kenberg, on 2012-October-17, 19:29, said:
And as far as the attack in Libya is concerned, again we got to the relatively trivial Did Obama say "terrorist attack". No Just an "act of terror". Do we really want to get bogged down in the distinction?
it's not so much the triviality of that distinction, though it could be argued that way, but more of a question as to why the administration was still blaming a video rather than calling it what it obviously was (and on 9/11 no less)... i can understand saying something like, "we aren't yet sure yada yada" but the blaming of the video *sounded* like they were sure, if you go back and listen to everyone from carney to susan rice, to hillary, to the prez himself
Quote
It seems of more importance that the compound was not adequately protected.
yeah, i sorta agree... and i just read where the state dept has refused to answer any more questions on it... really? that seems a tad less-than-transparent for the most transparent administration in history (except for exec priv on f & f, etc)
Quote
Also, it seems legit to ask why this terrorist attack, or act of terror, was attributed to a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand. For the first 24 hours, this is not hard to understand.Maybe for the first 48. But I would think someone sometime asked for details of the riot and was told that no such thing had occurred. But really, I would prefer to focus on policy in Syria and Iran. What are our responsibilities there? It's a fair question.
i agree, and i believe we'll hear a lot more on those lines monday night... also questions like, "is the muslim b'hood still listed as a terrorist org? if not, when did they come off?" we'll also get questions on just who is getting weapons supplied by the usa in syria... expect a lot from both candidates reaffirming their commitments to israel... but don't be shocked if some sort of statement comes out of israel ahead of time... it's pretty well known that they are not pleased with what they see as a lackluster attempt to deny a nuke to iran
Quote
All in all, I thought Obama was more convincing than Romney on many topics . But often they both sounded like someone wrote a cheap script for them.
i watched the debate twice, just to see if crowley's actions were as bad as i first thought... outside of (for the 3rd debate) giving the dem candidate much more time, she interrupted romney far more often than obama, she allowed obama to finish more frequently, and that libya sequence was entirely unprofessional... then there were the questions themselves... "how would you compare yourself to george bush?" huh? how would obama, given the fact that the questions were supposed to be for both candidates, or even should he, answer that? to be fair, he should have been asked to compare himself to jimmy carter (or, if one were really partisan, to hugo chavez
)
now there's a report of a leaked cnn email from the managing editor, asking everyone to pull together in defense of her "performance"... he states how brilliant she was and that the reviews are "overwhelmingly positive"... maybe, from chris matthews and sullivan, and cnn itself, but even politico and the wapo (decent read
here) were critical of her handling of the libya question... hell, she even seemed to walk that back herself
i know these things can and will be viewed thru whatever glasses one is wearing, but you seem to be an objective, not-yet-convinced voter (maybe the only one in america - for sure the only one on this forum), so if you're so inclined you can take another look for yourself
and on another topic, you said
Quote
Nonetheless, I really am not that much in favor of killing off all of these deductions..
it was my understanding that they are only lessened/eliminated for those earning upwards of $300K, but i could be wrong
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)