Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 POTUS Debate #2

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9378

PostSubject: POTUS Debate #2   10/16/2012, 10:20 pm

President Obama had one, if not the best debate of his life. He was sharp and to the point and attacked Romney on many of his flip-flops.

Obama named winner by CBS, Google and PPP snap polls. Very Happy

Things looking especially better for Obama after this Tweet:
Quote :
Dick Morris ‏@DickMorrisTweet

#debates Obama four minute advantage. Result: Romney won and will giain in the polls as a result
Laughing

Let the whining about Candy Crowly and the attempt to blame Mitten's loss oin her begin. Rolling Eyes
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9378

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/17/2012, 3:24 pm

Probably my favorite line from last night...
Quote :
Please Proceed Governor
The look on the President's face as he said it was as if he was watching Romney out on a tree limb sawing it off.

Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3109

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/17/2012, 6:48 pm

How Romney lost by swinging and missing on Libya

Quote :
As has been the case throughout the campaign, Romney’s problem is that this rhetoric lacks a firm foundation in the truth. The day after the attacks in Libya, President Obama gave a short address in the Rose Garden, where he described the events as an “act of terror” and pledged to “hunt down those who committed the crime.” Obama pointed this out during the debate, and was immediately challenged by Romney, who claimed — in short — that Obama was lying: “I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

At this point, the moderator, Candy Crowley, stepped in and explained that yes, Obama did describe the attacks the next day as an act of terror. Obama asked Crowley to say this “a little louder,” and the audience responded with clapping, as if to say “Thank you for fact checking Romney.”

It was the mos t brutal moment of the debate. More to the point, though, it was a direct product of Romney’s foreign policy convictions, and his substance-less view that the best way to project American strength is to label things as “terror” at every opportunity. What’s more, it was fed into Obama’s (somewhat self-serving) critique: That Romney was and is too eager to politicize a tragedy.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/17/2012, 7:54 pm

Heretic wrote:
How Romney lost by swinging and missing on Libya

Quote :
As has been the case throughout the campaign, Romney’s problem is that this rhetoric lacks a firm foundation in the truth. The day after the attacks in Libya, President Obama gave a short address in the Rose Garden, where he described the events as an “act of terror” and pledged to “hunt down those who committed the crime.” Obama pointed this out during the debate, and was immediately challenged by Romney, who claimed — in short — that Obama was lying: “I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

At this point, the moderator, Candy Crowley, stepped in and explained that yes, Obama did describe the attacks the next day as an act of terror. Obama asked Crowley to say this “a little louder,” and the audience responded with clapping, as if to say “Thank you for fact checking Romney.”

It was the mos t brutal moment of the debate. More to the point, though, it was a direct product of Romney’s foreign policy convictions, and his substance-less view that the best way to project American strength is to label things as “terror” at every opportunity. What’s more, it was fed into Obama’s (somewhat self-serving) critique: That Romney was and is too eager to politicize a tragedy.





http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/fact-check-did-obama-really-call-consulate-attack-in-libya-act-terror/



The moderator in Tuesday night's presidential debate, after appearing to side with President Obama on the question of whether he called the Libya strike a terror attack from the start, conceded afterward that Mitt Romney was "right" on the broader point -- that the administration for days insisted it was a spontaneous act.
"He was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word," Candy Crowley said of Romney on CNN shortly after the debate ended.
Crowley was referring to the tense exchange in the final half-hour of the debate, when Romney questioned whether Obama had called the attack an "act of terror" rather than "spontaneous" violence that grew out of a protest against an anti-Islam video.
Crowley then intervened. Here's the exchange:
ROMNEY: I think (it's) interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.
OBAMA: That's what I said.
ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?
OBAMA: Please proceed governor.
ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir ... call it an act of terror.
Obama, indicating he thought he had just gotten a boost from the moderator, then chimed in: "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?"
However, Obama didn't explicitly label the Benghazi strike terrorism in those Sept. 12 remarks. What he did say is: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."
Crowley, during and following the debate, pointed out that despite Obama's Sept. 12 remarks his administration was peddling a different story to the public. She said it took two weeks for officials to say more definitively that the attack was more than an out-of-control protest.
And she continued to clarify on CNN that Romney was making a legitimate point.
"Right after that I did turn around and say, 'but you are totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape'," she said.
Four days after Obama's Rose Garden remarks, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., went on five networks' Sunday shows and cast the attack as hardly a coordinated strike by terrorists.
"We are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation," Rice said Sept. 16 on "Fox News Sunday." "The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.
"But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment."
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/17/2012, 8:33 pm

Wow... Really? You didn't watch the debate, did you? Shame on you...
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9378

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/17/2012, 10:38 pm

From Politifact
Quote :
We went to the transcript, and the president has a point. On September 12, the day after the attack, in the Rose Garden, Obama condemned the attack and said, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

In the days since, some have parsed Obama's remarks and argued he didn't say the Benghazi attack was specifically an act of terror. However, given the overall context of his comments, it seems a fair conclusion that he was including the attack in the "acts of terror" that he said would never shake American resolve.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/17/2012, 11:51 pm

Hell... We even covered this ground in Re: Libyan Attack...

http://nofree.forumotion.com/t18528p100-libyan-embassy-attack

Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:

Quote :
.... officials later said the question would be officially settled only after the F.B.I. completed a criminal inquiry, which could take months.

I look forward to hearing the results of the FBI's inquiry.
Hopefully, they'll announce their findings soon - perhaps on November 7th?

I just don't get why anyone thinks that if this was a terrorist attack, then somehow that would be a "game changer" in the race for the Presidency. The whole idea is just frickin' absurd.

I don’t pretend to know whether it would be a game changer, but the administration certainly seemed to think so. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have needed to be dragged kicking and screaming two weeks later to finally take their collective feet out of their mouths and acknowledge that, yes, Virginia, maybe this involves a little bit more than a 14-minute movie trailer, as they had long been insisting.

Here's an excerpt of what the President actually said on 9/12...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/transcript-president-obama-remarks-following-deadly-attacks-at-us-consulate-in/#ixzz27jopS7SS

Quote :
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 for 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.

The truth is, that the President made a clear reference to terrorism in his first response to the attacks. Perhaps you should read the transcript of his remarks, because I'm pretty sure that you didn't watch them.


Apparently Romney didn't watch them either....
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3109

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 7:58 am

happy jack wrote:
Heretic wrote:
How Romney lost by swinging and missing on Libya

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/fact-check-did-obama-really-call-consulate-attack-in-libya-act-terror/

Fox is in full spin mode, as contractually obligated, especially with this line of bullshit:

Quote :
Obama, indicating he thought he had just gotten a boost from the moderator, then chimed in: "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?"
However, Obama didn't explicitly label the Benghazi strike terrorism in those Sept. 12 remarks. What he did say is: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

Another point ruined by Crowley that same morning:

Quote :
O'BRIEN: Let me ask you about Benghazi, because much is being made and that seems to be the topic that is rising out of all of this. We've played this clip a couple of times so I don't think we need to play it. But there was a point at the end where you were doing a fact check and you said, you confirmed that what the president had said "acts of terror" was, in fact, the case. And then you went on to say but in the main -- or essentially what Governor Romney had said about the two weeks of going back and forth, that he's sort of right on that point, but in terms of the quote, he called him out on the wrong thing.

So this morning, Paul Ryan who has been making the rounds on the morning shows, says, "Well, she's already backtracked." He's talking about you. "She's already backtracked from that statement, as you probably already know. She basically said she was wrong in that assertion, that Mitt Romney is right in what he said. Look, nobody believes that the Rose Garden speech that the president was suggesting that that particular attack was talking about an act of terror."

Are you backtracking of what you said in that fact check last night?

CROWLEY: Goodness, I hope they get back to one another. Listen, what I said on that stage is the same thing I said to you actually last night.

O'BRIEN: Yes, I was sitting next to you, so I know what you said.

CROWLEY: Which is that -- and when I was trying to do, by the way, I was trying to move this along. Because we were -- the question was Benghazi. There is no question that the administration is quite vulnerable on this topic, that they did take weeks to go well, actually, there really wasn't a protest and actually didn't have anything to do with the tape. That took a long time. That's where he was going. That was his first answer, that was Romney's.

And then we got hung up on this -- yes he said, no, I didn't. I said terror. You didn't say terror. And there was this point they both kind of looked at me, you know, Romney's looking at me, the president is locking at me, and I wanted to move this along. Can we get back to the -- so I said, he did say "acts of terror", called it an "act of terror", but Governor Romney, you were perfectly right that it took weeks for them to get past the tape and the --

O'BRIEN: Act of terror, people on one side applaud. And then you said, yes, it took two weeks, people on the other side applauded. So not a backtrack?

CROWLEY: No. I mean, the question was -- we got so stuck on that act of terror. Now, did the president say this was an act of terror? The president did not say.

O'BRIEN: "These acts of terror."

CROWLEY: "These acts of terror." But he was in the Rose Garden to talk about Benghazi. So I don't think that's a leap, sorry.

Not terribly surprising that the "Obama said 'you didn't build'" crowd still doesn't grasp the concept of context.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 10:25 am

Heretic wrote:

Not terribly surprising that the "Obama said 'you didn't build'" crowd still doesn't grasp the concept of context.

Why did we, for about two weeks, keep hearing from the administration that, "The video did it."?
Try putting that in context.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9378

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 10:53 am

happy jack wrote:
Heretic wrote:

Not terribly surprising that the "Obama said 'you didn't build'" crowd still doesn't grasp the concept of context.

Why did we, for about two weeks, keep hearing from the administration that, "The video did it."?
Try putting that in context.
I've got a better idea Idea How about you doing some research,dumbass,before inserting your foot in your mouth again....
Quote :
On September 12, the day after the attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Obama said in comments in the Rose Garden that he had learned about the attack on the consulate the night before.

"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," he said. "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.

On September 13, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice. He then added, "No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world,and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."

On September 19, Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the ambassador and three other Americans "were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy."
White House spokesman Jay Carney sought to clear up any confusion on September 20.

"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials."

Any opinion of your candidate Romney rushing to politicize it by immediately calling a press conference without knowing any of the facts?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 11:04 am

What I find very interesting are these FACTS:
After the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing which resulted in 241 Americans getting killed, when Saint Ronald Reagan was in charge, the democrats did not politicize the tragedy like the republicans are doing now.

After 9-11, when George W Bush was in charge, the democrats did not politicize the tragedy like the republicans are doing now.

I guess that's what happens when you have ODS.

Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9378

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 11:29 am

edge540 wrote:
What I find very interesting are these FACTS:
After the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing which resulted in 241 Americans getting killed, when Saint Ronald Reagan was in charge, the democrats did not politicize the tragedy like the republicans are doing now.

After 9-11, when George W Bush was in charge, the democrats did not politicize the tragedy like the republicans are doing now.

I guess that's what happens when you have ODS.
Apparently Romney has been itching to politicize a foreign crisis all along. It's posted Here
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 11:48 am

One day after the attack, in the Rose Garden speech, the first reference as to the cause of the attack was the video:


http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story/full-transcript-of-obama-s-rose-garden-speech-after-sept-11-benghazi-attack

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.


Later, only after bringing up the original 9/11/2001 attacks, was the word ‘terror’ used:


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.






Five days after the attack:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-ambassador-susan-rice/2012/10/15/c5a9fe04-16d9-11e2-8792-cf5305eddf60_story.html

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice at center of storm over comments on attack in Benghazi

A month after the assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, a fateful series of television appearances by Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, is haunting the Obama administration in the face of allegations that it deliberately attempted to play down suspicions of terrorist involvement.
Rice made the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows on Sept. 16, five days after the attack in the Libyan city, and in each one she said the fatal assault appeared to have stemmed from a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video.
………
The administration’s characterization only days after Rice’s TV appearances that the assault in Libya was a terrorist attack has raised questions about why she attributed the incident to a protest that officials now say did not take place. Republicans have pressed for answers on whether she simply went too far in her assessment or was reading from an administration script that was designed to protect President Obama’s record on national security in an election year.







Nine days after the attack:


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/10/17/flashback_jay_carney_i_havent_called_libya_a_terrorist_attack


Jay Carney "I Haven't" Called Libya a Terrorist Attack


During a press gaggle on board Air Force One on September 20, 2012, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters he hadn't referred to the attack in Benghazi on September 11 as a terrorist attack.
Q: Can you — have you called it a terrorist attack before? Have you said that?

MR. CARNEY: I haven’t, but – I mean, people attacked our embassy. It’s an act of terror by definition.

Q: Yes, I just hadn’t heard you –

MR. CARNEY: It doesn’t have to do with what date it occurred.

Q: No, I just hadn’t heard the White House say that this was an act of terrorism or a terrorist attack.

MR. CARNEY: I don’t think the fact that we hadn’t is not — as our NCTC Director testified yesterday, a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area. We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.



In other words - "hummina, hummina, hummina ...."


Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9378

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 2:05 pm

happy jack wrote:

In other words - "hummina, hummina, hummina ...."
Quote :
Any opinion of your candidate Romney rushing to politicize it by immediately calling a press conference without knowing any of the facts?
Any thoughts yet?
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3109

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 2:25 pm

happy jack wrote:
Why did we, for about two weeks, keep hearing from the administration that, "The video did it."?

Perhaps they were trying to avoid giving Romney the chance to dance on the corpses of our fellow Americans that gave their lives working overseas.

Or, more likely, intelligence is an extremely complicated issue, and very hard to accurately judge while the investigation is ongoing:

Quote :
One of the Republican talking points is criticism of Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice and other Obama administration officials for saying that the events on Sept. 11 began with a demonstration outside the consulate against the hate film “The Innocence of the Muslims.”

But the fact is that the Libyan Arabic press initially reported that there was such a demonstration, and Libyan officials in Benghazi said so, as well, and I conveyed these assertions here.

The indications that this was a revenge attack for the killing of al-Qaeda number 3, Abu Yahya Libi, were a) that a rocket propelled grenade was deployed against the consulate, which goes rather beyond typical mob violence; and that b) the safe house to which dozens of consular personnel were moved by Libyan special forces itself came under mortar attack. This latter fact was reported later in the week by Libyan journalist Hadeel Al-Shalchi.

But it is natural that there should have been a fog of war around the attack. The one who would normally have been reporting back to the State Department about the details– Ambassador Chris Stevens– died from smoke inhalation.

Outing the CIA live on TV probably didn't help speed things up, either. But hey... who gives a fuck about that, right? There's political points to be scored!

Things don't seem to be any clearer today:

Quote :
1) The relationship between the anti-”Innocence of Muslims” protests and the attack is still unclear. There were protests against the video that night in Benghazi. There are reports that some people at the protests were also seen at the attack, though it’s difficult to assess credibility. The video cameras at the consulate didn’t record any protest activity at the consulate site itself, and what they did record looked like a direct and determined attack, but it’s not clear how close the demonstrations got, or whether there might have been overlap. Point being that the administration didn’t lie about the attacks–it genuinely wasn’t sure what happened, because no one was.

2) Whether or not someone called the attack “terrorism” is completely irrelevant. No one here [in Libya] cares what politicians in the US call it.

3) The US can’t just step in and “take out” the perpetrators, because no one’s really sure who actually did it. Ansar al-Sharia is the most commonly cited culprit, but their response afterward raised some questions, and there has been some speculation that even if some members participated, the leadership was caught off guard by the whole thing. Accusations by various Libyan authorities against them probably have at least some solid basis, but also deserve a certain amount of skepticism for a number of reasons. The Abu Salim Martyrs Brigade might have been involved, and there’s been speculation about Abu Bakr al-Qayed or other former LIFG members, but there’s no actual evidence that I’ve heard of.

4) Evidence of Al Qaeda involvement is very very slim. Most of the Libyan salafists have their own agenda, and seem to keep their distance from Al Qaeda; Libyans in general see Al Qaeda as untrustworthy foreigners. Everyone points out that Abu Bakr al-Qayed’s brother was in the Al Qaeda leadership, and was killed by a US drone attack; no one’s presented any actual evidence against him though. Even if there was a revenge element to the attack, I would guess that it’s more of a personal/family thing than an organizational one.

5) There was no request for increased security at the Benghazi consulate. There was a request for the embassy in Tripoli, but that would have had no impact at all on the attack; Tripoli and Benghazi are 400 miles apart as the crow flies, and 650 or so by road. Also, requests for additional security at an embassy or consulate are not the sort of thing that goes across POTUS’ desk, or even all that high up in the State Dept. in most cases.

I know it's hard... but life really is more complicated than a Walker, Texas Ranger episode.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 2:41 pm

Cordell Walker and Jack Bauer make life very simple and uncomplicated for conservatives.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 3:20 pm

Heretic wrote:
.... intelligence is an extremely complicated issue, and very hard to accurately judge while the investigation is ongoing ....

Agreed.
So why spend two weeks blaming the video?
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9378

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 3:28 pm

happy jack wrote:
Heretic wrote:
.... intelligence is an extremely complicated issue, and very hard to accurately judge while the investigation is ongoing ....
[b]Agreed.
So why spend two weeks blaming the video?
Why spend 5 weeks trying to politicize it?
Quote :
Quote:
Any opinion of your candidate Romney rushing to politicize it by immediately calling a press conference without knowing any of the facts?
Having trouble finding a viable excuse?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 3:33 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Heretic wrote:
.... intelligence is an extremely complicated issue, and very hard to accurately judge while the investigation is ongoing ....
[b]Agreed.
So why spend two weeks blaming the video?
Why spend 5 weeks trying to politicize it?
Quote :
Quote:
Any opinion of your candidate Romney rushing to politicize it by immediately calling a press conference without knowing any of the facts?
Having trouble finding a viable excuse?



Romney was not the one who politicized it. It became a political issue the moment the administration began self-servingly mischaracterizing it, which was immediately after it occurred.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 4:33 pm

Romney was "not the one who politicized it?" Seriously?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-statements.html

Quote :
Tuesday, about 6 a.m., before the attack in Benghazi (all times Eastern)

Statement From the U.S. Embassy in Cairo

The embassy released this statement, apparently referring to a provocative anti-Islam video, in an effort to cool tensions in the area. The statement came before protests on the American embassy in Cairo and the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.


The attack in Benghazi occurred in the evening on Tuesday, Libya time — about midafternoon on the East Coast in the United States.

Tuesday, about 6:30 p.m.
In Twitter Message, U.S. Embassy Stands by Statement

The American embassy in Cairo sends a message on Twitter that it "still stands" by their initial statement. The message was later deleted.
This morning's condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy

Tuesday, 10:08 p.m.
Clinton Confirms Death of One American in Libya

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton initially announced that one American had been killed in the attack in Libya.

I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.

This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation.

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

In light of the events of today, the United States government is working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide.

Tuesday, 10:10 p.m.
Politico Reports Obama Administration Disavows Embassy Statement

Politico cites an "administration official", who said:
The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government.

Romney Criticizes Administration's Response

Romney's comment, apparently referring to the embassy statement, was sent to The New York Times about 10:10 p.m., originally embargoed until midnight. The embargo was lifted at 10:24 p.m.

I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.


Obama Spokesman Responds to Romney's Statement

Statement from Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, in an email to reporters.
We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya,Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.


And that's exactly what it was... an unseemly political attack by Romney as a national tragedy was unfolding...

Talk about "self-serving!"
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 4:40 pm

Scorpion wrote:
Tuesday, 10:10 p.m.
Politico Reports Obama Administration Disavows Embassy Statement

Politico cites an "administration official", who said:
The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/does-obama-really-want-the-buck-to-stop-here.php

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, here’s what I know, we were just talking about responsibility and as president of the United States, it’s pretty clear to me that I’m responsible for folks who are working in the federal government and you know, Harry Truman said the buck stops with you.

The whereabouts of the buck seem to change daily.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 5:03 pm

Big fucking deal. While it's certainly true that the President is ultimately responsible, I can assure you that he doesn't get involved in personal "tweets" from embassy personnel and can't go around policing every statement in real-time that comes from anonymous members of his administration.

Face the facts, jack... Romney took a cheap, totally uncalled for shot at the President because in Mitt's twisted mind, he thought that he could gain some kind of political advantage by doing so... In other words, he fucked up, and Romney is the one who has yet to take any responsibility for his own statements.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 5:12 pm

Scorpion wrote:

Statement from Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, in an email to reporters.
We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya,Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.[/b]



If by "confronting" he meant "lying about" ....
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 5:20 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:

Statement from Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, in an email to reporters.
We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya,Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.




If by "confronting" he meant "lying about" ....

Lying?

On the day of the deaths?

Man, that's just an asinine statement.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9378

PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   10/18/2012, 9:21 pm

Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: POTUS Debate #2   

Back to top Go down
 
POTUS Debate #2
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: