Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

The Libya issue in the debate

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 1:26:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
CNN moderator Candy Crowley was an open Obama supporter in 2008. I nonetheless sympathize with her problem of keeping two testosterone stoked alpha males in line. (Maybe Arnold has a future as a debate moderator: "Now you vill be quiet.") Mostly Crowley did okay, but somehow President Obama came out with three more minutes of speaking, despite her insistence that time was being carefully accounted. Three minutes is significant; closing statements were only two minute.

Her serious error was intervening to support Obama's false claim that Obama had classified the attack on the Libyan embassy as terrorism the day after it happened. She said that he had. Obama did make a generic statement about not bowing to terrorism, which was appropriate for the anniversary of the 2001 attack. However, Obama immediately followed with a claim that the embassy attack was a spontaneous result of a protest over the YouTube video. When pressed, Crowley admitted she was wrong.

UN Ambassador Susan Rice gave the YouTube video story to a half dozen news programs the following weekend, and Obama made repeated claims of the YouTube basis for the attacks in a still later UN speech. It took hm two full weeks to change the story to it being a planned terrorist attack.

State Department official Charlotte Lamb testified to Congress that the attack was observed in real time so that it was known immediately that there was no demonstration whatsoever and the attack was initiated directly with heavy weapons. It is possible that the info didn't reach the White House immediately, but the intel agencies certainly knew within 24 hours. So why did the bogus YouTube story persist for two weeks?

Crowley cut off the line of inquiry with the false claim that the President immediately caused it terrorism. The CNN commentary on the debate completely ignored the facts and reported only that Obama had indeed immediately pronounced the incident to be a planned terrorist attack. That is misconduct for journalists.

The issue won't go away, of course. But CNN cannot be trusted.
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 2:04:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
When has CNN been trustworthy?

With that said I was somewhat surprised that she said that. If you see she let Obama interrupt more then she did Romney, there was a point in the debate that I think Romney figured this out. All in all though she did try to be fair, and as she said she had alot ont he line.... At one point, when she was interrupting Gov. Romney, Candy said "they will run me out of town"." Now, who would run her out of town if she did not make sure Romney did not "get away" with anything?
Romney can be very controlling in a debate but he does sit quiet wile the other is speaking I felt Obama kept trying to interrupt Romney wile it was his time.
But you know he had to do something, he had to let us know he showed up this time lol.
Me
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 2:11:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 1:26:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Mostly Crowley did okay
I was no fan of her from the beginning. The fact that she never stood up against Obama's arrogant, childish interrupts and attitude made me expect some sort of stupid action coming from her. She's a moderator, which means (a) She must keep everything fair and balanced, and (b) Keep her mouth shut when a debater makes his case. And (3) As John Sununu said to the leftist CNN anchor Soledad, "Put an Obama bumper stick on your forehead when you do this."
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 2:22:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In addition: For people who hadn't heard of her prior to the debate, her support of Obama was exceptionally clear just about at the end of the debate when Obama pulled the "47% of Americans are slaves of the government"-comment. Romney had not only enough time to respond to that, but also make a quick case for himself and wrap some important issues up. Nope, he didn't get that time - But he did see the biggest smile on a moderator you'll ever see at the end of any debate. I wonder why. Maybe Obama promised her free checks in his second term? That's the liberal way to personal success.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 2:48:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Obama put the 47% argument in his closing statement, which was after Romney was finished. Romney could not respond. That's the logic behind the ordinary debate rule that new arguments cannot be introduced in the final round. Romney had previously apologized for his gaffe; there is valid point about government dependency, but he didn't make it the right way. Romney could have responded, "I screwed up what I wanted to say. If you don't understand how that happens, you might want to consult Vice President Biden." The response is so effective, the only way Obama could get mileage out Romney's gaffe was to save it until Romney could not respond. Unethical, but effective.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 6:01:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 2:48:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama put the 47% argument in his closing statement, which was after Romney was finished. Romney could not respond. That's the logic behind the ordinary debate rule that new arguments cannot be introduced in the final round. Romney had previously apologized for his gaffe; there is valid point about government dependency, but he didn't make it the right way. Romney could have responded, "I screwed up what I wanted to say. If you don't understand how that happens, you might want to consult Vice President Biden." The response is so effective, the only way Obama could get mileage out Romney's gaffe was to save it until Romney could not respond. Unethical, but effective.

Romney's 47% remarks were nothing compared to anything Joe Biden has ever said, and most people wouldn't be dumb enough to buy whatever response he could give to it. Whether he truly believes what he said is pointlessly debatable, but his message to the people in the room was clear. The only mistake he made was in thinking that there were no camera's on him.

Going back to Benghazi, the administration certainly screwed up how they handled the messaging but can someone please tell me why the right is still so outraged about this? If the election were a week ago I somehow doubt we would still be talking about it.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 6:12:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 6:01:28 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/17/2012 2:48:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama put the 47% argument in his closing statement, which was after Romney was finished. Romney could not respond. That's the logic behind the ordinary debate rule that new arguments cannot be introduced in the final round. Romney had previously apologized for his gaffe; there is valid point about government dependency, but he didn't make it the right way. Romney could have responded, "I screwed up what I wanted to say. If you don't understand how that happens, you might want to consult Vice President Biden." The response is so effective, the only way Obama could get mileage out Romney's gaffe was to save it until Romney could not respond. Unethical, but effective.

Romney's 47% remarks were nothing compared to anything Joe Biden has ever said, and most people wouldn't be dumb enough to buy whatever response he could give to it. Whether he truly believes what he said is pointlessly debatable, but his message to the people in the room was clear. The only mistake he made was in thinking that there were no camera's on him.

Going back to Benghazi, the administration certainly screwed up how they handled the messaging but can someone please tell me why the right is still so outraged about this? If the election were a week ago I somehow doubt we would still be talking about it.

The biggest reason people are upset is that it's ammo against Obama.

That being said, the embassy was attacked at least twice within a relatively short time-frame, and had requested additional security multiple times. It's seen as a complete failure to protect Americans, and that's what it was. A tragic failure.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 7:15:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 6:12:51 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/17/2012 6:01:28 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/17/2012 2:48:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama put the 47% argument in his closing statement, which was after Romney was finished. Romney could not respond. That's the logic behind the ordinary debate rule that new arguments cannot be introduced in the final round. Romney had previously apologized for his gaffe; there is valid point about government dependency, but he didn't make it the right way. Romney could have responded, "I screwed up what I wanted to say. If you don't understand how that happens, you might want to consult Vice President Biden." The response is so effective, the only way Obama could get mileage out Romney's gaffe was to save it until Romney could not respond. Unethical, but effective.

Romney's 47% remarks were nothing compared to anything Joe Biden has ever said, and most people wouldn't be dumb enough to buy whatever response he could give to it. Whether he truly believes what he said is pointlessly debatable, but his message to the people in the room was clear. The only mistake he made was in thinking that there were no camera's on him.

Going back to Benghazi, the administration certainly screwed up how they handled the messaging but can someone please tell me why the right is still so outraged about this? If the election were a week ago I somehow doubt we would still be talking about it.

The biggest reason people are upset is that it's ammo against Obama.

That being said, the embassy was attacked at least twice within a relatively short time-frame, and had requested additional security multiple times. It's seen as a complete failure to protect Americans, and that's what it was. A tragic failure.

Not sure that really helps. As I understand, the republicans voted for cuts in funding for embassy security so I am not sure what they are up in arms about. Americans are dying in overseas attacks every day, which was the case well before Obama. It is so easy to take any one instance and frame it as a failure of the administration. That is like saying Babe Ruth sucked and using a highlight of him striking out as proof.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 7:30:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/17/2012 6:01:28 PM, Double_R wrote:
The response is so effective, the only way Obama could get mileage out Romney's gaffe was to save it until Romney could not respond. Unethical, but effective.

Romney's 47% remarks were nothing compared to anything Joe Biden has ever said, and most people wouldn't be dumb enough to buy whatever response he could give to it. Whether he truly believes what he said is pointlessly debatable, but his message to the people in the room was clear. The only mistake he made was in thinking that there were no camera's on him.

The point Romney was making seems to me undeniable: there is an ever-expanding class of voters whose livelihoods and benefits depend so heavily upon government that a large percentage of their votes can essentially be written off by anyone who wants to shrink government. Romney's error was strictly equating that segment with people who do not pay income taxes.

If all taxes are considered, not just income taxes, more than half the population receives more government payments and benefits than they pay in taxes. Government employees are in the upper half, but for example in California they receive 70% more pay and three times the job security as those in the private sector. Government employee unions are the principle funding for the Democrats who completely control the State government. Government employees are not freeloaders and they pay taxes, but they have a privileged position that depends upon government.

Why are rich people required to pay into Medicare and social Security? Entitlement advocates are not coy. They say that so long as you receive a government check, you will want to get as much as you can from the system. Everyone must be trained to feel they depend upon government, so that government can grow without bounds. Once enough are in the dependency camp, the future of rule by the liberal elite is ensured up to the time of economic collapse.

In the 2008 campaign, Biden explained how when the stock market collapsed before the Great Depression, President Roosevelt immediately went on television and provided comfort to the American people. Actually, when the market collapsed Roosevelt was not president and television had not been invented. What he was trying to say, I believe, was that Bush had done a poor job of communicating the dimensions of the crisis compared to what Roosevelt had done. Biden's sentiment made sense, but his expression of it was ridiculous.

Going back to Benghazi, the administration certainly screwed up how they handled the messaging but can someone please tell me why the right is still so outraged about this? If the election were a week ago I somehow doubt we would still be talking about it.

There are two aspects of the Benghazi incident: the lack of security and the cover up. Why were people so upset about Watergate? The Watergate incident started with a burglary in which nothing of value was stolen and no one was injured. So why was anyone upset at all, let alone so upset as to drive Nixon from office? People consider a blatant dishonesty in a president a major problem.

An Obama theme in foreign policy is that Bin Laden is dead so al Qaeda is all but defeated. Hence embassy security can be removed to express the new era of post-terrorist free expression. A pre-planned major terrorist attack killing an ambassador upsets that message, and seems to be the reason for the preposterous story that the attack was a spontaneous event caused by a YouTube video.

Nixon managed to cover up Watergate until after he was re-elected. Obama seems to be desperately trying to maintain a cover up until after this election. It's not plausible that a long investigation is required to say why Obama and Rice were repeating the YouTube video story for two weeks after it was known to be false, and why security was drawn down despite a string of serious terrorist attacks in Libya before the Benghazi attack.

Nixon supposed that after his election, Watergate would go away. Benghazi is a lot more serious. There is no chance it will go away even if Democrats get the House. It's so blatant that even liberal journalists are starting to figure it out.