"If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal."

[chance1]

^ unfortunately

More political style than real life
Check the timeline - who said what when
It's pretty easy
And really the only thing that matters

Obama has better "political style" than Mitt

It's not what we need

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Obama used the word also.

Referring to (and agreeing with Stewart's characterization of) the RESPONSE. He was not referring to the deaths, and you know it (even though you will refuse to admit it.)

 

[Benvolio]

Referring to (and agreeing with Stewart's characterization of) the RESPONSE. He was not referring to the deaths, and you know it (even though you will refuse to admit it.)

If Romney had said it you and the Democrat media woud be calling Romney unfit. Look at the phoney ruckus over the binders he was given.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

If Romney had said it you and the Democrat media woud be calling Romney unfit. Look at the phoney ruckus over the binders he was given.

Whether funny or not or relevant or not (I don't happen to think it's either) Romney actually DID say "binders full of women" (for better or worse) but this is a completely out of context mis-characterization of what the president actually said courtesy of repulsive bottom feeders like Ben "waaaahhh the gays are indoctrinating my children every time I turn on my TV" Shapiro at breitbart. It's disingenuous at BEST.

 

[HenryReardon]

Obama has been frank and persistent with statements about the seriousness and magnitude of the Benghazi incident

.

The president has hardly been frank about the attack. His people (including our UN Ambassador) spent a week blaming the attack on a pathetic little video, even though they knew better. In point of absolute fact, they didn't come clean until they were called to testify under oath before a senate committee.

One sure think about Obama: if his lips are moving, he's lying.

 

[HenryReardon]

While Mr. Obama used the words “acts of terror” in his Sept. 12 speech, he did not say the Benghazi attack was such an act. He strains credulity in claiming that this generic phrase established the Libya event as a terrorist attack on the United States. He used the phrase only once in his 801-word address in the Rose Garden, and then as a generality. “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…We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act,” he said. Missing from the speech were the words “terrorist,” “premeditated,” or “planned” in reference to what we know was an attack by extremists with links to Al Qaeda. Intelligence officials told the Daily Beast’s Eli Lake that the U.S. knew that it was planned by al Qaeda affiliates within 24 hours.




http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/19/green-obamas-acts-terror-assertions/

It's not even a case of 'what did he know and when did he know it'. We now know that at least one agency watched the attack while it was happening "almost in real time."

Obama has zero credibility on this one, yet you give him a pass. Time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

While Mr. Obama used the words “acts of terror” in his Sept. 12 speech, he did not say the Benghazi attack was such an act.

So he stood in the Rose Garden the morning after the attack and said "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation" yet he WASN'T referring to the previous days attacks that he was there to talk about? Okay Henry, time for another glass of YOUR poisonous and deranged Kool-Aid. By the way, if he WASN'T referring to the previous day's attacks that everyone present was there to hear about then where or where is the line of distinction? Where exactly does he infer that, while "no acts of terror" will shake us, this is in no way one of those and he was just bringing it up apropos of nothing?

Talk about zero credibility, the bile the glassy-eyed Obama Haters are being spoon-fed and lapping up like hungry little puppies is doing them no favors.

Sad really. It's also said that its based on the lie that there is, or ever was, anything this man has done or could do of which they would ever approve.

 

[chance1]

More Obama haters stuff

It's tired and inappropriate

If u disagree with Obama policy or actions .....

Anyway

"Not optimal" certainly "trumps" (not bad right?) binders

One is a out a tragedy of significant proportion

The other is people who have nothing better to do with their time than invent a story

 

[JayHawk]

This thread is the epitome of taking ring wing talking points and espousing an opinion without understanding the context of the words.

Obama was merely repeating back to Stewart exactly what he asked in his his question which is a fairly common technique when speaking.

Andy is correct the binders issue and this are simply red meat for the weak minded.

 

[jackoroe]

So he stood in the Rose Garden the morning after the attack and said "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation" yet he WASN'T referring to the previous days attacks that he was there to talk about?

Let's look more closely at your claim. Obama is now trying to peddle the notion that this one sentence proves he was aware and stated that Libya was a terrorist attack. OK, let's accept that at face value and examine these actions in context.

If Obama thought it was an act of terrorism on 9/12, tell us why he sent out the US Ambassador to the UN to peddle what was a lie about a spontaneous uprising caused by a video? Also, please explain why Obama went to the UN, subsequent to the 9/12 statement and also spewed this very same lie?

The statement, when taken in the context of actual events, doesn't support the Obama claim that he identified Libya as having been a terrorist attack on 9/12. It was a general statement nothing more.

He's going to get beat over the head with this lie on Monday. And no amount of righteous indignation on his part will save him from the truth.

 

[HenryReardon]

. By the way, if he WASN'T referring to the previous day's attacks that everyone present was there to hear about then where or where is the line of distinction? Where exactly does he infer that, while "no acts of terror" will shake us, this is in no way one of those and he was just bringing it up apropos of nothing?

.

Go back to the Washington Times article I linked:

While Mr. Obama used the words “acts of terror” in his Sept. 12 speech, he did not say the Benghazi attack was such an act. He strains credulity in claiming that this generic phrase established the Libya event as a terrorist attack on the United States. He used the phrase only once in his 801-word address in the Rose Garden, and then as a generality. “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…We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act,” he said. Missing from the speech were the words “terrorist,” “premeditated,” or “planned” in reference to what we know was an attack by extremists with links to Al Qaeda. Intelligence officials told the Daily Beast’s Eli Lake that the U.S. knew that it was planned by al Qaeda affiliates within 24 hours.

The administration (and campaign) line was the Bin Laden is dead, therefore Al Qaeda is gone. He couldn't admit that he was wrong - it's not in his character to do so.

His choice of words in that instance were deliberately misleading as is everything else he sayys.

 

[JayHawk]

He's going to get beat over the head with this lie on Monday. And no amount of righteous indignation on his part will save him from the truth.

We shall see but remember this isnt Jim Lehrer and I really do hope it is brought up as an Attack by Romney. That will make it exceedingly easy to paint a contrast between a man who would make a political press release before the bodies of our dead were cold and a President who weighs all facts and all possible scenarios before taking out the perpetrator. The head has been identified. I wouldn't say it is far fetched to believe Obama can say he wanted details, wanted increased security and wanted the perpetrators head on a stick. In fact by Monday he may well be able to present that head on a stick.

So yeah I hope Romney puts his foot in it. Because foreign policy wise Romney can only gaff since he has taken Obama's position on everything. This will be my most interesting debate.

 

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

^ unfortunately

More political style than real life
Check the timeline - who said what when
It's pretty easy
And really the only thing that matters

Obama has better "political style" than Mitt

It's not what we need

As I've mentioned... I am aware of the timeline... especially considering it's been detailed 3 billion times on this forum.

But, I am also aware of the year... and if this sort of thing had happened in 2010, for example, the right wing would not be in the same total freakout mode over it... there would be some pressure on them to come together in the wake of a tragedy. It should be telling that the mother of the soldier whose death Romney was politicizing (by name) and the father of the ambassador have both come out and made it clear that they think this issue is being unnecessarily and disrepectfully politicized. And, if anyone would want the truth to come out... if anyone has the right to be angered and deeply upset... it is these poor parents.

Here's a question though for clarification: We know the tragic consequences of the intelligence failure/ lack of security. But, in terms of the supposed "cover up", in the grand scheme of things, what is the totality of the lasting damage of this element of "Benghazi-gate" (since from the last administration, we know the dire consequences that a genuine "cover up" can cause)?

As for "political style" I would give Mr. Romney a little credit... considering he has taken every side of every issue (including Libya btw... if you look back at his answer at the debate before he totally freaked out in "gotcha" mode), has managed to pivot back towards the center a month before the election, and still has not detailed an actual feasible tax plan... if this isn't the definition of "political style" I'm not sure what is...

As for "binders"... of course it is a silly issue (and won't sway many voters)... but there is a context for why it took off and was found amusing by so many... it could have something to do with Mitt's problem with women... and the fact that his response to the question was not only awkward but shallow, not accurate, and out-of-touch... and the fact that he still doesn't know where he stands on a piece of monumental legislation passed four years ago...

 

[HenryReardon]

More Obama haters stuff

It's tired and inappropriate

Guess what? "Hate" is not a synonym for dislike. Despite what the liberals would have you believe, it is possible to dislike, even intensively dislike someone without hating them.

To "hate" anyone or anything requires a great deal of constant mental effort, and that arrogant little man currently residing at 1600 Penn Ave is hardly worth that much thought.

 

[JayHawk]

No he knows where he stands. His campaign said so... first they said he was against it the day after, then they said he had no position then they said he was against it and then they said he had no position..... don't ya know Mittens isn't in charge of what he thinks... his handlers are... Sound Familiar?

What I would like to know is to what end does a cover up help Obama? And who on earth thinks a cover up can occur when hundreds of folks know about the situation and based on bureaucratic level of complication then tens of people knew the security request, the denial of security and so on... it just doesn't make any logical sense... you cannot cover up what is not hidden already.

I again stress that the guy forcing his team into a insecure situation while having all pieces of the puzzle made a bad choice. The ambassador knew there was no additional security, he knew there were raised threat levels in Bengazi, he knew it was 9/11, he went to a very low priority and therefore very little security location that wouldn't have had the additional security if it had been granted because that additional security was for Tripoli.... all of those things and more mean our Ambassador staffs and security heads need a refresher on Operational Risk Management... honest to god if there was a planned yet very low priority military mission in the area for the same day and all of those things colluded we would postpone.

 

[chance1]

^ I think the idea is like this

Obama key strength (and surprise) was toughness and decisiveness with dealing with terror - drones, kill list, OBL kill

Perhaps not a progressive story but the Repubs can't touch it

Video story not terror not unpreparedness keeps "hope alive" there

Al Qaeda alive and well and killing Americans unravels an Obama claimed and acknowledged strength

Combine that with bibi "can't meet" and bibi flirting with MITT .....

Well

I don't understand Obama POV and my only reasonable conclusion is

Ineptness and or
Lying

And his debate double down

I'm done with him as a truth teller

 

[jackoroe]

Sean Smith was a State Department employee and was killed in this terrorist attack. His mother is none too pleased with the president's insensitive comments. She summed it up this way.

'My son is not very optimal - he is also very dead."

http://www.inquisitr.com/369212/mother-of-murdered-diplomat-to-obama-my-dead-son-is-not-optimal/

 

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

Ineptness and or
Lying

So... it doesn't seem like you've quite made up your mind on what to call it... just bad... maybe waiting for some more evidence will help...

And THAT's the point- if you notice, no one here is applauding Obama's handling of the situation... I personally DO think there was some political posturing by the administration post-event... but I also think there was a lot of legitimate confusion over the event immediately afterwards. And I don't think, when you put things in perspective, this is the grand "scandal" that the right makes it out to be and, more importantly, that it has made Americans less safe. Especially... and this is always the key consideration... when you consider the alternative. How does talking "tough", saying incendiary things, and offending allies exactly make Americans safer?

But "misleading the public" isn't even the tack the Republican Party is taking at all (nor the right here)... they are politicizing the event because it happened 2 months before a very close election... and suggesting that this event somehow undermines the entire Obama foreign policy that is "unraveling" before our eyes... and this is profoundly moronic. The ground situation in the ME was a fucking disaster when Obama took office and it still is... I'm not arguing otherwise. But, how this one unfortunate event both proves Al Qaeda is not somehow severely weakened and erases the ending of the pointless Iraq War, the death of OBL, the successful decimation of top Al-Qaeda leadership (w/o putting American at direct risk), appropriate sanctions on Iran, all the failed terrorist plots that go unnoticed... all while rebuilding strained relationships with the West... is deeply disingenuous... it is simply the right trying to rehash the same, tired fearmongering.

 

[BostonPirate]

This thread is the epitome of taking ring wing talking points and espousing an opinion without understanding the context of the words.

Obama was merely repeating back to Stewart exactly what he asked in his his question which is a fairly common technique when speaking.

Andy is correct the binders issue and this are simply red meat for the weak minded.

great post and bears amplification and support in the thread.

The GOP is now in full balls to the wall outright propaganda and manipulation of the truth in one last ditch effort to get others to hate the president by using misleading info being spoon fed to them by people who rely on those being fed, to not believe facts or have reason.

Latching onto this is going to be seen as a sign of desperation.

I don't really agree with the binder thing, in that the basis for the story is a lie. He did not ask for binders of women... An org of women demanded he choose from their binder... that's a big difference. Unfortunately the lie is being ignored because so many are eager to munch up the red mead part of the story.

great post and perspective!

 

[Jack Springer]

Maybe Obama didn't mean to say what he said but this is what many people understood it as . . .

. . . . shit happens.