2nd Debate Discussion

[Ziggy]

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?

 

You just proved my point, 2 weeks after the attack when Hillary Clinton called it an act of terror, he was unwilling to call it what it was. How can you say that he was talking about Libya with his " No act of terror" and then two weeks goes by and he is offered a softball to hit and he shrugs his shoulders and wont commit to it being an act of terror. I am not trying to make political points, i expect the truth from my government regardless of party affiliation. If on Sept 11, 12 or 16th we don't know if it was preplanned or spontaneous fine, but don't feed me bull s*** about some video that had nothing to do with the attack. Why is it so hard to say we don't know enough information to make a determination.

[knapplc]

It is a fact that for two weeks after this, the administration refused to call it a terror attack.

No, it's not:

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

 

It's too bad you missed the debate, BRB, because Obama verbally bitch-slapped Romney during this exchange. He allowed Romney to blunder into this mess, encouraged him to proceed, and Romney did. Foolishly. Later, Obama chewed him out on national television while Romney sat on his stool like a fool, pissed that Romney once again is trying to use the murder of an ambassador that Obama is responsible for as a political football.

 

You'd have loved it.

[carlfense]

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

And there's the question that shows definitively that this is pure politics. 4 Americans are dead . . . and the GOP wants to focus on "obfuscation" and "inconsistent messaging."

 

Romney's shown his true colors (again). When your first response (within the same day!) to the killing of American's is to try to score political points against your opponent you are not fit for office. This is the party who endlessly trumpets their patriotism?

[knapplc]

You just proved my point, 2 weeks after the attack when Hillary Clinton called it an act of terror, he was unwilling to call it what it was. How can you say that he was talking about Libya with his " No act of terror" and then two weeks goes by and he is offered a softball to hit and he shrugs his shoulders and wont commit to it being an act of terror. I am not trying to make political points, i expect the truth from my government regardless of party affiliation. If on Sept 11, 12 or 16th we don't know if it was preplanned or spontaneous fine, but don't feed me bull s*** about some video that had nothing to do with the attack. Why is it so hard to say we don't know enough information to make a determination.

 

You have no point. It's irrelevant what it's defined as, that's the takeaway here. No matter what you want to label it, the Ambassador is still dead, and the political shenanigans Romney engaged in within hours of his death were unconscionable.

 

Continue to let the Republicans confuse you with who called what what, and when. It matters. It really, really matters.

[Ziggy]

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.

 

Do you know how to read, I mean really use some reasoning. If the president called it an act of terror, why 2 weeks later was he unwilling to call it the same.

[VectorVictor]

 

[Junior]

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.

 

It isn't her place to make sure the candidates bring a hint of honesty to the debate? What IS the role of moderator in your purview?

[knapplc]

Do you know how to read, I mean really use some reasoning. If the president called it an act of terror, why 2 weeks later was he unwilling to call it the same.

 

Who fired the bullets? Who killed the Ambassador? Which terrorist group has taken responsibility for this?

[Ziggy]

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.

 

It isn't her place to make sure the candidates bring a hint of honesty to the debate? What IS the role of moderator in your purview?

 

No actually her job is to ask questions, keep candidates on topic, keep them within time, and make sure they follow the debate structure. I had little problem with her until the on the fly interruption of Romney. Really that is my only complaint about her last night. I thought she did very well considering the structure of the debate. I would prefer to let the candidates fight it out more, give more time to each to talk about important issues. But considering all I thought she was the best so far.

[carlfense]

How can you say that he was talking about Libya with his " No act of terror" . . .

Well . . . given that the whole speech was about the Libya attacks . . . and the immediate words after the "No acts of terror . . ." sentence were "[t]oday we mourn four more Americans . . ."

 

How can you not say that he was not talking about Libya? Oh, right. Because it conforms with your political beliefs.

[carlfense]

It is a fact that for two weeks after this, the administration refused to call it a terror attack.

You mean two weeks after calling it an act of terror?

[Junior]

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.

 

It isn't her place to make sure the candidates bring a hint of honesty to the debate? What IS the role of moderator in your purview?

 

No actually her job is to ask questions, keep candidates on topic, keep them within time, and make sure they follow the debate structure. I had little problem with her until the on the fly interruption of Romney. Really that is my only complaint about her last night. I thought she did very well considering the structure of the debate. I would prefer to let the candidates fight it out more, give more time to each to talk about important issues. But considering all I thought she was the best so far.

 

I wouldn't consider what she did "fact checking" anyway. Obama said it was an act of terror. That is out there, it is FACT. This isn't something that can be argued. Romney tried and failed. I actually appreciate a moderator that brings some sanity to the proceedings.

 

As an aside, I wonder if the people who thought Biden was rude last week think the same for Romney this week, or if (once again) it is all party based?

[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.

 

Do you know how to read, I mean really use some reasoning. If the president called it an act of terror, why 2 weeks later was he unwilling to call it the same.

No . . . please continue saying that when Obama called it an act of terror that he didn't call it an act of terror.

 

It's really quite convincing.

[carlfense]

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.

Quite simply, you're wrong. This is exactly what we need from journalists. Lies need to be called out as lies. Immediately, if possible.

 

That is exactly her place.

[carlfense]

I had little problem with her until the on the fly interruption of Romney.

If you're a Romney supporter you should be quite grateful that Ms. Crowley interrupted Romney. Personally, I wish that she would have let him dig a little deeper before pointing out that he didn't know the facts.

 

That's what Obama did. Never interrupt your opponent when they're digging. Ever.