney to play politics with the event while the administration needed to wait. Either way, it's really a non story, when getting it right matters.

The real story was whether it could have been prevented.

While you can claim Romney played politics with the event. You are kidding yourself if you think inferring it was a spontaneous event caused by a video and perpetuating that myth for weeks wasn't driven COMPLETELY by politics.

They knew the night of the attacks there was no riots or demonstrations. And Obamas inference he called it an attack of terror on the day after was in the same speech where he again he apologized for a video. He used the words "acts of terror" but for weeks his administration drove a storyline that it was a spontaneous event. They did not want to call it terrorism because it hurts their campaign claims of progress on the war on terror...

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by zdoor

While you can claim Romney played politics with the event. You are kidding yourself if you think inferring it was a spontaneous event caused by a video and perpetuating that myth for weeks wasn't driven COMPLETELY by politics.

They knew the night of the attacks there was no riots or demonstrations. And Obamas inference he called it an attack of terror on the day after was in the same speech where he again he apologized for a video. He used the words "acts of terror" but for weeks his administration drove a storyline that it was a spontaneous event. They did not want to call it terrorism because it hurts their campaign claims of progress on the war on terror...

This story is one of confusion and conflicting versions, playing politics with it serves no one in the end. The old adage that "the truth is the first casualty of war" applies in this case. Caution, rather that rhetoric, would be prudent.

To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.

United States intelligence agencies have reserved final judgment pending a full investigation, leaving open the possibility that anger at the video might have provided an opportunity for militants who already harbored anti-American feelings. But so far the intelligence assessments appear to square largely with local accounts. Whether the attackers are labeled “Al Qaeda cells” or “aligned with Al Qaeda,” as Republicans have suggested, depends on whether that label can be used as a generic term for a broad spectrum of Islamist militants, encompassing groups like Ansar al-Shariah whose goals were primarily local, as well as those who aspire to join a broader jihad against the West.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/i...bya/index.html

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

This story is one of confusion and conflicting versions, playing politics with it serves no one in the end. The old adage that "the truth is the first casualty of war" applies in this case. Caution, rather that rhetoric, would be prudent.




http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/i...bya/index.html

In other words, it's a very complex issue and the Right wants to turn it into something black & white for its political smear benefit.

Romney is about as adept at foreign policy as Dubya was.