2nd Debate Discussion

[Ziggy]

Romney should have read Huskerboard and learned from Ziggy's mistake.

 

When did Obama call it an act of terror?

President Obama the day after the attack:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

http://www.whitehous...ssy-staff-libya

 

http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1036832

 

 

Saying "act of terror" does not mean he called the event an act of terror. He went on for around 2 weeks talking about a video and riots that got out of control. And when specifically asked if it was an act of terror he and his administration continued to either say the investigation was on going or the video and riot plot. Candy Crowley admitted Romney was right on CNN on the after debate show.

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

Watched most of the debate, also watched the VP debate last week, which was a mess as well. I don't believe any of these people, but they are politicians so that makes sense. At this point I'm voting for Obama................I'll explain it this way.

 

It's no so much I'm voting for Obama as it is I'm not voting for Romney..............if you get what I'm saying.

 

I'd run for president, but I don't know much about some of the stuff they talk about. All I know if it isn't good for the American people then it isn't worth it.

This is precisely why I have never voted and have no intention of ever doing so. There hasn't been one Dick-idential Candidate worth my taking time out of my schedule to put a check mark next to someones name.

[knapplc]

From the Fact Checkers:

 

 

Fact-Check: Libya Attack Called Act of Terror

 

Once Mr. Obama said “Please proceed,” it was probably not a good idea for Mr. Romney to proceed.

 

The issue was Libya, and Mr. Romney took Mr. Obama to task for saying that he had initially called the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi an “act of terror.”

 

“Please proceed,” Mr. Obama said, smirking.

 

Mr. Romney, apparently not aware that he was walking into a trap, plowed ahead.

 

“Is that what you’re saying?” he asked, pressing his point.

 

Mr. Obama smirked again. “Please proceed, Governor.”

 

Mr. Romney kept on, until the moderator, Ms. Crowley, intervened. “He did, in fact, sir.”

 

And so he did. The day after the attack in Libya, Mr. Obama, in the Rose Garden, 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.”

 

He didn’t say it again in the weeks after, which is why Mr. Romney made his accusation. But it is incorrect to say that Mr. Obama did not initially call the attack an “act of terror.”

[Ziggy]

Once again saying the phrase act of terror is not the same as saying that the Libyan attack was a terrorist attack. If he and his administration believed it was a terror attack then he (and his administration) would not have continued to say it was a spontaneous reaction to a anti Muslim video.

[knapplc]

Would saying it was a terrorist attack make the Ambassador come back to life?

[Ziggy]

No....moving on to adult conversations. The Administration took far too long to tell the American people what happened at the consulate. Supposedly the State department had a live feed of the attack, the leader of Libya called it a terrorist attack the following day, and most information after the attack pointed to a preplanned attack by terrorists.

[Nebula]

Why is this relevant?

 

If you call federal funds "pork barrel," does it cease to be currency? I don't get the semantics argument here.

 

(Really...not being snarky or critical or anything. I just don't understand the relevance.)

[knapplc]

No....moving on to adult conversations. The Administration took far too long to tell the American people what happened at the consulate. Supposedly the State department had a live feed of the attack, the leader of Libya called it a terrorist attack the following day, and most information after the attack pointed to a preplanned attack by terrorists.

 

And...?

[knapplc]

The facts: 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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

 

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 25, on ABC's "The View," interviewer Joy Behar asked Obama about a remark made by his secretary of state. "I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?"

 

To that, Obama responded, "We're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. We don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world there's still a lot of threats out there." Obama added that "extremist militias" were suspected to have been involved.

LINK

 

 

Let's say Obama says from day one that it was a terrorist attack, and says that for the next two weeks.

 

 

What problem does that solve? I don't understand why this is such a huge talking point for the Republicans. The Ambassador is still dead. Does describing his death in a specific way do anything to bring him back, or undo the attack?

 

 

What is it about Conservatives that they have to make this a political football? What political points are you earning here?

[Ziggy]

Why is what relevant? Because knowing what really happened is important to American citizens. Terrorist attack and spontaneous reaction to a anti Muslim video are not semantics. The attack was preplanned out, there was no riot, none of what was being told to us was correct. I would have preferred the president and his people to say that the attack is still under investigation, and we plan to capture the people who precipitated this attack on Americans and on American Soil and hold them accountable. Heinous attacks regardless of motivation will never be tolerated or allowed to go unpunished.

[knapplc]

Meanwhile, that very night, Romney plants his foot firmly in his mouth:

On Tuesday night, as more information about protests in Cairo and the deaths in Libya was released, Mr. Romney’s campaign called the Obama administration’s response to them “disgraceful.”

 

 

 

“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,” Mr. Romney said in a statement. “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.”

 

Mr. Romney was making an apparent reference to a statement released by the American Embassy in Cairo condemning the trailer for the video, made by an Israeli-American. The statement, which rejects “efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims,” was released before the protests started in an effort to cool tensions.

 

Mr. Romney’s statement, sent to reporters late Tuesday evening, was originally meant to be embargoed until midnight, but the campaign lifted the prohibition just before 10:30 p.m.

 

LINK

 

 

Romney then goes on to cram his other foot in his mouth with his idiocy last night, demanding that Obama go "on the record" in an exchange so filled with buffoonery that the moderator herself had to tell Romney he was wrong - while the president sat back laughing at Romneyshambles in action.

 

 

And yet, today, the Republican diehards are crying here that the right phrasing wasn't used immediately. That's fantastic hindsight, folks, but using a phrase that may or may not have been correct pales in comparison to the gaffes your candidate made - and continues to make, as recently as 12 hours ago.

[knapplc]

Why is what relevant? Because knowing what really happened is important to American citizens. Terrorist attack and spontaneous reaction to a anti Muslim video are not semantics. The attack was preplanned out, there was no riot, none of what was being told to us was correct. I would have preferred the president and his people to say that the attack is still under investigation, and we plan to capture the people who precipitated this attack on Americans and on American Soil and hold them accountable. Heinous attacks regardless of motivation will never be tolerated or allowed to go unpunished.

 

Errr.....? He did. Several times. And the Republicans bitched that it was still under investigation.

 

So Obama, within 24 hours after the attack, calls it a terror attack. He proceeds to say that the investigation is still ongoing, but has maintained throughout that we're going to get the people responsible. He has a rather good track record of doing that, BTW.

[carlfense]

...aren't we trying to get away from this type of politics?

They type of politics that knows the facts? Romney seems to have a bit of a problem with that.

 

Again, I don't know whether he is lying or whether he actually believes his own propaganda . . . but it's disturbing either way.

[BigRedBuster]

I wasn't able to watch the debate because my daughter had a volleyball game in Hastings. I much more enjoyed that. However, on the way home, I was able to listen to maybe the last 30 minutes which included the part that is being discussed here on the attacks.

 

Romney stumbled on this issue and it wasn't his best effort. Reading the complete transcript of the speech in the rose garden it really is unclear if he is specifically talking about this attack as an act of terror. It is a fact that for two weeks after this, the administration refused to call it a terror attack. So, in my mind, neither of them scored any points on this issue.

 

All that said, I just about drove off the road when the moderator actually fact checked on the fly in the middle of the debate. That was completely out of line and unprofessional. I have never in my life heard a moderator flat out correct a candidate in the middle of a debate. That isn't her place. I believe once she said it she understood her mistake and tried to fix it by agreeing with Romney about the two weeks after issue.

 

Listening to her after the debate on CNN, it felt like she knew she screwed up.

[carlfense]

Saying "act of terror" does not mean he called the event an act of terror.

 

Calling an event an act of terror in a speech about that event doesn't mean that he called the event an "act of terror."

 

Do you people even listen to yourselves? Is this representative of what the present GOP is? Simply unbelievable.