OH God, thank you. I was starting to worry Brow.
Libyagate
- Thread starter PearlWatson
- Start date
OH God, thank you. I was starting to worry Brow.
I'm still unclear how the unplanned murder is less of a disaster, or what the motive for Obama's supposed lying is.
It is worse due to the intentions of the peopel behind it. PRetty easy concept. If you do not want to acknowledge or accept that then that is fine.
I think Obama tried to sweep it under the rug because he thought it would hurt his campaign. I would have gone the oppisute way and tried to unite people behind me.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
It looks like stoked is brows new favorite debate partner after his breakup with aint. That's special.
I think I would disagree with that premise. A planned attack would be something conducted by a small group on Libyan soil, not represetative of the Libyan people, and much harder to avert/prevent. It allows the President more latitude to act aggressively, which Obama is not shy to do.
I agree with your assessment, and I'd be surprised if people actually thought a cover-up was the best course of action, when there was no wrong-doing to cover up. It would have been different if this had been a covert operation gone wrong. I can understand why those get covered up, and I think Obama is as prone to covering thos up as anyone else. I don't see a good motive here.
Stoked and I have some very fundamental agreements, the sort that make interesting disagreements possible.
Since when has that ever been a requirement? I think that is what Obama, stupidly, tried to do. Makes no sense but it is what it is.
One Brow and I so have some very basic agreements but in the details is where we disagree. I agree with him, that is the good stuff.
Let's see... we have an embassy that is woefully under staffed regarding security, in a country that just a few months ago overthrew their dictator and has little to no control over their own security, let alone worrying about a foreign embassy. The U.S. ambassador has requested additional security but has essentially been ignored. Of any date to be concerned with an attack in a predominantly Muslim country, 9/11 should be at the top of every list.
After the attack the administration has two choices:
A. "We really screwed up. We should have listened to our ambassador and had enough common sense to realize that the likely hood of this attack happening was incredibly high given the location and date."
vs.
B. "It was a spontaneous response to a D grade movie that insulted Mohammed. Shame on the movie maker for offending followers of Islam."
The first option shows an incredible lack of common sense, judgement and forethought. The second option absolves the current administration of almost all responsibility (or so they hoped). So, to answer your question, they lied to cover their asses. The fact that they perpetuated the lie for two weeks before fessing up to what really happened just makes it all the more disturbing. Hell, just last night Obama said that they were still investigating the incident.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
This is such a non issue.
There were protests all over the region. Is it really important if there was a protest before the terror attack or not?
Obama acknowledged this was a terror attack the day after it happened. Whether he knew there was a protest before the terror attack or not at that time is just not very important. And there are still people (not related to the Obama administration) saying there was a protest.
It just seems like this is a minor, insignificant detail in the grand scheme of things.
Obama knew this was an act of terror immediately, and whether there was or wasn't a protest is not relevant to that fact.
As far as them asking for more security, sure, it would have been nice to give them the extra security. Too bad the republican congress denied the funding Obama requested for extra security.
I think this is going to hurt Romney if he keeps pushing this. A good leader should bring the nation together when we are attacked. Romney has been trying to polarize and gain politically off of this ever since it happened (just as he said he would in that secretly taped video).
I can't imagine this "scandal" is making Romney look better to anyone that wasn't already going to vote for him anyway. I can, however, see undecideds getting turned off by Romney using an attack against this nation for political gains and polarizing citizens of this nation.
Like I said, a good leader would try to bring the nation together when it's attacked.
There were protests all over the region. Is it really important if there was a protest before the terror attack or not?
Obama acknowledged this was a terror attack the day after it happened. Whether he knew there was a protest before the terror attack or not at that time is just not very important. And there are still people (not related to the Obama administration) saying there was a protest.
It just seems like this is a minor, insignificant detail in the grand scheme of things.
Obama knew this was an act of terror immediately, and whether there was or wasn't a protest is not relevant to that fact.
As far as them asking for more security, sure, it would have been nice to give them the extra security. Too bad the republican congress denied the funding Obama requested for extra security.
I think this is going to hurt Romney if he keeps pushing this. A good leader should bring the nation together when we are attacked. Romney has been trying to polarize and gain politically off of this ever since it happened (just as he said he would in that secretly taped video).
I can't imagine this "scandal" is making Romney look better to anyone that wasn't already going to vote for him anyway. I can, however, see undecideds getting turned off by Romney using an attack against this nation for political gains and polarizing citizens of this nation.
Like I said, a good leader would try to bring the nation together when it's attacked.
Exactly. To bad neither one of them has tried.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Tell that to all the leaders he's bowed to and told he'll have more flexibility after the election.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
So Obama said “terror” somewhere in the vicinity of Libya the day after, but for weeks afterwards he was like, “Duh, YouTubes!”
But he did say it was terrible. So what's the magic behind proclaiming it terrorism? Terrorism is terrible. Murder is terrible. Terrorism is not worse than murder nor is murder worse than terrorism from a purely vocabularic point of view. So what great injustice was done by Obama not saying the word terrorism?
I'm sorry, but if a random mobwould have been able to breach security, isn't that an even bigger lapse than if a planned assault team did so?
We're talking about an administration that counts male children as terrorists ifthey are in the vincinityh of a drone strike. Saying people are terrorists on no evidence is what they do. Why the sudden course change?
I see this as being a question of whether it's more reasonable to believe accurate intelligence was slow in coming, or whether Obama lied about terrorists being random citizens. In almost every other situation, the adminstration has lied to make random citizens into terrorists. So, the second option breaks the pattern. I just find the first more likely.
Slow in coming? The big pitch is that he knew the next day it was terrorism. OK fair enough. But he spent the next week or having his admin. blame that video. I think he fumbled this whole issue hard. That is his problem. I do not see him handling alot of things well.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Blaming that video for what? Being the motivation for a terrorist attack?
I just don't get this argument that if there was a protest it couldn't have been a terrorist attack. It is entirely possible to have a protest and a terrorist attack, which is how the administration said it happened.
But hasn't the state department come out and said there weren't protests before the attack?
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
I honestly don't know. I saw some report yesterday that said people in Libya are still saying there was a protest.
My point though, is does it even matter? It was a terrorist attack. We've known that since it happened. Whether this terrorist attack was motivated by a video or not is kind of irrelevant.
This notion that it was either a protest or a terrorist attack is nonsense. It's totally possible to have both. And if Obama got part of it wrong, and later corrected the sequence of events as new information became available, so be it. After all, we know he got the important part right (it was an act of terror) immediately.