login
pres debate #2 (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-10-16 1:32 PM in reply to: #4455800 |
Veteran  1019  St. Louis |  Subject: RE: pres debate #2crusevegas - 2012-10-16 11:37 AM coredump - 2012-10-16 3:48 AM crusevegas - 2012-10-15 4:47 PM jeffnboise - 2012-10-15 2:03 PM GomesBolt - 2012-10-15 12:54 PM First ambassador killed since 1979 And the administration chose to campaign rather then to answer questions about the incident. And Romney chose to make a political speech on the topic before the Ambassador's death had even been reported or the White House had made a statement. What did Romney say and when did he say it? Romney issued a press release ( embargoed ) early in the day protesting the Administration's "apology". At the point when that was issued, the Libya attack had not occurred. The "apology" was the statement put out by the Egyptian embassy where they *were* seeing protests occur over the film, as it had been receiving publicity over the weekend on the news. There's some serious conflation of the statements made surrounding the situation in Egypt on both sides here, where there were protests going on in response to the film, which are being spun to make each other look indifferent or insensitive to what happened much later in the day at the Libyan consulate. Thanks CD, I appreciate the response and info and expanding my vocabulary. It would be nice to see a time line as to what happened when & where. I was under the impression there were NO video protests prior to the terrorist attack in Benghazi and I thought Romney had not commented until 9/12. Some questions that I don't think the public has any answers to pertain to the attacks on the embassy the months leading up to 9/11 who knew what? Who denied the Embassy the additional security they requested. Is it logical to think that our embassy in Benghazi was bombed twice prior to 9/11 attack and the President was not informed? Here's a pretty detailed timeline of who said what, and when. It doesn't include the Benghazi attacks. Benghazi was attacked around 4:00 pm EST (to keep with this timeline, about 10 pm local time). Stevens was died at a hospital around 7:00 pm, and the US gained back control of the compound around 8:30 pm. And you're right, the president or someone from his administration has a lot of explaining to do on the security issues leading up to the event, as well as their response (or apparent lack thereof) after the attack was started. Edited by kevin_trapp 2012-10-16 1:34 PM |
Your explanation has caused me to re-think some of my initial opinions. | 2012-10-16 1:49 PM in reply to: #4456066 |
Champion 6056  Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 kevin_trapp - 2012-10-16 1:28 PM GomesBolt - 2012-10-15 7:31 PM Yeah Jeff, Romney blasted the administration for apologizing to people who were in the act of attacking our Embassy. Romney's speech the next morning, during which he sent away campaign supporters so he could speak only to the press on this solemn event, was after Hilary made her speech about how "the attacks were in response to a film". Romney's statement was that We should never apologize for our freedom of speech and we should not apologize to people who are rampaging our embassies on 9/11. In the same press conference, Romney spoke for 10 minutes with no notes and answered 10 questions from very hostile reporters who collaborated on questions and he did so quite presidentially. Following that presser, Obama walked to the podium in the rose garden with Hilary at his side, read a prepared script word for word, didn't answer a single question, and ran for the door when he finished. He immediately spun up Marine One and Air Force One and flew to a fundraiser in Las Vegas. So again, Romney made speech about the First Amendment and then answered 10 questions. I.e. presidential. Hilary and Obama made apologies to the Muslim world for a film and answered no questions. I.e. not presidential. But hey, at least Obama brought in $180MM right? I think Jeff was referring to the statement Romney released on the night of 9-11, which stated “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” At the time Romney's statement was released, there had been no word from Obama or anyone in his administration regarding the Benghazi attack, and only the tweets from the US Embassy in Cairo regarding the Cairo protests. Could it not be argued that the statement by the embassy in Egypt reflected the intentions and policy of the Administration? Embassy personnel, after all, are appointed by the White House and represent the U.S. to their respective region of the world. Also, it wasn't just a tweet sent by the U.S. Embassy in Egypt, it was an official statement regarding those who attacked the Egyptian embassy on official White House letterhead: "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," it reads. "Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others." The White House later disavowed this statement, but in the absence of any other statements from the White House, it sure appeared to represent the official U.S. and White House position at the time. Also, as others have noted, how do you explain the White House's continued insistence for weeks afterward that the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration in response to the anti-muslim video posted on youtube? It was clear to officials within a day after the attack was a pre-planned and coordinated attack on the anniversary of 9/11. |
| 2012-10-16 2:15 PM in reply to: #4456114 |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 scoobysdad - 2012-10-16 1:49 PM kevin_trapp - 2012-10-16 1:28 PM Could it not be argued that the statement by the embassy in Egypt reflected the intentions and policy of the Administration? Embassy personnel, after all, are appointed by the White House and represent the U.S. to their respective region of the world. Also, it wasn't just a tweet sent by the U.S. Embassy in Egypt, it was an official statement regarding those who attacked the Egyptian embassy on official White House letterhead: "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," it reads. "Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others." The White House later disavowed this statement, but in the absence of any other statements from the White House, it sure appeared to represent the official U.S. and White House position at the time. Also, as others have noted, how do you explain the White House's continued insistence for weeks afterward that the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration in response to the anti-muslim video posted on youtube? It was clear to officials within a day after the attack was a pre-planned and coordinated attack on the anniversary of 9/11. GomesBolt - 2012-10-15 7:31 PM Yeah Jeff, Romney blasted the administration for apologizing to people who were in the act of attacking our Embassy. Romney's speech the next morning, during which he sent away campaign supporters so he could speak only to the press on this solemn event, was after Hilary made her speech about how "the attacks were in response to a film". Romney's statement was that We should never apologize for our freedom of speech and we should not apologize to people who are rampaging our embassies on 9/11. In the same press conference, Romney spoke for 10 minutes with no notes and answered 10 questions from very hostile reporters who collaborated on questions and he did so quite presidentially. Following that presser, Obama walked to the podium in the rose garden with Hilary at his side, read a prepared script word for word, didn't answer a single question, and ran for the door when he finished. He immediately spun up Marine One and Air Force One and flew to a fundraiser in Las Vegas. So again, Romney made speech about the First Amendment and then answered 10 questions. I.e. presidential. Hilary and Obama made apologies to the Muslim world for a film and answered no questions. I.e. not presidential. But hey, at least Obama brought in $180MM right? I think Jeff was referring to the statement Romney released on the night of 9-11, which stated “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” At the time Romney's statement was released, there had been no word from Obama or anyone in his administration regarding the Benghazi attack, and only the tweets from the US Embassy in Cairo regarding the Cairo protests. There was a planned protest to be held at the Cairo embassy protesting this stupid film. The protest was organized by a Salifist leader and an Egyptian television station. The statement that you quote was issued five hours before the protest was scheduled to begin. That is not an apology, it's an attempt to diffuse a potential violent situation by people that were actually living in the violent region. They were about to have 3000 protesters show up at their door, with no idea how ugly it was going to get. This statement and the tweet (stating "Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy") were specific to the protest at Cairo and completely independent of what was terrorist attack at Benghazi. Following the Cairo protest, the Cairo embassy tweeted three more times. The first confirmed the embassy was breached and thanked people for their concerns. The second thanked people for their thoughts and prayers, and stated neither breaches of our compounds or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech and criticizing bigotry. The third said this morning's condemnation still stands, as does condemnation of unjustified breach of Embassy. Maybe I'm overlooking it, but I don't see anywhere that would allow Romney to truthfully state that Obama first response was to sympathize with the attackers and not condemn the attacks. The very first response from the administration (which was issued after Romney's statement) was a tweet from Hillary stating "I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today." As for why they continued for weeks to say the attacks on Benghazi (not Cairo) were spurred by the film, I have no idea. If I had to guess, I'd say they were buying time until they found a scapegoat. They didn't, so today Hillary fell on the sword. Edited by kevin_trapp 2012-10-16 2:17 PM |
| 2012-10-16 2:20 PM in reply to: #4456178 |
Champion 7347  SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 kevin_trapp - 2012-10-16 3:15 PM If I had to guess, I'd say they were buying time until they found a scapegoat. They didn't, so today Hillary fell on the sword. I'm wondering what they had to promise her to do this. Interestingly she said in 2008 that the buck stops at the oval office: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKGNQg4T3NE&feature=player_embedded |
| 2012-10-16 2:33 PM in reply to: #4456193 |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 TriRSquared - 2012-10-16 2:20 PM kevin_trapp - 2012-10-16 3:15 PM If I had to guess, I'd say they were buying time until they found a scapegoat. They didn't, so today Hillary fell on the sword. I'm wondering what they had to promise her to do this. Interestingly she said in 2008 that the buck stops at the oval office: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKGNQg4T3NE&feature=player_embedded That was my initial thought too. I always figured there was some animosity between her and Obama, so I can't imagine she did it just to be the team player and protect the boss. I suppose she could be feeling guilty, but that would require her to first have a conscience. |
| 2012-10-16 2:36 PM in reply to: #4456193 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 TriRSquared - 2012-10-16 3:20 PM kevin_trapp - 2012-10-16 3:15 PM If I had to guess, I'd say they were buying time until they found a scapegoat. They didn't, so today Hillary fell on the sword. I'm wondering what they had to promise her to do this. Interestingly she said in 2008 that the buck stops at the oval office: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKGNQg4T3NE&feature=player_embedded Maybe she figures if she jumps on the sword, this won't be in anyone's minds in 2016. I really can't see her running in 2016. It is strange how much support the Clintons have lended. What's going on there? |
| 2012-10-16 3:30 PM in reply to: #4456225 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 kevin_trapp - 2012-10-16 3:33 PM TriRSquared - 2012-10-16 2:20 PM kevin_trapp - 2012-10-16 3:15 PM If I had to guess, I'd say they were buying time until they found a scapegoat. They didn't, so today Hillary fell on the sword. I'm wondering what they had to promise her to do this. Interestingly she said in 2008 that the buck stops at the oval office: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKGNQg4T3NE&feature=player_embedded That was my initial thought too. I always figured there was some animosity between her and Obama, so I can't imagine she did it just to be the team player and protect the boss. I suppose she could be feeling guilty, but that would require her to first have a conscience. Oh she hates him with a passion. But some deal was made when she accepted the SOS position. Some deep, dark, soul killing deal. Likely involved chickens and a voodoo doll. |
| 2012-10-16 3:33 PM in reply to: #4456178 |
New user 900 , | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 kevin_trapp - 2012-10-16 2:15 PM scoobysdad - 2012-10-16 1:49 PM kevin_trapp - 2012-10-16 1:28 PM Could it not be argued that the statement by the embassy in Egypt reflected the intentions and policy of the Administration? Embassy personnel, after all, are appointed by the White House and represent the U.S. to their respective region of the world. Also, it wasn't just a tweet sent by the U.S. Embassy in Egypt, it was an official statement regarding those who attacked the Egyptian embassy on official White House letterhead: "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," it reads. "Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others." The White House later disavowed this statement, but in the absence of any other statements from the White House, it sure appeared to represent the official U.S. and White House position at the time. Also, as others have noted, how do you explain the White House's continued insistence for weeks afterward that the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration in response to the anti-muslim video posted on youtube? It was clear to officials within a day after the attack was a pre-planned and coordinated attack on the anniversary of 9/11. GomesBolt - 2012-10-15 7:31 PM Yeah Jeff, Romney blasted the administration for apologizing to people who were in the act of attacking our Embassy. Romney's speech the next morning, during which he sent away campaign supporters so he could speak only to the press on this solemn event, was after Hilary made her speech about how "the attacks were in response to a film". Romney's statement was that We should never apologize for our freedom of speech and we should not apologize to people who are rampaging our embassies on 9/11. In the same press conference, Romney spoke for 10 minutes with no notes and answered 10 questions from very hostile reporters who collaborated on questions and he did so quite presidentially. Following that presser, Obama walked to the podium in the rose garden with Hilary at his side, read a prepared script word for word, didn't answer a single question, and ran for the door when he finished. He immediately spun up Marine One and Air Force One and flew to a fundraiser in Las Vegas. So again, Romney made speech about the First Amendment and then answered 10 questions. I.e. presidential. Hilary and Obama made apologies to the Muslim world for a film and answered no questions. I.e. not presidential. But hey, at least Obama brought in $180MM right? I think Jeff was referring to the statement Romney released on the night of 9-11, which stated “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” At the time Romney's statement was released, there had been no word from Obama or anyone in his administration regarding the Benghazi attack, and only the tweets from the US Embassy in Cairo regarding the Cairo protests. There was a planned protest to be held at the Cairo embassy protesting this stupid film. The protest was organized by a Salifist leader and an Egyptian television station. The statement that you quote was issued five hours before the protest was scheduled to begin. That is not an apology, it's an attempt to diffuse a potential violent situation by people that were actually living in the violent region. They were about to have 3000 protesters show up at their door, with no idea how ugly it was going to get. This statement and the tweet (stating "Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy") were specific to the protest at Cairo and completely independent of what was terrorist attack at Benghazi. Following the Cairo protest, the Cairo embassy tweeted three more times. The first confirmed the embassy was breached and thanked people for their concerns. The second thanked people for their thoughts and prayers, and stated neither breaches of our compounds or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech and criticizing bigotry. The third said this morning's condemnation still stands, as does condemnation of unjustified breach of Embassy. Maybe I'm overlooking it, but I don't see anywhere that would allow Romney to truthfully state that Obama first response was to sympathize with the attackers and not condemn the attacks. The very first response from the administration (which was issued after Romney's statement) was a tweet from Hillary stating "I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today." As for why they continued for weeks to say the attacks on Benghazi (not Cairo) were spurred by the film, I have no idea. If I had to guess, I'd say they were buying time until they found a scapegoat. They didn't, so today Hillary fell on the sword. The story about the protests in Cairo being about a video doesn't hold much water for me. I can't read Arabic, but from the photos of banners and graffiti written in English left at our embassy made it look as if the protest was more about releasing the blind sheik than a video. I haven't seen a news story or read an article about this. This is just my observation from viewing photos online. |
| 2012-10-16 3:34 PM in reply to: #4456383 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 TriRSquared - 2012-10-16 4:30 PM kevin_trapp - 2012-10-16 3:33 PM TriRSquared - 2012-10-16 2:20 PM kevin_trapp - 2012-10-16 3:15 PM If I had to guess, I'd say they were buying time until they found a scapegoat. They didn't, so today Hillary fell on the sword. I'm wondering what they had to promise her to do this. Interestingly she said in 2008 that the buck stops at the oval office: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKGNQg4T3NE&feature=player_embedded That was my initial thought too. I always figured there was some animosity between her and Obama, so I can't imagine she did it just to be the team player and protect the boss. I suppose she could be feeling guilty, but that would require her to first have a conscience. Oh she hates him with a passion. But some deal was made when she accepted the SOS position. Some deep, dark, soul killing deal. Likely involved chickens and a voodoo doll. Some guy on local radio just called-in and said "taking responsibility for something without being held accountable is not really something to praise." I guess the implication being that until Hillary actually has to be held accountable for this selfless act, she shouldn't be praised... |
| 2012-10-16 4:19 PM in reply to: #4453897 |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 |
| 2012-10-16 4:23 PM in reply to: #4456516 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 jeffnboise - 2012-10-16 5:19 PM HEY, there's already a thread on Libya. Let's get back to the debate chat. Yes of-course... CANDY CROWLEY!!! Now there's a reporter that belongs in print. Not in radio (terrible voice) or on Television (obvious reasons). A bit harsh, but it immediately re-directs the conversation doesn't it? |
| 2012-10-16 6:06 PM in reply to: #4453897 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 not necessarily about the debate, but certainly echo's the pressure that Obama's under to delivery tonight. The ultra right wing Gallup just released this today: Romney 50%, Obama 46% Among Likely Voters Here's the scary part for team O. He's getting crushed in every single category compared to 2008 at this point in time. How can he possibly win if he doesn't turn this around (and fast)? I hear this fat lady tuning up her voice.
|
| 2012-10-16 8:22 PM in reply to: #4453897 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 OMG, i just spit all over my keyboard. "the reason gas was 1.89 a gallon 4 years ago was because the economy was collapsing" - Obama |
| 2012-10-16 8:24 PM in reply to: #4456784 |
Pro 4277 Parker, CO | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 tuwood - 2012-10-16 7:22 PM The sad part about that statement is that 50 percent of this country probably agree with him!OMG, i just spit all over my keyboard. "the reason gas was 1.89 a gallon 4 years ago was because the economy was collapsing" - Obama |
| 2012-10-16 9:06 PM in reply to: #4456789 |
Extreme Veteran 645 Media, PA | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 rayd - 2012-10-16 9:24 PM tuwood - 2012-10-16 7:22 PM The sad part about that statement is that 50 percent of this country probably agree with him!OMG, i just spit all over my keyboard. "the reason gas was 1.89 a gallon 4 years ago was because the economy was collapsing" - Obama OK, I'll bite. I thought the price of gas did drop with the markets in the fall of 2008. And what was driving the price was a combination of demand (which was decreasing, or expected to) and speculation of where the economy was going (in the tank) |
| 2012-10-16 9:09 PM in reply to: #4453897 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 Economy is bad, dollar is usually worth less, which means the price of gas is higher (more dollars to equal same amount). It's a global resource so when the US economy is worse, our dollar doesn't buy as much gas as say the Euro. Candy Crowley sure picked some great questions if you're an Obama supporter. She's really unbalanced. |
| 2012-10-16 9:10 PM in reply to: #4456844 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 tcj103 - 2012-10-16 9:06 PM rayd - 2012-10-16 9:24 PM tuwood - 2012-10-16 7:22 PM The sad part about that statement is that 50 percent of this country probably agree with him!OMG, i just spit all over my keyboard. "the reason gas was 1.89 a gallon 4 years ago was because the economy was collapsing" - Obama OK, I'll bite. I thought the price of gas did drop with the markets in the fall of 2008. And what was driving the price was a combination of demand (which was decreasing, or expected to) and speculation of where the economy was going (in the tank) You're actually correct. I think I was more reflecting on the way the president said it. It sounded really weird. Gas was up around $3 or $4 a gallon the summer of 2008 and crashed as the economy fell. I've actually been shocked that team O hasn't done a better job of deflecting that argument. |
| 2012-10-16 9:13 PM in reply to: #4453897 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 There's plenty of Fact Checker fodder tonight. They've gotten into direct arguments about Oil, Coal, Contracts for NG, what else? |
| 2012-10-16 9:17 PM in reply to: #4456847 |
| Subject: RE: pres debate #2 GomesBolt - 2012-10-16 7:09 PM Economy is bad, dollar is usually worth less, which means the price of gas is higher (more dollars to equal same amount). It's a global resource so when the US economy is worse, our dollar doesn't buy as much gas as say the Euro. Candy Crowley sure picked some great questions if you're an Obama supporter. She's really unbalanced. Freudian slip? |
| 2012-10-16 9:18 PM in reply to: #4453897 |
Expert 1146 Johns Creek, Georgia | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 On the topic of guns. It's good to have them. |
| 2012-10-16 9:23 PM in reply to: #4453897 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 Here's the transcript of the presidents rose garden speech. you decide I say weak stretch considering his whole speech was about us tolerating other religions (aka youtube video). |
| 2012-10-16 9:26 PM in reply to: #4453897 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 assault weapons ban is probably #634 on the list of important topics this election. Candy thinking... hmm, what's a gimme question I can direct to my dear president. |
| 2012-10-16 9:29 PM in reply to: #4453897 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 Listening to this is painful. I like to play a game. Try to remember what the original question was, when the candidates are done responding. I usually lose. |
| 2012-10-16 9:32 PM in reply to: #4456865 |
Extreme Veteran 516 | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 JoshR - 2012-10-16 8:29 PM Listening to this is painful. I like to play a game. Try to remember what the original question was, when the candidates are done responding. I usually lose. Ha-ha I think I can agree with you on this one Josh!
|
| 2012-10-16 9:33 PM in reply to: #4456853 |
Master 1730 Straight outta Compton | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 hrliles - 2012-10-16 8:18 PM On the topic of guns. It's good to have them. I wonder when Obama will tell the Middle East to stop clinging to their guns and religion? |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK