Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Opinion: Romney has opening on Libya

October 19, 2012

Advertisement

— Fight night at Hofstra. The two boxers, confined within a ring of spectators — circling, feinting, taunting, staring each other down — come several times, by my reckoning, no more than one provocation away from actual fisticuffs, of the kind that on occasion so delightfully break out in the Taiwanese parliament. Think of it: The Secret Service storming the ring, pinning Mitt Romney to the canvas as Candy Crowley administers the 10 count.

The actual outcome was somewhat more pedestrian. President Obama gained a narrow victory on points, as borne out by several flash polls. The margin was small, paling in comparison to Romney’s 52-point victory in the first debate.

At Hofstra, Obama emerged from his previous coma to score enough jabs to outweigh Romney’s haymaker, his dazzling takedown of the Obama record when answering a disappointed 2008 Obama voter.

That one answer might account for the fact that in two early flash polls, Romney beat Obama on the economy by 18 points in one poll, 31 in the other. That being the overriding issue, the debate is likely to have minimal effect on the dynamics of the race.

The one thing Obama’s performance did do is re-energize his demoralized base — the media, in particular. But at a price.

The rub for Obama comes, ironically enough, out of Romney’s biggest flub in the debate, the Libya question. That flub kept Romney from winning the evening outright. But Obama’s answer has left him a hostage to fortune. Missed by Romney, missed by the audience, missed by most of the commentariat, it was the biggest gaffe of the entire debate cycle: Substituting unctuousness for argument, Obama declared himself offended by the suggestion that anyone in his administration, including the U.N. ambassador, would “mislead” the country on Libya.

This bluster — unchallenged by Romney — helped Obama slither out of the Libya question unscathed. Unfortunately for Obama, there is one more debate — next week, entirely on foreign policy. The burning issue will be Libya and the scandalous parade of fictions told by this administration to explain away the debacle.

No one misled? His U.N. ambassador went on not one but five morning shows to spin a confection that the sacking of the consulate and the murder of four Americans came from a video-motivated demonstration turned ugly: “People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons.”

But there was no gathering. There were no people. There was no fray. It was totally quiet outside the facility until terrorists stormed the compound and killed our ambassador and three others.

The video? A complete irrelevance. It was a coordinated, sophisticated terror attack, encouraged, if anything, by Osama bin Laden’s successor, giving orders from Pakistan to avenge the death of a Libyan jihadist.

Not wishing to admit that we had just been attacked by al-Qaida affiliates, perhaps answering to the successor of a man on whose grave Obama and the Democrats have been dancing for months, the administration relentlessly advanced the mob/video tale to distract from the truth.

And it wasn’t just his minions who misled the nation. A week after the attack, the president himself, asked by David Letterman about the ambassador’s murder, said it started with a video. False again.

Romney will be ready Monday.

You are offended by this accusation, Mr. President? The country is offended that your press secretary, your U.N. ambassador and you yourself have repeatedly misled the nation about the origin and nature of the Benghazi attack.

The problem wasn’t the video, the problem was policies for which you say you now accept responsibility. Then accept it, Mr. President. You were asked in the last debate why more security was denied our people in Libya despite the fact that they begged for it. You never answered that question, Mr. President. Or will you blame your Secretary of State?

Esprit d’escalier (“wit of the staircase”) is the French term for the devastating riposte that one should have given at dinner, but comes up with only on the way out at the bottom of the staircase. It’s Romney’s fortune that he’s invited to one more dinner. If he gets it right this time, Obama’s narrow victory in debate No. 2, salvaged by the mock umbrage that anyone could accuse him of misleading, will cost him dearly.

It was a huge gaffe. It is indelibly on the record. It will prove a very expensive expedient.

— Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.

Comments

Richard Heckler 2 years, 2 months ago

Romney has no need to know about Libya due the violent and extreme nature of the event. Romney further demanding comments on this delicate situation could ignite the situation thus more deaths.

Romney was not in Libya. Obama was not in Libya. How can either of them know for sure exactly what happened.

Romney likely has not the security clearance to demand the facts. Obama does have the security clearance to demand the facts however it might be best to allow the situation to chill before other violence erupts again.

Having a discussion of such violence during a political debate seems quite risky for the USA and our military people. Mitt Romney and Charles K ...... drop the matter.

Flap Doodle 2 years, 2 months ago

I would suggest that this is off-topic. Push that disappeareded button, Alex.

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

Your whine is off-topic as well -- as is my recognition of your whine.

MarcoPogo 2 years, 2 months ago

The Halloween Oreo cookies with the orange filling taste better than the plain versions.

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

I'm going to suggest they remove your comment, because Oreo cookies are gross no matter their color.

MarcoPogo 2 years, 2 months ago

I'm going to suggest they remove your comment because I once knew a girl named Beatrice that pooped her pants during church.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

Not only are the comments off topic, I suspect they are so long that even the forum moderator skips right past them, not even able to come to the conclusion that they are off topic. If the LJW were really interested in deleting off topic posts, they would have to hire one forum moderator for Merrill and another for everyone else.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

Now that the off topic comments have been removed, might I suggest the forum moderator contact Merrill privately and ask that he cease what amounts to robocalling or spamming. Or as has been suggested on another thread, Merrill simply be given the opportunity to write his own reader blog.

Richard Heckler 2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Flap Doodle 2 years, 2 months ago

The current regime's response to the terrorist attack at Benghazi has not been optimal.

Flap Doodle 2 years, 2 months ago

The column is about Libya. Benghazi is in Libya, isn't it?

deec 2 years, 2 months ago

It's kind of funny how when one sort guy is president, an attack is used as an excuse to keep the president in office, but when another sort of guy is president, it's an excuse to throw him out.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

Romney can't run on his true agenda were he to be elected (he'd lose by a landslide if he did,) so Republican toadies like Krauthammer are desperately politicizing the death of the US Ambassador as a distraction.

Despicable.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

The deaths of the Americans in Libya is a tragedy, not a political punching bag for low-lifes trying to prop up the combination of vacuousness and dishonesty Romney is masquerading as his campaign.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

Your celebrations of idiotic cluelessness don't beat anything.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

See my response to Constitutional_Malfeasance above-- it applies equally to you.

Corey Williams 2 years, 2 months ago

You mean when he said, "...it was not the optimal response..."? Way to take it out of context.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

A few weeks ago, Bozo, you spent a great deal of time and effort to show that Bush was asleep at the wheel when he allowed 9/11 to happen. You gave link after link, showing he was more interested in getting through his tax cuts and was not paying attention to reports that an attack might happen. Now we're hearing that there were reports of something about to happen in Libya. Why not hold Obama to that same standard? Is it because Bush was trying to get tax cuts that you oppose, but Obama's distraction was his own re-election, which I assume you support?

Actually, I don't hold Obama responsible. Nor do I hold Bush responsible. Sometimes, despite your best efforts, not everything can been known ahead of time. We all have 20/20 hindsight, but few of us have crystal balls. But what I don't understand is your double standard, coming from a person who has repeatedly condemned double standards.

jafs 2 years, 2 months ago

In the analysis, it should also be included that R in Congress decreased spending on embassy security.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

We can nit pick this to death. The attack didn't happen in the embassy in Tripoli, it having been damaged during the civil war. The point is that intel is received daily that suggests this "might" happen or that "might" happen. Then it doesn't. Hundreds, thousands of times. Then something does happen and everyone is up in arms because no one was listening to the intel. That's when all the experts who have 20/20 hindsight come out of the woodwork and say "I told you so".

What happened in Benghazi was terrible. But blaming Obama is wrong. What happened on 9/11 was beyond terrible. But blaming Bush would be equally wrong. Bozo played the blame game with one and not the other. That's wrong.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

I didn't "blame" Bush. I merely pointed out (quite accurately) that he was obsessed with other agendas. And in the aftermath of the attacks, he and his administration very purposefully used the attacks to further those agendas.

I see no indication whatsoever that Obama is using this incident in Libya to further any wholly unrelated agendas.

And, yet again, you attempt to create some mythical magical middle ground to inhabit.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

Every administration is obsessed, or not, with what they are doing. It's called being President. Obama's recent obsession is being re-elected. That, too, is part of being President and I don't begrudge him that.

That magical middle ground is looking at the facts without inserting my own prejudices. Give it a try. You might like it.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

There is a huge difference between the two events.

Bush had tremendous resources at his disposal to prevent attacks INSIDE this country.

Embassies anywhere in the world are only as secure as the security provided by the host government. Libya barely has a central government, and it's still largely controlled by various militias, many of whom are downright hostile to the government, such as it is.

So, we can argue about whether we should even have an ambassador in LIbya, or whether it was wise of the ambassador to have gone to the insecure consulate in Benghazi, the fact is that Libya is a dangerous place, and there is no way that the US government could provide the security that's necessary to protect anyone there who's not holed up in a heavily guarded bunker somewhere- something the ambassador clearly had no intentions of doing.

But the real issue here is whether this one tragic incident should punch Mitt Romney's ticket into the White House. Given his unwillingness to clarify exactly what his agenda and policies would be, combined with the sickening politicization of this event that he and toadies like Krauthammer are engaged in, the answer is a resounding "no!!"

Corey Williams 2 years, 2 months ago

I didn't realize that Obama personally denied the security request. And he said "...it was not the optimal response..." Keep toeing the line, spouting what you hear and what you want to believe.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

"They've throw anything and everything at Romney and spent millions doing it,"

Give us a few examples of what you're referring to.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

1-- The claim didn't come from the Obama campaign, but rather a super-pac that supports him. At any rate, the claim was actually from a man who lost his job, and his health insurance, because of Romney. Blaming Romney for his wife's death is certainly a stretch, but I certainly don't blame him for being bitter towards Romney.

2-- It wasn't an accusation. It was pointing out that Romney's failure to report accurately his connections with Bain Capital to the SEC very well could be a felony. And, in fact, that is the case, although it's unlikely that charges will ever be filed.

3-- That depends on how you define "evader." I don't think there is any doubt that Romney has gone to great lengths to avoid paying taxes, even if the methods of avoidance take advantage of the many loopholes only available to wealthy folks like him.

At any rate, this is all stuff that happens when you run for president, and it pales in comparison with the Birther/marxist crap that folks like you throw at Obama.

Corey Williams 2 years, 2 months ago

234 posts in less than thirty days? Pot meet kettle

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

I merely characterized the quality of your comments. I suspect your real complaint is that I've been quite accurate in doing so.

Kathy Getto 2 years, 2 months ago

Can't stand the heat? You know what they say.......

Liberty275 2 years, 2 months ago

Romney needs to spend some time memorizing Susan Rice's spiel and recite it first thing during the debate. The administration lied about the Libya debacle, and that needs to be hammered home.

Obama should push that he has been effective at killing alquaida leaders with drones and well targeted missions. Maybe he should bring a list of their names though he should not mention the American he had assassinated.

I want to hear how they stand on Israel, Iran, Syria and north korea as those are all wars waiting to happen. Both need to address the creeping socialism to the south, and lay out plans to not do any business with them, and trade with any country that allies with them only if there is no choice.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

" Both need to address the creeping socialism to the south, and lay out plans to not do any business with them, and trade with any country that allies with them only if there is no choice."

So, you think we should place an embargo on these countries because they have the temerity to freely elect governments that you don't like.

So much for "liberty."

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

Yet you have frequently called for tariffs on countries that pay their workers rates comparable to the cost of living in those places.

Liberty wants to deny liberty for one reason and you for another, very closely related reason. So much for "liberty" from you both.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

There is no comparison between voters freely electing the government of their choice and the extreme exploitation of workers who have little or no control over their wages and working conditions. To suggest that working in a sweatshop for little pay and in dangerous conditions so that people like MItt Romney can rake in millions is a matter of "liberty" is idiotic.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

The principle is should we in the U.S. be exerting our influence to influence policies in other countries. If we can, then you and Liberty are aligned, you just disagree on the specifics.

Liberty275 2 years, 2 months ago

No country should be forced to deal with America and America should be free to deal with who we choose. That is pure liberty.

Bozo doesn't care about liberty, he cares about a leftist ideology which is evil in the way it dehumanizes and tramples the individual.

Liberty275 2 years, 2 months ago

"So, you think we should place an embargo on these countries because they have the temerity to freely elect governments that you don't like."

To the extent we can. We shouldn't cut off our own nose to spite our face, but we should do everything possible to fight socialist ideology in our hemisphere. This terror garbage is a speed bump, socialism is the real enemy.

I'm not sure why you mention liberty. Socialism and liberty cannot coexist.

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

More fitting headline --

Opinion: Romney believes he can capitalize on the deaths of Americans.

Flap Doodle 2 years, 2 months ago

More fitting headline: Current Regime believes it can win an election standing on OBL's corpse and ignoring terrorist acts that killed Americans at home and abroad.

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

I know it is difficult but Republican voters need to wake and pull their head out of the sand.

"Romney wants to be President to fulfill a cult prophecy. When Mitt Romney received his patriarchal blessing as a Michigan teenager, he was told that the Lord expected great things from him. All young Mormon men — the “worthy males” of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as it is officially known — receive such a blessing as they embark on their requisite journeys as religious missionaries. But at 19 years of age, the youngest son of the most prominent Mormon in American politics — a seventh-generation direct descendant of one of the faith’s founding 12 apostles—Mitt Romney had been singled out as a destined leader."

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/13/former-mormon-explains-why-mitt-romney-should-never-be-president/

Believe it or not.

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

This is not a "card" as you call it. If Romney is going to be President of the United States we have a right to know who he is including his tax returns. It should all be on the table. Instead we get false controversies and lies.

Everything has to be on the table so the American people can make an educated decision.

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

Have you noticed how quickly evangelical Christians who used to badmouth Mormons as following a "false gospel" are suddenly mum on the subject now that Romney is the GOP nominee?

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

Yes, the black man must be a Muslim. You just can't escape the racially tinged comments, can you?

Liberty275 2 years, 2 months ago

If you aren't going to vote for him because he's a Mormon, do it because they are prohibitionists and bigots, not because other cult members thought he had leadership skills and was somebody's relative.

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

Something all Americans need to know about Mormon history:

"Romney avoids mentioning it, but Joseph Smith ran for president in 1844 as an independent Commander in Chief of an “army of God” advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government in favor of a Mormon-ruled theocracy. Challenging Democrat, James Polk and Whig, Henry Clay – Smith prophesied that if the U.S. Congress did not accede to his demands that “they shall be broken up as a government and God shall damn them.” Smith viewed capturing the presidency as part of the mission of the church. Smith’s insertion of religion into politics and his call for a “theodemocracy where God and people hold the power to conduct the affairs of men in righteous matters” created a sensation and drew hostility from the outside world. But his candidacy was cut short when he was shot to death by an anti-Mormon vigilante mob. Out of Smith’s national political ambitions grew what would become known in Mormon circles as the “White Horse Prophecy” — a belief ingrained in Mormon culture and passed down through generations by church leaders that the day would come when the U.S. Constitution would “hang like a thread as fine as a silk fiber” and the Mormon priesthood would save it. Mitt Romney views the American presidency as a theological office."

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/13/former-mormon-explains-why-mitt-romney-should-never-be-president/

I would like to make it clear that I believe in Freedom of Religion but at the same time, I believe these groups must not harbor a secret agenda that goes against the fundamental principles of the United States of America. For that reason, transparency is required as to their fundamental beliefs and practices and this is now an issue that must be looked at without sweeping it under the rug.

Satirical 2 years, 2 months ago

Must be a tough election for a bigot - a black Muslim (Obama) vs. a Mormon Cult Member (Romney).

Luckily there are enough people who care about the issues not to be distracted by such ignorance.

Satirical 2 years, 2 months ago

When Bush relies on intelligence that Iraq had WMDs, liberals claim Bush lied to the American people and claim he is a warmonger.

When Obama claims he relied on intelligence that a video was responsible for the attack in Libya, liberals claim Obama wasn't lying to the American people, and are offended that anyone would want to look behind the curtain.

Stay classy liberals.

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

Sati, one big difference, of course, is that even if Obama "lied" about what happened in Libya (and I don't believe he did, but spoke based on the intelligence at hand), he didn't take us into war over it. He also made fresh statements once the truth was known. Can you say the same for Bush's lies? Bush took us to war over WMDs that did not exist.

However, if both lied, consider the difference: Bush lied and Americans died. Americans lied then Obama lied. See the difference there?

Again, I don't believe Obama lied.

Romney is trying to make political points on the death of Americans, and you want liberals to stay classy?

Satirical 2 years, 2 months ago

beatrice...

So, it appears your position is that it is okay for the POTUS to lie to the American people as long as it doesn’t lead to war. Or, it is patriotic to question the POTUS when the lie could lead to war, but unpatriotic to question the POTUS when s/he is trying to bolster his/her foreign policy credentials for political gain (see 2012 election)?

But I guess as long as YOU don’t believe Obama lied, that should settle the matter for everyone ; )

It is the Obama Administration who is playing politics and lying for political gain. Romney and ever other rational American wants to know why for two weeks we were told a video was to blame for the death of four Americans when there was clear intelligence which suggested a terrorist attack.

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

Incorrect. I am not saying a president should lie, I was pointing out that you are comparing apples and aircraft carriers. Feel free to question when Obama knew that it was a terrorist attack in Libya and not an uprising over a stupid film. It doesn't change the fact that Americans were killed. In the grand scheme of things, it seems trivial to pursue when Obama knew for certain that those killed were killed because of one scenario or the other. Either way, he couldn't have prevented it with his super powers and it doesn't bring Americans back to life. Sorry to disappoint, but presidents can't protect us all at all times. Romney appears trivial for making this his big push issue, especially after he tried to make a big deal about the memo sent from Cairo that he also tried to pin on Obama.

Also, videos don't kill people, people kill people.

However, it is comforting to know that if Romney wins, he will have all the intelligence necessary at all times to keep all Americans safe from ever being harmed by anyone, ever.

Satirical 2 years, 2 months ago

beatrice...

I am not talking about whether the deaths were preventable. What was known before the attack is a completely separate debate. I am talking about what the Obama Administration knew AFTER the attack. Why Pres Obama and his administration officials continue to blame the attack on a video, when there was intelligence they likey had showing otherwise?

It is hypocritical to demand inquires about whether President (R) lied about intelligence, and not demand inquireies about whether President (D) lied about intelligence.

The only reason the Obama Administration would lie is for political gain. We need to know more, but what we know now is the Obama Administration wasn't being completely honest with the American people.

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

What he knew AFTER the attack doesn't bring back American lives. Yes, it is very easy to second-guess sitting presidents once Americans have been killed. He does not continue to blame the attack on a video, as you state.

You really can't see a massive difference between asking questions about a President (R) who, if he lied his lies took us into a war and cost thousands of American lives and a trillion dollars, and asking questions about a President (D) who, if he lied does not in any way change the result of what already happened since four Americans were already killed? Sorry if you think them similar.

The only reason to believe Obama lied about what he knew and when he knew it is for political gain.

Satirical 2 years, 2 months ago

beatrice... "Sorry if you think them similar. "

I think all POTUS should be honest to the American people, whether it is about a million American deaths or just one American death. Apparently you and many liberals have a different standard.


"The only reason to believe Obama lied about what he knew and when he knew it is for political gain." - beatrice

Exactly. Don't you think it is wrong to lie to the American people for political gain? Don't you think it is wrong to lie to the American people and claim Al-Qaeda is on the run if they really aren't? Don't you have a problem with unchecked government propoganda? Don't you have a problem with the hypocrisy in claiming Romney is playing politics with American lives, when in fact (if true) it would be Obama who did so?

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

I do not have a different standard of lying, but I do see a difference between a lie that causes thousands of American deaths, and possibly a lie about deaths that already happened. Most importantly, I am not at all convinced that Obama lied to the American people and that he was giving information as it became clear. The first message was not accurate. He has since corrected that information. Romney is acting like everyone should have know everything immediately, when he himself proved that not to be possible.

This is Romney's attempt to make political points off of American deaths. It is sad.

Also, this whole thing not at all in the same universe as Bush's lies as a means to get Americans to support a needless war. Bush lied and people died. At worst, Obama lied AFTER people died (and that is if you believe he lied).

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

There comes a point where you need to start telling the truth. You cannot answer a request for specific details with one false controversy after another.

All we want from the Republican candidates is transparency, openness and a clear explanation about details of what they plan to do.

We have the Ryan budget but Romney says we should not pay attention to that because he has his own budget.

We have Ryan's record on women's issues but Romney says we should not pay attention to that because his position is....(FILL IN THE BLANK).

The truth is that Romney will say anything to be President but we have to ask ourselves why he wants to be President of the United States and we have to ask ourselves whether Romney's idea about what our country should be is the same as yours.

This is the guy who made his money by acquiring, flipping and stripping US companies and sending jobs to China.

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

The American people are being denied the truth about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Instead we get lies from Krauthammer.

Everything should be on the table and that includes Romney's tax returns.

Why are we being denied the truth?

Richard Heckler 2 years, 2 months ago

--- Mitt Romney tried to catch the president of the United States in a lie last night and ended up kicking himself in the pants.

--- Conservatives, angry over what was an obviously embarrassing exchange for Romney, have tried to argue that somehow this reference didn't count. Some reporters have already been successfully spun on this—Slate's John Dickerson wrote that "If you look at the president's statement in the Rose Garden, he does use that phrase, but it's a throwaway cliché. Indeed, it arguably wasn't about the attack at all, just a bromide about more general acts of terror." But if you look at the above context, there's absolutely no way the president is referring to anything other then the attack in Benghazi, because his subsequent sentences refer to the victims and include a vow that "justice will be done." In context, it's impossible to read that as a reference to Dickerson's "general acts of terror." The speech was, in its entirety, a response to the attack in Benghazi.

--- No matter how you slice it, Romney's claim that Obama took two weeks to refer to the Benghazi attack as "an act of terror" was flat wrong. As Foreign Policy's Josh Rogin notes, Obama referred to the Benghazi incident as "an act of terror" a second time at a campaign event in Colorado just a day after the Rose Garden speech. Politico's Josh Gerstein was the first reporter to note that the conservative talking point here was false weeks ago—but his observation went largely ignored.

--- So how did Romney end up getting it so wrong? As the Washington Post's Erik Wemple notes, Romney was simply repeating what's been written ad nauseam in the conservative media. For conservatives, the administration's insistence—chiefly UN Ambassador Susan Rice's remarks shortly after the attack—on pointing to a widely seen anti-Islam video on YouTube as a cause was the same as claiming the attack was not an act of terror. But that's simply not true, because Obama had identified the incident as "an act of terror" even when the administration said it believed the video was the cause. The idea that blaming the video meant not acknowledging the attack as an act of terrorism is a false distinction. They're not mutually exclusive. Republicans had convinced themselves otherwise.

--- The larger conservative criticism is that the administration lingered on the video explanation because it didn't want to acknowledge a failure in its record on terrorism: It failed to identify and prevent a premeditated attack on American citizens. That's a fair argument for conservatives to make, but it's an argument—it's not amenable to fact-checking. Had Romney simply made that larger point accusing the administration of misleading in its accounting of events in Benghazi, it's doubtful Crowley would have said anything at all. Instead, Romney foolishly focused his attack on an easily verifiable fact that he got wrong.

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

Trumbull 2 years, 2 months ago

Obama's response the following day was appropriate. Under the circumstances there were protests going on simultaneously and some of them were triggered by the movie. And yes protests like that do occur as witnessed with the cartoon protests several years ago. Information is still being gathered.

I can see how the Republicans jumped on this one right away. Like they were glad about this cause they were looking for someting to politicize. Now this is becoming the central part of the campaign for them. I see this and them for what they are.

The American people are ready to move on. Maybe as the information changes, so does the "story", as the repubicans call it. I do not see this as a lie. I see this as an update. Something we did not get from the R's regarding WMD's.

Again, I do not see this as a lie. I see this as an update.

Richard Heckler 2 years, 2 months ago

The opening statements implied many subjects over and above Libya which of course opened the comment table wide open. Hard to be off topic.

Satirical 2 years, 2 months ago

Four Americans died and the Obama Administration lied to the American people using an anti-Islamic video as a scapegoat to cover up a terrorist attack so that it could avoid political vulnerability.

A report published on Sept. 26 showed that the intelligence community and the Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the attack was an act of terror carried out by an al-Qaida affiliated group. This was affirmed by Carney in an Oct. 10 press briefing when he also said that the administration had kept its word to disclose new information as it became available. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/10/10/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-10102012

Here is a timeline of events in Libya: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13203428-libya-consulate-timeline-what-did-the-obama-administration-do

Here is a timeline of the Obama Administration's response to the attack: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/from-video-to-terrorist-attack-a-definitive-timeline-of-administration-statements-on-the-libya-attack/2012/09/26/86105782-0826-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

If you actually believe what you are saying I would like to suggest that you don't get out much.

Satirical 2 years, 2 months ago

Best case for President Obama, his administration and the State Department along with the intelligence community can't communicate effectively to ensure the safety of American lives abroad and/or communicate to correctly inform the American people on what was going on.

Worst case for President Obama, his administration knew what the State Department knew (who was watching the attack on the consulate in real-time), lied to the American people about the cause of death of four Americans, and blamed the attack on a two month old anti-Islamic video to avoid the appearance that his foreign policy isn't working.

Satirical 2 years, 2 months ago

June 6 - A hole is blown into the consulates gate, which is described big enough to let 40 men through. This could have been a trial run to test the effectiveness of the Sept. 11 attack.

August 14 - The end of the extension for the Special Ops Security Team and it leaves Libya. Their commander has testified that the ambassador wanted them to stay. Prior to the attack, family members of Libyan Security guards warn of an impending attack on the consulate.

Sept. 10 - Al-Qaida leader Ayman al Zawahiri calls on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al Libi, killed in a June drone strike in Pakistan.

Sept. 11 - A well-planned armed attack is executed on the Benghazi consulate. According to witness statements the attack was observed live via video by State Department personnel. Video also reveals that there were no protests prior to the attack.

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

We will have similar incidents in the future because we are putting our diplomats into a sometimes very dangerous world. However, we have never before had a political party that will stoop as low as these Republicans.

The Republican controlled House should approve the White House request for additional funding to provide security which in the past they have been blocking. In fact, they have been blocking everything in the Obama administration as everyone knows.

I believe the request was $300 Million. I am sure that with the concern expressed by the Republicans over this recent tragedy, it will be easy to get this approved finally. I imagine you could even get Charles Krauthammer to write a letter wholeheartedly endorsing the White House request.

Kate Rogge 2 years, 2 months ago

OMG. Go listen to President Obama identify Romnesia today in Fairfax, Virginia:

Kate Rogge 2 years, 2 months ago

It'd help your argument, sir, if you could recall that Barack Obama is the name of the actual President of the United States in your posts.

Kate Rogge 2 years, 2 months ago

LOL. We'll just have to see. It'll be easier to find, however, if you know the man's name. Maybe you could help Page with his bad case of Romnesia?

Satirical 2 years, 2 months ago

I thought this was interesting based on the numerous liberal media reports that Romney was rude and constantly interrupting Pres Obama...

"President Obama wins the title of Debate Interrupter-in-Chief" http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-most-debate-interruptions-20121019,0,3571204.story

Not only did Pres Obama get more time to talk in the debate, had the last word more often, get interrupted by the moderator less often, but he also interrupted Romney 36 times. And Romney still won on the most important issue in the debate - the economy.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

"And Romney still won on the most important issue in the debate - the economy."

So promising to accelerate the trickle-down economics that have dominated over the last 30 years, and is the primary cause of the recession we're slowly climbing out of is "winning the debate?" Putting a plutocrat into office to rule on behalf of his fellow plutocrats, quickening the race to bottom for the vast majority of Americans while killing the middle class in favor of redistributing ever more wealth to the already wealthy is "winning the debate?"

Satirical 2 years, 2 months ago

Winning the debate is convincing a majority of Americans that your position is right (see CNN poll), rather than trying to convince people who lack a basic understanding of economics about how to create jobs.

jafs 2 years, 2 months ago

Actually, given the electorate, I suspect that "winning the debate" has little to do with content, or critical thought.

Especially given the fact checking immediately after the debates.

notaubermime 2 years, 2 months ago

Romney's criticism Obama's description of the Benghazi attack hasn't been any more consistent than Obama's description. I'm not sure how this proves that he is any more competent than Obama is.

Carol Bowen 2 years, 2 months ago

On the economy: "That one answer might account for the fact that in two early flash polls, Romney beat Obama on the economy by 18 points in one poll, 31 in the other. That being the overriding issue, the debate is likely to have minimal effect on the dynamics of the race."

Did anyone notice that Romney is courting Michigan in his father's name, but cannot carry his own state of Massachusetts in the polls? Governor Romney claims his experience as governor. Looks like Massachusetts has a different take on his experience.

Carol Bowen 2 years, 2 months ago

On turmoil in the Middle East:

Turmoil in the Middle East is not new and it will not end. We knew this. The Libya tragedy is unfortunate. So was the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There's no way we should know details and damage national security.

Personally, I am tired of the nitpicking on this issue. We should be looking for general policies in the Middle East, China, etc. Make no mistake. When they read our attitudes, it will affect theirs.

Kontum1972 2 years, 2 months ago

they want a war in Syria....if Mittens wins......i am sure his sons wont be joining up.....what are their names....Siff and Diff...?

plus the bad guys love shooting young girls in the head....because they are trying to better themselves.

jerice43 2 years, 1 month ago

I will keep this short and sweet. Romney is nothing but a joke, a bad joke at that.

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 1 month ago

It is dificult to see what alternatives Romney would advance beyond what Obama is already doing. He will attack Obama for sure, but when it comes to Romney's policy differences, I will be interested to hear them (and surely disappointed when he offers none).

Would Romney go to war with Iran, Syria, and Libya, following in the tradition of the last GOP president? You remember him. George W. Bush. Four years ago he was our president. Remember, he went to war in Iraq under false pretenses? And destroyed our economy as a result?

GWB was our president 4 years ago, and differences between Romney and him in foreign policy and economic policy are few indeed.

Here comes the mirror man...

Here comes the mirror man... by yourworstnightmare

Policy differences?  No.

Policy differences? No. by yourworstnightmare

Armored_One 2 years, 1 month ago

War with Iraq - Unpopular War with Afganistan - Unpopular War with Libya - Obviously acceptable

Really? After all the - and I admit I am making this term up - anti-war mongering that has been left on this forum, you are going to endorse a candidate that is all but saying he'd gladly put more troops into the Middle East, instead of trying to defuse the animosity there towards us?

Yes, I know, Obama hasn't been exactly stellar in his accomplishments on that topic, but it's a damned sight better than the rhetoric coming out of Romney's mouth. I admit I wholeheartedly endorsed eliminating every last member of al Qaida at point blank range, and I still do, but when you are trying to put out a forest fire, a couple thousand gallons of kerosene is just not going to help much.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.