READER COMMENTS ON
"Romney's Epic Libya Failure, or The Dangers of 'Getting High on Your Own Supply'"
(26 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 10/17/2012 @ 3:45 pm PT...
The Romney team should be more knowledgeable of foreign policy since they know every corner of the world to hide money! Mitt’s already has international financial ties which run all the way from Switzerland to the Cayman Islands. Never mind that he’s never been involved with politics outside of the US- only his millions of dollars have. Read about the role of Mitt’s money and his Magic Mormon Underwear are playing in the polls at http://dregstudiosart.bl...ic-mormon-underwear.html where you can see for yourself the true power of both on display in full color!
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
Ernest A. Canning
said on 10/17/2012 @ 4:10 pm PT...
Recall that Romney tried to exploit this tragedy even while events were unfolding. He utilized a Cairo Embassy statement condemning the slanderous anti-Muslim film as an excuse to falsely accuse the Obama administration of having “sympathized” with the attackers; continued the lie even after he knew that the Cairo Embassy statement was issued before their Embassy Wall was breached and well before the events in Benghazi.
Romney, ironically, later condemned the same film. But, of course, when he did so, the right wing media made no effort to suggest the condemnation amounted to sympathizing with the attackers.
Not only did Obama use the words “act of terror” during his 9/12/12 Rose Garden speech, but the very next day, 9/13/12, while campaigning in Colorado, the President repeated the phrase, stating [emphasis added]:
So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.
Despite the efforts at Fox "News" to assert some level of ambiguity with respect to the Rose Garden statement, the Colorado remarks were clear and unequivocal. He referred to bringing those "who killed our fellow Americans to justice" and described what they did as an "act of terror."
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 10/17/2012 @ 4:15 pm PT...
All told, Mitt got off pretty easy, considering he could have been slammed for that earlier mistake, claiming the Administration had apologized to the attackers (by quoting something from a different embassy which was released hours before any attack had even taken place.)
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 10/17/2012 @ 8:12 pm PT...
I am no fan of Obama's but it would be nice if he were a tad more adept at revealing the truth that his opponent is A Supreme Dissembler From Bozo Bozo Land. He needs to go for the throat. Biden did a much better job.
1. On the Libya thing from last night--After Crowley publicly corrected Romney on his mistake, Obama should've seized the moment by pointing out that this is typical Romney, that more often than not he has no idea what he's talking about. Drive the point home with a brief listing of key examples of topics on which Romney famously misspeaks. Properly associate this obvious and revealed Libya bullshit with all his other obvious, but not always revealed in the debates, bullshit. Make it a "There you go again," moment.
2. Obama should NEVER accept criticism from Romney OR ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN about how little he's done for the American people, promises unkept, etc. He should ALWAYS cut them off at the knees on that sort of lie by forcefully pointing out and objecting to the unprecedented obstructionism of the Republican party. He should quote Mitch McConnell about their primary goal being to stop Obama. With righteous indignation he should point out that because of these relentless Republican obstructionist efforts Congress could not even GET A VOTE ON legislation with huge bi-partisan support, co-authored by Republicans, to help veterans.
3. He should make that point every time Romney says his shit criticizing Obama for not getting enough done and reveal it for the cynical, disingenuous horseshit it is. And he might look even better doing it by coming up with some powerful shorthand reference, once the point has been forcefully made, so he wouldn't have to waste more of his or the audiences time going all the way through it again and again. Let Romney be the one wasting everyone's time repeating the same refuted nonsense.
4. When Romney lies on matters that require policy wonkishness to refute, DON'T GO THAT ROUTE. Forcefully declare the simple truth of the matter on topics like Romney's Impossible Revenue Neutral Tax Breaks, then look into the camera and clearly, concisely explain to millions of Americans the Republican game plan. Assert that it hinges on misleading the American public with repeated lying. Throw in that famous quote now attributed to Karl Rove about the Republican boast that they are not part of the reality-based community, that they create their own reality. Explain that rather than be a part of this disingenuous game and wasting everyone's time while Rome burns engaging in endless he said vs he said, he wants to enlist the American public to help create an informed electorate. They can do this by going to Obama's campaign website where they should post thorough deconstructions of all the lies/ all the studies referred to by both sides. This information should be readily available by topic. Treat us like adults who want to be engaged in our society by affirming that the American people, given the information, can easily decide who's telling the truth and who is not.
5. He should channel the intellectually and emotionally brilliant path inspired by the work of George Lakoff and depicted by Jennifer Granholm--http://current.com/shows/the-war-room/videos/granholm-this-election-is-a-choice-about-our-national-character
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 10/17/2012 @ 8:16 pm PT...
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 7:06 am PT...
Obviously ernie and I are going to differ on opinions. By "exploit this tragedy" I think he means; have the nerve to point out a massive failure by the President. Having Candy Crowley tell the prez to sit down, I got this one sir (which she later, to try and save face, said that Romney was right in the point he was trying to make just used the wrong wording) on this point and on fast and furious further shows how biased the media is towards Obama. The fact that the polls are still close even when the best word to describe Obama's tenure is "fail", well that's a tribute to the success of the Obama re-elect media.
It doesn't matter what words he used the day after the terrorist attack, when he sent all his talking heads out for weeks to say it was because of a video and it was a spontaneous riot. True story.
To David, Biden did a better job? Biden looked like a fifth grader sent off to the corner by the teacher for acting up. And proceeded to sit there making faces at the class. He defines complete lack of professionalism
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 9:27 am PT...
Steve, you and I live in different realities. In mine Republicans have made an unprecedented use of the filibuster to render the will of the people null and void. You live in a spin cycle in your own head where somehow this oft-documented reality doesn't exist. In fact you and your kind, as Rachel pointed out last night, can't tolerate reality. You live in your own fatuous bubble. Not taking fatuous bubble heads seriously is an adult response.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 9:50 am PT...
Libya was a total fail followed by an attempted cover up.
Consider this, in the RG speech, between the words "attacked our people" and the words "no acts of terror" there are 457 intervening words (a mere ellipsis!). Those intervening words covered: respect of faiths, Qaddafi, 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan...finally mentioning terror.
Moreover, the 457 intervening words start with: "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."
What is the "faith" thing have to do with this??
Granted, the following day, he tried to walk it back slightly but the ensuing days speak for themselves.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 9:58 am PT...
My take on this is that Romney set himself up for this by saying long ago he would try to take advantage of any big event which might make the prez look bad. Obviously the Obama campaign people had something prepared.
Second, they seem to have confused two things, as many people did: riots at several cities in the Muslim world inspired by the video and the real armed attack in Benghazi. I think it's entirely fair to say the anger was inspired by the video (which might have intentionally been put out on 9/11 to anger those people). But, the story behind the armed attack is entirely different and many details about that will take time to come out. I feel bad for the State Dept. woman who made the decision not to beef up security. She has that on her the rest of her life. But, Romney has no mercy.
Of course, Stephen Colbert put the whole thing in American context pretty well when he asked, "Which one is Libya?" Most Americans probably had to be shown Libya on a map when they heard we were involved over there.
What is perhaps most galling is that our actions in the North Africa region has recently been bi-partisan, but the Republicans in the Senate won't say a word in the president's defense. Ask John McCain and he'll probably smile and say it's nice to see the president get beaten...seeing as how he couldn't do it himself. But, in the end, (as usual) the truth may out and the president's and vice president's words and actions will be shown to be okay with the American people. Vipers like McCain and Romney will always be shown to be the lying liars who tell lies.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 11:06 am PT...
"According to a member of Hillary’s inner circle to whom I have spoken, she and Bill Clinton assembled a team of legal experts a couple of weeks ago to determine how to handle the Benghazi debacle. The members of this team engaged in a lively debate over the best legal and political courses for her to take.
Their chief goal was to avoid allowing Benghazi to become a permanent stain on Hillary’s reputation and hurt her chances to run for president in 2016.
As they debated amongst themselves, it became clear to the Clintons and their advisers that the White House intended to throw Hillary under the bus. This conclusion became inescapable when David Axelrod went on Fox News Channel and cast all the blame for Benghazi on the State Department."
"I am told by my sources that she firmly believes that when the State Department cable traffic is made public, either through leaks to the press or during formal House committee hearings, it will exonerate her and shift the blame for the entire mess onto the president."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2...mea-culpa/#ixzz29fvI5JVM
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 11:07 am PT...
It is pitiful that we have to suffer these two stooges spat about the timing and use of the now meaningless word, "Terrorism".
Will they ever discuss anything important during this or any future Presidential campaign?
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 11:44 am PT...
WingnutSteve @ 6 said:
Having Candy Crowley tell the prez to sit down, I got this one sir (which she later, to try and save face, said that Romney was right in the point he was trying to make just used the wrong wording)
Actually, she did her job as a journalist by pointing out demonstrable facts. Sorry you seem to have a problem with that. That said, she pointed out at the same time that Romney was "right" about the 2 weeks before the Administration acknowledged the attack was coordinated and pre-planned. Did your outrage cloud your ears there, so that you could only come here to repeat the Fox "News" approved (but false) version of what actually happened? If so, that's why I ran the videos above so you could review them before making yourself look silly again here in comments.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 11:57 am PT...
Davey Crocket @ 8 said:
Libya was a total fail followed by an attempted cover up.
Really? What were they trying to cover up, and what is the evidence you have that there was an attempt to cover it up?
Or, like your comrade WingnutSteve, are you just pulling stuff out of Fox "News"'s ass?
Consider this, in the RG speech, between the words "attacked our people" and the words "no acts of terror" there are 457 intervening words (a mere ellipsis!).
Consider this, during Obama's RG speech on the Benghazi attack, held the day after the Benghazi attack to specifically address the Benghazi attack, he said (without ellipsis):
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.
So the fact that there are zero words between the sentence describing the Benghazi attack as an "act of terror" and the next one discussing the death of the four Americans in the Benghazi attack is somehow a coverup for something? Did Fox fail to tell you those two sentences came one after another when they played you for a sucker again with that "457 intervening words" thing?
As to your lengthy quote @ 10 from Tucker Carlson's discredited, pretend "news" site, Daily Caller, I'm sorry to see you require absolutely no evidence when making a claim about something.
But, since that's the case, allow me to tell about my completely unnamed "sources" from inside the Romney campaign who told me that Tagg Romney, at his father's direction, used campaign funds to arm the team of terrorists in Libya who killed the 4 Americans at our consulate. They are scared to death this information will come out, according to my completely unnamed sources, before the election.
Just because I have absolutely no independently verifiable evidence to back up that claim does not mean it's not true. I wonder if Tucker will run that information at his fake news site, so you can quote it all over the Internet as if it's actual information!
Of course, I'm not trying to suggest you are a stooge who believes anything that backs up the pretend notions that Fox has preconceived for you. You (and WingnutSteve) have made that suggestion very clear yourself with each embarrassing comment. Well done!
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 11:59 am PT...
I think Candy's role in this debate was supposed to be a "moderator" and not a "journalist." For a moment, she took on the role of third debater.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 12:25 pm PT...
Thank you Davey, my point exactly. She was a moderator, not a journalist, in her capacity that evening. Had she gone out of her way to help Romney, rather than to help Obama, I'm sure Brad would agree.
She also steered Romney away from discussing Fast and Furious (although probably too late) stating "that's not what the question was about" or words to that effect. The question was about why we have guns like ak-47's on our streets. Gun walking dangerous weapons to dangerous criminals resulting in at least one American citizens death as well as countless Mexican citizens deaths is not relevant to a discussion about ak-47's to Candy Crowley. However Obama's retort to Romney discussing schools, classroom size, teachers pay, etc. THAT was relevant to a discussion about ak-47's. Candy is a stooge
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 12:27 pm PT...
And lol at the best Brad can offer STILL is redundant references to Fox News! Jesus dude, that whine got old six years ago!
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 12:57 pm PT...
Maybe a little humor can cool this conversation down a bit.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 12:58 pm PT...
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 1:13 pm PT...
Wow. Crazy. It's almost as if Davey Crocket and WingnutSteve think exactly alike for some reason.
Davey Crocket said @ 14:
I think Candy's role in this debate was supposed to be a "moderator" and not a "journalist."
And then WingnutSteve said @ 15:
She was a moderator, not a journalist, in her capacity that evening.
That's so weird. That's also exactly what the folks on Fox said all day yesterday. Huh. Though it makes one wonder why the Republican and Democratic Parties who run the debates keep inviting journalists to moderate the Presidential debates, instead of say, someone from Fox "News" or something.
And why exactly should anybody, journalist or not, fail to point out actual, demonstrable, independently verifiable facts that would help inform the electorate during a debate? Are you against a better-informed electorate or something?
Finally, WingnutSteve offered:
Had she gone out of her way to help Romney, rather than to help Obama, I'm sure Brad would agree.
Did you fail to read my previous replies here? Candy Crowley did point out that both Obama was correct in his assertion, and that Romney was correct in his other assertion about the 2 weeks. Both done during the debate at almost exactly the same moment. Yet, I have no problem with her doing that in either case. Doesn't that make your point, um, completely incorrect?
Or are you sticking with that whole "not recognizing reality" thing until Election Day is over?
As to the Fast & Furious silliness (a gun walking program like the one carried out by George W. Bush's administration), I'll let you keep choking that silly chicken if you want. Like the NRA, I'm sure you'll side with the Republican Romney, despite his record of gun grabbing, versus Obama, despite his record of expanding gun rights (twice) across the nation.
WingnutSteve is a stooge. DaveyCrocket is dupe. You guys are darling together though!
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 1:20 pm PT...
WNS a stooge and ole Davey a dupe...ROFL. Brad and Candy are master debaters!
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 8:15 pm PT...
Steve and Davey take their marching orders(albeit not terribly consciously)from the guy who mocks the reality-based community. Like their puppet master Karl Rove they will continue to proudly make up their own reality and insist that everyone else's doesn't exist. Their credibility on matters political approaches zero.
But please, be our guests, do keep yammering away. I have a new ap on my computer that transforms pure bullshit into snow and I'm getting a leg up on our backyard luge run.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 8:30 pm PT...
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2012 @ 8:38 pm PT...
Thanks for the invite man! Have a beer and play your guitar...tune it first--EADGBE!
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 10/19/2012 @ 9:14 am PT...
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 10/19/2012 @ 9:57 am PT...
Brad, by "silliness" are you referring to the death of the Border Patrol Agent? Or are you referring to the deaths of unknown numbers of insignificant brown people south of the border? Please specify, I'd really like to know.
Comparing the Bush administrations gun walking program (which was done with the cooperation of the Mexican government who attempted to track the weapons and was ultimately shit canned because it wasn't working) to the current administrations program (done behind the backs of the Mexican government and with a "let the guns fall where they may" attitude) is disingenuous at best. But it does keep in line with your left wing talking points memo I'm sure.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 10/19/2012 @ 10:01 am PT...
Also Brad, please specify what the hell Romney's gun policy's in the past have to do with Fast and Furious and the silliness of those insignificant peoples deaths. And what does the NRA have to do with me? Love it how you so easily get off topic when you get flustered.