The Moment

The moment that will be remembered from last night's debate:

< Romney Debate Missteps | Wednesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Please proceed Governor (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 07:48:47 AM EST
    My favorite moment in any debate, ever.

    Several great things about it. I thought Obama's initial response to the question left something to be desired, but as he then let Romney respond it was apparent he was saving the real meat for his response to Romney. Loved the real glint of anger there. And then Romney over-reaching and circling like a shark only to be shot down. Priceless.

    Mixing my metaphors.... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 07:56:36 AM EST
    Anyway, this is one of the few times I have seen real debate strategy in play - planning the responses and counter responses a couple of moves ahead of time. Saw it at the very end too.

    The best thing about "please proceed (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:11:33 AM EST
    Governor," was that it actually threw Romney a little - he looked like he didn't know what to do when Obama didn't come back at him directly, and for a second, I thought I felt a bit of Romney wondering if he had just stepped into a trap.

    Which he had.

    I did like how Obama hit Romney for Romney's comments immediately after the attack, too.


    True (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:20:56 AM EST
    Romney was stunned by an invitation to get beyond a practiced "zinger".  He looked like someone goosed him.

    The element of surprise in these (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:23:58 AM EST
    closely scripted, predictable affairs is soooo effective. Obama did it more than once. Really catches Romneybot 5.0 off guard. He will need some re-programming, but I don't think his artificial intelligence chip can handle the cycles needed.

    The is the inevitable result ... (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 01:33:13 PM EST
    ... whenever a cynic starts to believe his own bull$H!+.

    It was cute last night at my house (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:03:56 AM EST
    When this happened.  Often President Obama is teased in comics for having big ears.  Josh says outloud, "Can you repeat that Candy?  Governor Romney has kind of small ears."

    The attacks on Benghazi (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:09:49 AM EST
    Are still disturbing to me.  Republicans outed our CIA there for political gain, and what happened there is not going to be known for awhile because people are investigating and it isn't the FBI.  We have obviously been searching for those surface to air missiles because they are so dangerous.  This is a national and global security issue.  My President and my Secretary of State are doing an amazing job of handling the Republican attacks while also working to keep the nation and the world safer.

    In contrast, I thought that Romney (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:20:02 AM EST
    came off as a bullying, piss-ant throughout the debate, but particularly so in this exchange.  He and his surrogates keep saying "four dead Americans" like they are referring to "a dozen bagels".  Their Libya line of attack has really been disturbingly lacking in compassion.  Thoughtful policy discussions that could have come out of this event have been entirely blocked by their politicization of the tragedy.  It is shameful.  The problem is that from the top down in the Republican Party there isn't a single elected official that I can think of who is capable of feeling an iota of shame.

    At some point it has to be (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:36:05 AM EST
    Acknowledged that not only do the Republicans not get to carry the National Security Providers flag alone, but that they have devolved into placing us at risk for political gain.

    They outed Valerie Plame for political gain, and one thing that is not talked about was what happened to Plame's assets in Iraq.  Her assets were those who could have led us to WMDs if there were any.  So outing her and having her assets killed was a twofer for the Bush administration.

    Now the Republicans have outed the CIA in Benghazi and placed an extremely important mission where very dangerous weapons are missing in jeopardy too.  They enjoy some strange image of macho while placing national security at risk and damaging our assets, even actually getting assets killed.


    Many of them do national security (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 01:53:58 PM EST
    entirely from a place of fear rather than strength and confidence.

    It is not surprising considering the fact that they are far too freaked out to think rationally and strategically that they blow major operations when they fall into a hyper-ventilating tizzy about "weak national security".

    I make this comment because I know several people personally who fit this profile - and sadly - they actually have some political/policy influence. Hyper-vigilant to the point where they can't see what's really going on around them.  So spooked that ever little thing feels like a threat to them - and so spooked that they can't see the real threats much less see viable solutions to disarming those real threats.


    The latest from the NY Times (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 03:32:05 PM EST
    is that the video may have been the motivation for the attack, after all.

    The attackers said they attacked the consulate in revenge for the video.  They did not say they were with al Qaeda, or that the attack was in revenge for anything else.

    Moreover, the issue of motivation, while interesting and perhaps helpful, misses the point, which is: Who did it?  Where are they?  Who are they connected to?

    Republicans have this Rudy Giuliani fetish about making sure the attack was correctly labeled a terrorist attack. Well, the President did that, and Jay Carney his Press Secretary said so early on too.

    What Ambassador Rice said was not inconsistent with it being a terrorist attack.  If the attack did spring from outrage over the video, would it be any less a terrorist attack?  How long it took to plan--one hour, one day, one week, does not make it any less of an "act of terror."

    These neocons are so devoid of reality that their abstract labels blind them.


    you know what makes this memorable? (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Lena on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:10:53 AM EST
    The fact that the moderator called Romney on his lie. I've never seen that happen before so blatantly in a presidential debate. I've watched the moderators question the contenders on their facts, but never outright overrule them.

    Debates always seem kind of like professional wrestling to me. The debaters break all kinds of rule, lie like dogs, and, unless someone's raising a chair over his or her head to clock the other person, the moderator is usually reduced to ineffectual protests and blather (see: Lehrer, Jim).

    Actual journalism! In real-time. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:17:23 AM EST
    More of it, please.

    I know! (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Lena on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:21:35 AM EST
    Imagine if the media could get away from their he said/she said, both-sides-are-equally-wrong-and-you-can-tell-we're-unbiased-because-we're-calling-them-both-out mentality.
    That'd be sweet.

    The only one lying was Obama (2.25 / 4) (#15)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:26:34 AM EST
    I suppose we're all supposed to forget the multiple times Obama referred to the video after the attack instead of mentioning terror right?

    Even Crowley is now saying Romney was right.

    The fact is this administration lied or misled or was incompetent about the attacks for weeks until Fox News called them on it.

    For the left to be swallowing a out and out lie that Obama called the attacks a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden is amusing.

    You can keep saying something but it doesn't make it true.

    Also Obama flat out lied or is clueless about the oil permit exchange.

    Another lie by Obama that the left doesn't care about.


    Crowley on herself (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:30:36 AM EST
    Crowley acknowledged the ambiguity in one of her many post-debate CNN interviews...

    I did turn around and say, `But you're totally correct that they did spend two weeks telling us this was about a tape, and that there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn't," Crowley said. "So he was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word.

    Read more:


    This is a losing tack for Romney (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:48:37 AM EST
    I so do hope that they follow your lead.

    That you are wrong is self evident in that you actually change the subject.



    Maybe so (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:09:40 AM EST
    It may be a losing tact now because Romney didn't call Obama & Crowley out for their falsehood last night.

    Now that he let it sit he might have allowed the door to close on himself.

    Or as I believe the media now has this false statment to chew on for a week or so and the dynamic on Lybia will change and that will decide if it's a debate target or now.

    If Obama goes in with Hell Fire missles then it's a moot point.

    If nothing happens and the administration keeps going with its flim flam statements and muddling of the issue then it's still something Romney can hit the president on.

    Furthermore the "Foreign Policy" debate will probably be the least important of them all.   The Economy is the issue and on that Romney scored big points on last night.


    Wow. It doesn't get more upside-down (none / 0) (#32)
    by observed on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:26:11 AM EST
    when giving correct  and accurate information is called false.
    You are a great surrogate for Obama, bub.
    Keep it up.

    Romney looks like he his (none / 0) (#35)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:51:19 AM EST
    undermining the Commander-in-Chief by muddying the waters for political gain.

    Obama's clarity is a strength in soft-power diplomacy. Romney is stepping on that and he looks bad for it.


    You know something, Slado? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 02:06:46 PM EST
    Your reading comprehension skills, specifically your ability to grasp the meaning of a statement within its proper context, really suck -- big time.

    Goes beyond that (4.33 / 3) (#65)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 02:14:39 PM EST
    As BTD says very eloquently in his Kos Radio spot today, it takes an especially twisted kind of mentality to want to deliberately misinterpret Obama's moving statement, the day after a national tragedy, for political gain. But that is how sick these people are.

    So you think that in the rose garden (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:33:05 AM EST
    he said, in a statement about the Benghazi attacks, apropos of nothing, that acts of terrorism will not be tolerated,

    I fear for your listening comprehension skills.


    Lets just analyze the facts (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:03:05 AM EST
    The next day he referred to "acts of terror" in general.

    Then he went on Letterman and blamed the video.

    Then he went on the View and blamed the video.

    Then he went to the UN and blamed the video.

    Then Susan Rice went on (5) Network Sunday morning shows and blamed the video.

    For two to three weeks every surrogate and Jay Carney blamed the video.

    Now that they've been called on it all you have to hold on to is this lame meaning of is is statement.

    Please.   The American people aren't stupid.  This whole controversy is really stupid.   The only reason it's still an issue is this administration never admits when it's wrong and assume their supporters will believe whatever they say and the media will cover for them.

    I heard what he said and then I listened to what he said for the next three weeks.

    You apparently stopped listening on day one.


    The American people aren't stupid (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:07:23 AM EST
    true, but you may be the exception to the rule.

    Wow (none / 0) (#27)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:10:53 AM EST
    I'm rubber your glue

    There were attacks on embassies (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:12:35 AM EST
    All over the world due to "the video".  You know what you don't think about?  You don't think about how your nation needs to get certain members of the CIA and Special Operations into Libya quickly to find out who did this, how, why....and still find the missing weapons.

    My husband said this morning that the American people need to know what happened as soon as our leaders are able, but people like you are placing national security at risk with your smear tactic tantrums and B.S.

    The President had a reason for being low key at the onset that involves something bigger and more important than your desire to smear him.  I know it is hard for you to fathom that something can be bigger and more important than that.


    Stop making excuses (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:58:32 AM EST
    If your argument was valid then he would have said nothing.

    Instead he ran around the country saying it was the fault of the video when it wasn't.

    For whatever reason he wanted a story he knew to be untrue to be accepted as fact.

    If he thought it was true he was incompetent.  If he knew it wasn't he was lying.

    What baffles me about this whole thing is why?  Ask yourself why did Obama and Co. mislead.

    Maybe it was some grand foreign policy game of 11 dimensional chess.  Maybe.   More than likely they didn't want it out there that Al Qaeda killed our ambassador.


    So you didn't read Anne's link (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:05:56 AM EST
    and you won't and that is okay.  BTD did address wingers creating their own realities though and how that blows you up in the middle of the townhall.  You guys are like bad bomb makers, blowing your own selves up.  Please proceed governor....



    And if you want to talk about Al Qaeda (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:13:31 AM EST
    That's right up my alley.  So what member of Al Qaeda planned this attack, who led it, and where is their camp...oh yeah...you don't know.  You haven't a clue.

    Is it Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda affiliated?  If an affiliate have they fought with Al Qaeda central like Al Qaeda in Iraq fought with Bin Laden?  How affiliated?  To what degree and via who?   Oh yeah...you don't know.  Just pi$$ing into the wind, doesn't that ever start to suck?


    Making it up as you go along (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:40:24 AM EST
    More than likely they didn't want it out there that Al Qaeda killed our ambassador.

    Al Quaeda?  How is it that you're privy to evidence that even the investigators and Congress don't have?

    Guess it's easy when you just make $hit up.


    It's called Google (none / 0) (#54)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:52:26 AM EST
    Try it some time.



    Is this one of your examples of the (none / 0) (#56)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:01:10 PM EST
    media covering up for the administration?

    This is so stupid (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 01:12:22 PM EST
    When I was in Junior High a bully once told me she was going to kill me.  I went home upset and told my dad said, "She isn't going to kill you, if you really mean to kill someone you never warn them first."

    If my President stands up at a podium and declares he is going to have so and so Al Qaeda affiliate arrested in Libya for murdering his ambassador, he's a huge fool and shouldn't be my President.

    Intel is how we got Osama bin Laden, not rightwing nutjob bang bang shoot em up and torture whoever is left standing.  Bring em on got us no place we wanted to be.  My President is colleting intel, probably intel that will lead him to thousands and thousands of surface to air missiles too.  Not that you would want such success.  I think you'd be much happier if those weapons were used some place to kill innocent civilians in some sort of attack, and you could dance around declaring an Obama failure.  Hating Obama is more important than national or global security with you.


    I did (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    And I'm not just talking about some blogger citing "unnamed intelligence sources" that claim there were "strong indications" that it was Al_Quaeda affiliated operatives who were behind the attack (BTW - what terrorist isn't "affiliated" with Al Quaeda in Winger World?) - the same article that falsely claims  "it took until late last week for the White House and the administration to formally acknowledge that the Benghazi assault was a terrorist attack" - when, in fact, Obama himself said so the very next day (twice).


    To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.


    The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.

    Your comments are reflective of how (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    successful conservatives can be at truthiness-bordering-on-something-worse, in shameless service to their political agenda.

    If you're really interested in the timeline of how that all came to be, you could take a look at this.

    The adminstration did not, in my opinion, make an effort to turn the attack and the handling of information about it into a political issue - the same cannot be said of Romney and his many surrogates.


    What's your point (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:03:28 AM EST
    I agree Republican might be overplaying this a tad but it's only because the media is intent on covering for the administration.

    The administration misled on the cause of the attacks for weeks.   The only thing that confuses me is why?  

    The only reason I can ascertain is this administration is so terrible at admiting mistakes that they refuse to do so and are so brazen taht the media will cover for them that they thought they could get away with it.

    That you would then turn around and get mad at republicans for calling them on it shows your partisanship.

    Give me a break.   Washington was set on fire by democrats and the media when Bush outed a CIA agent sitting at a desk in Washington.

    This administration lies about the cause of 4 dead Americans and republicans are wrong for calling them on it.

    Double standard?


    So it was okay to get Plame's (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:16:09 AM EST
    Assets who did know about the Iraq weapons programs killed in Iraq?  That is so vile and heinous I can't even fathom how you could condone such a thing.

    So, still sticking with your talking points (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:29:31 AM EST
    and not bothering to look at the timeline, I guess.

    Why am I not surprised?

    But if you are as confused as you say you are, perhaps you might benefit from looking at some actual, you know, facts.

    You've managed to turn "days" into "weeks," and failed to provide any evidence of media complicity in this alleged coverup.  If there is any blame to cast on the media, it isn't because they are covering anything up, but because, once again, they are just failing to do actual reporting and are relying on what various political surrogates have been saying about the whole affair.

    Good Lord, man, you've just got to do better than this if you want anyone to take you seriously.


    Key line in your statment: (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:24:03 AM EST
    This whole controversy is really stupid.

    Indeed, and the more you folks try to make it one, the worse you look.


    Stupid meaning it didn't need to happen (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:20:30 AM EST
    Lets roll back the clock.

    Al Queda kills our ambassador.

    Obama says exactly what he says in the Rose Garden.  No problem with the statement generic as it was.

    Then over the next few days he and his administration are asked what happened?  

    Here's the right answer...We'll we're not exactly sure but someone attacked our embassy.  They have not taken credit so we don't know if it was in response to the video, or to create unrest, or because it was the anniversary of 9/11.   Either way it was not a demonstration like we saw everywhere else but instead a coordinated attach and we can assure you we will hunt them down and bring them to justice.

    Bam, done, end of story.

    Instead they lied and lied repeatedly.   Why?  Because they suck at admitting mistakes.  

    Didn't need to be a controversy but now it is and all the excuse making and lying by the left won't make it not be one.


    You have no idea what happened (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:23:23 PM EST
    You don't know if the video prompted the implementation of the attack or if the attack was planned weeks or months ago. Was the video used to recruit extra insurgents to join a planned attack?  Was that why a force of that size wasn't being monitored, because it came into being overnight?  See, you don't know anything.  Just make crap up while real Americans risk their lives every day.  It gets tiresome listening to bullsnot driveling out just because Obama is President, but oh well, that's life.

    In your world (none / 0) (#50)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:36:49 AM EST
    ...We'll we're not exactly sure but someone attacked our embassy.  They have not taken credit so we don't know if it was in response to the video, or to create unrest, or because it was the anniversary of 9/11.

    somehow does not have the same meaning as

    We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present.

    most folks see, hear, and comprehend this to mean......wait for it...."we're not sure yet."

    Your whole point about how this proves the admin's policies and approach in the ME are wrong is belied by the fact that the Libyans ejected the group they believed responsible for the attacks in Benghazi.  Seems to me, people standing up for themselves and denoucing extremism is exactly what we want.  


    The Obama Administration (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ding7777 on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:30:05 AM EST
    may have been trying to protect a CIA operation (the one that Congressional Republicans later outed on C-Span) by asserting the ant-Muslin video.

    Lame excuse (1.50 / 2) (#39)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:05:39 AM EST
    And that's what it is.

    If they wanted to cover for the CIA they would have said nothing.   Not make up a cocka many story.

    And who are they trying to fool?   Al Queada?  They know they did it.  They know we know they did it.   The lybians know they did it.

    The only people they where trying to fool was the American people and they got caught.

    Excuses, excuses, excuses...


    Classified is classified (none / 0) (#68)
    by ding7777 on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 03:16:45 PM EST
    do you want a President who would publicly reveal classified information to satisfy a news cycle while other lives may be a risk?

    Here's a dollar, Slado. Buy yourself a clue. (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 02:01:48 PM EST
    Critical situations, i.e., the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, tend not to remain static in perpetuity, like some moment frozen forever in both time and memory.

    As such, initial assessments of any given critical situation will be repeatedly re-evaluated, and findings will be updated accordingly as further information and intelligence are obtained and analyzed over the nominal course of the investigation.

    Thus, the story of the Benghazi attack as it might have been understood in mid-September has evolved naturally to this point, simply because we know much more now about what happened than we knew one month ago. And further, because the investigation of that tragedy is not yet closed and its final account has yet to be set in stone, it would not surprise me in the least to see the story change yet again as we learn even more.

    Now, as to why you apparently refuse to grasp that particularly simple concept regarding the proper and effective conduct of risk / threat / damage assessment, instead preferring to cling stubbornly to a patently disingenuous and since discredited right-wing meme, I won't even bother to speculate.

    (Not that I need to, since you and your fellow Republican wingzingers have made your personal motives for doing so rather painfully obvious. Face it, Slado -- the word "subtle" is not in your guys' vocabulary.)

    In the meantime, have fun playing make-believe in your parallel universe. And here's a toast to hoping that you'll somehow manage to not combust spontaneously in the stratosphere, when reality finally compels you to plunge headlong back down to Planet Earth.



    "Blaming the video" (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 03:36:06 PM EST
    as you put it, is not inconsistent with an act of terror.

    An "act of terror" describes what happened.

    The video goes to motivation--a different question.  

    And, you of course are aware that the N.Y. Times has an article that suggests that the attackers were motivated by the video?


    The video is not all he talked about (none / 0) (#36)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:51:59 AM EST
    That is where political slant comes in.

    Are you so clueless (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Lena on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:34:28 AM EST
    as to not see that actions like an attack on an embassy cannot be multifactorial? Obama said the attacks were an act of terror the next day. AND the video inspired the attackers.

    Romney lied. Candy Crowley pointed it out. If she's backing away from that now, she is wrong now.

    You say that "You can keep saying something but it doesn't make it true," but that seems to be belied by the fact that the media lets Romney get away with lie after lie, and says nothing. In fact, that lying approach seems to sum up his whole campaign strategy. Repeating endless lies until the media parrots him as fact.


    Obama wasn't lying ... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:37:19 AM EST
    ... but you are.

    BTW - There is substantial evidence that the attackers were, in fact, motivated by the video (including the statements of the attackers themselves).

    BTW - What's the "oil permit exchange" lie?  Are you talking about the accusation from Romney that Obama "cut permits and licenses on federal land and federal waters in half"?  Because even that cherry-picked statistic is a lie.


    Those that care.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:42:33 AM EST
    about the issues and the truth, right and left, should be voting for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein Slado...not for nothing.  Maybe if they were allowed to participate, the thing wouldn't be a total WWE-style smackdown farce for entertainment purposes only.

    As for the two liars on stage last night, I think it clear to any impartial observer who is more full of sh*t.  I mean we're really gonna quibble about "act of terror" vs. "terrorist act"?  Besides, their foreigh policy platforms are practically identical, despite their phony proclamations to the contrary.


    Agreed to a point (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:06:36 AM EST
    If you want to believe Obama you'll ignore all facts to the contrary and give him a pass.

    If you don't want to then he's given you plenty of reasons not to.

    My thought process is Lybia is an example of how the Obama policy doesn't work.   I only want to call him on it so he'll stop taking victory laps over Osama's dead body.

    I don't think any strategy is actually going to "work" with people living in the stone age but the media should do it's job and call this administration out for their failures instead of constantly making excuses for them and ignoring the reality that the middle east is just as big a mess if not more so then when he took over.


    Our foreign policy... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:26:01 AM EST
    costs too much money to implement and doesn't work...no argument here.  Again, if it is your issue, ya need to forget about Obama or Romney.  You don't think a Romney admin. is gonna make the world any safer do ya?  Or that a Romney admin. wouldn't immediately play CYA in the same situation?

    It's all playing gotcha and CYA bullsh*t man...


    Fair enough but thats (none / 0) (#41)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:12:47 AM EST
    How we elect presidents.   Don't hate the player hate the game my man.

    I am just marveling at the double standard of this site.

    Romney is called a liar for weeks after his debate and the same people are swallowing Obama lies with a dash of sugar if it helps them love their guy more.

    Politics is funny.


    It is funny... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    it's a sport now man...akin to professional wrestling.  Is Obama your good guy real American aka Hulk Hogan, or is he your bad guy heavy aka The Iron Sheik?  And vice versa.

    The serious debate on the issues will be held by Jill Stein and Gary Johnson....no one will care, no one will watch.  Not "serious"...LOL.


    Uh, no. I don't think it's funny. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    We're talking about stuff with some potentially deadly serious consequences awaiting us, should a misinformed electorate be somehow encouraged by forces not under our own purview or control to collectively make the wrong decision at the ballot box.

    Seaking for myself as a local Democratic Party official, while I would not object personally to the inclusion of third- and fourth-party candidates into mainstream electoral debate cycles -- if only to spice up the proceedings and keep my Dems and and Jim's and Slado's Reps on their toes -- what you and I might want to see happen, and what's actually going to happen, are two entirely different things.

    If we want to enjoy a sport with a bloody payoff, then by all means, let's please re-direct our efforts toward the resurrection and legalization of the ancient Roman gladiatorial arts.

    To those about to rock, we salute you.



    Funny... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 02:43:55 PM EST
    in the better to laugh than to cry sense Don.

    I mean ya gotta see how our electoral process is downright comedic at times, even if the stakes are high.  And how the electorate treats the electoral process as sport, for the most part.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:15:36 AM EST
    this shows exactly how nuts the GOP is when it comes to foreign policy.

    Romney's smug eyebrow raising thing (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:33:51 AM EST
    as in "well?"

    made the correction from Crowley all the more spectacular.  If there is such as thing as death by a thousand cuts, that had to be cut 997.

    Big Tent Democrat and other Obama groupies... (1.50 / 2) (#71)
    by citizenjeff on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:50:44 PM EST
    ...are relying on semantics when it's context that really matters. If Obama really got it right when he spoke in the Rose Garden, why has his inner circle been blaming what he said on bad intelligence?

    You are of course (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 12:31:52 AM EST
    aware that there is evidence that Susan Rice was right.  

    Yesterday's New York Times....


    I fear that conservative jaws have (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 06:15:11 AM EST
    clamped down on the bone that is the Obama-was-lying-and-now-they're-covering-up story and will not let go no matter what evidence there is that he and members of his administration did no such thing.

    The earth is flat, evolution is a myth, climate change is bogus, women's ladyparts have the special ability to prevent pregnancy from rape - there's more like that, but you get my drift.

    Once latched on, they don't and won't let go.


    I'm not a conservative... (none / 0) (#76)
    by citizenjeff on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 11:21:00 PM EST
    ...and you're trying to dismiss me by labeling me.

    So what? (none / 0) (#75)
    by citizenjeff on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 11:19:52 PM EST
    Condensed version of the Romney/Obama exchange about the murder of Ambassador Stevens:

    Romney: "There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved...How could of we not known?"

    Obama: "The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people...that this was an act of terror..."

    [In the Rose Garden Obama said: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..."]

    Romney: "It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?"

    Obama: "Please proceed, Governor."

    Based on the context of their debate exchange, Romney reasonably interpreted what Obama said, and lest there be any doubt, he asked the president to clarify. Obama evaded the question. Some of you nice people who are enamored of Obama, are spinning.


    Boy (none / 0) (#2)
    by kmblue on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 07:55:53 AM EST
    was that a gift.  Loved it.

    Just mistakenly went (none / 0) (#13)
    by fishcamp on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:46:01 AM EST
    over to Fox news for a minute and there was Alan Colms blathering away.  Have you seen his hair lately? It's henna red...

    Romney bailout (none / 0) (#33)
    by Lacy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:26:36 AM EST
    I'm surprised no one's noted how Candy actually helped out Romney when he doubled down on his ignorance of what the president said about Benghazi. The president had characterized it as an act of terror, and that is indisputable (unless you're shilling for the right wing). But Romnmey had just set himself up to assert with great ceremony before all of America and the world that the president is a liar by repeating the full comment "for the record".

    And Crowley's comment was actually a warning not to go there.

    So the right wing now hates Crowley after she bailed Romney out from wading deeper and deeper into the archives of "dumbest ever presidential debate moments"?  Well, any port in a storm, as they say in the Navy.

    Indisputable???? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:14:48 AM EST
    Ha, Ha, Ha, HA.

    It's indisputable if you take it out of context and then disregard comments by Obama, Carney, Hillary and anyone you can name in the administration for the next two weeks.

    Partisanship is a super power around here.   Capable of changing the time space continuum apparently.



    Dude (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:20:08 AM EST
    Stop making a fool of yourself.

    You can argue that things said outside of the President's Rose Garden remarks put into question whether the Obama Administration believed it was an "act of terror," but what the President said leaves no doubt.

    You're just looking ridiculous.


    That's some major league (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:29:35 AM EST
    desperate failing around you're doing there, Rush.

    flailing.. (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:30:02 AM EST
    Failing works as well. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:59:48 AM EST
    Indisputable???? (none / 0) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:36:36 PM EST
    Ha, Ha, Ha, HA.

    Nothing, even time stamped video, is indisputable proof to a Fox News viewer, see every single post by Slado for the indisputable proof of that.

    It must really suck to have a pair of lying eyes.


    Please respond regarding (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 12:33:32 AM EST
    the new evidence in the New York Times that Susan Rice was right that it was a spontenous act prompted by protests in Cairo.