2nd Debate Discussion

[carlfense]

The use of "we have reports today that the white house,..." The word today implies that this is the first time the White House called the attacks terrorist attacks.

The thing is . . . you don't need to imply anything. You can look at the record. The president referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror on September 12. No implication from the media will change history.

 

How is it possible that if the President said these acts were the result of terrorists on the 12th, news agencies only began to ask information regarding what terrorist groups are involved on the 20th? Wouldn't that be a logical question to ask immediately after the September 12th briefing? The word terrorism is broad, but I believe the questions reporters asked on the 20th demonstrate that the general public was not aware that these were premediated acts, planned and executed by Al-Qaeda- a known terrorist group

You'd have to ask the media. The record as to President Obama's statement on September 12 is clear.

[zoogs]

That's digging pretty deep, krc.

 

Also, apparently some of us are still not aware that this was "planned and executed by Al-Qaeda - a known terrorist group". I haven't been following this that closely. So I don't know. It seems like knapplc was just talking about earlier how we don't know who did it. I recall President Obama talking during the debate about finding out who the people responsible were.

[Ziggy]

I am BACCCCKKKK. Notice the phrase, Acts of terror in the speech on the 12th. break it down into 2 parts "acts" and "of terror". Acts- plural for the for act. act is short for action, and when you pluralize action you get actions. So acts = actions, meaning more than one. The acts of terror is multiple terrorist actions. Multiple actions are not specific on one action.

[carlfense]

I am BACCCCKKKK. Notice the phrase, Acts of terror in the speech on the 12th. break it down into 2 parts "acts" and "of terror". Acts- plural for the for act. act is short for action, and when you pluralize action you get actions. So acts = actions, meaning more than one. The acts of terror is multiple terrorist actions. Multiple actions are not specific on one action.

Obama didn't say what he said.

[carlfense]

[carlfense]

Partisanship can be helpful in the search for accountability. But conservatives have been so eager to exploit the incident in Libya for political advantage that they've focused on inconsequential details like what the president said when. The facts surrounding the Benghazi attack are damning enough on their own. But thanks to their penchant for cherry-picking information, the GOP left their presidential nominee on stage with his mouth agape, struggling to understand how something he knew for a fact wasn't a fact at all.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/why-romney-screwed-libya

 

Mother Jones . . . so take it with a giant grain of salt. It does offer an interesting theory about why Romney bungled this so badly.

[knapplc]

 

I'm not a Romney guy, but that is just awkward to watch. I felt bad for him at that moment, and I feel bad watching it again. Getting a very public comeuppance like that is bad.

[zoogs]

Gosh, would everyone feel better if Obama had said "Acts of terror, such as this one"? Can't believe how much attention that is getting. I would've thought the implication there was crystal clear.

 

...although I suppose it's completely reasonable to suppose that Obama really meant, "We will not tolerate acts of terror. On a completely unrelated note, let us now mourn the loss...oh yeah, did I mention, that previous thing about the acts of terror, totally an aside."

[carlfense]

Gosh, would everyone feel better if Obama had said "Acts of terror, such as this one"? I would've thought the implication there was crystal clear. Can't believe how much attention that is getting.

You don't even need to go as far as looking at implication. The plain language is sufficient.

[carlfense]

 

I'm not a Romney guy, but that is just awkward to watch. I felt bad for him at that moment, and I feel bad watching it again. Getting a very public comeuppance like that is bad.

Yeah . . . it's a bit painful to watch a skilled politician make such an obvious mistake . . . and intentionally draw even more attention to it.

 

Schadenfreude.

[knapplc]

Can't believe how much attention that is getting.

 

Election years. So it goes.

[huskerXman]

Still spinning I see. Wow, the ignorant bias is beyond funny and has passed to just plain sad.

[carlfense]

...although I suppose it's completely reasonable to suppose that Obama really meant, "We will not tolerate acts of terror. On a completely unrelated note, let us now mourn the loss...oh yeah, did I mention, that previous thing about the acts of terror, totally an aside."

In the very same paragraph.

[knapplc]

Wow, the ignorant bias is beyond funny and has passed to just plain sad.

[huskerXman]

Gosh, would everyone feel better if Obama had said "Acts of terror, such as this one"? Can't believe how much attention that is getting. I would've thought the implication there was crystal clear.

 

...although I suppose it's completely reasonable to suppose that Obama really meant, "We will not tolerate acts of terror. On a completely unrelated note, let us now mourn the loss...oh yeah, did I mention, that previous thing about the acts of terror, totally an aside."

 

Like I said from the beginning, that very well might be what he meant, but it isn't what he said, so according to the actual words Obama used Mitt was right.