|
|
On October 11 2012 07:19 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 06:41 sevencck wrote:On October 11 2012 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 11 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:You mean this is not looking good for Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs. Nordstrom's pleas for additional security ended with her, and it is becoming clear that her negligence alone is likely at fault. For whatever reason, she deemed additional security unnecessary. But then again, don't let the truth get in the way of monolith bashing. Source the State Dept. and the Administration both put forward false narratives of the attack, citing intell that doesn't seem to exist. kinda shady if you ask me. considering that Obama is going to be in a foreign policy debate with Romney soon, this has to be killing him and his campaign team right now. oh and no, i'm not implying a false flag operation at all. i just think Obama, for whatever reason, was either lying about what happened, or possibly worse, was completely uninformed as to what happened. Only because there is a tendency to blow minor issues out of proportion with respect to their intrinsic importance. As if somehow Obama's alleged mishandling of the attack of the American consulate somehow more broadly validates Romney's foreign policy. Right, because the mishandling of a terrorist ATTACK on an American consulate and the murder of an ambassador are just minor issues that don't reflect on Obama's foreign policy at all...
They likely reflect more on the foreign policy of prior presidents who have fucked the middle eastern region in the ass for decades.
Either way, the issue is blown completely out of proportion and Romney's stances on foreign policy are a fucking joke.
|
On October 11 2012 07:17 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 07:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2012 07:10 coverpunch wrote:
I don't see the Benghazi attack as a real election issue.
What's concerning is that this is a presidential issue and the Obama administration has really messed this up. Why does it matter? For one, Obama gave an eloquent speech to the UN that is now complete drivel given the new facts. This wasn't an attack on freedom of speech or democracy or human rights, it was premeditated murder of American citizens. It has to be alarming that a US consulate in a country torn by civil war didn't get any security beef for the anniversary of 9/11, even after the consulate asked for it twice, citing concerns about rising fanaticism. But where's the outrage? Where are the resolute calls to bring these killers to justice?
I don't think this really helps Romney except by the twisted election logic that anything that's bad for Obama is good for him. But win or lose, this is something that the president has to start to untangle. Go read Romney's speech on foreign policy if you don't see how this attack is going to be used against Obama. The issue isn't that it is an isolated attack. The issue isn't even that Obama's administration has been lying about what happened in Benghazi (though this is important). The real issue is that Romney has an opening to attack Obama's entire Middle East policy as an abject failure. I actually agree that this whole Libya incident is a gaffe from the Obama administration, but you're gonna be hard-pressed to use this to condemn Obama's entire Middle East policy lol.
Right, Libya alone is not enough. However, when you add in all of the other countries that are protesting against us and otherwise falling outside of our sphere of influence, a distinct pattern of foreign policy failures that is vulnerable to attack emerges.
|
And just to be clear, I'm just explaining how Romney is going to attack Obama and how this is going to cause Obama some major headaches at future debates.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I believe if Obama gets his shit together and is not a passive little girl during the foreign policy debate, Libya and the Middle East protests won't be too hard to refute.
On another note, oh my God. I don't think you guys realize how happy I am right now since dvorak got nuked. I had him blocked but this is so much more satisfying. I'm so ecstatic I could hug xDaunt and add in a little somethin'-somethin'.
|
On October 11 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
And just to be clear, I'm just explaining how Romney is going to attack Obama and how this is going to cause Obama some major headaches at future debates.
I agree that it's definitely bad for Obama and it is just one more issue of many that he has to answer for. I just don't think it helps Romney very much. It doesn't make his diplomatic skills any better or his foreign policy any more legitimate. The question is the same as always: Obama is not doing a good enough job. But can Romney do better?
|
On October 11 2012 07:34 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
And just to be clear, I'm just explaining how Romney is going to attack Obama and how this is going to cause Obama some major headaches at future debates. I agree that it's definitely bad for Obama and it is just one more issue of many that he has to answer for. I just don't think it helps Romney very much. It doesn't make his diplomatic skills any better or his foreign policy any more legitimate. The question is the same as always: Obama is not doing a good enough job. But can Romney do better?
The foreign policy issues aren't going to work for Romney so much as they are going to work against Obama. All Romney can do is generally espouse his philosophy of foreign policy. He can't lay out specific details because he doesn't have the intelligence/information to do so. However, Romney can point out specific failures in Obama's foreign policy.
|
On October 11 2012 07:31 Souma wrote:
I believe if Obama gets his shit together and is not a passive little girl during the foreign policy debate, Libya and the Middle East protests won't be too hard to refute.
On another note, oh my God. I don't think you guys realize how happy I am right now since dvorak got nuked. I had him blocked but this is so much more satisfying. I'm so ecstatic I could hug xDaunt and add in a little somethin'-somethin'.
it was only a mater of time before he got nuked, he was a giant dick. I think we should all take a moment to hug xDaunt, we may not all agree with him but at least he goes about his views with dignity and class and paints a fair argument for a conservative government
|
On October 11 2012 07:39 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 07:31 Souma wrote:
I believe if Obama gets his shit together and is not a passive little girl during the foreign policy debate, Libya and the Middle East protests won't be too hard to refute.
On another note, oh my God. I don't think you guys realize how happy I am right now since dvorak got nuked. I had him blocked but this is so much more satisfying. I'm so ecstatic I could hug xDaunt and add in a little somethin'-somethin'. it was only a mater of time before he got nuked, he was a giant dick. I think we should all take a moment to hug xDaunt, we may not all agree with him but at least he goes about his views with dignity and class and paints a fair argument for a conservative government
I would argue the definition of "Fair" but I would agree that he at least parades his views with more class than dvorak. :D
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
The only question is, how much mercy shall we show xDaunt after Obama wins the election? mwah hahah.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't see any actual foreign policy from romney. maybe it's because he's just doing jingoism and it drowns out the actual philosophy.
maybe generosity undeserved.
|
On October 11 2012 06:41 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 11 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:You mean this is not looking good for Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs. Nordstrom's pleas for additional security ended with her, and it is becoming clear that her negligence alone is likely at fault. For whatever reason, she deemed additional security unnecessary. But then again, don't let the truth get in the way of monolith bashing. Source the State Dept. and the Administration both put forward false narratives of the attack, citing intell that doesn't seem to exist. kinda shady if you ask me. considering that Obama is going to be in a foreign policy debate with Romney soon, this has to be killing him and his campaign team right now. oh and no, i'm not implying a false flag operation at all. i just think Obama, for whatever reason, was either lying about what happened, or possibly worse, was completely uninformed as to what happened. Only because there is a tendency to blow minor issues out of proportion with respect to their intrinsic importance. As if somehow Obama's alleged mishandling of the attack of the American consulate somehow more broadly validates Romney's foreign policy.
i will agree that this doesn't validate anything about Romney. but it does (to some degree) invalidate Obama's foreign policy, and to a certain degree it calls into question even further Obama's overall handling of Presidential issues. there was a piece Rush Limbaugh did a while ago where all these figures in the media and on Barack's campaign kept repeating: "now this election is a choice, and not a referendum" or some variation of that.
if we take this attack as an example we see how the recent shift is that this election is becoming a referendum on Obama and the Democrats. the debate was successful in a lot of things, but i think it's most important success was in promoting Romney's image as a viable Presidential candidate. before the debate, the big question was whether Romney could actually be President.
+ Show Spoiler +The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Oct. 4-7 among 1,511 adults, including 1,201 registered voters (1,112 likely voters), finds that 67% of Romney’s backers support him strongly, up from 56% last month. For the first time in the campaign, Romney draws as much strong support as does Obama.
More generally, the poll finds Romney’s supporters far more engaged in the campaign than they were in September. Fully 82% say they have given a lot of thought to the election, up from 73% in September. The new survey finds that Romney supporters hold a 15-point advantage over Obama backers on this key engagement measure. Supporters on both sides were about even in September.
Coming out of the debate, Mitt Romney’s personal image has improved. His favorable rating has hit 50% among registered voters for the first time in Pew Research Center surveys and has risen five points since September. At the same time, Obama’s personal favorability rating has fallen from 55% to 49%.
In the presidential horserace, Romney has made sizable gains over the past month among women voters, white non-Hispanics and those younger than 50. Currently, women are evenly divided (47% Obama, 47% Romney). Last month, Obama led Romney by 18 points (56% to 38%) among women likely voters.
his performance in the debate was enough to convince most people that he is a viable candidate. and it was enough to get his base excited about him, especially with the Ryan pick added in. and this is pretty far along in the campaigning, with only a little time to go. Obama's main line of attack has been that Romney is not only unelectable, but unlikable. they've had a lot of success with that, but the debate really hurt that position. not only did Romney look decently electable, and acceptably likable, but it's not going to be a very easy to push the idea that Romney is unelectable and unlikable if Romney is standing right there looking alright.
so if we move past pure electability and likability, and go into specifics, we run into a few problems. Obama's record is now on the table, and his record on foreign policy, as seen with the handling Libya attack, is often pretty bad. not only does this look really bad, but it brings our attention to other failures of his administration and of his own handling of those failures by his subordinates. you can say that Libya is, in a sense, another straw on the camel's back. is it the last straw? idk, but it's definitely a problem for Obama, especially when he's in a pretty tight election.
perception of Obama's presidency has been lukewarm for almost the whole four years. which means that his only chance is to keep pushing the "Romney would be worse." line and then try to talk about his own ideas for how things will be better in the next four years than they were for the last four. Romney is seen as the guy with the new ideas, so the challenge is on Obama to regain the ground he's lost. and with something as bad as his administration and State Dept. lying to the American people about the intell they have on an ambassador being assassinated... well, his work is cut out for him.
sources:
http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/08/romneys-strong-debate-performance-erases-obamas-lead/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
|
On October 11 2012 07:46 Souma wrote:
The only question is, how much mercy shall we show xDaunt after Obama wins the election? mwah hahah.
I already know what I'm posting when Romney wins. Let's just say that homage will be paid.
|
On October 11 2012 07:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 07:46 Souma wrote:
The only question is, how much mercy shall we show xDaunt after Obama wins the election? mwah hahah. I already know what I'm posting when Romney wins. Let's just say that homage will be paid.
if obama wins i think ill change my sig to ninerninerniner xDaunt. I am still sure obama will win, he wont win by much, but he will win
|
On October 11 2012 07:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 06:41 sevencck wrote:On October 11 2012 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 11 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:You mean this is not looking good for Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs. Nordstrom's pleas for additional security ended with her, and it is becoming clear that her negligence alone is likely at fault. For whatever reason, she deemed additional security unnecessary. But then again, don't let the truth get in the way of monolith bashing. Source the State Dept. and the Administration both put forward false narratives of the attack, citing intell that doesn't seem to exist. kinda shady if you ask me. considering that Obama is going to be in a foreign policy debate with Romney soon, this has to be killing him and his campaign team right now. oh and no, i'm not implying a false flag operation at all. i just think Obama, for whatever reason, was either lying about what happened, or possibly worse, was completely uninformed as to what happened. Only because there is a tendency to blow minor issues out of proportion with respect to their intrinsic importance. As if somehow Obama's alleged mishandling of the attack of the American consulate somehow more broadly validates Romney's foreign policy. i will agree that this doesn't validate anything about Romney. but it does (to some degree) invalidate Obama's foreign policy, and to a certain degree it calls into question even further Obama's overall handling of Presidential issues. there was a piece Rush Limbaugh did a while ago where all these figures in the media and on Barack's campaign kept repeating: "now this election is a choice, and not a referendum" or some variation of that.
How? Events like this aren't exactly easy to predict and prepare for. There is an element of chaos in human existence that can't reasonably be prepared for. How does an event like this more broadly reflect on Obama's foreign policy? Please explain specifically, I don't see how one can reasonably even contend they are necessarily related.
|
On October 11 2012 08:06 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 07:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 11 2012 06:41 sevencck wrote:On October 11 2012 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 11 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:You mean this is not looking good for Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs. Nordstrom's pleas for additional security ended with her, and it is becoming clear that her negligence alone is likely at fault. For whatever reason, she deemed additional security unnecessary. But then again, don't let the truth get in the way of monolith bashing. Source the State Dept. and the Administration both put forward false narratives of the attack, citing intell that doesn't seem to exist. kinda shady if you ask me. considering that Obama is going to be in a foreign policy debate with Romney soon, this has to be killing him and his campaign team right now. oh and no, i'm not implying a false flag operation at all. i just think Obama, for whatever reason, was either lying about what happened, or possibly worse, was completely uninformed as to what happened. Only because there is a tendency to blow minor issues out of proportion with respect to their intrinsic importance. As if somehow Obama's alleged mishandling of the attack of the American consulate somehow more broadly validates Romney's foreign policy. i will agree that this doesn't validate anything about Romney. but it does (to some degree) invalidate Obama's foreign policy, and to a certain degree it calls into question even further Obama's overall handling of Presidential issues. there was a piece Rush Limbaugh did a while ago where all these figures in the media and on Barack's campaign kept repeating: "now this election is a choice, and not a referendum" or some variation of that. How? Events like this aren't exactly easy to predict and prepare for. There is an element of chaos in human existence that can't reasonably be prepared for. How does an event like this more broadly reflect on Obama's foreign policy? Please explain specifically, I don't see how one can reasonably even contend they are necessarily related.
We didn't even have a single boot on the ground in a highly unstable country to protect our embassy or ambassador, not one armed marine. It was by intention that we didn't have a single soldier there. Instead, we hired Libyan bodyguards who were ultimately the one's to backstab us and hand over our ambassador to terrorists.
And that's to ignore the response to the attack, which was to blame American free speech for an attack instead of admitting it was terrorism, because that might contradict the narrative of an Al-Qaeda on the verge of extinction thanks to Obama.
|
On October 11 2012 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 11 2012 07:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 11 2012 06:41 sevencck wrote:On October 11 2012 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 11 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:You mean this is not looking good for Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs. Nordstrom's pleas for additional security ended with her, and it is becoming clear that her negligence alone is likely at fault. For whatever reason, she deemed additional security unnecessary. But then again, don't let the truth get in the way of monolith bashing. Source the State Dept. and the Administration both put forward false narratives of the attack, citing intell that doesn't seem to exist. kinda shady if you ask me. considering that Obama is going to be in a foreign policy debate with Romney soon, this has to be killing him and his campaign team right now. oh and no, i'm not implying a false flag operation at all. i just think Obama, for whatever reason, was either lying about what happened, or possibly worse, was completely uninformed as to what happened. Only because there is a tendency to blow minor issues out of proportion with respect to their intrinsic importance. As if somehow Obama's alleged mishandling of the attack of the American consulate somehow more broadly validates Romney's foreign policy. i will agree that this doesn't validate anything about Romney. but it does (to some degree) invalidate Obama's foreign policy, and to a certain degree it calls into question even further Obama's overall handling of Presidential issues. there was a piece Rush Limbaugh did a while ago where all these figures in the media and on Barack's campaign kept repeating: "now this election is a choice, and not a referendum" or some variation of that. How? Events like this aren't exactly easy to predict and prepare for. There is an element of chaos in human existence that can't reasonably be prepared for. How does an event like this more broadly reflect on Obama's foreign policy? Please explain specifically, I don't see how one can reasonably even contend they are necessarily related. We didn't even have a single boot on the ground in a highly unstable country to protect our embassy or ambassador, not one armed marine. It was by intention that we didn't have a single soldier there. Instead, we hired Libyan bodyguards who were ultimately the one's to backstab us and hand over our ambassador to terrorists. And that's to ignore the response to the attack, which was to blame American free speech for an attack instead of admitting it was terrorism, because that might contradict the narrative of an Al-Qaeda on the verge of extinction thanks to Obama.
Presumably there wasn't much classified information at the consulate in Benghazi (not the embassy, which is in Tripoli). The purpose of the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group is primarily to protect information, not people.
|
On October 11 2012 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 11 2012 07:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 11 2012 06:41 sevencck wrote:On October 11 2012 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 11 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:You mean this is not looking good for Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs. Nordstrom's pleas for additional security ended with her, and it is becoming clear that her negligence alone is likely at fault. For whatever reason, she deemed additional security unnecessary. But then again, don't let the truth get in the way of monolith bashing. Source the State Dept. and the Administration both put forward false narratives of the attack, citing intell that doesn't seem to exist. kinda shady if you ask me. considering that Obama is going to be in a foreign policy debate with Romney soon, this has to be killing him and his campaign team right now. oh and no, i'm not implying a false flag operation at all. i just think Obama, for whatever reason, was either lying about what happened, or possibly worse, was completely uninformed as to what happened. Only because there is a tendency to blow minor issues out of proportion with respect to their intrinsic importance. As if somehow Obama's alleged mishandling of the attack of the American consulate somehow more broadly validates Romney's foreign policy. i will agree that this doesn't validate anything about Romney. but it does (to some degree) invalidate Obama's foreign policy, and to a certain degree it calls into question even further Obama's overall handling of Presidential issues. there was a piece Rush Limbaugh did a while ago where all these figures in the media and on Barack's campaign kept repeating: "now this election is a choice, and not a referendum" or some variation of that. How? Events like this aren't exactly easy to predict and prepare for. There is an element of chaos in human existence that can't reasonably be prepared for. How does an event like this more broadly reflect on Obama's foreign policy? Please explain specifically, I don't see how one can reasonably even contend they are necessarily related. We didn't even have a single boot on the ground in a highly unstable country to protect our embassy or ambassador, not one armed marine. It was by intention that we didn't have a single soldier there. Instead, we hired Libyan bodyguards who were ultimately the one's to backstab us and hand over our ambassador to terrorists. And that's to ignore the response to the attack, which was to blame American free speech for an attack instead of admitting it was terrorism, because that might contradict the narrative of an Al-Qaeda on the verge of extinction thanks to Obama.
Not sure I care to argue this point, but the state department claims security was adequate and I somehow doubt the consulate would have been undefended. In any case, you're focused on a minor detail while missing the more important context, which is the instability of that region and the general distaste for America. I suppose that's Obama's fault? At what point do you consider the foreign policy of the past 30 years in the Middle East deeply problematic and start considering alternative foreign policy strategies? And I suppose if a consulate gets attacked along the way and the administration lies (not sure if this is even fair), this means the foreign policy is poor and it's back to the drawing board? Are you aware of Romney's general take on foreign policy?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
PBS produces a lot of quality documentaries.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
So the Supreme Court is set to rule on affirmative action. I'm curious, am I the only lefty here that believes affirmative action should not be based on race?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
