What Ticked you off Today - The political offshoot

[Ack]

Annoyed: Lots of people apparently on Twitter calling for Romney to be assassinated or threatening to do it themselves. Civil discourse...did we ever have it in the US?

[dsheinem]

Annoyed: Lots of people apparently on Twitter calling for Romney to be assassinated or threatening to do it themselves. Civil discourse...did we ever have it in the US?

It irritates me that this is the right-wing talking point today when it happens after EVERY debate and has been on a significant and steady general uptick for the past four years with Obama running/in office.

Yes: it's shitty and stupid and infuriating that it happens. BUT: it isn't in the least bit unique to (or even most prevalent among) those on the left.

The whole story is a stupid and contrived distraction meant to divert the news-cylce focus away from Obama's victory and toward the idiotic ramblings of his most insane supporters.

[Ack]

Would you prefer we discuss the discrepency in time that Democrats are allowed to speak in debates?

First debate - Obama speaks 3 minutes 14 seconds more.
Second debate - Obama speaks 4 minutes 18 seconds more.
VP debate - Biden speaks 1 minute 22 seconds more.

Or we could talk about Crowley correcting Romney during the debate but getting her information wrong, as happened when she corrected him on the question about the president's immediate statements following the attack in Bhengazi.

[dsheinem]

Would you prefer we discuss the discrepency in time that Democrats are allowed to speak in debates?

First debate - Obama speaks 3 minutes 14 seconds more.
Second debate - Obama speaks 4 minutes 18 seconds more.
VP debate - Biden speaks 1 minute 22 seconds more.

Or we could talk about Crowley correcting Romney during the debate but getting her information wrong, as happened when she corrected him on the question about his immediate statements following the attack in Bhengazi.

That first stuff - on time - is at least a fair talking point. It isn't simply sensationalism.

What did Crowley get wrong? Obama did denounce it as an "act of terror" in The Rose Garden the day after, which is what Romney was suggesting didn't happen.

[prfsnl_gmr]

What did Crowley get wrong? Obama did denounce it as an "act of terror" in The Rose Garden the day after, which is what Romney was suggesting didn't happen.

Is it just me, or is the terminology that Obama used to describe an attack on an American consulate - and the dates when he may or may not have used it - the biggest non-issue of all time? I mean, honestly, who cares if he called it an act of terror? Short of him using a term that would be indicative of mental illness, I do not see why Obama's use of certain terminology to describe an attack is relevant to anything of actual meaning.

[dsheinem]

What did Crowley get wrong? Obama did denounce it as an "act of terror" in The Rose Garden the day after, which is what Romney was suggesting didn't happen.

Is it just me, or is the terminology that Obama used to describe an attack on an American consulate - and the dates when he may or may not have used it - the biggest non-issue of all time? I mean, honestly, who cares if he called it an act of terror? Short of him using a term that would be indicative of mental illness, I do not see why Obama's use of certain terminology to describe an attack is relevant to anything of actual meaning.

It has to do with whether or not the administration knew it was planned or spontaneous, which speaks to their ability to collect, process, and act on intelligence. The Obama administration's stance is that they've called it different things /nuanced their terminology as new intelligence has come in, but that they did denounce it as "terrorism" from the outset.

I agree that it is a fairly silly argument and, more importantly, not a worthwhile focal point for a much needed broader discussion of foreign policy.

[prfsnl_gmr]

What did Crowley get wrong? Obama did denounce it as an "act of terror" in The Rose Garden the day after, which is what Romney was suggesting didn't happen.

Is it just me, or is the terminology that Obama used to describe an attack on an American consulate - and the dates when he may or may not have used it - the biggest non-issue of all time? I mean, honestly, who cares if he called it an act of terror? Short of him using a term that would be indicative of mental illness, I do not see why Obama's use of certain terminology to describe an attack is relevant to anything of actual meaning.

It has to do with whether or not the administration knew it was planned or spontaneous, which speaks to their ability to collect, process, and act on intelligence. The Obama administration's stance is that they've called it different things /nuanced their terminology as new intelligence has come in, but that they did denounce it as "terrorism" from the outset.

I agree that it is a fairly silly argument and, more importantly, not a worthwhile focal point for a much needed broader discussion of foreign policy.

I see your point, but I am still not convinced that the way an administration describes an attack to the public is particularly indicative of their ability to collect and process intelligence quickly and accurately. It is circumstantial evidence at best, and I think that the administration did a pretty good job of showing that it can act decisively on intelligence when it...oh, I don't know...assassinated Osama Bin Laden (and - as far as I can tell - every other terrorist leader that has dared to crawl out from under a rock for the past four years).

In any event, I see that we both agree that debating the administration's use of certain terminology is silly, and I do not think that it will be a winning point for the Republican party. (It also distracts both parties from discussing measures that might be taken to anticipate and prevent future attacks...)

[Ack]

Obama was making a sweeping reference to acts of terrorism but did not refer to the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack for two weeks, instead insisting that it was a spontaneous riot that had lead to the deaths of four Americans. This calls into question the Obama administration and the intelligence community's ability to process information, yes, but it reflects a larger issue with whether we consider his foreign policy to have been successful. Might I remind you over the debate of WMDs in Iraq. Consider how long it took FBI officials to reach the scene after the consulate attack, which had already been picked clean of documents by reporters and Libyan citizens.

If terrorist organizations have the ability to coordinate attacks which result in the assassination of not only American citizens but ambassadors in our embassies or consulates, then how effective has our president's methods for dealing with terrorism and the Arab Spring been? Has his reliance on dronestrikes been an effective tool overall, or have we neglected to check a rise in recent years of radical anti-West elements in places such as North Africa? I don't see this as a non-issue because it does concern whether we have been effective in combating an organization we are effectively at war against overseas. It also calls to question how our diplomacy has been handled in nations that have gone through mass uprisings.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Obama was making a sweeping reference to acts of terrorism but did not refer to the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack for two weeks, instead insisting that it was a spontaneous riot that had lead to the deaths of four Americans. This calls into question the Obama administration and the intelligence community's ability to process information, yes, but it reflects a larger issue with whether we consider his foreign policy to have been successful. Might I remind you over the debate of WMDs in Iraq. Consider how long it took FBI officials to reach the scene after the consulate attack, which had already been picked clean of documents by reporters and Libyan citizens.

If terrorist organizations have the ability to coordinate attacks which result in the assassination of not only American citizens but ambassadors in our embassies or consulates, then how effective has our president's methods for dealing with terrorism and the Arab Spring been? Has his reliance on dronestrikes been an effective tool overall, or have we neglected to check a rise in recent years of radical anti-West elements in places such as North Africa? I don't see this as a non-issue because it does concern whether we have been effective in combating an organization we are effectively at war against overseas. It also calls to question how our diplomacy has been handled in nations that have gone through mass uprisings.

Whether we consider Obama's foreign policy a success is easily divorced from his use of certain terminology to describe a particular attack. All of the questions posed by your post are perfectly legitimate and deserve answers (which, btw, have not been forthcoming from either candidate). Neither posing those questions nor answering them, however, requires an analysis regarding if and when Obama labeled an attack on an American consulate an "act of terror." Rather, I see the fanatical obsession on Obama's word choice as an attempt to label him as a liar and thereby avoid a genuine foreign policy debate.

[Ack]

No, it really does come down to "what does this administration know about the attack on Americans." If he does not refer to it as a terrorist attack, then a). Our intelligence community has failed to understand what happened b). He is covering things up for some reason or c). President Obama has not been given correct information by others in the intel community or the administration.

Because of the repetition of claims that the attack originated from the protests about an awful video from the likes of our U.N. ambassador as well as our secretary of state, president, and other officials, despite the evidence having pointed to terrorism, what is going on? That is why people are examining his language so closely. And if President Obamq had said the attack was an act of terrorism and then blamed it on protests, exactly what does this signify about how our intelligence serving ces and this administration is operating?

I know, it sounds like we are nitpicking a minor point, but it does have importance.