resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,240
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Oct 18, 2012 22:21:28 GMT -5
I completely agree with this. I tried to discuss this issue with my husband and with a couple friends and none of them cared or had any opinion about it. I think most non-political people are just burned out on the middle east. Hey, if I want to know what you think, I'll just ask PBP. No need to post at all.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2012 22:58:21 GMT -5
I completely agree with this. I tried to discuss this issue with my husband and with a couple friends and none of them cared or had any opinion about it. I think most non-political people are just burned out on the middle east. Hey, if I want to know what you think, I'll just ask PBP. No need to post at all. glorious.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2012 22:59:40 GMT -5
My suspicion is that Benghazi is going to unravel on Obama sooner rather than later. People that blame others eventually blame each other. I don't have much use for the modern day Democratic Party, but even I refuse to believe that there isn't a single person of conscience in the whole outfit who knows something and will share it because doing right by the families that lost loved ones in this failure will strike them as more important than "the cause" of liberalism, or maybe because they'll conclude that it would actually HELP the cause to throw Obama under the bus and tell the truth. My suspicion is that many in the Obama regime will be motivated in the coming week or two to speak out as it becomes clearer to them that Obama has no shot at re-election. The more it looks like defeat is inevitable anyway, the more likely people will be to jump ship. You have no idea how much some of us are enjoying your posts. yes he does. he can read minds.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 18, 2012 23:34:39 GMT -5
Excellent timeline. I'd add that on September 25th when Obama addressed the United Nations, he was still talking about the video. Apparently he didn't get "the memo".Excellent timeline except you forgot his September 12th speech where he said: " No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." Other than that you forgot that the incident was under investigation but your timeline's only missing those 2 little points. And you are missing one VERY LARGE point - the President deliberately LIED to the American people and so did several people in his administration in an effort to cover up a pre-planned, terrorist attack that took place on 9/11 and resulted in the deaths of four people. Both your quote above and the statement made in the Rose Garden use the phrase " acts of terror" (a general reference to all acts that may be perpetrated) instead of one, specific act. And at the time, the only "act" that they were admitting occurred was that caused by a spontaneous protest as the result of an anti-Muslim video, not the actual, preplanned attack that they knew had taken place. I don't know why it is so hard for you to admit that the Obama administration LIED. Obama lied. Hillary Clinton lied. Susan Rice lied. Jay Carney lied. After day one, every single time anyone from the Obama administration mentioned the spontaneous protest and the video, they were lying.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2012 23:54:19 GMT -5
Excellent timeline. I'd add that on September 25th when Obama addressed the United Nations, he was still talking about the video. Apparently he didn't get "the memo".Excellent timeline except you forgot his September 12th speech where he said: " No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." Other than that you forgot that the incident was under investigation but your timeline's only missing those 2 little points. And you are missing one VERY LARGE point - the President deliberately LIED to the American people you will have a very difficult time proving that. trust me, i know. i tried with Bush over WMD and i never could quite manage it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2012 23:56:09 GMT -5
Both your quote above and the statement made in the Rose Garden use the phrase " acts of terror" (a general reference to all acts that may be perpetrated) instead of one, specific act. correct. and since he was talking about multiple acts, he could not, as some have claimed, been ONLY talking about 9/11/01.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Oct 19, 2012 0:08:31 GMT -5
Don't you remember when Clinton looked into the camera and adamantly declared, "I did not have sex with that woman."? Politicians will say and do almost anything when they feel their political careers are in danger and their backs are against the wall. And they're stupid enough to believe that the truth will not come out, as was the case with Clinton when questioned under oath about Monica Lewinsky.As I recall, nobody had died...... We'd all be better off if Bush's misdeeds and lies had merely been about a sexual escapade. So if people die politicians won't lie about it? I used Clinton as the example because his lie was so blatant and "in your face". Actually dancin..there are people, not my generation true, but definitely younger types who believe oral sex is not the same as Sex..thinking Sex with a partner has to be intercourse..all other actions are considered foreplay...It may not be what you believe . it may not be what i believe , but when it comes to Sex...besides the tittering of some and the giggling and shock of others..people have different views of what is considered Sex with a partner. Generations have a lot to do with it..what is unacceptable in ones generation is perfectly acceptable and the norm in another... as in fashions , have you gone to a Beach where young people hang out recently..I have , usually every five weeks or so , living in South Florida 30 minutes from the Atlantic , one of the pluses living down here. What is not being worn as bathing costume today vs my generation, seems every trip to the beach shows me a different level of new fashion..
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Oct 19, 2012 0:26:25 GMT -5
I really have a hard time understanding why some are making such a big thing about the fact that it took a few days to say the attack on the Embassy was a terrorist attack..not a attack initiated by the anger over the film that dissed Mohammad..
I do understand a few posters here , Paul being one as a example..as we know his shtick is to suggest anything negative, real, imagined, not possible..as long as it is a diss on the current POTUS..but for others here, who I know are interested in a back and forth discussion and sharing of ideas..I am a bit surprised that they have made the time factor such a big deal. Possible I am missing something. ..
I can understand it taking time , and to want to make sure they have it 100% correct..find out what really went down..and understand the reason the ones who represent us, the current POTUS and his people , wanting to be as correct as possible before the make any claims as to what went down and who was responsible and to hold off on criticizing a government where the incident happened as being negligent.
Especially here in Libya..There isn't even a real elected government here yet..it is a very fragile area with militias doing the work of the police in many places..fractured military, arms all over the place..people are just sorting out where the country may be headed..a fragile imperfect place..
and it behooves the ones who are in power in OUR country to be responsible in how they talk about the situation..unlike say a candidate running for office just shooting off their/his mouth willy nilly for political purposes, to attempt to make points which I beleive for the majority of people , including his own party people..are criticizing him for that..
Even trying to understand comments here by posters..beyond the Pauls and few others..suggesting the POTUS, Sec of State..different departments are purposely lying..as if in a cover up. Thats Nuts..that they added and changed a bit of what went down as fact came out ..what is wrong about that?
If it continues like that , possible as these events happened . better we get a " NO comment till investigation is finished " as a explanation and just have non official explamnations, guesses really , as our first answers/responses..?? Hope not..
One of the points brought up is that the embassy had asked for more security..Possible they did, but just because a government entity asks for something , it doesn't mean it automatically gets it..Some one has to make the decision to grant it or not..Possible there are not enough Marines available ..possible there is no $ to pay for the security..[ Remember how many here are bitching about our deficit..have to stop spending..well, security..that's a cost too..]
Seemed there was security , just not enough..or if enough till it was over whelmed...
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 19, 2012 2:53:29 GMT -5
I really have a hard time understanding why some are making such a big thing about the fact that it took a few days to say the attack on the Embassy was a terrorist attack..not a attack initiated by the anger over the film that dissed Mohammad.. Possible I am missing something. .. Even trying to understand comments here by posters..beyond the Pauls and few others..suggesting the POTUS, Sec of State..different departments are purposely lying..as if in a cover up. Thats Nuts..that they added and changed a bit of what went down as fact came out ..what is wrong about that?A spontaneous protest vs a pre-planned terrorist attack is not exactly adding or changing "a bit" of what went down. And we already know that they did not change their story until they were forced to do so because of sworn testimony presented to a Senate committee. It is pretty obvious to everyone except democrats who so desperately want Obama to be reelected, that Obama and people within his administration continued to tell "the story" long after they knew that it wasn't true. Why would they do that? Because a pre-planned terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda affiliates so close to the election and after Obama's claims that he had Al-Qaeda on their heels, does not bode well for Obama and may even lead people to question his foreign policy and his ability to keep America safe. Finding and killing BinLaden was the single accomplishment of Obama's that 100% of the population got behind. Obama wanted to be able to capitalize on that in his bid for re-election. The incident in Benghazi blew that all to hell. He has recently deleted any reference to Al-Qaeda being "on their heels" from his campaign trail rhetoric. He has lost any capital that he would have gained from the BinLaden accomplishment. If it were not for Senate and Congressional hearings available for all to see and sworn testimony, we'd still be hearing the video story. Cover up? It sure looks like it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2012 3:01:21 GMT -5
i still disagree with the basic logic here. you and others think that Obama wants everyone to think AQ is defeated, and that this somehow benefits him as a president. i don't think it benefits him at all. presidents benefit from having external threats. therefore, i would be very concerned if we found out that there was NOT a terrorist attack, but that he portrayed it as one that happened. the opposite of this doesn't concern me in the slightest.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 19, 2012 5:15:27 GMT -5
i still disagree with the basic logic here. you and others think that Obama wants everyone to think AQ is defeated, and that this somehow benefits him as a president. i don't think it benefits him at all. presidents benefit from having external threats. therefore, i would be very concerned if we found out that there was NOT a terrorist attack, but that he portrayed it as one that happened. the opposite of this doesn't concern me in the slightest. Then explain to me why he is not on the campaign trail talking up the danger of Al-Qaeda in light of what has just happened and that he is the best choice for keeping America safe.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Oct 19, 2012 9:55:24 GMT -5
i still disagree with the basic logic here. you and others think that Obama wants everyone to think AQ is defeated, and that this somehow benefits him as a president. i don't think it benefits him at all. presidents benefit from having external threats. therefore, i would be very concerned if we found out that there was NOT a terrorist attack, but that he portrayed it as one that happened. the opposite of this doesn't concern me in the slightest. Then explain to me why he is not on the campaign trail talking up the danger of Al-Qaeda in light of what has just happened and that he is the best choice for keeping America safe. Very simple answer to your question above..the most important question and concern by the majority of the electorate, and especially in the battle ground States..is NOT foreign policy..Al Quida ....but the ..ECONOMY the recovery..JOBS ... and some where in there ..the deficit, how to reduce it..thus that's where both candidates are spending their time discussing and trying to convince the undecided ..
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 19, 2012 11:02:11 GMT -5
Then explain to me why he is not on the campaign trail talking up the danger of Al-Qaeda in light of what has just happened and that he is the best choice for keeping America safe. Very simple answer to your question above..the most important question and concern by the majority of the electorate, and especially in the battle ground States..is NOT foreign policy..Al Quida ....but the ..ECONOMY the recovery..JOBS ... and some where in there ..the deficit, how to reduce it..thus that's where both candidates are spending their time discussing and trying to convince the undecided .. Before the terrorist attack, Obama never failed to mention the death of Osama BinLaden and Al-Qaeda while on the campaign trail. Since the incident, he has removed it from his campaign rhetoric. Coincidence? I think not. And you are absolutely right, the majority of the electorate in "the red states, the blue states, and ALL of the United States" is the economy. Unfortunately that is bad news for Obama because he is polling way behind Romney on any issue related to the economy. His whole campaign has been about painting Romney as a "bad guy" rather than offering new ideas and solutions. Obama's record on the economy is bad, whatever the reason may be. He made promises that he could not keep and that he did not keep. He has given the American people no "HOPE" that anything will "CHANGE" going "FORWARD". Is the election over? Not by a long shot. There is still a lot of work to be done in the battleground states by the Romney campaign, but according to the polling, Romney has been gaining steam in those states and Obama's lead has been decreasing ever since the first debate. Right now Romney is the one with the momentum. Why? Because Romney has a message on the economy. You may not like the message, you may not like the level of detail, but we're talking about undecideds here, not staunch democrats. IF the economy is the issue that they will focus on over all other issues (social, foreign policy, etc.) then Obama is in big trouble because despite everything that Obama has tried, the economy is still in the toilet.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Oct 19, 2012 11:11:16 GMT -5
i still disagree with the basic logic here. you and others think that Obama wants everyone to think AQ is defeated, and that this somehow benefits him as a president. i don't think it benefits him at all. presidents benefit from having external threats. therefore, i would be very concerned if we found out that there was NOT a terrorist attack, but that he portrayed it as one that happened. the opposite of this doesn't concern me in the slightest. Then explain to me why he is not on the campaign trail talking up the danger of Al-Qaeda in light of what has just happened and that he is the best choice for keeping America safe. Please note, the President has taken his stock quote, "AQ is on the run" out of all his stump speeeches. He now knows they are no longer on the run.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 19, 2012 11:13:35 GMT -5
Then explain to me why he is not on the campaign trail talking up the danger of Al-Qaeda in light of what has just happened and that he is the best choice for keeping America safe. Please note, the President has taken his stock quote, "AQ is on the run" out of all his stump speeeches. He now knows they are no longer on the run. EXACTLY!!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2012 11:34:18 GMT -5
i still disagree with the basic logic here. you and others think that Obama wants everyone to think AQ is defeated, and that this somehow benefits him as a president. i don't think it benefits him at all. presidents benefit from having external threats. therefore, i would be very concerned if we found out that there was NOT a terrorist attack, but that he portrayed it as one that happened. the opposite of this doesn't concern me in the slightest. Then explain to me why he is not on the campaign trail talking up the danger of Al-Qaeda in light of what has just happened and that he is the best choice for keeping America safe. he has not hesitated to mention AQ, dancin. he is not shy about it. i don't know who you have been listening to, but it is clearly NOT Obama.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2012 11:35:41 GMT -5
Then explain to me why he is not on the campaign trail talking up the danger of Al-Qaeda in light of what has just happened and that he is the best choice for keeping America safe. Please note, the President has taken his stock quote, "AQ is on the run" out of all his stump speeeches. He now knows they are no longer on the run. and Romney has taken the 23 months above 8% UE out of HIS speeches. things change.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 19, 2012 13:14:00 GMT -5
Then explain to me why he is not on the campaign trail talking up the danger of Al-Qaeda in light of what has just happened and that he is the best choice for keeping America safe. he has not hesitated to mention AQ, dancin. he is not shy about it. i don't know who you have been listening to, but it is clearly NOT Obama. That's right - BEFORE the terror attack in Benghazi. As Value Buy noted, he has taken it out of his stump speech since then. Apparently you're not the one listening.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 19, 2012 13:18:48 GMT -5
Please note, the President has taken his stock quote, "AQ is on the run" out of all his stump speeeches. He now knows they are no longer on the run. and Romney has taken the 23 months above 8% UE out of HIS speeches. things change. Yes, because the reported UE did drop below 8%, but obviously Al-Qaeda was never "on the run". The fact that Obama no longer wants to talk about BinLaden or Al-Qaeda on the stump completely debunks your logic that the incident in Benghazi helps him in his reelection bid.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Oct 19, 2012 13:48:57 GMT -5
Message deleted by Gardening Grandma.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2012 13:56:57 GMT -5
and Romney has taken the 23 months above 8% UE out of HIS speeches. things change. Yes, because the reported UE did drop below 8%, but obviously Al-Qaeda was never "on the run". AQ is always on the run, imo. but it doesn't really make good press to say so after they hit us.The fact that Obama no longer wants to talk about BinLaden or Al-Qaeda on the stump completely debunks your logic that the incident in Benghazi helps him in his reelection bid. he had no problem defending it in the second debate. have you researched the claim that he doesn't mention it on the stump?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 19, 2012 14:28:58 GMT -5
I don't think you're going to want to risk the farm on references to AQ being missing from Obama's stump speeches. My guess is, they'll be there. I think, sometimes, the candidates change things up a little depending on to whom they're speaking. We'll see. My bet is on mentions of AQ.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 19, 2012 15:01:45 GMT -5
Yes, because the reported UE did drop below 8%, but obviously Al-Qaeda was never "on the run". AQ is always on the run, imo. but it doesn't really make good press to say so after they hit us.The fact that Obama no longer wants to talk about BinLaden or Al-Qaeda on the stump completely debunks your logic that the incident in Benghazi helps him in his reelection bid. he had no problem defending it in the second debate. have you researched the claim that he doesn't mention it on the stump? He is now avoiding talk about the economy or BinLaden and is focusing on talking about "women's" issues because the polls show that Romney is gaining more and more of the female vote. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Benghazi issue is looking worse and worse for Obama. Several pieces of correspondence from Stevens and others from Libya repeatedly requesting additional security (some might even say to the point of begging) have been released TODAY. They show that Stevens feared exactly what came to pass, from the exact people who did it, using the exact weapons that were used. Stevens himself sent his final request for additional security on 9/11, the same day that he died. Obama has stated several times that he has been open about the situation, passing along information as he has received it; but not one word about these multiple requests for additional security that were received over a period of months and why they were repeatedly denied. Those of us who have followed the Benghazi debacle knew about these repeated requests when Congressional hearings took place on 10/11 - a full month after the incident. Obama's own words are going to come back to bite him.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 19, 2012 15:22:27 GMT -5
I don't think you're going to want to risk the farm on references to AQ being missing from Obama's stump speeches. My guess is, they'll be there. I think, sometimes, the candidates change things up a little depending on to whom they're speaking. We'll see. My bet is on mentions of AQ. Trust me, I don't feel like I'm "risking the farm" in any way at all. This issue is, as good ol' Joe would describe it, "a big f....in deal". So if you were Obama and were going to bring up Al-Qaeda on the stump, what the hell would you say that would make people want to vote for you in light of this incident? We got BinLaden and Americans are safer as a result? No. Al-Qaeda is "on the run"? I don't think so. Everything that Obama had in his stump speech prior to the incident has now been deleted because they would be laughable to repeat. The less said at all, the better for him. What he has already said is going to come back to bite him in the butt.
|
|
sgtjer
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 17, 2012 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by sgtjer on Oct 19, 2012 15:25:25 GMT -5
I doubt that Benghazi will have any effect on the electoral vote; there are too many higher priorities on the table, and most centrists focus on priorities, vs hyperpartisan divisive creations. They get the base all foaming at the mouth, but the Independents vote with logic instead of emotion.
|
|
sgtjer
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 17, 2012 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by sgtjer on Oct 19, 2012 15:29:16 GMT -5
Despite the partisan spin, a dead Bin Laden is still a trump card for Obama, and a live one would be in favor of the repubs. Next debate is on foreign policy, I expect OBL to be front and center in that discussion, post mortem.
|
|
Waffle
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 11:31:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,391
|
Post by Waffle on Oct 19, 2012 15:29:19 GMT -5
It looks like the words "al Qaeda" were out of the stump speech for a bit, but as of yesterday, they are back. Manchester, New Hampshire (CNN) - President Barack Obama added the words "al Qaeda" back in to his stump speech Thursday after a shift in the language he used to describe terrorists on the campaign trail. "I made some commitments four years ago. I told you I would end the war in Iraq and we did it. I said we'd end the war in Afghanistan, we are. I said we'd refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11 and we have. And today a new tower rises above the new York skyline and al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and Osama bin Laden is dead," Obama said at a campaign rally in Manchester, New Hampshire.Link to full story: politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/18/white-house-view-on-al-qaeda-unchanged/
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 19, 2012 15:43:29 GMT -5
Despite the partisan spin, a dead Bin Laden is still a trump card for Obama, and a live one would be in favor of the repubs. Next debate is on foreign policy, I expect OBL to be front and center in that discussion, post mortem. Yes, it would have been, it is but in light of what happened in Benghazi, he can't capitalize on it.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 19, 2012 15:45:44 GMT -5
I doubt that Benghazi will have any effect on the electoral vote; there are too many higher priorities on the table, and most centrists focus on priorities, vs hyperpartisan divisive creations. They get the base all foaming at the mouth, but the Independents vote with logic instead of emotion.That's what we're counting on.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 19, 2012 15:47:03 GMT -5
I don't think you're going to want to risk the farm on references to AQ being missing from Obama's stump speeches. My guess is, they'll be there. I think, sometimes, the candidates change things up a little depending on to whom they're speaking. We'll see. My bet is on mentions of AQ. Trust me, I don't feel like I'm "risking the farm" in any way at all. This issue is, as good ol' Joe would describe it, "a big f....in deal". So if you were Obama and were going to bring up Al-Qaeda on the stump, what the hell would you say that would make people want to vote for you in light of this incident? We got BinLaden and Americans are safer as a result? No. Al-Qaeda is "on the run"? I don't think so. Everything that Obama had in his stump speech prior to the incident has now been deleted because they would be laughable to repeat. The less said at all, the better for him. What he has already said is going to come back to bite him in the butt. Gee, I dunno. I'm not Obama and don't want to be. To find out what he might say with regard to OBL and AQ, you'll probably want to listen to his next stump speech.
|
|