Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Duh Debates (Page 15)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  20  21  22   
Author Topic: Duh Debates
D Pace
Member
Member # 1493

 - posted      Profile for D Pace   Email D Pace       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth." LDS article of faith 6

When referring to this article of faith, mormons will usually note that the calling of Bishop is matches the role of pastor. (as designated in the Bible).

As common practice, unless potentially talking to an outside audience to not confuse the role of a catholic bishop with a mormon bishop, mormons don't refer to their bishops as pastors.

(it would be an aside - ~ "He's a bishop, which is like a pastor . . .)

Posts: 376 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Re: the Benghazi thing:

I would be astonished if Obama could answer the question prior to the completion of the review that's underway. The question of whether a given embassy gets some extra money is usually so far down the chain of command that I'm sure the first time he was aware of the question was when people started telling him that he was going to have to start answering it.

It's for the same reason that I cut Bush's administration enormous amounts of slack on the 9/11 thing. Yeah, balls were dropped, but no one expects middle managers to be psychic or presidents to be aware of all the funding decisions of their middle managers. 9/11 was no more Bush's fault than Benghazi was Obama's.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
... Not only can you guess the answer, but guess correctly. Honestly Adam, are you always this anal retentive? If Romney had said that he served as a Bishop, and Stake President for a total of ten years, are you implying that the flames of anti-mormonism would have been ignited?... or that listeners would have just wondered what that meant?

*laughs* You're the one who said that he explicitly called attention to his faith; I'm just pointing out that he wasn't calling attention to the LDS part, only the Christian part. The whole thing *should be* irrelevant, but obviously it isn't, and poor Mitt has a very tight rope to walk. He wants the fundamentalist Christian vote without losing the anti-mormon vote, despite the fact that these two groups overlap almost perfectly. Luckily, his opponent is a Muslim as far as this voting block is concerned. [Smile]
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree Tom. If the WTC, and Pentagon, had asked for air traffic control to be on the alert for attacks by large passenger aircraft due to similar attacks upon other nations, and the Air National Guard had not been informed and authorized to respond... then you would have a parallel.

To carry the analogy further; if having been so warned, the President denied the warning after the fact, and accused the airline pilots of flying while intoxicated for two weeks following the tragedy... then you would have a parallel.

Adam,

You are probably right. The "anti-mormon" vote does not know that Romney is Mormon. [Wink]

[ October 17, 2012, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wasn't the request for additional security for the embassy in Libya for the embassy in Tripoli rather than Benghazi? How would extending the tours of the extra guards in Tripoli have changed the outcome in Benghazi?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kmbboots,

Our Ambassador was the target, not our real estate.

[ October 17, 2012, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If the WTC, and Pentagon, had asked for air traffic control to be on the alert for attacks by large passenger aircraft due to similar attacks upon other nations, and the Air National Guard had not been informed and authorized to respond... then you would have a parallel.
IIRC, based on the 9/11 Commission's report, the FBI and CIA both asked for more resources to investigate the specific domestic terrorist cells that produced the attack, but were denied those requests based on funding and on civil rights concerns. Which was at the time the right decision, I believe, even though it had painful consequences.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Kmbboots,

Our Ambassador was the target, not our real estate.

I don't see how that answers the question. The extra security still would have been 400 miles away.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/17/curl-crowley-skews-hard-obama-disastrous-debate/
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Our Ambassador was the target, not our real estate.

On what do you base that assertion? He was an incidental casualty of smoke inhalation and not actually directly targeted in the attack.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Wasn't the request for additional security for the embassy in Libya for the embassy in Tripoli rather than Benghazi? How would extending the tours of the extra guards in Tripoli have changed the outcome in Benghazi?

Especially in light of the fact that they were all replaced with other equivalent security personnel when they were recalled.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

Do you believe that any NATO member will fail to send a fighter intercept against a rogue airliner following 911?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable. And I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home. You know that I mean what I say.
That's a very direct answer to the question, even if it's somewhat unsatisfying because they're still in the process of determining where the breakdown occurred.
The question was:
quote:
We were sitting around, talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?
Obama did not answer the question.

Yes he did-

quote:
And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable.

Is as direct a reply as is possible to the question, unless you are asserting that he's outright lying about not having identified exactly who denied the requests and why they did it.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Following 9/11? Probably not. Heck, even if they shoot that airliner down and it turns out it was full of innocents, being able to say that 9/11 made them acceptably paranoid about rogue airliners gives them plausible cover for the mistake.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kmboots,

Unlike buildings, security is mobile.

Pyrtolin,

OK, the attackers used assault rifles (technicallly defined as a fully automatic rifle firing a medium sized cartridge from a locking breech... Obama appears not to know this), mortars, and rocket propelled grenades to kill four people through "smoke inhailation".

I hope Obama argues this at the next debate.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

Attacks upon other embassies in Libya preceded the deadly attack on ours. In other words, the pattern had been established.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Kmboots,

Unlike buildings, security is mobile.


But that isn't what they requested. And not how the security was set up.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kmbboots,

If you turn out to be right, Obama is unprepared to utilize a viable excuse. Do you really believe that is the case more than a month later?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My -- my passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God. And I believe we’re all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I -- I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years.
Serving as a missionary might bring to mind the boys in the black pants on the bikes for some people. Other than that this really isn't making an issue of his faith.

I should be more clear. The issue that could cause him trouble is his religion, not his faith.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
VL,

I think that is a fair evaluation.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Kmbboots,

If you turn out to be right, Obama is unprepared to utilize a viable excuse. Do you really believe that is the case more than a month later?

I think that the President is less willing to play armchair quarterback when the political football concerns the deaths of his staff than Gov. Romney is.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He has proved more than willing to armchair quarterback thus far... he just got his facts wrong.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If you turn out to be right, Obama is unprepared to utilize a viable excuse. Do you really believe that is the case more than a month later?"

Noel, we have dozens of consulates throughout the region, which is volatile. Are you aware of how many potential attacks have been thwarted since the beginning of the Arab spring?

I'm reminded of Condoleeza Rice's comment that we can prevent 99% of the attacks people try to launch, but if only one gets through our security will be viewed by some as a failure.

Let's remember that Bush had carte blanche with the Congress on security matters. Here's a list of embassy attacks over a 4 year span of his Presidency:
quote:
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.

July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.



[ October 17, 2012, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

Implicit in my statement is that there is such a thing as a viable excuse. It is the subsequent incompetence, and/or deceit that I am having problems with.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
OK, the attackers used assault rifles (technicallly defined as a fully automatic rifle firing a medium sized cartridge from a locking breech... Obama appears not to know this),
Glad I'm not the only one annoyed by that. Automatic weapons like the AK-47 ARE STILL BANNED! "Assault weapons" that make it through the cracks are semi-automatic. One trigger pull, one round fired. No different than any* hunting rifle.

* sorry pump shotguns or bolt action rifles are obviously different. "any" semi-automatic hunting rifle.

I wouldn’t lose any sleep on a ban of assault weapons. I think they exist primarily for people to "play" soldier. The deer, or other game, certainly aren't intimidated by the appearance of the fire arm. You could argue that the intimidation factor of a fancy military looking appearance could be an asset for self defense in your home I suppose. They look scary to people already intimidated by guns. There’s no reason to ban them and not ban your typical hunting rifle. Ammo capacity in magazines / drums of a weapon MAY, MAY be a legitimate concern. Most “assault weapons” have a higher capacity than a typical hunting rifle (I think, could be wrong on this). Then again I think a lot of pistols have a higher capacity than hunting rifles as well.

[ October 17, 2012, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What I find interesting, now that Gov. Romney has decided to run on his record as governor, is how disinclined the people of Massachusetts are to vote for him now.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"If you turn out to be right, Obama is unprepared to utilize a viable excuse. Do you really believe that is the case more than a month later?"

Noel, we have dozens of consulates throughout the region, which is volatile. Are you aware of how many potential attacks have been thwarted since the beginning of the Arab spring?

I'm reminded of Condoleeza Rice's comment that we can prevent 99% of the attacks people try to launch, but if only one gets through our security will be viewed by some as a failure.

Let's remember that Bush had carte blanche with the Congress on security matters. Here's a list of embassy attacks over a 4 year span of his Presidency:
quote:
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.

July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.


But none of those happened on 9/11, so they don't count?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kmbboots,

On that we can agree.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Philnotfil,

If you uncover deceit, or failure to respond to specific security enhancement requests, then they "count" in a way that 911 does not.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But none of those happened on 9/11, so they don't count?"

We're talking about security, which is a daily durable concern. Does it matter on what day those things happened? What if some of those dates have significance to the people who made the attacks?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:

OK, the attackers used assault rifles (technicallly defined as a fully automatic rifle firing a medium sized cartridge from a locking breech... Obama appears not to know this), mortars, and rocket propelled grenades to kill four people through "smoke inhailation".

The Ambassador died of smoke inhalation; he was still alive, if barely, when he exited the embassy and was rushed to the hospital by Libyan citizens. I'm not sure of the cause of death of the other person that died at the embassy, nor of the cause of death of the other two that were killed hours later in a separate attack, and I'm not sure why you're trying to lump them all into one category here.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, forgot my sarcasm tag.

That was one of the big complaints by the GOP, that we should have been prepared on the terrorists holy day of 9/11 when all of their attacks occur.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, sorry, I didn't have my sarcasm-dar turned on. You're a sneaky one, Mr. Phil.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"What I find interesting, now that Gov. Romney has decided to run on his record as governor, is how disinclined the people of Massachusetts are to vote for him now."

I hadn't thought of that before now. As of yesterday Obama is up by 15% in Mitt's Gubernatorial state and by 7% as of last Friday in his birth state of Michigan. I would think one of those two would be his "native son" state. A good question for Mitt in the next debate would be "What is your home state and how's that working for you?" Edgmatt, G#, Noel, can you give us the spin?

[ October 17, 2012, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
Sorry, forgot my sarcasm tag.

That was one of the big complaints by the GOP, that we should have been prepared on the terrorists holy day of 9/11 when all of their attacks occur.

No, that's not what they're saying.

They're saying after multiple specific and credible threats, multiple requests for additional security, multiple warnings from reliable sources, that maybe we should have been, you know, maybe thinking it could happen.

I know, some of the left think that's crazy. With all that warning, who could have guessed it would happen? On 9/11 of all days?

Yeah.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
OK, the attackers used assault rifles (technicallly defined as a fully automatic rifle firing a medium sized cartridge from a locking breech... Obama appears not to know this), mortars, and rocket propelled grenades to kill four people through "smoke inhailation".

The Ambassador died of smoke inhalation; he was still alive, if barely, when he exited the embassy and was rushed to the hospital by Libyan citizens.
[DOH] Yes, the ambassador died of smoke inhalation. The attackers couldn't reach him in the secure room so they set the building on fire with diesel fuel. And then he died of smoke inhalation. The attackers killed him. It wasn't some incidental event.

It was a planned attack that succeeded in killing the ambassador. The administration spent weeks claiming that the attack was not planned, but was a spontaneous riot. Ambassador Rice went on the Sunday talk shows to do damage control and try and shift blame away from the administration. It was all a snow job. And anyone defending it at this point is denying the clear facts.


quote:
A dramatic new account by the State Department reveals that Stevens was locked inside a 'safe room' choking to death from diesel-heavy smoke as the building around him burned to the ground.

Alongside him was a security guard, tasked with the impossible choice between staying in the deadly room - or facing the rocket-propelled grenades and machine-guns outside.

Eventually the guard slipped through the window - and was cut down by the grenades.

The State Department's insistence it never bought the story - expressed by the White House and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations - that a crude anti-Islam film made in California triggered the attack gives ammunition against Obama both to the Romney campaign and congressional Republicans.

State Department sources have said that Clinton has never forgotten that Rice, who served in her husband Bill's administration, was an early supporter of Obama. Rice has ambitions to take over from Clinton if Obama is re-elected but the Benghazi debacle could scupper her chances.

In a briefing on Tuesday, State Department officials said 'others' in the executive branch concluded initially that the attack was part of a protest against the film, which ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad. That was never the State Department's conclusion, reporters were told.

Link

The frigging US State Department has said that it never believe the whole 'spontaneous' attack story. It's pretty obvious that the administration was making the story up for political cover.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
Sorry, forgot my sarcasm tag.

That was one of the big complaints by the GOP, that we should have been prepared on the terrorists holy day of 9/11 when all of their attacks occur.

No, that's not what they're saying.

They're saying after multiple specific and credible threats, multiple requests for additional security, multiple warnings from reliable sources, that maybe we should have been, you know, maybe thinking it could happen.

I know, some of the left think that's crazy. With all that warning, who could have guessed it would happen? On 9/11 of all days?

Yeah.

I agree that there were multiple credible threats. I haven't seen anything yet that indicates there was enough specificity to do anything about. The requests for security were in Tripoli, not Benghazi. The multiple warnings from reliable sources also lacked enough specificity to take action on. Unless you know of something more specific than has been reported?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the latest debate, Obama knew what he had to do and did it. His supporters were ecstatic.

Actually he won only by a small margin, and far from all viewers came to support him. But his performance helped to erase the memory of the first debate, and the heated atmosphere should serve to stoke interest in the election and increase voter turnout. If three million more people vote, Obama will get several hundred thousand more new votes than Romney, and some of those will be in crucial swing states.

As an afterthought, Republican efforts to decrease voter turnout in this election were probably a bad mistake. The courts have rarely allowed measures which would really reduce turnout, and hordes of outraged voters are likely to turn out who would not have done so otherwise. But Romney had no control over these efforts so far as I know, as I have seen nothing to indicate he suggested or approved them personally. So as with some ads and comments, Machiavellian supporters took measures which really hurt his candidacy, and about which he could do nothing. But his "binders full of women" remark was his own mistake, and I just found 20,000 references to that on the news. And for every reference I found, there were probably a hundred I missed, so most Americans will hear it repeatedly.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm wondering why the issue of LDS paternalism hasn't been brought up. Maybe Pete or someone else can correct me, but it's my understanding that women can not have leadership positions in LDS. Is that true? Romney handled the question of women's equal pay poorly, and not just with his reference to "binders of women". How does that translate to Romney's appointment of women to leadership roles in his Massachusetts Administration?

First of all, Romney was given several binders of profiles of qualified women on the day he took office, so he didn't send out for them. Second, if he *did* do that, isn't asking for such binders equivalent to affirmative action? Third, he didn't address the question of equal pay at all. Then there's the role of women in his Administration and the progress of women's roles throughout his tenure:
quote:
An Obama campaign spokesperson cited a 2007 study (PDF) by MassGAP and the Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy at the University of Massachusetts-Boston Wednesday, criticizing Romney’s administration for contributing to “the lack of overall growth in women’s representation in top positions” between September 2002 and July 2004.

According to the study, women replaced other women in 24 percent of Romney’s appointments during that time period, while men replaced men 37 percent of the time. And during the same period, women appointees replaced men 18 percent of the time, while men replaced women in 21 percent of similar cases.

In an email to The Raw Story, a MassGAP spokesperson said both Romney and Democratic opponent Shannon O’Brien agreed before the 2002 gubernatorial election to “make best efforts” to appoint a “proportionate” amount of women to state positions, as well as to meet with the group during the appointments process.

“Following the election, MassGAP formed committees for each cabinet post in the administration and began the process of recruiting, interviewing, and vetting women applicants,” the statement said. “Those committees selected top applicants for each position and presented this information to the administration for follow-up interviews and consideration for appointment.”


Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
As an afterthought, Republican efforts to decrease voter turnout in this election were probably a bad mistake. The courts have rarely allowed measures which would really reduce turnout, and hordes of outraged voters are likely to turn out who would not have done so otherwise. But Romney had no control over these efforts so far as I know, as I have seen nothing to indicate he suggested or approved them personally. So as with some ads and comments, Machiavellian supporters took measures which really hurt his candidacy, and about which he could do nothing. But his "binders full of women" remark was his own mistake, and I just found 20,000 references to that on the news. And for every reference I found, there were probably a hundred I missed, so most Americans will hear it repeatedly.

Voter suppression is something that both candidates should be actively and unconditionally criticizing, especially if people are trying to do it on their behalf. (One of the latest tricks appears to be minorities and the elderly getting phone calls offering to take their votes over the phone so they don't need to worry about getting to the polls) Otherwise they begin to drift into the realm of "plausible" deniability.

Here's something a little more direct from Romney along those lines:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/romney-told-employers-tell-employees-whom-vote/58076/#

quote:
"I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections," said Romney in a recording obtained by In These Times. "Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well."

Okay, Mitt. You're right. It's not technically illegal for employers to tell their employees how to vote. That doesn't mean that it's ethical or understandable or even acceptable to connect people's livelihoods with their political beliefs. There's a fine line between an employer telling an employee, "Vote Romney!" and a boss telling a subordinate, "Vote Romney, or else!" At least, in the eyes of the inevitably subordinate employees there's not.


Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  20  21  22   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1