The Debates: Three President/One VP - Page 3

Biden is silent on this issue. Might be a coverup by the White House who really knows.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I thought there was no disagreement now on that - he was claiming that the original claims that they made were based on the intel that they received.  But anyway - I'm missing the connection with the weapons issue.

It relates to his claim that we would know if Iran starts down the path to highly enriched uranium.  He said we'd have plenty of time to act if that's the case.  But then in the same breath, he's saying our intelligence didn't even know a terrorist attack was coming on 9/11 after multiple attacks in the months prior, nor could they initially determine whether it even WAS a terrorist attack.   Now, we know he's not accurate with that (whether he's mistaken, manipulating or outright lying) because we know the intelligence community and State Dept. said they knew it was terrorism within 24 hours.  But putting that aside, what kind of confidence does this inspire in our intelligence?  Speaking of which, didn't Democrats go BALLISTIC over Iraq's lack of WMDs?  What has changed?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I thought there was no disagreement now on that - he was claiming that the original claims that they made were based on the intel that they received.  But anyway - I'm missing the connection with the weapons issue.

 

It relates to his claim that we would know if Iran starts down the path to highly enriched uranium.  He said we'd have plenty of time to act if that's the case.  But then in the same breath, he's saying our intelligence didn't even know a terrorist attack was coming on 9/11 after multiple attacks in the months prior, nor could they initially determine whether it even WAS a terrorist attack.   Now, we know he's not accurate with that (whether he's mistaken, manipulating or outright lying) because we know the intelligence community and State Dept. said they knew it was terrorism within 24 hours.  But putting that aside, what kind of confidence does this inspire in our intelligence?  Speaking of which, didn't Democrats go BALLISTIC over Iraq's lack of WMDs?  What has changed?  

OK - got it. It certainly is reasonable to question the record of the intelligence community, especially in light of the Iraqi WMD fiasco, but it's important to keep in mind that the precursors to a deliverable Iranian weapon would be rather more objectively measurable than most intelligence on terrorist operations. There is a pretty good track record of monitoring nation states in their path to nuclear weapons capability.

I don't think the criticism of the Iraq affair was at all limited to Democrats, although in the US they were more vocal than the Republicans - rather inevitable since the President was a Republican. In any case - I don't really understand your question; what do you mean by "what has changed"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

OK - got it. It certainly is reasonable to question the record of the intelligence community, especially in light of the Iraqi WMD fiasco, but it's important to keep in mind that the precursors to a deliverable Iranian weapon would be rather more objectively measurable than most intelligence on terrorist operations. There is a pretty good track record of monitoring nation states in their path to nuclear weapons capability.

 

I don't think the criticism of the Iraq affair was at all limited to Democrats, although in the US they were more vocal than the Republicans - rather inevitable since the President was a Republican. In any case - I don't really understand your question; what do you mean by "what has changed"?

You said (wrote) it yourself.  The record of the intelligence community has not changed. If Biden is telling the truth, it doesn't make any sense.  Our intelligence indicated chemical and bio weapons stockpiles and facilities in Iraq.  The CIA said this wasn't even a question.  Other major intelligence agencies (Israel, UK, France, Germany, et al) agreed.   Well, it turns out we were all hugely wrong on that.  So how is that their track record is good with record to weapons of mass destruction?  Biden is saying, literally, "calm down...don't worry...we've got this."  Uh, really?  Why don't I feel any better?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

OK - got it. It certainly is reasonable to question the record of the intelligence community, especially in light of the Iraqi WMD fiasco, but it's important to keep in mind that the precursors to a deliverable Iranian weapon would be rather more objectively measurable than most intelligence on terrorist operations. There is a pretty good track record of monitoring nation states in their path to nuclear weapons capability.

 

I don't think the criticism of the Iraq affair was at all limited to Democrats, although in the US they were more vocal than the Republicans - rather inevitable since the President was a Republican. In any case - I don't really understand your question; what do you mean by "what has changed"?

 

You said (wrote) it yourself.  The record of the intelligence community has not changed. If Biden is telling the truth, it doesn't make any sense.  Our intelligence indicated chemical and bio weapons stockpiles and facilities in Iraq.  The CIA said this wasn't even a question.  Other major intelligence agencies (Israel, UK, France, Germany, et al) agreed.   Well, it turns out we were all hugely wrong on that.  So how is that their track record is good with record to weapons of mass destruction?  Biden is saying, literally, "calm down...don't worry...we've got this."  Uh, really?  Why don't I feel any better?  

Right - but I was making a distinction between WMDs, which includes chemical and bio, as you pointed out, and deliverable nuclear weapons. My point was that I believe that there is a good track record of monitoring the progress of nations towards nuclear weapons - I did not mean WMDs in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Right - but I was making a distinction between WMDs, which includes chemical and bio, as you pointed out, and deliverable nuclear weapons. My point was that I believe that there is a good track record of monitoring the progress of nations towards nuclear weapons - I did not mean WMDs in general.

I don't know...I think that might be a distinction without a difference.  I suppose it's possible that in this one area of WMD intelligence we're much better than we are at chem and bio weapons intelligence.  But somehow that doesn't sit right with me.  It's more of a hope, which as Romney correctly points out, is not a strategy.  I definitely don't think we know everything Iran is doing with respect to their nuclear program, nor do I buy we will have a long warning period before they either announce or demonstrate one.  What do you think?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Right - but I was making a distinction between WMDs, which includes chemical and bio, as you pointed out, and deliverable nuclear weapons. My point was that I believe that there is a good track record of monitoring the progress of nations towards nuclear weapons - I did not mean WMDs in general.

 

I don't know...I think that might be a distinction without a difference.  I suppose it's possible that in this one area of WMD intelligence we're much better than we are at chem and bio weapons intelligence.  But somehow that doesn't sit right with me.  It's more of a hope, which as Romney correctly points out, is not a strategy.  I definitely don't think we know everything Iran is doing with respect to their nuclear program, nor do I buy we will have a long warning period before they either announce or demonstrate one.  What do you think?  

It's a distinction with a difference. Iran's nuclear program is under very close scrutiny. It's also made easier because much of the infrastructure and equipment needed to do that work is highly specialized and very tightly controlled. They can't make it and they can't purchase it without an obvious trail. It really is much easier to track than chemical or bio weapon work, which requires no special equipment. And, of course, testing is a dead giveaway, whether it is launch vehicles or the weapon itself. It's not just the US watching either.

I have no idea what will happen if they do acquire the capability. It could get very messy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

It's a distinction with a difference. Iran's nuclear program is under very close scrutiny. It's also made easier because much of the infrastructure and equipment needed to do that work is highly specialized and very tightly controlled. They can't make it and they can't purchase it without an obvious trail. It really is much easier to track than chemical or bio weapon work, which requires no special equipment. And, of course, testing is a dead giveaway, whether it is launch vehicles or the weapon itself. It's not just the US watching either.

 

I have no idea what will happen if they do acquire the capability. It could get very messy.

Reasonable answer, though I still don't believe we know everything with regard to their program.  We probably know a lot, but if we're off by even a small amount, it could lead to them crossing "the red line" so to speak.  Obviously testing is a dead giveaway, as you say.  But once they've tested a weapon it's far too late.  We need to prevent them from acquiring one.  So far, the sanctions, despite being effective at harming their economy, don't seem to have deterred the regime's will or aggressive stance.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

It's a distinction with a difference. Iran's nuclear program is under very close scrutiny. It's also made easier because much of the infrastructure and equipment needed to do that work is highly specialized and very tightly controlled. They can't make it and they can't purchase it without an obvious trail. It really is much easier to track than chemical or bio weapon work, which requires no special equipment. And, of course, testing is a dead giveaway, whether it is launch vehicles or the weapon itself. It's not just the US watching either.

 

I have no idea what will happen if they do acquire the capability. It could get very messy.

 

Reasonable answer, though I still don't believe we know everything with regard to their program.  We probably know a lot, but if we're off by even a small amount, it could lead to them crossing "the red line" so to speak.  Obviously testing is a dead giveaway, as you say.  But once they've tested a weapon it's far too late.  We need to prevent them from acquiring one.  So far, the sanctions, despite being effective at harming their economy, don't seem to have deterred the regime's will or aggressive stance.   

Testing isn't a one off event that enables the capability. In any case, if sanctions are not working then what do you think is the next step?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Biden was brilliant and didn't take prisoners whilst Ryan was clinic and removed.

 

Devastating to the Romney campaign. 

What was it with Ryan's bobbing head and all the water?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

It's a distinction with a difference. Iran's nuclear program is under very close scrutiny. It's also made easier because much of the infrastructure and equipment needed to do that work is highly specialized and very tightly controlled. They can't make it and they can't purchase it without an obvious trail. It really is much easier to track than chemical or bio weapon work, which requires no special equipment. And, of course, testing is a dead giveaway, whether it is launch vehicles or the weapon itself. It's not just the US watching either.

 

I have no idea what will happen if they do acquire the capability. It could get very messy.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just honestly wondering...  I agree that the equipment for nuclear enrichment is indeed highly specialized and should make monitoring of the enrichment processes somewhat easy to monitor.  However, doesn't Iran already have some kind of rocket capability?  Didn't they recently successfully test a medium range rocket with the potential to hit Israel?  Seems to me that this would mean that the basically have the delivery vehicle in place and all they need is the fissile material and the actual warhead.  Now, my question is concerning the actual warhead...  Is this something that Iran can't build in a secret bunker somewhere without any telltale external signs as to what they are doing?  I mean isn't the warhead going to be some mildly sophisticated electronics and some small shaped charges?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

 

What was it with Ryan's bobbing head and all the water?  

I may have missed the bobbing head, because I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about.  As to the water, I think they captured him taking a drink 4 or 5 times?  This doesn't seem strange at all to me for the amount of speaking he was doing over a 90 minute period.  I will say that this is really encouraging if your main criticism of Ryan's performance is that he was thirsty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

 I will say that this is really encouraging if your main criticism of Ryan's performance is that he was thirsty.

Don't worry.  It's not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Testing isn't a one off event that enables the capability. In any case, if sanctions are not working then what do you think is the next step?

What?  Testing a nuclear weapon doesn't show capability?  I don't think that's what you mean, but...what do you mean?  

As for the next step:  Looking at where we are now, I'd say the next step(s) are as follows:  

1. Make the "red line" clear for Iran.  Make a public statement to the effect that crossing this line (be it enrichment levels or what have you) means that the United States and Israel will use all means necessary to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  
2. Simultaneously continue to levy more sanctions, both unilaterally and multilaterally.  Include Central Bank sanctions.   Isolate them even further.  
3. Set a time frame for reassessment, say 90 days.  During this time, engage in a military build-up in the region to make threats of force credible.  
4. Give Iran one final opportunity to halt its program.  
5. Crossing the red line outside of the timeframe results in military action

The point is that the Iranians must believe we are serious about using military force.  Ironically, this is the only way we have a chance to avoid having to use it.  The ideas, as Paul Ryan says, is to get them to change their minds.  They are not doing that now.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

I may have missed the bobbing head, because I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about.  As to the water, I think they captured him taking a drink 4 or 5 times?  This doesn't seem strange at all to me for the amount of speaking he was doing over a 90 minute period.  I will say that this is really encouraging if your main criticism of Ryan's performance is that he was thirsty.

Didn't think his drinking waster was excessive, but the SNL parody was hilarious nonetheless.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

Don't worry.  It's not.

Perhaps not, but in keeping with the deep interest in being substantive, you couldn't help but bring it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Didn't think his drinking waster was excessive, but the SNL parody was hilarious nonetheless.  

I don't watch SNL, or at least I haven't in years.  That said, I have several SNL favorites like Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood, The Ambiguously Gay Duo, the original Weekend Update, and the Belushi deli samurai bit.  There are a lot of other good ones, but none of the more recent stuff I've seen (though I haven't watched at all in the past 10 years) has even come close to the classics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

I don't watch SNL, or at least I haven't in years.  That said, I have several SNL favorites like Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood, The Ambiguously Gay Duo, the original Weekend Update, and the Belushi deli samurai bit.  There are a lot of other good ones, but none of the more recent stuff I've seen (though I haven't watched at all in the past 10 years) has even come close to the classics.

I watch parts of it, mostly their debate parodies (which are great).  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Testing isn't a one off event that enables the capability. In any case, if sanctions are not working then what do you think is the next step?

 

What?  Testing a nuclear weapon doesn't show capability?  I don't think that's what you mean, but...what do you mean?  

 

As for the next step:  Looking at where we are now, I'd say the next step(s) are as follows:  

 

1. Make the "red line" clear for Iran.  Make a public statement to the effect that crossing this line (be it enrichment levels or what have you) means that the United States and Israel will use all means necessary to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  
2. Simultaneously continue to levy more sanctions, both unilaterally and multilaterally.  Include Central Bank sanctions.   Isolate them even further.  
3. Set a time frame for reassessment, say 90 days.  During this time, engage in a military build-up in the region to make threats of force credible.  
4. Give Iran one final opportunity to halt its program.  
5. Crossing the red line outside of the timeframe results in military action

 

 

The point is that the Iranians must believe we are serious about using military force.  Ironically, this is the only way we have a chance to avoid having to use it.  The ideas, as Paul Ryan says, is to get them to change their minds.  They are not doing that now.  

I meant that a weapon test does not demonstrate deliverability, and I would not necessarily even expect a first test to be successful.

Interesting list of actions, but what do you mean by military action. Invasion looks like the only real option - is that what you had in mind? With or without UN sanction?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I meant that a weapon test does not demonstrate deliverability, and I would not necessarily even expect a first test to be successful.

 

Interesting list of actions, but what do you mean by military action. Invasion looks like the only real option - is that what you had in mind? With or without UN sanction?

Unfortunately, a successful test is likely the only demonstration that we are likely to get.  I believe that both seismic and EMP signals are a giveaway to a successful nuclear detonation.  Neither of these exist without success, so how would we even detect a failed test.  The only way we would even know of a failed test is if Iran were to announce either their intentions or their failed results, neither of which I think they would be likely to do.

The options don't look good concerning Iran.  Ryan, and Obama for that matter, have the right of it in that the only good way to resolve this is to have Iran give up it's nuclear ambition.  This has got to be the goal for both Republicans and Democrats and I believe that it is, one of the fewer areas of honest agreement.  If Iran won't give up it's ambitions we should absolutely go in with a UN force.  If the UN won't in the end sanction this method...  I really don't know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I meant that a weapon test does not demonstrate deliverability, and I would not necessarily even expect a first test to be successful.

 

Interesting list of actions, but what do you mean by military action. Invasion looks like the only real option - is that what you had in mind? With or without UN sanction?

They can't yet get a weapon here, but they can do a whole lot of damage.  They can hand it off to terrorists.  They can get it to Israel.  They can threaten our forces in the Middle East.  They can essentially blackmail the United States and Israel.  This is worse than a war right now.  

As for the military option, I again would like to see it avoided. We can assume Iran will retaliate aggressively with conventional and non-conventional attacks (not WMD per se, but terrorist strikes, etc).  But, that is why if we do need to take military action, I wouldn't want to see us simply take out a few nuclear sites with bunker busters.  I think we would need to conduct a much larger operation, destroying their air defenses, command and control, and other military targets.  The goal should be to not only seriously damage their program, but do enough damage to minimize their retaliatory capability.  I would envision very few if any ground forces beyond special ops.  We should be able to pretty much destroy their navy and air power with our own.  No need to engage ground forces.  

I would not involve the UN.  The UN is useless beyond anything more than humanitarian aide and racking up parking tickets in Manhattan.  My view was once that we're better off influencing the UN than ignoring it, but that view is quickly changing.  THe UN does nothing productive.  It is corrupt, anti-semetic and anti-American in large degree.  It is completely ineffective at preventing conflict, stopping the spread of WMD, etc.  It's also beholden to an antagonistic China and less-than-friendly Russia, who can veto anything we want to do anyway.  I say do it with Israel and call it a day.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

Unfortunately, a successful test is likely the only demonstration that we are likely to get.  I believe that both seismic and EMP signals are a giveaway to a successful nuclear detonation.  Neither of these exist without success, so how would we even detect a failed test.  The only way we would even know of a failed test is if Iran were to announce either their intentions or their failed results, neither of which I think they would be likely to do.

 

The options don't look good concerning Iran.  Ryan, and Obama for that matter, have the right of it in that the only good way to resolve this is to have Iran give up it's nuclear ambition.  This has got to be the goal for both Republicans and Democrats and I believe that it is, one of the fewer areas of honest agreement.  If Iran won't give up it's ambitions we should absolutely go in with a UN force.  If the UN won't in the end sanction this method...  I really don't know.

The UN will do nothing.  If we have to take military action, we do it alone or with a few nations that share our interests.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I meant that a weapon test does not demonstrate deliverability, and I would not necessarily even expect a first test to be successful.

 

Interesting list of actions, but what do you mean by military action. Invasion looks like the only real option - is that what you had in mind? With or without UN sanction?

 

They can't yet get a weapon here, but they can do a whole lot of damage.  They can hand it off to terrorists.  They can get it to Israel.  They can threaten our forces in the Middle East.  They can essentially blackmail the United States and Israel.  This is worse than a war right now.  

 

As for the military option, I again would like to see it avoided. We can assume Iran will retaliate aggressively with conventional and non-conventional attacks (not WMD per se, but terrorist strikes, etc).  But, that is why if we do need to take military action, I wouldn't want to see us simply take out a few nuclear sites with bunker busters.  I think we would need to conduct a much larger operation, destroying their air defenses, command and control, and other military targets.  The goal should be to not only seriously damage their program, but do enough damage to minimize their retaliatory capability.  I would envision very few if any ground forces beyond special ops.  We should be able to pretty much destroy their navy and air power with our own.  No need to engage ground forces.  

 

I would not involve the UN.  The UN is useless beyond anything more than humanitarian aide and racking up parking tickets in Manhattan.  My view was once that we're better off influencing the UN than ignoring it, but that view is quickly changing.  THe UN does nothing productive.  It is corrupt, anti-semetic and anti-American in large degree.  It is completely ineffective at preventing conflict, stopping the spread of WMD, etc.  It's also beholden to an antagonistic China and less-than-friendly Russia, who can veto anything we want to do anyway.  I say do it with Israel and call it a day.  

I'm sure we could do a lot of damage from the air, but if I were them I would have put the operation underground and out of reach from air strikes. Invasion is a very unattractive option though.

I think you have mischaracterized the UN. It's not anti-US, but it does suffer from veto problems, especially from the Russians and Chinese.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I think you have mischaracterized the UN. It's not anti-US, but it does suffer from veto problems, especially from the Russians and Chinese.

I don't think that he mischaracterized the UN at all. It is comprised of so many dictatorial regimes and non democratic countries, that the UN is basically a threat to the free world and to all free people. The US should pull out of the farce known as the UN. I would like to see the UN destroyed.

Let me say right now...  Irregardless of how the debate turns out I think this is the least useful of the debates.  The format does not allow for follow-ups or any back and forth between the candidates.  If Obama or Romney throws out something off the wall or blatant red meat, there is to be no chance for a rebuttal?  For instance if Obama talks about Romney's $5 trillion tax cut for the rich, then it's just supposed to stand without any attempt by Romney to clarify it.  Or the reverse, if Romney says that his healthcare plan covers pre-existing conditions then Obama doesn't get a chance to push him on just how it accomplishes that and still saves money?

The debate seems stacked mostly in favor of the moderator and her bias since she is picking the questions and there is no rebuttal or back and forth.  This is why I see this debate as having the least value of the three.  I would much rather hear one candidate put forward a policy initiative and then have the other candidate offered the chance to question it or pick it apart.  This debate isn't a debate so much as joint Q&A.

I don't get why just about every single moderator chosen has to be some disgusting liberal loon? Why do the Repubs even agree to go along with that?

What would Democrats say if Rush Limbaugh were chosen to moderate? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

I don't get why just about every single moderator chosen has to be some disgusting liberal loon? Why do the Repubs even agree to go along with that?

 

What would Democrats say if Rush Limbaugh were chosen to moderate? 

Are you suggesting that Rush is a disgusting right-wing loon?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Are you suggesting that Rush is a disgusting right-wing loon?

I don't listen to his show, as a matter of fact, I never listen to the radio.

I am suggesting that liberals would claim that he's a disgusting right-wing loon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Are you suggesting that Rush is a disgusting right-wing loon?

I don't listen to his show, as a matter of fact, I never listen to the radio.

 

I am suggesting that liberals would claim that he's a disgusting right-wing loon.

Just checking.

The rules of the debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I'm sure we could do a lot of damage from the air, but if I were them I would have put the operation underground and out of reach from air strikes. Invasion is a very unattractive option though.

 

I think you have mischaracterized the UN. It's not anti-US, but it does suffer from veto problems, especially from the Russians and Chinese.

My understanding is we have the capability to reach those facilities.   As for the UN, we disagree.  As Apple ][ says, there are many non-democratic, dictatorial and corrupt regimes that are part of the organization.  Leadership of various commissions and committees rotates.  For example, the commission on human rights was held by non other than Libya several years ago.  The UN is a joke, and has beee for decades.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

The rules of the debate

Pretty pathetic.  

Ah, Romney is wearing his blue tie tonight.  That means he's in favor of more government funded college educations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I'm sure we could do a lot of damage from the air, but if I were them I would have put the operation underground and out of reach from air strikes. Invasion is a very unattractive option though.

 

I think you have mischaracterized the UN. It's not anti-US, but it does suffer from veto problems, especially from the Russians and Chinese.

 

My understanding is we have the capability to reach those facilities.   

Where did you learn that?

Which deductions Mr. Romney?  Oh, OK, he'll make up a number.  Got it.  What a well-thought out plan.

No tax on capital gains helps the rich more than anyone else, Mr. Romney, you two-faced liar.

Just describe your fucking plans in detail, Romney.  Is it really that fucking hard?  Which deductions?

No need, Mr. President, for you to lie about Mitt Romney's immigration position regarding the Arizona law.  Romney has plenty of other hypocrisies that could be exposed--no need to fabricate one.

Edit:  Mr. President did clarify his claim in that Romney's immigration advisor wrote the Alabama and Arizona laws in question.  So, not a total fabrication.  Half-truth, most likely.

I'll wait for the fact checking before discussing winners and losers.  Sounding confident but lying one's ass off does not a winner make.  Again, highly disappointed that Romney didn't get into any specifics regarding his tax plan.  I would love if rates could drop for everyone while being budget neutral.  I'd also like a genie to grant me infinite wishes.  Neither seems likely.

Ms. Crowley:  Hypothetically, what would you do if the numbers don't add up?

Mr. Romney:  The numbers do add up!

Good job there, Romney, for not understanding what hypothetically means. 

Imagine you are on an airplane.

I'M NOT ON AN AIRPLANE!

Yes, but imagine you are.

I'M NOT ON ONE.

That's not the point.  What if you were?

NOT ON ONE, NOPE.

*sigh*

The Obama camp's new spin on Libya is that the White House recognized it as a terrorist attack and then the President went to a fundraiser in Vegas.

That's going to make things better.