gut;1291957 wrote:Ehhh, I think it will mostly be a push anyway. Short on specifics and it's hard to attack a position as verifiably wrong or unjustified given the nature of foreign policy. I was watching some of the commission today and was thinking "well, what SHOULD they have done with other troops near by - helicopter in and start shooting into an angry mob?!?"

Problem if Mitt goes after Obama for this is he open himself up to questions/criticisms for jumping the gun (and vice versa). I doubt if they are neck-and-neck that either candidate will really want to go there.

I don't think he "jumped the gun" at all. His statements turned out to be pretty much spot on.

I'd find a way to ask Obie why he thought it was necessary to make up a reason for the attack, given today's testimony. That or ask him who is lying, the WH or the State department. It's too juicy to pass up working it in, should the opportunity arise.

fish82;1291967 wrote:I don't think he "jumped the gun" at all. His statements turned out to be pretty much spot on.

Sure, but Obama can still spin it as wreckless and jumping to conclusions without all the facts. Getting it right doesn't validate the process.

gut;1291971 wrote:Sure, but Obama can still spin it as wreckless and jumping to conclusions without all the facts. Getting it right doesn't validate the process.

True, but IMO flat-out making up a reason for the attack out of whole cloth would trump it.

fish82;1291977 wrote:True, but IMO flat-out making up a reason for the attack out of whole cloth would trump it.

True, I just think it's a tough play. It's not like Romney can flat-out call him a liar and accuse him of doing it for purely political reasons. That's a tough tight-rope to walk, especially when Obama will be prepared for the question.

Assuming they are basically deadlocked at that point, I just don't see either taking such risks. They will focus on themselves and their policies, rather than attacking the other, to shore-up support. Any potential missteps or topics that could blow-up in their face will be avoided.

The question Romney should ask Obama is "what did you mean when you told Putin you would have more leeway after the election?"

gut;1292178 wrote:The question Romney should ask Obama is "what did you mean when you told Putin you would have more leeway after the election?"

I'd love to hear Barry's response to that one.

Between lying about this incident, and accusing of Romney lying to cover Obama's horrendous debate performance, Baghdad Bob Gibbs has a tough job these days. I think you can actually see the cover-ups and embarrassment taking a physical toll.

gut;1292178 wrote:The question Romney should ask Obama is "what did you mean when you told Putin you would have more leeway after the election?"

It was Medvedev not Putin there chief.
Also, it was related to missile defense issues, and possible removal or various components to missile defense in Europe.
The Ruskies want/ desire a slow down to the Phased Adaptive Approach in Europe, which they feel may be geared towards them (it is not).
The administration may tweak the plan after the election, and the President was possibly saying that in exchange for some movement of the missile defense pieces, perhaps the Ruskies will reduce their tactical nuclear weapon advantage.
Anything like that complex would have to wait until after the election.


Adding to that was a recent report by the National Academy (science!) that says we should probably tweak the system anyway to more of a Ground Based Interceptor approach, and not so much the Phased Adapative Approach.
Unless you knew what they were talking about, you would have missed that....

Sidenote, Romney said back in 09-10 that the Ruskies have such a high number of tactical nuclear weapons that needed reduced. He bloated the number back then, and then said because of that we didn't need to ratify New START. And, add to that, he has never offered any way to negotiate with Russians Why the hell would they reduce their nukes if the Romney says they are evil and number 1 foe?
Things like this is why I really doubt the guy can handle being CINC.

On Libya, yeah, it is a cluster. The State Department has really screwed this up, really, really badly. I do agree that some people needed fired. Does that include Rice, if stuff keeps piling up, then yes.

One final thing, yes, Obama has miffed some things. But, I have yet to see how Romney would be better? And really, by my view, he would be worse.
I'd rather stick to what I know, then what I largely do not know.

ccrunner609;1292272 wrote:History will write this as fact.....Obama will go down as the worst president of all time. THis is way more serious then Watergate

LOL. Again go read history. Jesus.

ptown_trojans_1;1292330 wrote: One final thing, yes, Obama has miffed some things. But, I have yet to see how Romney would be better? And really, by my view, he would be worse.
I'd rather stick to what I know, then what I largely do not know.

I don't see how he'd really be worse. Even that evil, bumbling Bush invading Iraq - a policy written up during and supported by Clinton. No one has had any solutions for the Middle East, and time will tell (very long-term) if regime change in Iraq was a good path.

And most people put domestic issues first, where Obama has been a complete failure on the economy. Foreign policy really doesn't matter with the country falling apart.

On Libya, yeah, it is a cluster. The State Department has really screwed this up, really, really badly. I do agree that some people needed fired. Does that include Rice, if stuff keeps piling up, then yes.

One final thing, yes, Obama has miffed some things

So you'd rather stick with the cluster**** rather than take a chance that Romney would do better? 'Hope and Change' sold pretty well in '08....maybe we should make a 'change' and 'hope' that it would be better than the known cluster****?

On the other hand...maybe you are right...I mean it's not like someone died. Oh wait, someone did!

gut;1292342 wrote:I don't see how he'd really be worse. Even that evil, bumbling Bush invading Iraq - a policy written up during and supported by Clinton. No one has had any solutions for the Middle East, and time will tell (very long-term) if regime change in Iraq was a good path.

And most people put domestic issues first, where Obama has been a complete failure on the economy. Foreign policy really doesn't matter with the country falling apart.

What?
So, the military action was a Clinton plan? Must have missed where Clinton was for deBaathification, and the CPA, and the mess of 2005.

Plus, it is widely accepted that the necons have largely failed in their worldview. And, they are all over the Romney advisers.
And, Iraq now is a large mess. It is still very fragile, and is more in the border line failed state area. There are zero indications that that will change.

Yes, voters vote by domestic policy, Agree.
But, the President has more influence over foreign policy, and largely writes their legacy by it.
And as Kennedy said, "Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us."

HitsRus;1292348 wrote:So you'd rather stick with the cluster**** rather than take a chance that Romney would do better? 'Hope and Change' sold pretty well in '08....maybe we should make a 'change' and 'hope' that it would be better than the known cluster****?

On the other hand...maybe you are right...I mean it's not like someone died. Oh wait, someone did!

Romney's plan and ability manage for the Middle east is none better, and is chalk full of necon language.
And I still can't forgive his stance on New START. What a joke.

ptown_trojans_1;1292351 wrote:What?
So, the military action was a Clinton plan? Must have missed where Clinton was for deBaathification, and the CPA, and the mess of 2005.

You don't remember the Wolfowitiz doctrine drawn up during the Clinton regime? You don't remember Clinton himself supporting the Iraq invasion if and only if regime change was part of the plan? Selective memory?

Somehow we've survived all the neocons. Do you get headaches bashing the neocons but sweating defense cuts?

I don't know, seems we've been attacked more under appeasement policies of Clinton and Obama.

ptown_trojans_1;1292351 wrote:What?
So, the military action was a Clinton plan? Must have missed where Clinton was for deBaathification, and the CPA, and the mess of 2005.

Plus, it is widely accepted that the necons have largely failed in their worldview. And, they are all over the Romney advisers.
And, Iraq now is a large mess. It is still very fragile, and is more in the border line failed state area. There are zero indications that that will change.

Yes, voters vote by domestic policy, Agree.
But, the President has more influence over foreign policy, and largely writes their legacy by it.
And as Kennedy said, "Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us."

That must be want Obama was referring "foreign policy can kill us" to the bumps in the road

ptown_trojans_1;1292330 wrote:One final thing, yes, Obama has miffed some things. But, I have yet to see how Romney would be better? And really, by my view, he would be worse.

I'd rather stick to what I know, then what I largely do not know.

So you're saying that you'll vote for Obama's verified overall ineptitude as opposed to opting for someone who might actually be at least marginally better? Based on what I saw in Debate #1 I'd say I might have a good case.

You're a smart guy P-town, but it will be guys like you who will give Barry 4 more years to bow to Saudi kings, diss our Israeli allies, ignore our southern border issue, send millions to radical Islamic groups, do worldwide "We apologize for America" tours, etc., etc.

I'm not sure how that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy going forward vs. scratching your head on Romney's stance on issues like the new START treaty.

In all fairness, I doubt Barry had a clue on these issues either prior to occupying the WH. I have a hunch that once Romney is privy to the same national intelligence reports that Obama sometimes reviews (when it's convenient), you'll have a much better idea of what his policies will be.

The mindset that 4 more years of confirmed Obama ineptitude is better than what Romney might do confounds me.

I sincerely hope that Romney has a respectable showing in the foreign policy debate. But even if he does, I'm sure guys like you will still shrug your shoulders and exclaim, "It's better to go with the devil I know."

I honestly don't get it.

seems we've been attacked more under appeasement policies of Clinton and Obama.

I think that's historically been shown to be true....that appeasement is a policy of weakness...and weakness breeds a lack of respect.
You don't have to be liked to be respected. What we have today, and what has been bred by this administration in the Middle East, is a case where we are no longer respected, and still not liked. Wealth and power are respected in Middle Eastern culture.....weak-kneed apologies are laughed at as a sign of inferiority.

believer;1292425 wrote:In all fairness, I doubt Barry had a clue on these issues either prior to occupying the WH. I have a hunch that once Romney is privy to the same national intelligence reports that Obama sometimes reviews (when it's convenient), you'll have a much better idea of what his policies will be.

This. It's pretty silly to act like a Presidential candidate should be a Kissinger-esque foreign policy genius. At this stage of the game it's more philosophy and general strategy, which for the most part Romney appeals to me way more than Obama.

Of course even if he was exactly the same as Obama in this area, I still have dozens of reasons to get rid of Barry.

http://freebeacon.com/cutter-benghazi-is-only-an-issue-because-of-romney-and-ryan/


obama not blaming Bush, blaming Romney/Ryan instead ...... hilarious


Change we can believe in ...

QuakerOats;1292881 wrote:http://freebeacon.com/cutter-benghazi-is-only-an-issue-because-of-romney-and-ryan/


obama not blaming Bush, blaming Romney/Ryan instead ...... hilarious


Change we can believe in ...

I forget who it was, but someone recently mentioned "great leaders are usually loathe to take credit, and quick to take blame/be accountable". Obama is pretty much the opposite, which tells you everything about the character and substance of the man. But this is to be expected from someone who has been indoctrinated into the party of victimization.

Hillary takes the "fall":

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/clinton-tells-cnn-responsibility-libya-attack-010005118.html

So is she going to resign? When will Rice resign? Who told Rice to blame the attacks on an internet video? Who told Obama? Is this the truth or is it more damage control before tomorrow morning's (tonight most of your time) debate?

This is the keystone cops, if Hillary wants the responsibility she should suffer the consequences.

HitsRus;1292451 wrote:I think that's historically been shown to be true....that appeasement is a policy of weakness...and weakness breeds a lack of respect.
You don't have to be liked to be respected. What we have today, and what has been bred by this administration in the Middle East, is a case where we are no longer respected, and still not liked. Wealth and power are respected in Middle Eastern culture.....weak-kneed apologies are laughed at as a sign of inferiority.

:laugh:

believer;1292425 wrote:So you're saying that you'll vote for Obama's verified overall ineptitude

See, you're presupposing Obama's "verified overall ineptitude." Ptown probably thinks Obama's done at least a decent job.

Manhattan Buckeye;1296207 wrote:Hillary takes the "fall":

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/clinton-tells-cnn-responsibility-libya-attack-010005118.html

So is she going to resign? When will Rice resign? Who told Rice to blame the attacks on an internet video? Who told Obama? Is this the truth or is it more damage control before tomorrow morning's (tonight most of your time) debate?

This is the keystone cops, if Hillary wants the responsibility she should suffer the consequences.

Why in the hell do people throw themselves on the sword for Obama?
Hillary career is now over .... unless she willing to start throwing other under the bus..
The Clinton have protected Obama, supported Obama and now willing to take the fall for Obama .. I don't get it ?

^^

I agree it is perplexing, unless a Clinton finally told the truth. Although at Hillary's age there isn't much she could do in '16, but this kills any chance.