or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Debates: Three President/One VP
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Debates: Three President/One VP - Page 5

post #161 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Please tell us what's so telling about it?

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."

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #162 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I think that is a contrived argument. He was talking about the attack and he said that "no act of terror will....". By saying that he did not "specifically refer to it as terror" - what exactly do you mean? Referenced what in general? What else do you think he was talking about?

 

I agree that the subsequent inconsistencies regarding the announcements of who was behind it deserve some explanation, but this is just contrived semantics. And so yes - I disagree with the moderator - the fact that she defended Obama and then somewhat retracted still does not give her current opinion any more authority than anyone else's.

 

He wasn't speaking about the attack at all. His remarks were about 9/11 at that point because it was the anniversary of that horrible day.

 

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.

post #163 of 239

Kinda interesting:

 

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

 

Brings into doubt some of Mittens' claims.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #164 of 239

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #165 of 239
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

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.

 

It isn't an argument being put forward. It is what happened. The remarks are clearly broken into two parts. It doesn't have to make sense to you but that is what Obama did. He wasn't just giving a speech about what happened in Libya. He was recounting what he was doing during the attacks because they also happened on 9/11. Multiple sources have confirmed this understanding including the moderator who said she basically jumped on him for poor word choice.

 

He mentioned the two together because it is IMPOSSIBLE to separate any other even occurring on 9/11 from 9/11 itself. It is our Pearl Harbor. Sure younger people don't remember it but it was an indelible event for most Americans and anything that happens on or around it is going to be mentioned with it.

 

Now the deeper point, contrive or not, moderator bias or not, is that Obama is playing such horrible defense here that there really isn't much that can be done other than distract from it and that is what Crawley was doing. Even Obama was along the lines of "go on..." because when your BEST CASE scenario is admitting your administration allowed the deaths of American ambassadors in an Islamic country but a terrorist group ON 9/11, then you are really in a pretty crappy position. You're stuck arguing that the other guy is terrible for noting your mistake and that is exactly what Obama was arguing.

 

I'm incompetent but it's bad form to note it on this day in this way. That is Obama's argument and it is an absurd one.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #166 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

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.

 

It isn't an argument being put forward. It is what happened. The remarks are clearly broken into two parts. It doesn't have to make sense to you but that is what Obama did. He wasn't just giving a speech about what happened in Libya. He was recounting what he was doing during the attacks because they also happened on 9/11. Multiple sources have confirmed this understanding including the moderator who said she basically jumped on him for poor word choice.

 

He mentioned the two together because it is IMPOSSIBLE to separate any other even occurring on 9/11 from 9/11 itself. It is our Pearl Harbor. Sure younger people don't remember it but it was an indelible event for most Americans and anything that happens on or around it is going to be mentioned with it.

 

Now the deeper point, contrive or not, moderator bias or not, is that Obama is playing such horrible defense here that there really isn't much that can be done other than distract from it and that is what Crawley was doing. Even Obama was along the lines of "go on..." because when your BEST CASE scenario is admitting your administration allowed the deaths of American ambassadors in an Islamic country but a terrorist group ON 9/11, then you are really in a pretty crappy position. You're stuck arguing that the other guy is terrible for noting your mistake and that is exactly what Obama was arguing.

 

I'm incompetent but it's bad form to note it on this day in this way. That is Obama's argument and it is an absurd one.

 

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?

post #167 of 239
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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?

 

We disagree. That much is clear. As for what I would do or hypotheticals involving me, I prefer not to waste time on them. If we want to deal with some nice hypotheticals though we could have a thread on what the economy will look like for whoever is elected president next year because from my perspective, it is clear the entire EU is ready to collapse but is being held off until after the election. It is also clear that China is heading into a recession and that their official numbers are bigger lies than they normally are with regard to growth. We can discuss PIGS and BRIC ROWS and all manner of fun stuff.

 

Now back to the general subject of the thread, we have some interesting statistics from Breitbart.com

 

Candy let President Obama have the last word a disproportionate amount of times. She would give him an extra round, and then cut off Romney when he tried to get equal time. This is a large part of why Obama received an extra four minutes of speaking time. He got extra rebuttals.

 

Both moderators try to shut down Romney more often but Candy was radically over the top. She interrupted Romney 28 times while steering him away from his own answers, calling him a liar and telling him to sit down, all while giving Obama four extra minutes of talking time.

 

Biden lied outright about helping with Social Security Reform but then he also lied about voting for the Iraq War.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #168 of 239
Thread Starter 

DOUBLE POST

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #169 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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?

 

We disagree. That much is clear. As for what I would do or hypotheticals involving me, I prefer not to waste time on them. If we want to deal with some nice hypotheticals though we could have a thread on what the economy will look like for whoever is elected president next year because from my perspective, it is clear the entire EU is ready to collapse but is being held off until after the election. It is also clear that China is heading into a recession and that their official numbers are bigger lies than they normally are with regard to growth. We can discuss PIGS and BRIC ROWS and all manner of fun stuff.

 

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?

post #170 of 239
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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?

 

I don't think there is much constructive to be said when the reply is that it could happen to anyone and it couldn't be prevented. It hasn't happened since 1979 to any other president but if your position is that no one can be at fault and nothing can be prevented, that it is just fate, I'm not going to waste time with changing or engaging that viewpoint.

 

We've had a couple threads on the EU and China stuff. As for background, it's called the history of fiat currency. I don't want to derail this thread with it. I just wanted you to understand I'm open to discussion of hypotheticals and speculation.

 

Now on to the thread topic, Obama shows why he his understanding of money and how it works is harming the economy. He also shows how he is being hypocritical and ignorant during the debate.

 

His pension has the same sorts of investments for which he tries to castigate Romney.

 

His pension is also larger than Romney's.

 

I'm sure, to be fair that President Obama meant that Romney has a larger personal forture than he does but lucky for him, Candy didn't shut him down and call him a liar for his "poor word choice."

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #171 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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?

 

I don't think there is much constructive to be said when the reply is that it could happen to anyone and it couldn't be prevented. It hasn't happened since 1979 to any other president but if your position is that no one can be at fault and nothing can be prevented, that it is just fate, I'm not going to waste time with changing or engaging that viewpoint.

 

We've had a couple threads on the EU and China stuff. As for background, it's called the history of fiat currency. I don't want to derail this thread with it. I just wanted you to understand I'm open to discussion of hypotheticals and speculation.

 

Now on to the thread topic, Obama shows why he his understanding of money and how it works is harming the economy. He also shows how he is being hypocritical and ignorant during the debate.

 

His pension has the same sorts of investments for which he tries to castigate Romney.

 

His pension is also larger than Romney's.

 

I'm sure, to be fair that President Obama meant that Romney has a larger personal forture than he does but lucky for him, Candy didn't shut him down and call him a liar for his "poor word choice."

 

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.

post #172 of 239
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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.

 

Of course it was addressing a different point because we had moved on to a different point. You wanted to consider some hypotheticals. I declined saying that if it is merely fate, then what would be the point of hypotheticals. That's just being consistant.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #173 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Like it or not, some voters aren't so much interested in what is said, but how it's said. That's what threw Obama in the first debate. Wait till we see how this debate effects the numbers, and also keep in mind that the election will be decided by the electoral college, in other words who wins what states, not the popular vote count. That said Obama bill get a boost from this debate and the next which will see him win both.

 

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.   

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Right, but it is just a matter of depth. Go deep enough and they won't reach. Conventional munitions cannot penetrate more than a few hundred feet of rock.

 

 

 

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.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

I think that is a contrived argument. He was talking about the attack and he said that "no act of terror will....". By saying that he did not "specifically refer to it as terror" - what exactly do you mean? Referenced what in general? What else do you think he was talking about?

 

I agree that the subsequent inconsistencies regarding the announcements of who was behind it deserve some explanation, but this is just contrived semantics. And so yes - I disagree with the moderator - the fact that she defended Obama and then somewhat retracted still does not give her current opinion any more authority than anyone else's.

 

No, the explanation you just gave was contrived.  Read the entire context of the statement.  The President was NOT referring to this incident specifically.  He was talking about terrorism in general.  He only obliquely referred to it as terrorism.  The proof of this is in the conduct of the administration in the subsequent two weeks.  Jay Carney immediately refused to call it terror.  Hillary blamed the video.  The President went to the U.N. and blamed the video.  Susan Rice openly said on 5 talk shows that it was NOT a pre-meditated attack!  How the hell can the President call it terrorism and then, a week later, have the UN Ambassador say it was not even pre-planned?   How do you explain the President refusing to call it terrorism under direct questioning in a talk show, when the day before Clinton called it terrorism?   

 

I mean, really.  This is a positively unreal situation.  Some explanation?  Some?  The dishonesty and/or incompetence here is mind boggling.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I still think that one has to separate that speech from the contradictory messages of the following couple of weeks. Firstly, the speech was given in the immediate aftermath of the event, and the detail that it contained was appropriately confined to a summary of the event. Secondly, it would have been premature to speculate on the causes, but that didn't matter; it was an act of terror whether it was in response to the video or it was a planned operation, and so Obama had no issue with assigning the "act of terror" label.

 

The legitimate issue that Romney started on, but got deflected from, was the subsequent release of details on the provenance of the attack, and I don't disagree with your comments on that except to say that it is not yet clear to me whether there was a motive related to the election - primarily because it makes no sense to think that strategy would have worked for long enough to be effective.

 

As for Biden's comments on Iran, I don't see the inconsistency with Israel's position. Indicating a line that cannot be crossed without incurring military intervention is not inconsistent with saying that Iran does not have the capability yet, and that intelligence will give us advance warning.

 

And, finally, I do not see a connection between the failure of intelligence to predict the attack in Libya and the likely ability to track Iran's nuclear progress. Different kinds of intelligence entirely.

 

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?    

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Reuters:  Obama 48 Romney 33

 

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

 

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.  

 

   

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

It isn't an argument being put forward. It is what happened. The remarks are clearly broken into two parts. It doesn't have to make sense to you but that is what Obama did. He wasn't just giving a speech about what happened in Libya. He was recounting what he was doing during the attacks because they also happened on 9/11. Multiple sources have confirmed this understanding including the moderator who said she basically jumped on him for poor word choice.

 

He mentioned the two together because it is IMPOSSIBLE to separate any other even occurring on 9/11 from 9/11 itself. It is our Pearl Harbor. Sure younger people don't remember it but it was an indelible event for most Americans and anything that happens on or around it is going to be mentioned with it.

 

Now the deeper point, contrive or not, moderator bias or not, is that Obama is playing such horrible defense here that there really isn't much that can be done other than distract from it and that is what Crawley was doing. Even Obama was along the lines of "go on..." because when your BEST CASE scenario is admitting your administration allowed the deaths of American ambassadors in an Islamic country but a terrorist group ON 9/11, then you are really in a pretty crappy position. You're stuck arguing that the other guy is terrible for noting your mistake and that is exactly what Obama was arguing.

 

I'm incompetent but it's bad form to note it on this day in this way. That is Obama's argument and it is an absurd one.

 

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.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #174 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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.

 

Of course it was addressing a different point because we had moved on to a different point. You wanted to consider some hypotheticals. I declined saying that if it is merely fate, then what would be the point of hypotheticals. That's just being consistant.

 

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.

post #175 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I think that is a contrived argument. He was talking about the attack and he said that "no act of terror will....". By saying that he did not "specifically refer to it as terror" - what exactly do you mean? Referenced what in general? What else do you think he was talking about?

 

I agree that the subsequent inconsistencies regarding the announcements of who was behind it deserve some explanation, but this is just contrived semantics. And so yes - I disagree with the moderator - the fact that she defended Obama and then somewhat retracted still does not give her current opinion any more authority than anyone else's.

 

No, the explanation you just gave was contrived.  Read the entire context of the statement.  The President was NOT referring to this incident specifically.  He was talking about terrorism in general.  He only obliquely referred to it as terrorism.  The proof of this is in the conduct of the administration in the subsequent two weeks.  Jay Carney immediately refused to call it terror.  Hillary blamed the video.  The President went to the U.N. and blamed the video.  Susan Rice openly said on 5 talk shows that it was NOT a pre-meditated attack!  How the hell can the President call it terrorism and then, a week later, have the UN Ambassador say it was not even pre-planned?   How do you explain the President refusing to call it terrorism under direct questioning in a talk show, when the day before Clinton called it terrorism?   

 

I mean, really.  This is a positively unreal situation.  Some explanation?  Some?  The dishonesty and/or incompetence here is mind boggling.  

 

 

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.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

As for Biden's comments on Iran, I don't see the inconsistency with Israel's position. Indicating a line that cannot be crossed without incurring military intervention is not inconsistent with saying that Iran does not have the capability yet, and that intelligence will give us advance warning.

 

And, finally, I do not see a connection between the failure of intelligence to predict the attack in Libya and the likely ability to track Iran's nuclear progress. Different kinds of intelligence entirely.

 

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?    

 

 

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.

post #176 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Quote:

...Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi. 

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  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.

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.

 

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.   

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
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.

 

OK.   

 

 

 

Quote:
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.

 

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.  

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #177 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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.

 

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.

post #178 of 239
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #179 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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.

 

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

 

Quote:

...Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi. 

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  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.

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.

 

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.   

 

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.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
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.

 

OK.   

Quote:
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.

 

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.  

 

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"?

post #180 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

post #181 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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.

post #182 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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.

post #183 of 239
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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?

 

Here is where we are in disagreement. It is indeed a reasonable hypothesis IF one believes in determinism. That is an important if and with regard to that, you indicated that your view was that it was merely fate. The dice rolled wrong and these events just happened during the Obama term because no one could have prevented or predicted them.

 

If you believe it is fate, then there is no point in discussing hypotheticals. It would be like exploring the flip of a coin or the roll of a dice. If we are to discuss determinism and who are what could have acted or been handled differently, we have to be on the same page.

 

Quote:

(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.

 

 

The point isn't what was said because what happened in part 1 is a failure by the president. The point is that he cannot have it both ways. The buck cannot stop here on an event that wasn't claimed. However if it is claimed then the buck does have to stop there and he does hav eto be responsible. President Obama's claim was it didn't matter how he addressed it because Romney was so horrible in calling him out on it in what he felt was a way trying to gain politically in noting his failure on the point. However that premise is wrong. It does matter how he addressed it and how he continues to address it because it is a lapse, a failing a massive screw-up.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #184 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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?

 

Here is where we are in disagreement. It is indeed a reasonable hypothesis IF one believes in determinism. That is an important if and with regard to that, you indicated that your view was that it was merely fate. The dice rolled wrong and these events just happened during the Obama term because no one could have prevented or predicted them.

 

If you believe it is fate, then there is no point in discussing hypotheticals. It would be like exploring the flip of a coin or the roll of a dice. If we are to discuss determinism and who are what could have acted or been handled differently, we have to be on the same page.

 

 

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.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:

(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.

 

 

The point isn't what was said because what happened in part 1 is a failure by the president. The point is that he cannot have it both ways. The buck cannot stop here on an event that wasn't claimed. However if it is claimed then the buck does have to stop there and he does hav eto be responsible. President Obama's claim was it didn't matter how he addressed it because Romney was so horrible in calling him out on it in what he felt was a way trying to gain politically in noting his failure on the point. However that premise is wrong. It does matter how he addressed it and how he continues to address it because it is a lapse, a failing a massive screw-up.

 

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.

post #185 of 239
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
post #186 of 239
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
post #187 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The big winner in the vice presidential 'debate' was the Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Chase and the Federal Reserve etc. organized crime cartel.

As expected.

BING... GO...
post #188 of 239
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
post #189 of 239
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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.

 

This is why the position is a loser for President Obama all the way around. There is absolutely zero percent credibility in calling this event unanticipated. We've been participating in exercises in Libya. It was the anniversary of 9/11 which by itself raises concerns.

 

The second this becomes about determinism, Obama loses badly. It is a terrorist attack that happened ON 9/11 ON his watch against an American target in a country known to have Al Queda operating within it.

 

I mean this is as basic as ordering up some extra security in Times Square on New Years Eve in New York. The decision is that plain and clearly it wasn't acted on.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #190 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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.

 

This is why the position is a loser for President Obama all the way around. There is absolutely zero percent credibility in calling this event unanticipated. We've been participating in exercises in Libya. It was the anniversary of 9/11 which by itself raises concerns.

 

The second this becomes about determinism, Obama loses badly. It is a terrorist attack that happened ON 9/11 ON his watch against an American target in a country known to have Al Queda operating within it.

 

I mean this is as basic as ordering up some extra security in Times Square on New Years Eve in New York. The decision is that plain and clearly it wasn't acted on.

 

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.

post #191 of 239
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

 

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.

 

I remember we used to have a an alert system with threat levels under Bush. I do not know of Obama modified it or simply got rid of it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #192 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

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.

I remember we used to have a an alert system with threat levels under Bush. I do not know of Obama modified it or simply got rid of it.

It was replaced by NTAS. Both were only for homeland security though.
post #193 of 239
Thread Starter 

I can't imagine that we would lack a system to forecast and respond to threat levels abroad. Do you have anything to add that suggests this is the case?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #194 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I can't imagine that we would lack a system to forecast and respond to threat levels abroad. Do you have anything to add that suggests this is the case?

 

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.

post #195 of 239
Thread Starter 

That didn't really answer the question.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #196 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

That didn't really answer the question.

 

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.

post #197 of 239
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

That didn't really answer the question.

 

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.

 

So your contention is that they would devise a system to warn, but no response as part of that system.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #198 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

That didn't really answer the question.

 

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.

 

So your contention is that they would devise a system to warn, but no response as part of that system.

 

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.

post #199 of 239

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

 ? 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?????

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #200 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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.

 

 

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

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Debates: Three President/One VP