General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo, I've now read and watched the Rose Garden address about Benghazi.
And I have this to say:
1) You can tell that both Obama and Clinton feel the loss personally, her perhaps more than him. But it's sure a stark contrast to smirkin' Mitt's response, and it won't hurt for people to be watching that tape a few times between now and November.
2) I would like to know who crafted that speech because it is a masterpiece.
I am not being sarcastic. If you read that speech closely, you will realize that it is so constructed that whether the attacks turned out to be spontaneously motivated by the film or whether they turned out to be a calculated terrorist attack, retroactively that speech will prove that Obama was right.
Because early in the speech, Obama asserts that while they deplore the denigration of anyone's faith there is categorically no excuse for "senseless violence." Then, later in the speech, he links the Benghazi attack to September 11 and says, "No acts of terror will weaken our resolve," etc. He does not explicitly say "the Benghazi attack was an act of terror;" but it is so strongly implied that virtually anyone, looking back after the fact, will agree that this is what he meant. He also does not explicitly say that the attacks were motivated by outrage over the film. But, had it turned out that they were, the speech implies that strongly enough that he's covered there too.
The one thing that is absolutely clear is that it is always referred to as an "attack" and the people who carried it out are always referred to as "attackers"--never as 'protestors.'
This tells me that at the time that speech was written, nobody was entirely sure what the story was--but it also tells me that there was a strong suspicion that this was not going to turn out to be a spontaneous event. It also tells me he's got people on his team who are really good at what they do, which oddly enough I find very reassuring.
3) Mitt's attack on Obama for "not knowing" that it was a terrorist attack soon enough has always been, from my POV, dishonest, no matter how you parse the Rose Garden speech. Why would you want your President out there boldly proclaiming that things are one way when in fact he and his staff know that there are still multiple possible explanations? Why would you want your president broadcasting to the nation things that would, at that point, no doubt still have been classified information? Wouldn't you prefer a president who thought that actually getting to the bottom of this was more important than posturing for the cameras?
Well, I guess if you would, then you would be voting for Obama. Whereas if you what you want from a president is ill-considered impulsive potentially destructive grand-standing, well, you probably voted for George W. Bush a couple times, and you're probably voting for Romney come fall.
Anyway. I'm glad Mitt got the smackdown he's been cruising for ever since that smirking press conference. Man I will be happy when he drops back below the radar.
The Plaid Adder
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)President Obama chastised him quite strongly for trying to score a political point about the 4 deaths.
And what did he do? He came back even stronger TRYING TO SCORE A POLITICAL POINT on the 4 American deaths and got his head handed to him. It was about as bad a sequence as I have ever seen in a Presidential debate, and it only gets worse when you re-watch it and break it down. Obama could not have scripted Romney's part any better.
Plaid Adder
(5,518 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Obama's statement was very emotional and he called Romney out as being offensive by trying to score cheap political points that way.
Romney evidently didn't hear most of what Obama had just said because he was fixated on what Obama said about his Rose Garden statement.
What really makes this bewildering, bordering on political malpractice, is that Romney and Ryan have been running around telling that lie and the trust was clearly out there. This wasn't something that would take Obama by surprise, so if Obama said his Rose Garden statement referred to it as terrorism:
1) Romney should have known that; and
2) If he didn't know that, he should have had some sense of danger, especially when Obama calmly said ""Please proceed Governor"
Marr
(20,317 posts)If it were in a script, they'd toss it because no one would believe anyone could be as blind and stupid as Romney was on that point.
When Obama said, "proceed, Governor", it seemed like he was sincerely angry about Romney's continued attempts to score political points over the incident. And Romney just sticks his fool head on the block AGAIN, in exactly the same way he did when he issued that press release in the middle of the attacks.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Which is what he did on the day of the tragedy, in the first place.
And think about it. His complaint -- inaccurate as it was -- was that it took 17 days for the administration to provide details about the attack. That is not an unreasonable amount of time. It is not as if they said nothing in the interim. They were providing updates almost every day, but they evidently weren't to Romney's satisfaction until the 17th day. WTF is that !?
I want the administration to be deliberate and thorough. 17 days is simply not a problem, as far as I'm concerned. It took 11 years to kill Osama. I am less concerned about the 17 days and more concerned that we knock down that terror cell, for the good of the new Libya and everyone else.
And whom are you going to trust on that? The guy who methodically ran down Osma bin Laden or the guy who goes off half cocked based on something his people read on Britebart?
Julien Sorel
(6,067 posts)He thought he had a knockout, a "There is no Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe" moment. You could see in his eyes that he thought he had the kill; I got the feeling he was fighting a battle with himself to avoid a gloating smirk right on the spot. It's interesting that he hadn't done his homework on this point, because it's a major part of the foundation of his foreign policy attack, such as it is, and he ought to have been fully prepared. He should have known what Obama said that day better than Obama himself did. But he clearly hadn't even read the speech, but was going on second hand stuff fed to him by his FP team of neocon Bush retreads. Those guys failed Bush and the country, and now they're failing Romney, although Romney himself is ultimately to blame.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)They said fact-checkers had no place in their campaign, and this was a moment that attitude cost them severely.
Considering people already believe Romney is not qualified on foreign affairs, he scored the trifecta:
1) Focused on minutia when these matters are actually quite complex and require a sophisticated, multi-dimensional approach
2) Came across as petty, vindictive, and opportunistic at a moment he was discussing a tragedy taking many lives
3) Had his facts altogether wrong, but was prepared to go off half-cocked with bad information -- which is exactly the same thing he did the day that tragedy happened
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)about this.
NorCen_CT
(176 posts)When President Obama had his chance to rebut Romney on the Libya question, everything about his (President) demeanor changed. He not only got 100% serious, he turned towards Romney, and said
"
In my (and hopefully the majority of voters) mind, President Obama showed the country right there that Romney is unfit to lead. Pres Obama told him in no uncertain terms, that this job is above your level, that Romney does NOT have what it takes to not only lead his staff, but to lead this country, morally, politically and otherwise.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)It would have been a good moment for Obama, but not something that would have a lasting effect.
But Romney doubled down on being a petty asshole and got himself pwned in a way that may have big repercussions.
It said, not only is he too small a man for the job, he isn't very well prepared.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)When you have the parents of two of the four victims telling Romney to knock it off, they should have already known they had gone too far. But they had to keep pushing their angle, didn't they...
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)I just with Candy Crowley would have stuck to her guns on it. Meh.
Overseas
(12,121 posts)Not bloviating to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh fans like R did.
Overseas
(12,121 posts)fire like Wild Willard would.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)I'm not sure I understand why it matters so much. I think it's important that we eventually know but why is it proof of Obama's incompetence if it took a while to determine (assuming arguendo that conservatives are right on this)?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Basically the Obama is an alien muslin thing, and also the dick-waving "man up" thing.
So, to get there, they have been scratching around for some shred of evidence to support that, and this supposed delay in Obamas calling the Benghazi attack an "act of terror" is the best they could do (at least in front of a national audience where somebody might speak up).
And still they botched it.
SaveAmerica
(5,342 posts)the attack, loss of his team, and the speech to contend with. He also had to smooth out the clumsiness and hatefulness of Romney's comments before they could get more dangerous.
I feel he did a fabulous job of doing all of that and more.