2012 Election Thread

[Super Dude]

His foreign policy has been pretty good. Leaders and their people abroad actually like the guy because he doesn't make them feel like we're the world police. I mean seriously, when we got *somewhat* involved in Libya (which involved no troops on the ground from us), people criticized Obama for being a warmonger. Now he's being criticized for being too soft.

[Adami]

His foreign policy has been pretty good. Leaders and their people abroad actually like the guy because he doesn't make them feel like we're the world police. I mean seriously, when we got *somewhat* involved in Libya (which involved no troops on the ground from us), people criticized Obama for being a warmonger. Now he's being criticized for being too soft.

I can think of one leader who doesn't like Obama.

[Super Dude]

Well...almost everyone.

[Perpetual Change]

What IS worrisome is that we now know that the State Department knew that our Ambassador not only was fearful and asked for more security, but that it was denied and that they actually pulled some of the security prior to 9-11 this year.  That is unbelievable, and someone has to answer for that.  Ultimately, the semantics of when Obama called it a terrorist attack doesn't matter (which is why Romney goofed in focusing on that at Tuesday's debate); the failure of the State Department to protect our overseas diplomat and other Americans is glaring.  This is bound to be discussed in more detail tomorrow, and it should be interesting to see how that goes.

Hey now, Obama isn't Bush, so his foreign policy is beyond question.  You should know this.   

I wish I lived in the world you apparently do, where Bush's foreign policy was questioned before launching the nation into various uneccessary conflicts, including two wars, which were disastrous to the economy, the national debt, and the overall morale of the country.

Bush sorely needed to be questioned, especially during the whole 9/12 blind sheep mentality-era which Republicans still glorify. Obama needs to be questioned too, but on the right issues, not on semantics.

Honestly, these discussions here are reinforcing my idea that Republicans just are at a loss with this election. There's no meaningful criticism of Obama, or differing vision for the nation. Mitt and his supporters can only seem to offer up bitterly disillusioned sarcasm.

I mean, the Ron Paul people and the Tea Party people had a different vision for the nation, I guess. But they were about as relevant as they were sane, so there ya go 

[ReaPsTA]

I wish I lived in the world you apparently do, where Bush's foreign policy was questioned before launching the nation into various uneccessary conflicts, including two wars, which were disastrous to the economy, the national debt, and the overall morale of the country.

I'm not sure where you got this presumption.

Bush sorely needed to be questioned, especially during the whole 9/12 blind sheep mentality-era which Republicans still glorify. Obama needs to be questioned too, but on the right issues, not on semantics.

I can't help but feel like I'm the only one who resents how people on the left feel like they should have a monopoly on the form of political debates.  Who are you to say what the right issues are?

Maybe I think that semantics do matter.  Maybe I think it represents basic cowardice on the part of the people responsible for our national defense that they feel trepidation about using the words "terrorist attacks."  The way people say things usually means more than what they're actually saying.

Honestly, these discussions here are reinforcing my idea that Republicans just are at a loss with this election. There's no meaningful criticism of Obama, or differing vision for the nation. Mitt and his supporters can only seem to offer up bitterly disillusioned sarcasm.

I guess I'm really surprised that, having followed Obama's presidency for the last four years, you can find literally no meaningful criticism of him by his opposition.  Really?  Not a thing?

I mean, the Ron Paul people and the Tea Party people had a different vision for the nation, I guess. But they were about as relevant as they were sane, so there ya go 

I was neither a Ron Paul supporter nor a Tea Party member, but I can't help but find this very unendearing.

I guess at this point it's useless but I feel like I need to type it again - You can't put yourself in a position where you completely invalidate the other side of an argument in your mind.

[rumborak]

I saw Wyatt Cenac on Friday, who said "Libertarians are just anarchists with mortgages".

[ReaPsTA]

I saw Wyatt Cenac on Friday, who said "Libertarians are just anarchists with mortgages".

What does this even mean?  What is the purpose of this other than to be insulting?  Even the more radical strains of libertarianism aren't anarchistic.

[Perpetual Change]

I'm not sure where you got this presumption.

You sarcastically proclaimed that it's not OK to question Obama's FP, because he's not Bush. That's simply not true. Bush wasn't seriously questioned about his FP until well after the fact, when people woke up from their 9/12 trances realizing they'd been duped. And, by that time, it was too late. We got the "well, if we stop now things will get even worse!" and " you gotta finish the job!" arguments.

Maybe I think that semantics do matter.  Maybe I think it represents basic cowardice on the part of the people responsible for our national defense that they feel trepidation about using the words "terrorist attacks."  The way people say things usually means more than what they're actually saying.

Considering what can legal qualify as "terrorism" in the nation now-- thanks to Obama, btw-- I'm not sure I'd ever argue that there's too much trepidation about using those words.

I guess I'm really surprised that, having followed Obama's presidency for the last four years, you can find literally no meaningful criticism of him by his opposition.  Really?  Not a thing?

Plenty. None from Republicans.

I can't help but feel like I'm the only one who resents how people on the left feel like they should have a monopoly on the form of political debates.  Who are you to say what the right issues are?

I don't know what to tell you. Plenty of people have expressed absolute disgust over the state of discourse in this nation. If you like it, good for you. What do you like about it?

I saw Wyatt Cenac on Friday, who said "Libertarians are just anarchists with mortgages".

Libertarianism is like a gateway drug that turns idealistic middleclass whites into lifelong lukewarn supporters of the GoP nominee.

[El Barto]

Hey SnakeEyes. as somebody who's pretty interested in foreign policy, do you really think that's a weak point of Obama's?  I'm really interested in how somebody who was so supportive of Bush's actions could criticize Obama's foreign policy, when it's really just more of the same but slightly streamlined.  I expect that from the brain dead flag-waivers, but you're definitely not in that group. 

As for Obama's "terrorism" remarks, people are trying to read too much into it.  It was an intentionally vague reply, and quite frankly, fucking brilliant.  It was simultaneously decisive and noncommittal. 

And as I often do, I have to ask if it actually was an act of terrorism anyway.  At least in the non-Amerkan any Muslim who hates us is a terrorist sense.  Did anybody ever claim credit for it?  Was there any message associated with it?  People blow shit up all the time, and not every instance is a political statement. 

[Perpetual Change]

I'm not sold on it actually being a terrorist attack either, frankly. That may be my skepticism of anytime the government uses the word "terror" kicking in; I dunno.

And yeah, from where I stand, criticisms of Obama's foreign policy from the right so far amount to, "he could be way more reckless and less diplomatic!" 

[Super Dude]

Which, again, is funny considering when he did show "muscle" he was suddenly bagged for getting us into another unnecessary war.

[SnakeEyes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8mmHr12rM

Are you kidding with this? 

Admit you're wrong. Cause you're wrong. Yes, he referenced 9/11 for a second, but only in the context of a whole speech about Benghazi, and immediately after he put the 4 American deaths in the same category as 9/11. He was calling it an act of terror.

No, he wasn't.  First of all, if he was calling it a terrorist attack, why did he begin with this:

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.

Why didn't he say a "in a TERRORIST attack," or, "in an attack BY TERRORISTS."  An attack?  Really?  Not a TERRORIST attack?  He did NOT call this a terrorist attack.  In fact, he went out of his way to call it an "attack."   

Basically, what happened, is Obama and the administration were not sure if the attack was coordinated or an impromptu act. And there were valid reasons for not knowing! The video did inspire protests. Plus, the two are hardly mutually exclusive, so it's not as if it either has to be because of of the video or an act of terror.

You just contradicted yourself.  I asked for proof of Obama saying that it was an act of terror before the fourteen days that Romney mentioned in the debate and you linked me to the Rose Garden speech.  Then, in this sentence, you talk about the video inspiring protests, as if that WAS the reason.  Please, you're all over the place.  They knew within like 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack.  People don't show up to "protests" with freaking rocket launchers and grenade launchers!  It was a terrorist attack and Obama didn't call it that. 

Plus, like I said, Rice and Clinton were ALL OVER the place talking about how the video was responsible.  They didn't act like they "didn't know."  Rice said it WAS because of the video.  So, maybe you should admit that you're wrong because you are. 

[Perpetual Change]

How is it a "terrorist attack", and why should it have been confirmed as one immediately, if it was? Was the attack linked to a known terrorist organization? Or, is every instance of an American dying at the hands of an angry Muslim considered "terrorism". Does the word terrorist just mean "murder, when conducted by an angry person of color?" Why does it matter if the administration took some time to decide whether this was an impromptu attack or a concerted effort by a terrorist effort?

I'm getting the strong feeling that this WAS an impromptu attack, and NOT a concerted effort by a terrorist organization, and now the administration has basically been strong-armed into upping the rhetoric. I mean, if it was a concerted effort, fine. Let's know who did it.

Plus, like I said, Rice and Clinton were ALL OVER the place talking about how the video was responsible.  They didn't act like they "didn't know."  Rice said it WAS because of the video.  So, maybe you should admit that you're wrong because you are. 

Yes, exactly. You just said it. Before there was an official stance, Obama firmly stated that the attack was the type of attack that was comporable to terrorist attacks that have occured before. Then, Rice and Clinton scaled back and said some other things. Then, the conservative media and the Mitt Romney campaign, in their infinite wisdom, decided it was DEFINITELY a terrorist attack and told us the president was being a liar and a wimp. I still don't see the reasoning for the escalated rhetoric. Obama didn't lie. He was vague, and he said things that were inconsistent with what State Department implied. But he didn't lie. He just didn't. The escalated rhetoric isn't helping.

Was this a concerted effort from a terrorist organization? Was this an impromptu attack that exploited real and relevant weaknesses in embassy security abroad? You tell me-- the media won't, because it's completely focused on this semantic BS the Mitt Romney campaign seems to be reveling in.

[SnakeEyes]

Hey SnakeEyes. as somebody who's pretty interested in foreign policy, do you really think that's a weak point of Obama's?  I'm really interested in how somebody who was so supportive of Bush's actions could criticize Obama's foreign policy, when it's really just more of the same but slightly streamlined.  I expect that from the brain dead flag-waivers, but you're definitely not in that group.

First of all, thanks for the comment that I'm not a "brain dead flag-waver."  I try not to be.   

To answer your question, I actually think Obama's foreign policy is his strongest attribute as president.  His economic policies suck as well as his domestic policies, in my opinion of course.  But, I would pretty much agree that it's "more of the same, but slightly streamlined."  Let me be more clear: I'm not criticizing Obama's foreign policy as a whole.  What I'm talking about has to do with the one word Obama made such a big deal about in 2008:  "TRANSPARENCY" 

Sorry, but Obama is not being transparent in this situation.  He's actually not telling the truth and he knows it.  He knows that, to call it a terrorist attack, means that it blows apart his argument that terrorism has been under control during his presidency.  He tries to act like he has al-quaeda on the run because of the bin laden kill, but this does not support that narrative.  So, for me, personally, this isn't really about foreign policy -- it's about honesty.   

As for Obama's "terrorism" remarks, people are trying to read too much into it.  It was an intentionally vague reply, and quite frankly, fucking brilliant.  It was simultaneously decisive and noncommittal.

I would completely agree with you IF he and other members of his administration weren't going all over the place in the first few days after the attack and saying that it happened because of You Tube video.   

And as I often do, I have to ask if it actually was an act of terrorism anyway.  At least in the non-Amerkan any Muslim who hates us is a terrorist sense.  Did anybody ever claim credit for it?  Was there any message associated with it?  People blow shit up all the time, and not every instance is a political statement.

Come on, dude.  It was September 11th and they knew security wasn't adequate.  OF COURSE it was a terrorist attack.  No one has to claim credit for it.  Killing Americans and hurting American interests is enough for them. 

[Perpetual Change]

Come on, dude.  It was September 11th and they knew security wasn't adequate.  OF COURSE it was a terrorist attack.  No one has to claim credit for it.  Killing Americans and hurting American interests is enough for them. 

That just makes me insanely uncomfortable. When I think "terrorist attack", I think planned attack executed by a terrorist organization for the express purpose of promoting terror. Not riot that escalated to the point of people dying. Not to take away the tragedy of a envoy dying, but what are we defining a terrorist attack as?

If a white kid would have shot up a school on 9/11, would it have counted as a terrorist attack under your definition?

This whole attitude-- OF COURSE it was terrorism-- annoys me because terrorism has been defined by the past two administrations as virtually ANYTHING the government wants it to be. Does that not bother you at all?

[Super Dude]

I have to ask a question: what sort of military privileges does an envoy have? Can s/he arm himself? Can s/he call military protection to him/herself? Does s/he inform or otherwise influence military strategy in the region in question?

[ReaPsTA]

You sarcastically proclaimed that it's not OK to question Obama's FP, because he's not Bush. That's simply not true. Bush wasn't seriously questioned about his FP until well after the fact, when people woke up from their 9/12 trances realizing they'd been duped. And, by that time, it was too late. We got the "well, if we stop now things will get even worse!" and " you gotta finish the job!" arguments.

Still not sure what you're trying to say.  For me, it's just tough to see every criticism of Obama's foreign policy be deflected with a response that basically comes down to "Hey, don't you remember how bad Bush was?"

Maybe I think that semantics do matter.  Maybe I think it represents basic cowardice on the part of the people responsible for our national defense that they feel trepidation about using the words "terrorist attacks."  The way people say things usually means more than what they're actually saying.

Considering what can legal qualify as "terrorism" in the nation now-- thanks to Obama, btw-- I'm not sure I'd ever argue that there's too much trepidation about using those words.

I guess this kinda gets down to the whole issue that this terrorist attack controversy is about.

Why is it Obama signs a bill expanding the conditions under which American citizens can be detained without due process, expresses reservations about those conditions in his signing statements, and then his justice department defends those expanded powers in court?  Based on his actions, Obama seems to be just fine with expanded power to detain Americans without due process.  Yet he said he didn't.

These are basic contradictions.  Obama's handling of foreign policy reaks of this.

Take his military involvement in Libya in general.  I'm not against what he did.  It seems perfectly reasonable to me.  On the other hand, I don't know why we benefit from this.  And now one of our ambassadors has died for this cause.  So... why was it worth it?  Why did we do this?  When we invaded Iraq, outside the WMD argument, there was the idea of trying to create democracies in the Middle East that would be friendly to use and reduce the potential situations from which terrorist acts can arise.  With Libya I don't really know.  It feels like what Obama did was use military force in a context where he could get away with it.  If it's not for any bigger cause, then what's the point of launching a military attack except for its own sake.  This is usually called warmongering.

And the way he's handled the assassination stinks of equivocation.  This article describes why there is a controversy better than I can.

This might be shocking, but a foreign policy based on seemingly contradictory actions isn't "realism."  It looks aimless.  And it might actually be aimless.  Obama's handling of Afghanistan was the same way.  He couldn't figure out if he wanted to make another honest stab at accomplishing our military objectives there or if he wanted to just leave.

I guess I'm really surprised that, having followed Obama's presidency for the last four years, you can find literally no meaningful criticism of him by his opposition.  Really?  Not a thing?

Plenty. None from Republicans.

Below, you indicate that you don't like the state of political discourse in this country.  But, again, you're basically arguing for Obama's foreign policy and how he's carrying it out.  You're basically taking his side.  This is fine.  But then you can't assault the validity of the Republicans and what they think.  The biggest problem with political discourse is viewing your side as good and the other side as evil.  And that's exactly what you're doing in your posts.  You're being part of the problem.

I can't help but feel like I'm the only one who resents how people on the left feel like they should have a monopoly on the form of political debates.  Who are you to say what the right issues are?

I don't know what to tell you. Plenty of people have expressed absolute disgust over the state of discourse in this nation. If you like it, good for you. What do you like about it?

I don't like it.  I hate it in fact.

I saw Wyatt Cenac on Friday, who said "Libertarians are just anarchists with mortgages".

Libertarianism is like a gateway drug that turns idealistic middleclass whites into lifelong lukewarn supporters of the GoP nominee.

Well.... I'm not voting for Romney.  Whatever that means.

[SnakeEyes]

I just don't have time to reply to every single little point that's being made in this thread.  The simple fact is that Obama DID say misleading statements.  When someone intentionally misleads someone, that is a lie.  For the record, I think Bush was misleading the country when he was telling everyone that Iraq was getting better and we could clearly see it wasn't (before the surge).  I'm not an "Obama hater."  He has done some good things.  But, a lie is a lie.  This is a lie. 

One of the most important arguments here is this:  "why did Obama have to immediately call it a terrorist attack?" 

Well, let's ignore the fact that it WAS a terrorist attack.  Let's just completely forget about that for a minute.  Now, let me pose a question:  if Obama "didn't know" what really happened, why was he SO QUICK to blame the video? 

Jay Carney, September 13th:

“I think it’s important to note with regards to that protest that there are protests taking place in different countries across the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet. As Secretary Clinton said today, the United States government had nothing to do with this movie. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. America has a history of religious tolerance and respect for religious beliefs that goes back to our nation’s founding. We are stronger because we are the home to people of all religions, including millions of Muslims, and we reject the denigration of religion. We also believe that there is no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence.”

They were blaming the video as early as September 13th.  They were trying to squash ANY discussion of the attack as being a TERRORIST attack.  It was a cover up.  Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack.  This is reality now.  Not Obama Land where some of you people reside. 

[El Barto]

Sorry, but Obama is not being transparent in this situation.  He's actually not telling the truth and he knows it.  He knows that, to call it a terrorist attack, means that it blows apart his argument that terrorism has been under control during his presidency.  He tries to act like he has al-quaeda on the run because of the bin laden kill, but this does not support that narrative.  So, for me, personally, this isn't really about foreign policy -- it's about honesty.   

Ironically, it was the Cheney administration that warned us all that there would be little or no transparency.  Remember the whole "Dark Side" speech?  Unfortunately, I have to agree that Obama definitely is lacking in that department.  Since I don't give a damn about this bogus war on terror, I'd just as soon see an administration that's at least honest about not giving a shit about basic human rights while it kills indiscriminately. 

In the end, I'm just tired of nitwit Republicans blasting him over things that they should be approving of.  It's the best example of the masses being duped by the machines that run this country.

Come on, dude.  It was September 11th and they knew security wasn't adequate.  OF COURSE it was a terrorist attack.  No one has to claim credit for it.  Killing Americans and hurting American interests is enough for them. 

It was twenty guys wanting to kill Americans.  Happens every day.  It also has none of the hallmarks of an actual terrorist attack.  Like PC said, and I've been saying for years, terrorism is only what you call the enemy's actions when they make you look bad. 

If we're at war with terrorists, then why aren't their actions warfare?  Fighters from a militant group that we're officially at war with attacked a US target. 

And most importantly, it's hardly exemplary that Obama has lost control over the bogus terror war.  Comparatively, if we're to use embassy attacks as a metric, he's actually done remarkably well.  Of course that's just another example of Americans being hazy on what is or isn't terror, depending on how they want to make the government appear. 

22 January 2002    Calcutta, India    Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami gunmen attack Consulate    5
14 June 2002    Karachi, Pakistan    al-Qaeda truck bomb detonates outside Consulate (more details)    12
12 October 2002    Denpasar, Indonesia    Consular Office bombed by Jemaah Islamiyah as part of the Bali bombings    none
28 February 2003    Islamabad, Pakistan    Unknown gunmen attack Embassy    2
30 June 2004    Tashkent, Uzbekistan    Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan suicide bomber attacks Embassy    2
6 December 2004    Jeddah, Saudi Arabia    al-Qaeda gunmen raid diplomatic compound    9
2 March 2006    Karachi, Pakistan    Car bomb explodes outside Embassy unknown    2
12 September 2006    Demascuc, Syria    Gunmen raid US Embassy    4
12 January 2007    Athens, Greece    RPG Fired at Embassy by Revolutionary Struggle    none
18 March 2008    Sana'a, Yemen    Mortar attack against US Embassy    2
9 July 2008    Istanbul, Turkey    Armed attack against Consulate (more details)    6
17 September 2008    Sana'a, Yemen    Two car bombs outside US embassy in Yemeni capital

[Super Dude]

I have to ask a question: what sort of military privileges does an envoy have? Can s/he arm himself? Can s/he call military protection to him/herself? Does s/he inform or otherwise influence military strategy in the region in question?

[El Barto]

I have to ask a question: what sort of military privileges does an envoy have? Can s/he arm himself? Can s/he call military protection to him/herself? Does s/he inform or otherwise influence military strategy in the region in question?

I'd be surprised if a diplomat can arm himself if it would be in violation of the host country's law.  As a rule, I suspect they expect to have good protection from both their own security detachment and from the local authorities. 

[Perpetual Change]

I willingly admit those Obama contradiction, Reap. It's your assumption, which I've seen from conseravtives here more than once, that is wrong. Most of us here are indepenants and/or slightly Obama leaning. That doesn't mean the guy is beyond criticism. I see the whole "you guys think Obama is beyond criticism" remark made here so often, and it's just not true. Likewise:

Below, you indicate that you don't like the state of political discourse in this country.  But, again, you're basically arguing for Obama's foreign policy and how he's carrying it out.  You're basically taking his side.  This is fine.  But then you can't assault the validity of the Republicans and what they think.  The biggest problem with political discourse is viewing your side as good and the other side as evil.  And that's exactly what you're doing in your posts.  You're being part of the problem.

 

No way! I can assualt the validity of the Republican platform all I want because, while I have plenty of beef with democrats, I'm more and more convinced of the idea that the Republican platform is actually nothing more than a loose alliance of corporate interests that stands for nothing at all. 

I like to think of someone who tries to step back and view issues objectively. Often times, I do take a conservative viewpoint that is not popular with liberals. I'm strongly pro-life, and I'm more against legalized drugs than I am for it. And I've been beat-up on these forums every time I've mentioned that.

But, guess what? Being objective and trying to be independent =/= saying that "both sides are valid."  As someone who watched every single GoP debate, I am fully willing to say that the Republican "platform" (whatever it even is) and it's annoyingly pandering nature (often to America's lowest common demoninator) is something I feel has little validity at all, even if I like things the Republicans say about, for example, right to life. Hell, I don't even know what Republicans stand for. What is it, again? I'd be grateful if any of you lifetimers would be kind enough to help me see through Fox News BS and tell me what being a Repulican in America is all about.

@Snake Eyes:

EXTREMELY disappointing reply. If you're gonna accuse us all of being dope-snorters and then say "OF COURSE it was a terrorist attack" in big caps like that, you at least owe some seriousness to the question about what does/does not qualify as a terrorist attack.

I mean, this is just an online forum and all, so you don't owe anyone here anything. But, come-on man. If that's how it's gonna be, I won't even bother next time.

[Super Dude]

I have to ask a question: what sort of military privileges does an envoy have? Can s/he arm himself? Can s/he call military protection to him/herself? Does s/he inform or otherwise influence military strategy in the region in question?

I'd be surprised if a diplomat can arm himself if it would be in violation of the host country's law.  As a rule, I suspect they expect to have good protection from both their own security detachment and from the local authorities.

I guess my point is if an envoy could be construed as a "military" target. Because terrorism, as I learned in a Harvard course about terrorism, is meant to be formally defined as any act of violence instigated by non-military personnel against other non-military personnel to enact/demand a certain political outcome. That is to say that an act that's meant to harm Pentagon personnel or the president, would not be considered terrorism, because these are actors who are considered military targets - that is considered an act of war. So if the envoy is classed in a similar manner, this was not terrorism per se.

[El Barto]

I have to ask a question: what sort of military privileges does an envoy have? Can s/he arm himself? Can s/he call military protection to him/herself? Does s/he inform or otherwise influence military strategy in the region in question?

I'd be surprised if a diplomat can arm himself if it would be in violation of the host country's law.  As a rule, I suspect they expect to have good protection from both their own security detachment and from the local authorities.

I guess my point is if an envoy could be construed as a "military" target. Because terrorism, as I learned in a Harvard course about terrorism, is meant to be formally defined as any act of violence instigated by non-military personnel against other non-military personnel to enact/demand a certain political outcome. That is to say that an act that's meant to harm Pentagon personnel or the president, would not be considered terrorism, because these are actors who are considered military targets - that is considered an act of war. So if the envoy is classed in a similar manner, this was not terrorism per se.

Yeah, I was curious if they'd be considered civilians or not.  They're definitely not military, but they're certainly government agents.  If someone were to attack CIA HQ in Langley, it'd be a similar deal.  Not military, but definitely not normal civvies.  If you think about it, civilians are people who aren't bear no responsibility for the situations that provoke attacks.  Envoys are agents of the government who act to carry out national interests.

[ReaPsTA]

Drowning in Semantics issues again.

A US ambassador was deliberately killed.  Obama affected necessary levels of solemness, but that's something anyone can do.  When 9/11 happened, Bush at least pretended to genuinely care.

This might disappoint those who consider themselves enlightened, but the "correct" reaction actually does involve a bit of "We're going to find the people who did this and fuck them up.  And for everyone else's sake, you better at the very least do us the decency of not getting in our way."  So much out our collective rage/sadness comes from the fact that we're wronged regularly in our daily lives and are conditioned societally not to do anything about it.  So... why do we base foreign policy on that?  It's not that every attack against us should keep us stirred in a constant outrage (as 1984 showed us, this means bad things for society).  We don't need Obama to be emotionally broken up, but where was even a trace of real emotion?  Why, instead, has this become an issue of his administration very possibly trying to hide what really happened from the American public?

[Scheavo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8mmHr12rM

Are you kidding with this? 

Admit you're wrong. Cause you're wrong. Yes, he referenced 9/11 for a second, but only in the context of a whole speech about Benghazi, and immediately after he put the 4 American deaths in the same category as 9/11. He was calling it an act of terror.

No, he wasn't.  First of all, if he was calling it a terrorist attack, why did he begin with this:

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.

Why didn't he say a "in a TERRORIST attack," or, "in an attack BY TERRORISTS."  An attack?  Really?  Not a TERRORIST attack?  He did NOT call this a terrorist attack.  In fact, he went out of his way to call it an "attack."   

 

Ya, he went out of his way to call an attack, an attack. An attack he later compared to 9/11, and labeled "acts of terror." God forbid Democrats have a large vocabulary, they should use the same moronic-phrase repeating habits of the Republican party. You're just complaining because he uses language differently than you, and it's childish.

This response is devoid of any logic. I'm sorry, it just is.

Basically, what happened, is Obama and the administration were not sure if the attack was coordinated or an impromptu act. And there were valid reasons for not knowing! The video did inspire protests. Plus, the two are hardly mutually exclusive, so it's not as if it either has to be because of of the video or an act of terror.

You just contradicted yourself.  I asked for proof of Obama saying that it was an act of terror before the fourteen days that Romney mentioned in the debate and you linked me to the Rose Garden speech.  Then, in this sentence, you talk about the video inspiring protests, as if that WAS the reason.  Please, you're all over the place.  They knew within like 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack.  People don't show up to "protests" with freaking rocket launchers and grenade launchers!  It was a terrorist attack and Obama didn't call it that. 

No, I didn't contradict myself, not even slightly. Because saying the video inspires protests doesn't say that, sans the video, there wouldn't have been some effort to kill our ambassador. The organizers of the attacks could have used the video's as a cover, they could have used those video's to get more people to show up and act as cover, and they could have used the fact that there were other protests about the video to appear to be a protest about the video, thus confusing security. There is nothing inconsistent about that.

Drowning in Semantics issues again.

That's because the entire issue is a semantics issue, and continuing to try and paint the President as weak because of it is ridiculous.

22 January 2002    Calcutta, India    Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami gunmen attack Consulate    5
14 June 2002    Karachi, Pakistan    al-Qaeda truck bomb detonates outside Consulate (more details)    12
12 October 2002    Denpasar, Indonesia    Consular Office bombed by Jemaah Islamiyah as part of the Bali bombings    none
28 February 2003    Islamabad, Pakistan    Unknown gunmen attack Embassy    2
30 June 2004    Tashkent, Uzbekistan    Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan suicide bomber attacks Embassy    2
6 December 2004    Jeddah, Saudi Arabia    al-Qaeda gunmen raid diplomatic compound    9
2 March 2006    Karachi, Pakistan    Car bomb explodes outside Embassy unknown    2
12 September 2006    Demascuc, Syria    Gunmen raid US Embassy    4
12 January 2007    Athens, Greece    RPG Fired at Embassy by Revolutionary Struggle    none
18 March 2008    Sana'a, Yemen    Mortar attack against US Embassy    2
9 July 2008    Istanbul, Turkey    Armed attack against Consulate (more details)    6
17 September 2008    Sana'a, Yemen    Two car bombs outside US embassy in Yemeni capital

This is what I find almost most irritating, that the Right refuses to look at the attack in context. They're so caught up in the fact that there was an attack, that they're unable to move on. The ONLY reason Republicans are up in arms at all, is because Obama is a Democrat. If he was a Republican, but had the exact same policies as he's had, the Republican base would be talking about this guy as if he was the new Reagan.

[Perpetual Change]

Drowning in Semantics issues again.

A US ambassador was deliberately killed.  Obama affected necessary levels of solemness, but that's something anyone can do.  When 9/11 happened, Bush at least pretended to genuinely care.

This might disappoint those who consider themselves enlightened, but the "correct" reaction actually does involve a bit of "We're going to find the people who did this and fuck them up.  And for everyone else's sake, you better at the very least do us the decency of not getting in our way."  So much out our collective rage/sadness comes from the fact that we're wronged regularly in our daily lives and are conditioned societally not to do anything about it.  So... why do we base foreign policy on that?  It's not that every attack against us should keep us stirred in a constant outrage (as 1984 showed us, this means bad things for society).  We don't need Obama to be emotionally broken up, but where was even a trace of real emotion?  Why, instead, has this become an issue of his administration very possibly trying to hide what really happened from the American public?

"Very possibly"?

How so? Because it took some time to figure out while the Romney campaign was chest-pounding on the sidelines like wannabe alpha males?

Otherwise, I just disagree with this entire post. Foreign Policy is NOT the place for playing the "wronged hero" card across the globe. What good do you think that would do?

By the way, this is exactly what I keep thinking. What is the GoP standing for? Small government is just a talking point, with dramatic speeches about cutting social services non-whites use but no real considerations of the real drains on the budget. The religious right is marginalized, except for when the left brings it up to remind people. Noninterventionist foreign policy died with the rise of the NeoCons. Right now the GoP just seems to be a collective surrounding Fox News and its corporate sponsors, vaguely united by common disillusionment and the feeling that who and what the country once stood for is fading. Man, the GoP primary was just that bad.

[El Barto]

Drowning in Semantics issues again.

A US ambassador was deliberately killed.  Obama affected necessary levels of solemness, but that's something anyone can do.  When 9/11 happened, Bush at least pretended to genuinely care.

Somewhere in China, Sun Tzu is rolling over in his grave.

I'd rather have somebody act coldly but rationally.  Bush might have pretended to care (the least he could do given his involvement in letting us get clobbered), but he overdid it in a way that had catastrophic consequences.  I'd trade that for a "fuck it, these things happen" and a calculated response, any day.  This isn't cutting in line at the high school cafeteria.  There are tremendous consequences. 

[Orthogonal]

Small government is just a talking point, with dramatic speeches about cutting social services non-whites use but no real considerations of the real drains on the budget.

Funny, for a party that talks this much about small government, it is worth pointing out that not once in the entire history of this country has the government ever shrank. Not ONCE. Talk about futility. There are only 2 possible explanations. They are either completely incompetent, or they are full of shit. Neither of which speaks highly of them.

It's easy for the Left to do what it says. Growing the government is as easy as getting Congress or the Treasury to ask the Fed to give them a blank check. The Right then just plays along to ensure their special interests are supported.  Unfortunately for the Left and the progressive policies designed from the heart to help those in need, it will eventually do far more damage when the whole apparatus crumbles under its own weight as economic reality hits home.

[Super Dude]

Drowning in Semantics issues again.

A US ambassador was deliberately killed.  Obama affected necessary levels of solemness, but that's something anyone can do.  When 9/11 happened, Bush at least pretended to genuinely care.

Somewhere in China, Sun Tzu is rolling over in his grave.

A pertinent point if I ever did see one. Seriously, foreign policy isn't about making us feel self-righteous and justified, it's about doing what's in the best interest of the nation in a given situation, whatever that may be.

[soundgarden]

Small government is just a talking point, with dramatic speeches about cutting social services non-whites use but no real considerations of the real drains on the budget.

Funny, for a party that talks this much about small government, it is worth pointing out that not once in the entire history of this country has the government ever shrank. Not ONCE. Talk about futility. There are only 2 possible explanations. They are either completely incompetent, or they are full of shit. Neither of which speaks highly of them.

And not only that.  The "ideal" situation for them to return to is the most recent successful Republican leader.  Apparently, the government level UP TO Reagan is the ideal, even with all the established liberal policies.  Why not we go back to a time without anti-trust laws, for example?  Why not go back to a time with no social security & no medicare, for example?

And no half-brain right-winger would return to Founding Father days.  Imagine Madison's or Jefferson's deist chats in the media today....

[Chino]

Drowning in Semantics issues again.

A US ambassador was deliberately killed.  Obama affected necessary levels of solemness, but that's something anyone can do.  When 9/11 happened, Bush at least pretended to genuinely care.

Somewhere in China, Sun Tzu is rolling over in his grave.

I'd rather have somebody act coldly but rationally.  Bush might have pretended to care (the least he could do given his involvement in letting us get clobbered), but he overdid it in a way that had catastrophic consequences.  I'd trade that for a "fuck it, these things happen" and a calculated response, any day.  This isn't cutting in line at the high school cafeteria.  There are tremendous consequences.

I'm with Barto on this one. Overreacting for the sake of the general public's acceptance is pointless. I think Obama handled the situation perfectly.

[rumborak]

The problem is, while it is foreign policy wise exactly the right thing to do (jumping up in outrage at every American death is exactly what terrorists are looking for), it is almost impossible to pitch to a populous of which a large percentage doesn't go further than "eye for an eye".

[Perpetual Change]

Ya know, here's the thing. Posturing as an insane renegade kinda works sometimes, especially for nations that want to get rival nations off their backs by appearing like they're nuts and willing to do anything (i.e. what seems like Iran's FP strategy). But, when you're already the leader of the global hegemony and in the spotlight of the rest of the world, the insanity approach doesn't really help your cause. It just makes you look bad.

[Chino]

The problem is, while it is foreign policy wise exactly the right thing to do (jumping up in outrage at every American death is exactly what terrorists are looking for), it is almost impossible to pitch to a populous of which a large percentage doesn't go further than "eye for an eye".

That's because a large percentage of the populous is completely blind to the majority of our actions toward the rest of the world. Sure they could be outraged that we didn't make a bigger deal about these deaths, but if they were aware of even a tenth of the people that the US has accidentally killed (or turned a blind eye to) over there, they'd be appalled. We've lost less than 10,000 people over there in the last decade. Last figures I've read said we have take out over a half million of them.