OT - Politics as a Sport - Last night's debate

[Beninator]

but President Obama did not call the act in Benghazi "an act of terror"..

He is playing games and hoping the press & public just don't bother to look at the abundant facts which prove he's lying...

he did say ...according to the speech in question...

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation" ..a statement that I agree with - but I have read the transcript of his speech many times and I do NOT see where he links the words terror, terrorist, or "act(s) of terror" to what happened in Benghazi.

He talked in that speech about the Sept, 11 attacks in 2001, and clearly did NOT connect the Benghazi attack to the 9/11/2001 attacks except to say they shared the same date...so that his reference in the very next paragraph to "No acts of terror" does NOT appear to be in reference to Benghazi but instead are in reference to the obvious attack on 9/11/2001!

Then - every successive day - the President clearly indicated he thought this attack in Benghazi was a reaction - a spontaneous act in response to the "video"....so had he really defined the Benghazi attack as terrorism, then his actions the next two weeks are inexplicably perplexing...

It's a nice try and it's tricky how he coordinated the whole thing, clearly in advance, with Crowley to help him out, but it is a lie to say he called the attack properly as a terrorist attack.

The entire speech is about Benghazi. He interjected the 2001 attack to illustrate that that we as a nation will not and have not tolerated terrorism of any kind.

Any links for the Crowley coordinated effort statement?

[tornado]

don't need links - saw the debate - Candy jumped in so fast that she almost spoke even before Mitt did - so when she asked the question - she knew what response Mitt would give and she was all prepared with the answer about "the transcript" - which as I said did not use the word terrorist - a word the President clearly never likes to use for some odd reason...and then he wonders why people doubt his sincerity on Muslim issues...

[Beninator]

don't need links - saw the debate - Candy jumped in so fast that she almost spoke even before Mitt did - so when she asked the question - she knew what response Mitt would give and she was all prepared with the answer about "the transcript" - which as I said did not use the word terrorist - a word the President clearly never likes to use for some odd reason...and then he wonders why people doubt his sincerity on Muslim issues...

I would have to wager that the dead Al Qaeda leaders over the past 3 and a half years do not doubt the resolve of President Obama.

BTW, I knew that you did not have a link to your assumptions!

[SFP]

I would have to wager that the dead Al Qaeda leaders over the past 3 and a half years do not doubt the resolve of President Obama.

BTW, I knew that you did not have a link to your assumptions!

Sorry the Libyan tragedy was a huge security breach. It was stated from people in the State Department that extra security was requested but denied because they did not want it to look bad for the regime in place. So what's more important? The regime we helped put in or our own citizens. Hillary took the sword on this and she from the get go looked remorse and wanted to take another non-political path to finding out what happened. The Obama team wanted this to go away and its not. Hell how could they have overlooked this. I'm sure there was plenty of chatter leading up to this, 911 Anniversary and in a country that frankly can barely serve their own security concerns. I wonder how many marines we have stationed in our Paris embassy? The security we had for our Ambassador in Libya did not make sense! When bureaucrats make security decisions and fail miserably someone should take the blame. I want my leader to say he failed and make sure these types of mismanagement never happens again.

The guy is trying to take all the benefits of the killing of Osama...he should also take the failings as well!

[tornado]

Al Qaida doesn't care one snippet about anyone's resolve - they are on a religious mission and ready to die for their cause...
posturing and rhetoric matters not, but a strong defense and properly directed offense can make a difference...
Pulling the security troops that defended our ambassador was a terrible blunder and has yet to be explained by those responsible.
...especially in light of new reports that there had been other prior attacks and threats which should have readily tipped off everyone that a 9/11 attack was coming

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-10/news/sns-rt-us-libya-usabre89919z-20121010_1_benghazi-ambassador-christopher-stevens-eric-nordstrom

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/262279-graham-seeks-answers-about-prior-consulate-strikes-in-libya

BTW -- I suppose you know that virtually every single year since 9/11/2001 - on the 9/11 anniversary, somewhere in the hot spots of the middle east - there has been a terrorist attack attempting to mark that anniversary....every year...so tell me those in charge shouldn't have planned for one coming in Benghazi - one of the hottest spots in the world??

[BradleyJD]

It's a nice try and it's tricky how he coordinated the whole thing, clearly in advance, with Crowley to help him out, but it is a lie to say he called the attack properly as a terrorist attack.

I am assuming this is joke, right?

You really don't believe the President somehow conspired with the host of the debate, right?

Please tell me I am right.

[Da Coach]

Someone sent a copy of the transcript of Obama's Rose Garden talk of 9/12/12 to Candy Crowley and informed her in advance of the debate about his unrelated use of the word "terrorism" that the Obama camp is now trying real hard to convice people was referring to the attacks on our diplomats in Benghazi.

Why did Crowley have a transcript of that month-old news conference with her at the debate, and how did Obama know in advance that she had it? Obama yelled out at Candy Crowley "get the transcript".
There are theories floating around about how that happened. You are free to decide.

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/10/17/obama-tells-candy-crowley-get-the-transcript-she-reads-from-transcript-during-debate-on-act-of-terror-to-correct-romneys-claim-video/

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/10/18/the-candy-obama-controversy-ge

In any event, she had no business taking sides in the debate, agreeing with Obama and "correcting" Romney, and she later admitted it was a mistake.

[BradleyJD]

Why did Crowley have a transcript of that month-old news conference with her at the debate?

Maybe she likes being ready to do her job? Just a crazy theory.

I am guessing she might have thought it was going to come up.

There are theories floating around about how that happened. You are free to decide.

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/10/17/obama-tells-candy-crowley-get-the-transcript-she-reads-from-transcript-during-debate-on-act-of-terror-to-correct-romneys-claim-video/

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/10/18/the-candy-obama-controversy-ge

I'm sure many people have "theories"

In any event, she had no business taking sides in the debate, agreeing with Obama and "correcting" Romney, and she later admitted it was a mistake.

The fact that a person reading a document that is an EXACT TRANSCRIPT of someone's words is labeled as "taking sides" is about as unbelievable as anything I have ever heard.

[BradleyJD]

and here's the thing:

When you read the transcript, Obama is generalizing about the topic of acts of terror. But how is was talked about during the debate is accurate.

The bigger point should be this:

It's all semantics. This isn't the biggest issue facing America. This is all smoke and mirrors garbage.

If Obama or Romney actually wanted to "fix" America's problems they would tell their respective parties to Shut Up and quit bitching about politics and actually do what needs to be done.

This partisan garbage is a waste of time and money.

[tornado]

amen.. and just how did Obama know she had the transcript and why did she have it on her at the debate as she later acknowledged in the post-debate discussions..

[Da Coach]

The fact that a person reading a document that is an EXACT TRANSCRIPT of someone's words is labeled as "taking sides" is about as unbelievable as anything I have ever heard.

So the fact that the moderator broke her own rules (which she later admitted and apologized for), and then was completely wrong about what she said (which she later admitted she was- check the video on YouTube- she got it completely wrong) is "unbelievable" to you?

[Beninator]

Someone sent a copy of the transcript of Obama's Rose Garden talk of 9/12/12 to Candy Crowley and informed her in advance of the debate about his unrelated use of the word "terrorism" that the Obama camp is now trying real hard to convice people was referring to the attacks on our diplomats in Benghazi.

Why did Crowley have a transcript of that month-old news conference with her at the debate, and how did Obama know in advance that she had it? Obama yelled out at Candy Crowley "get the transcript".
There are theories floating around about how that happened. You are free to decide.

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/10/17/obama-tells-candy-crowley-get-the-transcript-she-reads-from-transcript-during-debate-on-act-of-terror-to-correct-romneys-claim-video/

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/10/18/the-candy-obama-controversy-ge

In any event, she had no business taking sides in the debate, agreeing with Obama and "correcting" Romney, and she later admitted it was a mistake.

Hey DC thanks for the laugh. FireAndreaMitchell.com and the American Spectator.......Those are some very unbiased links you cited!
Also, Crowley is on record as saying that she did not backtrack.

BTW, since you are into conspiracy theories, you haven't mentioned that Mitt Romney cheated during the first debate. There is even a video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTE1Y3bvqwM

Disclosure: I don't believe in conspiracy theories and Romney did not cheat during the first debate(

[BradleyJD]

So the fact that the moderator broke her own rules (which she later admitted and apologized for), and then was completely wrong about what she said (which she later admitted she was- check the video on YouTube- she got it completely wrong) is "unbelievable" to you?

I have read the actual transcript.

What am I missing?

"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."

[BradleyJD]

So the fact that the moderator broke her own rules (which she later admitted and apologized for), and then was completely wrong about what she said (which she later admitted she was- check the video on YouTube- she got it completely wrong) is "unbelievable" to you?

Did the founding fathers of America break English rules and laws?

I wonder what they would think of Candy?

[Beninator]

Sorry the Libyan tragedy was a huge security breach. It was stated from people in the State Department that extra security was requested but denied because they did not want it to look bad for the regime in place. So what's more important? The regime we helped put in or our own citizens. Hillary took the sword on this and she from the get go looked remorse and wanted to take another non-political path to finding out what happened. The Obama team wanted this to go away and its not. Hell how could they have overlooked this. I'm sure there was plenty of chatter leading up to this, 911 Anniversary and in a country that frankly can barely serve their own security concerns. I wonder how many marines we have stationed in our Paris embassy? The security we had for our Ambassador in Libya did not make sense! When bureaucrats make security decisions and fail miserably someone should take the blame. I want my leader to say he failed and make sure these types of mismanagement never happens again.

The guy is trying to take all the benefits of the killing of Osama...he should also take the failings as well!

SFP, I agree that the Libyan tragedy was a security breech. Also agree that we need to take steps to correct the situation. It took President Obama and the administration a while to get things clear to the public, but there is blame to go across the board. Since 2010, the Republican controlled Congress has cut $500 million for embassy security! You mentioned Hillary Clinton in your remarks. In 2011, Hillary Clinton stated the following:

"The scope of the proposed House cuts is massive," Clinton told reporters at a Capitol news conference after attending a luncheon meeting with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). The truth is that cuts of that level will be detrimental to America's national security.

Quote from Rep Boehner spokesman Michael Steel:
"Right now, we need to stop the Washington spending spree so the economy can grow and the private sector can create more jobs. We have confidence that the soldiers and diplomats serving in harm's way will have the resources they need to protect America."

and from Eric Cantor:
"My position, as far as that funding is concerned, we asked the appropriators to go about trying to identify cuts that we could withstand to bring spending back to '08 levels without jeopardizing our national security," Cantor said at his weekly pen-and-pad briefing.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/secretary-clinton-house-republ.html

A lot of factors contributed to the event on September 11 this year and the blame should be evenly dispersed.