The Debates: Three President/One VP - Page 5

Well, according to sources close to the Romney's what she said when this picture was taken was-

 

Ann- You just stopped me from becoming first lady. How could you do this to me?

 

To which, Romney replied- "Wow, you're even worse than me."

 

Yes - I've seen that argument put forwards, but it makes no sense to me. It seems to be arguing that he gave a speech addressing the event in Libya, which he did not think was an act of terror, mentioned a previous terrorist attack for no good reason other than that it was an anniversary, rather than as an illustration of the way the US responds to such things, and then went on to make various declarations about our response to acts of terror that were, in this scenario, totally unconnected and inapplicable to the subject of the speech. Grammatically possible - yes. Likely - not in my opinion, and that's why I regard this argument as contrived.

Kinda interesting:

 

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2012/oct/17/romneys-real-record-job-creator/

 

Brings into doubt some of Mittens' claims.

Reuters:  Obama 48 Romney 33

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/17/us-usa-campaign-poll-ipsos-idUSBRE89G1JV20121017

 

Obviously we read that speech differently - I do not see it as two parts, if for no other reason than the sentence immediately after the terror reference is unambiguously on the subject of the event in Libya. It most definitely is an argument being put forward because it hinges on the interpretation of what was said. I agree with you that 9/11 was an inevitable mention, but I take it to be in the context of the event that he was addressing - not a quite separate issue. I can equally claim that it doesn't matter if my interpretation (which is also the stated interpretation of the person who gave the speech) doesn't make sense to you but that is what Obama did. Not helpful in discussing this, so I won't say that. Instead, since I doubt now that we will agree on this, I am curious - had you been the speech writer for that day, what would you have done differently? Because I still think it was a good speech, and only in the context of the weird information releases that followed does there seem to be anything to debate here.

 

On the subject of blame - taking a Consulate by force is not that hard if you have personnel and weapons available and are willing to lose your life in the process. This could happen to anyone. My point being that the assumption that this is a terrible reflection on this administration is as poor as assuming that the original 9/11 was a failing of the Bush administration. So it was an anniversary of 9/11; what would you have done to prevent it in the absence of a specific and credible threat against that facility?

 

Criticism is fine, but constructive criticism generally includes an element of what might have been done differently and better - that was all I was asking. Hypothetical discussion would be more about what might have happened rather than what you would have done in response to what did happen, which I think is a quite legitimate question if you think that what was said or done was wrong. No big deal though.

 

Interesting comments on the EU and China. You have any background material to back up the EU theory?

 

Well that's unfortunate. My comment that it is not that hard to take down a consulate is addressing a different issue than whether Obama gave a reasonable speech, so declining to engage one because you disagree with my opinion on the other and then not engaging that other one either seems like a bit of a cop out, but, on the other hand, if you think I am just wasting your time then fair enough.

 

Since this is starting to look much more like a soap box than a discussion I'll leave the floor to you.

 

1.  If the President remains down by 6 in the popular vote, he will lose.  Period.  Bush was up by 4.5% at this point in 2004, and only won by a few points.  Remember, the undecided votes almost always break heavily for the challenger.  Ironically, the one exception was 2004, where the incumbent got nearly 50% (probably due to the war on terrorism at the time, but that is just my opinion). 

 

2.  Obama will not a get a boost, because he didn't convince undecided voters. This is what you fail to understand:  Obama may have "won" the debate, but that doesn't necessarily mean votes.  

 

3.  With regard to #2:   There are several reasons why his media-pronounced "win" will not change the polls much, if at all:  

• Poll groups on Fox (Frank Luntz) and MSNBC both showed many more undecided voters going for Romney.  
• The CNN flash poll is misleading if we only look at who "won" or "lost."  The strength of the candidates on issues is the real story.  Romney defeated Obama by huge numbers on the economy, taxes, foreign policy and skills to manage the budget.   We're talking 20-30 point margins in some areas.   

 

You see Hands, liberals like yourself are pleased because you think Obama "won" based on his improved performance, energy and attacks.   What you fail to understand is that even if he "won" (which is highly debatable), he didn't get any votes.  In fact, Romney is the one who convinced undecided.   That means the incumbent helped himself with the base, and the challenger didn't hurt himself while getting the middle.  That equals a big win for the challenger.  To really "win," Obama would have needed a Reagan like night.  He didn't have one.   

 

 

 

I don't know what the exact numbers are.  It is just my understanding our bunker busting capabilities are significant.  We might be able to destroy the entire operation, but we'd likely damage it.  That's one reason why I think any military option must be larger scale than just a targeted strike.  Iran needs to feel real consequences and be prevented from retaliating.  In other words, attack, or don't.  

 

 

 

 

1.  Uh, yeah, it really is inconsistent.  One favors a public declaration of a "red line," and the other does not.  It's totally inconsistent, regardless of whether or not they have the capability.  What are we going to do, lay down a red line after they've crossed it?  

 

2.  On the surface, yes.  But it shows the possibility that the highest levels of government did not accurately perceive threats, which is significant.  The embassy was attacked multiple times in the last 6 months, and yet the security teams were reduced.  And we're surprised about a terror attack on the anniversary of 9/11?  The intelligence might be different, but the decision making process is the same--at least for now.   Either way, I don't feel too goo about our assessments of a nations' WMD programs.  Do you?    

 

 

 

Bergermeister:  Here is Deceiving Headline Making it Seems Like Obama is Winning the Election*

 

 

*Wait, I guess I should mention that Romney has increased his lead to 52-45 in today's gallup poll.   I also should mention that Romney cleaned Obama's clock on individual debate issue polling.  And I probably should also mention that undecided voters are flocking towards Romney.  And women.  

 

   

 

Well put.  Obama looks terrible on this issue.  In fact, without Crowley, Romney probably would have scored a knockout victory in this debate. She saved him, and admitted later she was wrong.  

 

Because there were two issues:

 

(1) You believe, if I am not mistaken, that allowing the attack was a significant failure on the part of the current administration. OK - reasonable hypothesis. So to explore it meaningfully we need to ask what, generally or specifically, did the administration not do that they should have done?

 

(2) You believe, if I am not mistaken, that the Rose Garden speech was a poor response to the event. Same question - what should he have said? Maybe the answer depends on the outcome of (1).

 

I think those are interesting questions, and even though I recognize that we disagree I would be interested to hear your reasoning, because maybe I am wrong, or maybe I find a flaw in your reasoning. That's just my personal concept of a discussion, but as I said - if that is wasting your time then no problem.

 

Look, I'm not arguing with you about the inconsistencies over the following couple of weeks, I'm talking specifically about the speech. The speech was about this incident, and in my opinion, arguing that the terror reference was not about this incident is contrived. We disagree, fine. But furthermore - that point is largely moot since the confusion and mis-attribution of the cause of the event that followed is unambiguous, and that should be a far more profitable area for Obama's opponents to focus on. If Romney had stuck to that in the debate then Obama would never have had the opportunity to bring up his mention of terror in the speech.

 

 

1.  OK - so you are pointing to the lack of a red line on the part of the US as the inconsistency. Fair enough - I thought the accusation related to an inconsistent view of the status of Iran's nuclear program.

 

2.  With the caveat that we are talking about nuclear weapons capabilities, yes, I am confident that we have good information. In terms of deciding how to act on it, that becomes a political issue so my confidence level is lower.

 

Probably correct on this being somewhat moot, but just to be clear, here is the relevant part of the speech (full version here)  

 

 

 

 

At no time does he say this was terrorism.  He did say the word "attack" a few times, but an attack can, of course, be motivated by many other factors.   I'm sorry, I just think you've got a leg to stand on here.   The President was lying, and the moderator was flat wrong.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK.   

 

 

 

 

Why?  And how good is "good?"  Can we predict within, say, 60 days of the date they can produce enough material to build a bomb?  90 days?  A year?  If we can't do the former, our information is not good enough.  All we can really do is estimate.  We can....hope.  I guess we found out what that word means.  Hope for the best while the worst keeps happening.  And Change...change from the things that made our nation great.  

 

 

 

 

Well...  I'll step up and take a shot at the first one at least.  I honestly didn't see the Rose Garden speech and haven't bothered to look it up.

 

What the administration could have done differently to avoid the killing of our ambassador?

 

First of all, why exactly is it that the administration didn't have Marines guarding the ambassador in Libya?  This would be the absolute most basic of security measures, especially for someplace as dangerous as Libya.  I seriously doubt that this attack would have succeeded if even been attempted with a Marine security detachment at the consulate in Benghazi.  This is the first change this I would propose for this hypothetical.

Next is the fact that attacks were on the rise in Benghazi so this question there is why wasn't security escalated appropriate to the escalating threats in the area.  In the event of a lack of the basic Marine security, why were Marines deployed to protect against the escalating violence?  Why were repeated requests for additional security denied?  This is a second area where the administration failed.

Finally, can anyone really argue against the obvious need to heightened awareness and security on and around the anniversary of 9/11?  Personally, I would probably have embassy/consulate security beefed up with extra Marine personnel for at least the month of Sept in designated countries, of which Libya would definitely have been one.

 

If all of these precautions had been taken, I doubt the attack would have even occurred and if it had occurred I'm confident that our Marines would have had little trouble in defending the ambassador and others at the consulate.  This was a tragic failure and I don't think it's out of line to think that it could indeed have been prevented.

Fact:  Obama has still not called the attack terrorism.  

 

He does not say the word terrorism. He does say "no acts of terror...". Maybe you don't think those are equivalent, maybe you also think that he was referring instead to 9/11 even though this speech was about the Libya incident. I disagree. And either way, the dispute during the debate arose when Romney questioned whether Obama had referred to this as an "act of terror" (not terrorism), and since Obama had used precisely that description in the speech, Romney, although he was trying to get Obama on a legitimate issue, was wrong. This really isn't worth pursuing since we simply interpreted the speech differently, and it hinges on that interpretation.

 

 

Why am I confident?  Now you have cornered me. I realize that this an unsatisfactory response, but how about "a passing familiarity with the subject area"?

 

While it seems unlikely that it would be practical to deploy additional Marines to all the Embassies and Consulates in the middle east, that's a reasonable suggestion if there were specific enough information to suggest that this was a particularly risky area. It seems, from more recent reports such as this one from Reuters, that this information may indeed have existed, in which case I would have to agree that more could have been done. It would be interesting to know at what level those deployment decisions are made, but I would expect that the President would be aware of that kind of intel and should be taking an active interest.

 

Regardless of the deployment of additional Marine security to certain locations in the middle east, the presence of a Marine security detachment in the first place may very well have averted or at least thwarted the attack.  I don't see why we have Marine security in places like Germany, Great Britian, and Austria but not in someplace like Libya.  That seems like almost inviting an attack.

 

In general, Embassies have Marine guards whereas Consulates don't. The Embassies in the middle east do have them. The primary duty of the Marines is to secure classified material and sensitive equipment - not provide personnel security, although it doesn't mean that they can't be used to fill that role if needed.

 

So no, maybe my fault for not being clear in what I wrote, but I did not intend to imply that fate was involved. An unanticipated event is not the same as a random event. I was simply observing that consulates are relatively soft targets unless they are given above normal protection. The issue here is whether there was good reason to believe that extra protection was indicated at this location, and I am starting to see evidence that it may have been. But either way, please don't keep rejecting the discussion by claiming that I believe that everything is just down to fate; that is very far from my position.

 

 

Let's just forget about the Rose Garden speech. As an immediate response I thought it was good. I further think that Romney missed a great opportunity by letting that be the focus of the argument in the debate. The subsequent information management is the real issue.

Watching 2nd Debate now. O.M.G. Mitt is killing it.

Firstly, how massive is the moderator? Like MY GOODNESS if Americans just ate healthier 50% of the country's problems will be solved.

OK seriously now...

1. Obama's "left-leanings" are a sham. As a leftie I say so. Because of crony capitalism.

2. Obama has become a bit lost. The first answer didn't address the college kids directly while Mitt's did.

3. Green jobs are the future, if done in a non-crony-capitalism way. But natural gas as environmentally sound? No. This half-measure Obama stuff is not right. Just not right.

4a. Second question Obama doesn't answer price-control of oil. Mitt's answer: addresses actual oil and gas production numbers. The issue is that until the USA can really boost renewable energy you can't switch so fast to renewable. But the overall problem is oil production is game over in the US... global warming or not. Energy drives the economy. The US is out of energy.

4b. Clean coal? F--- off Obama. No such thing. Clean gas? Yeah, I know where my clean gas comes out of...

Mitt makes GW Bush look like an 3 year old.
Edited by sr2012 - 10/19/12 at 5:44am

MItt on tax deductions. Quite good actually. Simplifying tax code is important. Standard deduction is important. Saves people a lot of time, increases tax system efficiency etc.

He seems like the guy that should read the Game Of Thrones audiobook BTW.

Obama ~ waffling again. He must be really stressed out. A bit of strawman as well saying Romney saying wanting to cut taxes for the wealthy.

BTW love the pandering on both sides to middle class. Does the lower classes and higher classes not vote at all? Do they not care?

If you are a single white male aged 25 working at Starbucks (which I am not) looks like the government doesn't give a rat's a** about you because you are not a "middle class family".

Democracy FTW LOL. "To the majority go the spoils".

Romney back on Obama regarding tax. Not bad...

Something is not right. Obama waffling again.

Going to check polls. There must be a bit of a swing to Romney. This is weird. Not Obama at his best. Weird.

Yeah. Damn. Mitt seems to be closing a bit of the gap of the past several maps. Very 50-50 right now across all the polls.

http://nationalpolls.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx




WOMEN'S RIGHTS...

More waffling from Obama. Yes, women's workplace entitlements etc are important but if there is no more workplace period it is not going to matter.

Romney's answer: pretty good. Don't fart around, if you want women on your team, go out and get them, there's no need to "fight this or fight that" as much. Just go and get them on the team. Flexible schedule... Not bad, not bad. That's good...

The main threat to Obama is he's losing a cohesive message.

Obama never tackled the deficit argument for tons of time. 8 Trillion or so? It's shocking, why doesn't he say something about it?

Immigration ~ not bad from Romney.

Promote legal, crack down on illegal.

The hispanic vote is probably still with Obama nonetheless.
Edited by sr2012 - 10/19/12 at 6:29am

BING... GO...

Rose Garden speech "attacks" ~ The transcript said "attacks" but not "terrorist attacks" per se. So Obama and Mitt are right (and wrong) on this point.

Don't people use their brains nowadays? Why was the audience clapping? It was a fair point for Obama and for Romney, IMO.

Gun Control... Romney a bit rusty still. But was able to clarify reasonably well.

Finally came around to talk about pro-and-anti-gun people coming together. To me that is a first step.

I've always said. Shoot anything you want including bazookas at the range. On the street... Tightly verified handguns only.

Romney ~ Excellent statement on China currency, small business etc.

Romney ~ very very good closing statement, however true. In any case, hopeful, which is good.

Given how common sense and positive he is though (at least outwardly, yes my disclaimer), means he might not win.
Edited by sr2012 - 10/19/12 at 7:04am

 

It would be interesting to know if there has ever been a general policy of increasing security at consulates in sensitive countries on the anniversary of 9/11. I have not heard of such a policy. I am more concerned by the intelligence information that appears to suggest that this particular location was at significantly increased risk; that would definitely indicate increasing security levels.

It was replaced by NTAS. Both were only for homeland security though.

 

Neither of those were/are forecast tools - just notification. The State Department issues cautions and warnings for US travelers abroad - for example there is a current traveler warning in place for Libya - but I believe that threats to US facilities are handled separately and are not automatically disseminated publicly.

 

I may have misunderstood - I thought you were asking if there is a system to disseminate threats to US assets overseas, to which the answer is yes, but it is not NTAS. If your question was not that, then if you care to restate it I'll try again. It rather looks like the problem was a lack of targeted extra security rather than a lack of warning though.

 

I'm not contending anything - I was just trying to answer your question from my understanding of this subject. I think you are looking for something more elaborate than exists. Observations are made, reports and intelligence are assessed - all on a regular basis. Based on the conclusions, warnings and cautions are issued in a variety of ways for Homeland Security purposes, US travelers abroad etc., and advisories are undoubtedly issued to numerous agencies and and other interested parties in many more ways than I am familiar with. Different organizations have different kinds of responses that they may make to elevated threat levels and in many cases the details will not be made public, but some will be pre-planned responses, such as changes in security screening levels, while others will be based on further assessment of the threat scenarios. Typically the goal is to increase both the deterrent and intervention probabilities.

 

I do not know who makes, or how the decision is made, with respect to sending defensive reinforcements to Embassies and Consulates but I very much doubt that there is any kind of set formula to decide that - I would guess that it will be a decision made in the State Department based on their perception of the threat, possibly with further input from the station in question.

 

To address your comment more fundamentally - warning systems are relatively simple - they are just pre-arranged communications. Physical security responses, because of the multiplicity and complexity of available actions, do not necessarily lend themselves so well to simple pre-arranged options.

What the hell is wrong with the thread about Mittens and Women 

When will the lies stop? Mitt's "Binders Full of Women" story not even true started by BR (10/17/12 at 10:10pm)

 ? I've tried 3 different browsers ( including Safari ) and the page constantly reloads again and again! This site is a buggy piece of shit since the remodel. Either that or someone here likes to play games. Either way it needs fixing.

 

Are you listening moderators?????

 

 

We could always bring back the threat warning levels... green orange yellow red or whatever that fun thing was that was manipulated regularly.