Romney/Obama Debate Open Thread

Loading

A few posts to check out while we await the debate:

Debate: Look For Obama To Play Hero, Take ‘Full Responsibility’ For Libya

Town-hall presidential debate: what to know about Candy Crowley’s rules

CANDY CROWLEY WILL SHILL FOR OBAMA

The Debate Drinking Game

Van Jones: Romney Was Acting Like a “Douche” in the Last Debate

I think there’s virtually nothing O could do onstage tonight short of barfing on someone that’ll get the left to admit afterward that he did poorly. They desperately need him to have a good performance to remain viable, and thus the narrative will make it so tomorrow even if Obama doesn’t make it so tonight. His problem is that, even with that media cushion, it’s unlikely that Romney will falter, which is really what O needs to reverse the momentum here.

Post debate

Who Won the Debate? Obama, Romney Tie in Presidential Showdown

Like two roughnecks squared off on a playground, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney invaded each other’s personal space, raised their voices and fought. “It is just not true,” the president said. “It is true,” his rival replied. You could almost hear both men thinking: “Same to you and more of it.”

If you like to see presidential candidates fight for the job, if you want a passionate dialogue over big issues that matter, you got what you wanted Tuesday night. If it’s civility you seek, you’re sunk.

Who won? The cheap answer is Obama because his goal following a catastrophically sluggish first debate was so clear: Show some life. And, indeed, the president aggressively criticized Romney, labeling him a hypocrite and a liar who favors the rich at the expense of the middle class and poor.

But Romney got his licks in, too, wrapping a miserable economy around the incumbent’s neck. “The middle class is getting crushed by the policies of a president who does not understand what it takes to get the economy working again,” Romney said.

Bottom line: Call it a tie. Obama and Romney scored points while turning off independent voters with their point-scoring. Democratic and Republican partisans will find reason to celebrate the debate but it likely did nothing to reshape the closely fought race.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
131 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Nan G
hi, I notice that OBAMA is reading a paper so to expose the terrorists,
and it remind me of PRESIDENT BUSH, YES BUSH AGAIN, BUT this is to note
that BUSH PRESIDENT did not read his SPEECH OF 9/11 NUMBER 1, he said what came fluid from his mind and heartand how come the terrorist burned OBAMA image and gave him personaly THE VINDICTIVE WARNINGS, they where mad at OBAMA like hell,
why was it money they wanted? they urge him to participate, in what?
he alone know, because he is the one in contact with them,
Nan edit, I think I know,
it came to me, the killing of one of them what’s his name,
just around that time by drone?

Hi Nan,

Why don’t you provide links to Obama’s so-called “apologies” to the Muslim world?

I realize that there are a lot of people who think that the USA should stand up and beat its chest and be arrogant. That’s what we used to do. I used to be a very active participant in an international swimming blog/discussion group. I was stunned to find the abject hostility of people in Australia, France, and even the UK toward the US. It used to be that the main people holding the “Ugly American” stereotype were those in what used to be called the “third world.” But, somehow, the USA descended to the level of the most universally hated nation on earth.

Do you realize what problems this caused for our erstwhile allies, particularly in Islamic countries? Take Turkey, for example, loyal member of NATO. Do you recall how the Iraq invasion was supposed to be a two-front war? One front invades through Kuwait. The other through Turkey. Only we had to leave our troop ships circling around in the Mediterranean, off the coast of Turkey, awaiting the permission to disembark, which never came. The Turkish government was obviously wanting to cooperate with us, but was assessing the domestic political consequences, and ultimately decided it would be too great a risk — so our troop ships had to make the long slog around the Sinai peninsula, through the Suez canal, and we had to improvise a one front invasion, at the last minute.

What the President does, when he makes nice with our erstwhile allies, is to make it easier for the leaders of those countries to cooperate with the Great Satan. You can call this diplomacy. You can call it international relations. But I like what Teddy Roosevelt called it: speaking softly, while carrying a Big Stick.

About that famous bow to the Saudi king. A few of history’s similar moments, involving other leaders:

http://www.competenetwork.com/images/stories/bloggers/ty-04/bush-hand-holding-saudi-queen.jpg

http://www.instablogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/bush-saudi-hand-holding-1_2M3Ps_19672.jpg

http://images.the-classic-liberal.com/2011/02/bush-mubarak.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-11-17-Obamabow1.jpg

http://www.southbayriders.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=349978&d=

http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix5/7202_NixonBowToMao1.JPG

http://media.photobucket.com/image/bush%20bowing%20photo/mrrichardfeder/bow.jpg (Nixon bowing to the Japanese emperor who bombed Pearl Harbor)

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Petercat
right now going on is a guy caught trying to bomb the FEDERAL RESERVE,
HE WAS CAUGHT, he is a middle east guy

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Hi Nan,

Why don’t you provide links to Obama’s so-called “apologies” to the Muslim world?

Turkey. (40 seconds in)
To all Muslims while in Cairo, Egypt.
AT 20 seconds on on an Arab TV station)
Afghanistan.
And to Libyans who killed our ambassador (see the 1:20 second mark)

It is NOT our fault that a people base their belief system on murdering all outsiders who don’t surrender to them.
We shouldn’t be apologizing to them for their own barbarism.

Hi Nan.

I watched all the clips.

Pray, point out a single apology, to wit, a single moment where Obama says: “On behalf of the American people, I want to apologize for [dot dot dot].” The only thing he ever does is to — in a general sense — note the fact that the USA has, at times, made mistakes — both domestically and internationally. Everyone in the world knows these statements to be 100% true, including every informed American conservative.

He most certainly did not apologize to the “Libyans who killed our ambassador!” In the first place, do you know that they were Libyans? I thought they were terrorists. How do you know that they weren’t from Yemen or wherever? In the second place, it wasn’t an apology. It was simply an attempt to show the Islamic world that the US government doesn’t endorse Islamic defamation, any more than it endorses Jewish defamation.

Remember those troop ships doing laps around the Mediterranean, waiting for the orders to disembark in Turkey which never came? That’s the consequence of international arrogance. Obama was only trying to make it easier for leaders of Islamic countries to take measures which are in America’s interests.

It’s very destructive to America’s long-term interests for the likes of Hannity to paint Romney into the corner of having to go back to being the ugly, arrogant American, simply to score some unfounded political points against Obama.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

The president receives national security and intel briefings daily—or supposed to. He is the commander and chief. He is supposed to be informed and aware about such things that might affect our national security. If he wasn’t…then the question is why wasn’t he. This wasn’t just a minor embassy related St Dept issue. It was a national security issue (attacking US embassy, consulate, is an act of war). And so far, the answer has been that the president and joe biden were not informed of any of this prior to the first anniversary of 9/11 after Bin Laden was killed inside of Pakistan. His answer has been all 0f this is handled by other depts where the decisions were being made. But, the buck stops with him??

I would add…it’s well known that the president often skips his morning intel briefings (but reads the summary report)….and did so after the Benghazi attack …when he went to a Vegas fundraiser. That doesn’t sound like a “buck stops here” actively engaged president trying to get to the bottom of things. It sounds like a “pass the buck” president. So, there is plenty to objectively criticize here without trying to pass it off as republican (which I am not) bluster.

A few other things wrong with the narrative of the think progress timeline. CNN was “there” right after the attack. The images that first came out right after from CNN…showed evidence that belied the initial story. Particularly the evidence of mortar rounds and heavy weapons. And CNN stayed on that story from the beginning when answers from State and WH were not forthcoming. So, giving benefit of the doubt about initial reports, fog of war, etc..(we are in a war the president doesn’t make decisions on nor is informed about?) the facts on the ground that were emerging did not fit the narrative of movie protest. It didn’t take a republican to point that out.

But DESPITE evidence to the contrary, the WH continued with the film protest gone array narrative. The very “reason” Rice was on every network talking about it was BECAUSE there was ample evidence that something was wrong and news networks were talking about it. They also denied that there were any indications of prior security concerns…..until CNN finally acknowledged that the source for it was the Ambassadors personal notebook retrieved from the consulate by a CNN reporter 2 days after it was looted— and wondering why there was nobody there to secure the place. It was CNN that busted this story out…not “republicans”. By the time Obama gave his freedom of religion speech at the UN twas DAMN obvious! That’s all I’m saying. And even “now” the president and joe biden….claim they had no knowledge of it…and that this act of war was being handled by the State Dept????

You can say republicans have jumped on this politically all you want. That’s fair enough. But IT doesn’t change what happened nor the fact that there are concerns here BEYOND The fact that State f’d up. The think progress timeline has other problems related to context as well. The statement that Romney was objecting too… right after the attack…was ALSO rejected and withdrawn by Obama! because it was completely inappropriate in the context of what had happened. (on that Romney was right). The argument that it was “also” purely political because Romney jumped on that is an opinion and argumentative statement. Why would someone assume a statement put out by a US embassy was in fact NOT a statement from US gov?? Romney jumped on the statement as being out of line. AFTER that, the WH disavowed the same statement given what had transpired and then blamed Romney for making politics out of the whole thing. After that..the story for the next week was NOT the emerging, evolving facts surrounding the benghazi story adn how f’d up things looked…..but Romney’s statement. Another “buck stops here” for the president?

And if we want to talk about former or current political figure heads putting themselves in the middle of current presidential or national issues….iv’e got a few more names for you (Carter, Clinton, Biden, Pelosi) who actually went to foreign countries for the purpose of undermining Bush’s whitehouse and decisions. You might think that was a good thing at the time depending on your thoughts about the issues…..but it has set a very ugly precedent that thus far RNC presidents have had the good taste to refrain from doing. Could you imagine Bush and Cheney in Libya right now doing interviews with Libyan ministers contradicting Obama’s WH positions, etc.? Or suggesting that the president is “Lieing”. That’s what Carter would do.

In the end..it was CNN that pushed key parts of this story as exclusives. Mainly because it was their reporter on the ground right after the attacks and she knew something wasn’t right with what the WH was saying and how it was responding. It was CNN who pushed the story that there was no security there…and it was CNN who busted out the story that the ambassador had earlier had security concerns specifically about an AlQueda threat (which they at first denied) . They continued denying that until CNN revealed that they had his notes/diary taken from the compound. At that point, State dept attacked CNN for taking the diary and using info from it despite his family’s wishes that nothing from it be published. So, that’s what they tried to make the story…rather than why the consulate was left unguarded after the attack. Nobody has talked about yet…what kind of damage this has done to our national security in regards to intelligence loss (the safe, and much of the contents of the compound were looted). Perhaps….hopefully, it will be minimal.

So, missing also from think progress’s timeline are those denials and when they occurred. And that it was CNN who was pushing that narrative. It doesn’t take a republican to understand why those details would be troublesome and cause concern. The fact that republican political operatives would pick up the story doesn’t surprise me..and certainly should not surprise ANY democrat, and certainly not think progress. And yes…it’s a simple, uncomplicated, straightfoward story. A very old one. Somebody F’d up. And they continued to F up in the aftermath of it and tried to point in other directions to remove attention from it…and became angry when that didn’t work. It took some decent work by CNN, and badgering them to get them to finally come out and say what they have. The idea that they would have….at some point in the future..volunteered and admitted all that during an election year is ludicrous….as is the idea that republicans are partisan and democrats are somehow not.

More troublesome than the WH making great efforts to steer this story and make strong denials…at a time when they insist now that they were simply gathering the facts as they evolved….is the total way in which it was obvious we were completely unprepared for this..and nobody knew how to respond as our compound sat burning and looted on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 (the year we killed Bin Laden). Let me ask you this…and try to put it into another perspective:

The president is extremely proud (and should be) that we got Osama Bin Laden. He says it differently though…”I” got him. But, none-the-less…. credit where due. What if things went’ a little differently that day. What if the first copter crashed and burned…hitting the 2nd one and both went up in flames…and our burning seal team six scattered into the yard only to be shot and beheaded. (Jimmy Carter moment). What do you think the president would be saying about that today?? That “he” did it? That he killed those men? What if the president started to suggested that other people make those decisions about how the raid is conducted and he didn’t have anything to do with it…that such decisions are made at lower levels . Or argue the same about the helicopters and why we were using them if they were prone to failure, etc?? How would you feel? That the people asking those questions were just being political? Or that it was somehow unfair for him to face such scrutiny as the CIC of the US?

The president said he finds it personally offensive that people would question the motives of him or his staff. I find it personally offensive that this president is the commander in chief when something goes right….and the delegator in chief when something goes wrong (not my job). Then claim he’s responsible. I think evidence on it’s face shows…that this looked like one disorganized, f’d up mess from the start….and it shouldn’t have been that way (on that we agree…objectively). You are just leaving out the part of the denials and the purposeful steering of the story after the fact …which only has made things worse. And further….in the end…what has happened is an act of war…for which the president has suggested the events leading up to it were not his responsibility nor was he briefed on it. A complete failure all the way around and at all levels…not just State. And in the end…you’d want us to believe that these failures are only a big issue because of the people and media who have pointed them out. Or even yet…Romney’s fault.

Hi Dc,

As I see it, there are two issues.

(1) Who was at fault?
(2) Did POTUS know all along that it was a terrorist attack (for sure) and actually believed that he could cover it up by clinging to the “reaction to the film” scenario?

Before further addressing these points, I’d like to ask you a question.

What about all the other attacks (i.e. “the President’s foreign policy is in flames”)? From Cairo to Pakistan. Were these also terrorist attacks, or did the only terrorist attack occur in Benghazi and were the others mainly spontaneous eruptions of outrage, triggered by the film?

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

I’m still trying to follow the logic of this:

According to the president last night….they started out acknowledging the day after the attack that it was a direct terrorist attack (confirmed by Crowley). According to Rice…as facts emerged this was a mob action from a protest of the film..and had nothing to do with terrorism. Still trying to figure out…what evidence they had coming in that changed their original “terror attack” view…when everybody else (CNN, etc) were seeing just the opposite and everything was headed in a different direction?? ie., that the evidence was showing more and more that the meme they were presenting about opportunistic violence spawned out of a protest that never existed was inaccurate.

If the president believed as he suggested…that from the start they believed this was a direct act of terrorism…why would Rice be on TV a few days later suggesting that the best evidence they had was that it was not related to terrorism but an opportunistic attack/violence from a mob protest over the film. And if there was “evolving evidence” that suggested a change in this position…what was it..and where is it? All of the evidence/facts coming after suggested just the opposite. I think it’s clear that the president’s speech at rosegarden (while containing the word “terror” in it) was not intended to mean what he and Crowley tried to pass off last night.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

What about all the other attacks (i.e. “the President’s foreign policy is in flames”)? From Cairo to Pakistan. Were these also terrorist attacks, or did the only terrorist attack occur in Benghazi and were the others mainly spontaneous eruptions of outrage, triggered by the film?

Larry I dont’ remove context from things. That’s a liberal tactic. It’s easy enough to get muslims stirred up into a frenzy over anything related to Islam and western values. We’ve had decades of pounding the shit out of that part of the world. Under democratic and republican presidents. You’d be hard pressed to find someone who’s family had not been impacted in a negative way by US policy in the regions you are speaking of. And here we are again….promoting freedom and democracy with one hand….and launching cruise missles into their backyard with the other.

But, there is a distinct difference between muslim shop keepers going on a tear over some quran burning, or beef with Western govs….and AlQueda attacks. That’s the context you are missing. This wasn’t a flag burning group of coffee shop owners throwing rocks and sticks and trying to break the windows. This was a military assault..with heavy weapons…for the purpose of breaching the embassy and killing everyone inside…and looting it…then setting fire to it.

Secondly, it was the presidents (and democrats) who suggested that this would all somehow be different (ie., “smart power”) if we elected them and put them in charge and let them “talk to our enemies”. It was called Obama’s apology tour by some. That if we just apologized, said we were sorry…talked to our enemies, etc…that Iran wouldn’t need a nuke, people wouldn’t fear us, and all this crap would stop. I could at this point throw the same thing back to you and suggest you go read the headlines and what democrats said….when violence broke out all over after a soldier in Afghanistan or Iraq ignorantly desecrated a Quran while Bush was president. I don’t think you’ll find they found that those events were somehow disconnected to the president’s policies.

I’m not suggesting that we all be like Democrats. Far from it. I’m suggesting we use some discernment to separate the wheat from the chaff and call it what it is and treat it with the seriousness it deserves…and not try and push it off as somebody else’s fault, or responsiblity or try and redefine it as something else.

Hi Dc,

Given that you don’t have any personal, inside knowledge, is it possible that the Occam’s razor scenario is in fact what happened? First, they presumed it was an act of terror? Then it became clear that Cairo (and, eventually, other) mob actions were spontaneous eruptions of Islamic rage and things weren’t quite so clear — so equivocation began?

It strains credulity to believe that the administration knew all along that this was unambiguously a terrorist attack and that they then hatched a scheme to cover it all up as a spontaneous Islamic riot — which would be a conspiracy involving hundreds of people, in a world where everything is under the microscope of the mainstream media, sidestream media, cell phone videos, Wikileaks, etc.

That’s the cover-up aspect. I’ll re-address the culpability issue when I’m able. In the meantime, here’s one of what will be my source reports.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Dc
hi,
remember the evening it happen we where here blogging and
the subject came saying, how come they are not protected, when we heard there was some people with
the AMBASSADOR
HOW COME THEY DON’T HAVE SECURITY,
how come there are nobody there to protect them, as we where watching it burn,
THEN WE SAW CHRIS STEVEN DRAGGED OUT AS IT HAPPEN WITH GADDAFI,
IT BROKE MY HEART TO VISUALIZE A GOOD AMERICAN BEING DRAGGED LIKE A RAG, THEY ALL TOUCHED HIM, HE WAS IN RAGS BLOODY,
THERE ARE VISIONS OF HORROR WHICH LINGER ON FOREVER IN YOUR MEMORY.
YES they fail to protect good brave AMERICANS WHO HAD TO FIGHT AN UNEVEN BATTLE FOR HOURS
WITH WORSE THAN ANIMALS

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: #111

First, they presumed it was an act of terror? Then it became clear that Cairo (and, eventually, other) mob actions were spontaneous eruptions of Islamic rage and things weren’t quite so clear — so equivocation began?

You ask is this possible. Sure, just not likely. There is a possibility that they did, in fact, immediately recognize it as a terrorist attack, but didn’t want the country accusing them of being lax on security so it occurred to them to blame it on the video. It just took them about 2 or 3 weeks to figure out that the whole civilized world knew it was a terrorist attack so they finally caved and admitted it. Gross incompetence either way.

If you’re to use Occam’s Razor:

Multiple assaults on the Libyan consulate had taken place this year before Sept 11, 2012 attack that ended up with 4 dead Americans. These attacks were known in news reportings from that region as light skirmishes with security details for the Consulate which lead to the Consulate to request increased security presence from US military. We have found from the recent Congressional hearings that the request for extra security was denied and reasons for denial never given to the deceased Ambassdor.

It is easy to see why you fail to understand what is happening but you should re-watch the Cspan coverage on the investigation as to why it wasn’t a protest and why proper security was requested and then denied.

It also does not help the case of it being a riot over a video when the Libyian President is on record indicating the attackers are not protesting over a video along with the fact they consist of radical fighters composed of and even manipulated by foreign individuals.

The simplest explanation is we were attacked by militia radicals who seek to destroy our presence in the Middle East. Since you wanted to go to Occam’s Razor.

Larry, I have no problem accepting that this was all just a complete F up at all levels of gov. and not a coverup…just incompetence. I’m not so sure the president and the WH nor democrats are willing to accept that. The problem with your theory about timeline is…that the evidence that has continually emerged from the beginning was the “opposite” of what you say—this has always been a terroist attack and the more evidence that comes out, the clearer that becomes…not less clear. If the president had admitted last night…the truth….which was that he WAS referring to it as a movie protest gone awry initially…THEN it would make sense..that their story evolved from that point to understanding that it was a much different kind of attack.

But, conceding the presidents point..that he believed initially that this was a terroist attack…the story and timeline fall apart and don’t make sense. Personally, I know…from basic comprehension skills, that the president did frame the attack as part of the movie protest in that speech. And that he was at best being “misleading” last night…by suggesting he wasn’t doing that. So I’m not so sure that removing a “cover up” narrative from this…is going to help the president in all this. It was still an incompetent mess at best and I think at least “that”…is clear.

Not to worry. Dick Morris has just announced on Planet Fox that Romney won the second debate.

Maybe the man should be drug tested.

GREG
YOU’RE not on drug are you,
because then you ‘re the one who should be tested,
any way don’t get that shot containing the killer meningite.
oh are you going to buy his book?
DICK MORRIS; THE BLACK HELICOPTER,

@ilovebeeswarzone:
Explosives are so easy to make, Bees, that their misuse will always be a problem. I could walk into your kitchen today and build a bomb and/or another dangerous weapon with what you have on hand. With a little online research, so could you.
What happens when the terrorists get a small nuke or two?
Right now, with a few exceptions, we are only checking shipping containers for radioactivity after they have been unloaded and are sitting on the ground in one of our ports.
Which might be a little late.
An arms dealer is selling missile launchers that look like shipping containers.
Can you imagine an Iranian freighter sitting in international water launching a nuclear missile over New York City?
They have the technology, they just don’t have the nukes.
Yet.

Note to anyone interested: Many of the explosive manufacturing how-to sites will give you false information, or instructions that will get you injured, poisoned, maimed or killed. Commercial manufacturers have strict, extensive safety procedures that they have put in place because they are NECESSARY. Not only is the home manufacturing of explosives illegal, it is dangerous as hell, don’t do it!

Petercat
yes thank you for info.
hope you saw the FBI STORY WITH THE BOMBER,
CHECK FOX
editing;
I hope those checking the radio active container are
well cover up, this is not to fool with,
bye
re editing; I wanted to mention about a young man
going to the post office to mail a sword to his brother,
was arrested at the door and did prison term because it was found illegal,
the story is from the post ; do felons deserve another chance,
who would have guess?
bye

@Greg:

Don’t worry, CNN and the AP been fact checking the second debate and it doesn’t bold well for the President and his claims.

On a similiar note, isn’t it time for your medicine if you’re starting to see people from other planets?

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

You really are trying to excuse the major FUBAR on the part of the Administration when it comes to Benghazi, aren’t you? You keep referring to the Cairo protests that you claim was due to the video referenced by the Administration. Then how do you explain this:

Notice anything missing in al Zawahri’s comments? Maybe like he, and the others interviewed, never ONCE mention the video and were quite specific as to why they were protesting? Perhaps you can also explain why CNN decided to shelf this interview, which was taken on September 11, 2012 in Cairo?

Charlene Lamb, the State Department’s witness at the Congressional hearings, testified that she was the one who denied not only additional security to Benghazi, but the request for the replacement of American security that was leaving in August since their tour was up, but only after she had ran it by “higher ups.”

Now, obviously Libya was not safe, or secure, and our Ambassador knew it. The AMEMBASSY TRIPOLI sent this memo to SECSTATE/Wash/DC on Aug 02 2012:

(SBU) The security condition in Libya remains unpredictable, volatile and violent. Though certain goals have been successfully met, such as the national election for a representative Parliament who will draft the new Libya Constitution, violent security incidents continue to take place due to the lack of a coherent national Libyan security force and the strength of local militias and large numbers of armed groups.

(SBU) Post has made several procedural security and physical upgrades to the interm US compounds. However, host nation security support is lacking and cannot be depended on to provide a safe and secure environment for the diplomatic mission of outreach performed by FSO and other USG personnel on the ground.

If the situation in Benghazi was so violent and desparate that even the Brits, and the Red Cross, pulled out this summer, then surely the president was advised on the rapidly dinintegrating situation on the ground that is Libya, and in particular, Benghazi, which was an area that provide many, many terrorists in both the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters.

The February 17 Martyr’s Brigade was given the job of defending the consulate. Do you know why they are called the Feb. 17th? I suggest you look it up and seem what the symbolism is for them and Feb. 17th. Lamb testified that they did not want to give the impression that we (the U.S.) did not trust the Libyans to protect our Ambassador. i.e. Obama did not want to hurt Muslim feelings, which seems to be a major concern of his. As to someone who supports him that hurts Muslim feelings, Obama seems to not have a problem with that when the insulting person donates a million bucks to Obama’s super PAC. (see Bill Maher) Nor has Obama mentioned his diapproval of the PissChrist exhibit that is not on tour again. Guess insulting Christians doesn’t count.

So we are left with two options: one; that Obama was concerned about the feelings of the Muslims of Libya and in spite of a rapidly deteriorating situation on the ground, he refused proper security or two; Obama was not in the loop, he was not taking proper interest in what the people who work for him were doing and therefore, is totally responsible for the act of war committed against the U.S. in Benghazi because he fell down on his job as chief executive. Take your pick.

One other thing; last night Obama stated that when he learned that Benghazi was under attack (admitting he was aware of it in real time), he ordered enhanced security at all our diplomatic stations in the region. WTF? Benghazi is under attack and he is not sending rapid response teams or talking to Panetta about how to get our people out of there, instead he is concentrating on enchanced security elsewhere?

How much can you spin for a total lack of leadership by someone who was really above his pay grade as a community organizer?

@Greg: #117 Greg, so far, as regards fact checking. They have yet to find anything that the Empty Chair said that is true. Oil and Gas drilling cut by 39%, Gas prices doubled. Tell me just one single accomplishment that EC has done that you personally like, and please do it without a lot of smoke blowing and obfuscation.

Summary of Comportment in Debate:

Obama: Boorish, unpleasant, condescending, insecure, frustrated, arrogant, at some points acting like an angry thug.

Romney: Polite, pleasant, positive, forthright, confident, respectful.

This was a worse performance on Obama’s part than his strange act of I’m-not-here in the first debate. How could anyone not feel embarrassed watching this performance? Nothing Presidential – and that’s before one looks at the content.

@Petercat:

I hated the M-60! Give me something that I can fire single, accurate aimed shots with if I need to. That doesn’t runaway or jam if you don’t jerk the trigger!

All I can say is I must have been firing one of the good ones. We didn’t have any problems with it jamming or too much with accuracy using the bi-pod.

@Redteam:

Ditto, we’re getting into a lot of legalities and if one gets missed it may change everything. While I agree with the quote above, you refer to the 1986 law which didn’t pass so left older machine guns legal. well, in actuality since they were already, at the time, still banned (technicality C&R could be owned by collectors) by the Federal law of 1934 the 1986 law had little consequence.

Excuse me, but the 1986 law WAS passed and it’s stated purpose was “necessary to restore fundamental fairness and clarity to our Nation’s firearms laws.” It also preempts and replaces previous law, which means that, as the law specifically states, it allows the legal transfer of “machine gun and conversion parts” for fully automatic weapons manufactured prior to the 1986 Act. (In other words; The year of manufacture limitations of the 1934 and 1968 laws, have been replaced with the new manufacture date making it legal to own machine guns manufactured prior to passage of the 1986 Act.): Firearms Owner’s Protection Act (1986)

The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), Pub. L. No. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449 (May 19, 1986), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq., is a United States federal law that revised many statutes in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

On May 19, 1986, the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) was signed into law.[1] The first comprehensive redraft of the federal firearm laws since 1968,[2] FOPA was predictably lauded as “necessary to restore fundamental fairness and clarity to our Nation’s firearms laws”[3] and damned as an “almost monstrous idea” and a “national disgrace.”[4] The controversy was not limited to the rhetorical. Seven years passed between FOPA’s introduction and its Senate vote;[5] the House vote required passage of a discharge petition[6] –only the eighth to succeed in the last twenty-six years.[7]

The controversy surrounding FOPA’s genesis is commensurate to the legal impact of its provisions. FOPA effectively overrules six decisions of the United States Supreme Court,[8] (p.586)moots what would have become a seventh,[9] and negates perhaps one-third of the total caselaw construing the Gun Control (p.587)Act of 1968.[10] FOPA’s impact, however, is not limited to the Gun Control Act, nor even to federal statutes. By expressly exempting interstate transportation of firearms from the reach of many state firearm laws,[11] it affects state proceedings as well. A detailed comprehension of FOPA is thus essential to an understanding of both federal and state firearm laws.(p.588)

You don’t really think Redteam, that all these gun shops around the nation selling pre-1986 machine guns are knowingly breaking the law do you?

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Firstly, it’s very clear that someone screwed up. There was inadequate security for Ambassador Stevens. Given that security was a State Department responsibility and given that the State Department is part of the Executive Branch of Government, which is broadly part of the Obama administration, it’s correct to say that the Obama administration screwed up.

But the question here is — did the President himself screw up? Did the President, himself, intentionally try to mislead the American people as a cover-up?

Larry, in all seriousness, this is a great analysis.
I didn’t like Bush’s domestic policies, but I liked his foreign policy. I know you don’t necessarily agree. I don’t like Obama’s domestic or foreign policy, but I support and do like how he stepped up the drone attacks. I know some conservatives and almost all libertarians disagree, but I really don’t mind that he took out a traitorous US citizen in Yemen.
The problem I have with Benghazi as it relates to an Obama cover-up is what Susan Rice did two days after the attack. Did she go rogue? She called it a spontaneous protest, two days later. We know now, based on Charlene Lamb’s testimony that they had real time video of the attack and knew without a doubt that it was not a spontaneous protest. Joe Biden said in the debate that this was based on the information they had at the time.
The buck stops with the president. Mata and I had this discussion already. It is not the president’s personal responsibility to ensure there is adequate security at each embassy. But it is his responsibility to ensure the right people are in place to make those decisions.
Obama is stuck between a rock and an election. He has just over two weeks until the country decides if he will have another four years or not. It is very obvious to me that he cannot throw this all on Hillary or Bill will come unglued. He can’t afford that right now. That is why I think Obama is stonewalling.

To Dc & Aqua:

Here’s a quote from Dc’s CNN link (comment #116):

The State Department’s former point man on security in Libya told a congressional hearing Wednesday that his superiors worked against him as he tried to get more help for the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi in the months before it was overrun in a deadly terror attack.

Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, told the House Oversight Committee that he had a disheartening conversation with the regional director of the agency’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs when he requested additional manpower for the facility.

Now, what does that mean? As I wrote before, it’s obvious that someone screwed up. So it’s correct to say that the Obama administration screwed up. Just as it screwed up in Fast and Furious. But there are more than 2.6 million people who work for the executive branch of government. I think I remember a recent quotation from Hillary Clinton, where she said that the State Department had 60,000 employees. Here’s their organizational chart:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/dos/99494.htm

So the security officer in question didn’t get a satisfactory response from the regional director of the agency’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. How many layers below Clinton is this “regional director?” Did this “regional director” pass the concerns up the food chain? What did Clinton know and when did she know it? What did the President know and when did he know it? You say that the President “should have known.” This is not at all clear to me.

It seems very analogous to Fast and Furious. Major screw up. Months (and years) of screaming and yelling by Republicans. Finally, the full investigation comes in and not only was Obama exonerated, but so was Holder.

Is Obama responsible for hiring the regional director of the agency’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs? Is Clinton?

The truth of the matter is that we don’t really know the details. The details will eventually come out. I do give Aqua a lot of credit for pointing out that, perhaps, the President is more culpable that he now looks to a fair and impartial person and that he’s basically stonewalling until after the election. I don’t think so, but I don’t know, and I have to admit it is a possibility. But I think it’s a huge overreach to make the accusations which are being made, which aren’t supported by currently-available information.

Since this thread is about the debate in general, let me introduce another topic. Romney’s challenge to Obama to look at where Obama’s “pension” is invested. Obama didn’t seem to know the details, but a HuffPo reporter looked it up:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-dechant/president-obama-pension_b_1975639.html

Tigers/Yanks: Game 4 on in an hour and a half.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

openid.aol.com/runnswim
yes the link tell of why he is pushing his agenda of socialist
and solyndra’s alike,
geez he will loose big soon.
that maybe why he doesn’t check it.
but wait, his investment in CHINA MARKET ARE NOT LISTED THERE,
ARE THEY SUPPOSE TO BE SECRETS? HE REALLY WAS ANGRY WHEN MITT ROMNEY MENTIONED IT,

@Ditto:

Excuse me, but the 1986 law WAS passed

yes, the law was passed, but the amendment, as you pointed out, did not, so it left older governing law (1934) in place for machine guns.

It also preempts and replaces previous law, which means that, as the law specifically states, it allows the legal transfer of “machine gun and conversion parts” for fully automatic weapons manufactured prior to the 1986 Act.

but since that amendment failed,there still was prevailing law from 1934 which prohibited the sale of machine guns, except under certain circumstances, such as by FFL class 3.

I’m not a gun collector (though I have a few nice ones) but I know that the average citizen can not walk into walmart and buy a fully automatic gun. Yes, there are likely all types of loopholes, and people can generally find a way to circumvent most of them. I personally hope that it remains very hard for nuts to acquire fully automatic weapons. I want semi-auto weapons available for all law abiding citizens.

Libya wasn’t the only thing Obama has a trouble with as far as the truth goes. He was caught fibbing again, this time by a bunch of hard working class stiffs from the 99% that he claims to represent. Check out the second video at around the 1:30 mark. Very damning.

Curt- This would make for a good thread if it hasn’t been done so already and I missed it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/coal-miners-release-scathing-ad-accusing-obama-of-lies-when-referencing-them/