geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:2. It certainly appears that there was more than incompetence that led to these attacks. The "best" defense I've seen so far is to, essentially, blame Stevens.

Are you suggesting that Americans were involved in intentionally getting these other Americans killed? If so can you substantiate? "More than incompetence" suggests malice and intent.

No, it doesn't. I'm not saying anyone wanted Stevens to die. However, there was ample warning--for the umpteenth time: the facility had been attacked previously. The Brits and the Red Cross had fled the area. Our intel knew of the growing presence of AQIM.

Incompetence would be not knowing. Incompetence would be simply knowing and failing to act in a rapid enough manner.

This is worse than incompetence. Is it criminal? Maybe. Is it so bad that if the truth were widely disseminated Obama could have lost? Maybe.

And, again, there is all sorts of information about why there were no response forces available. None of it makes the Administration look competent. None of it makes the Administration look like they cared. So, if I were looking for a singular term, I would use "indifferent."

We have not been told anything about what the President did that night. When Bin Laden was killed, we had everything but the number of coffees everyone in the operations center drank.

Doctor Fate wrote:He lied because he had to run for reelection. If he said, "This program is going to cause some of you to lose your insurance. It's going to cause some of you to lose your doctors. All of this will be over and above 'normal' turnover. Additionally, we're going to see unexpected results--cancer patients being forced to abandon treatment, for example. I can't even tell you how much chaos there's going to be, but some pain is inevitable. It's called 'change' people, grow up," would he have been reelected?

A politician lied, or didn't make good on his intentions, whatever. Dog bites man. This is not good, for sure, but it is not news or uncommon. He also promised to close Guantanamo many years ago, too, if you don't recall. The guy is a political animal who says what he needs to for political reasons. Disappointing, but not shocking.

What is disappointing is the attitude that a politician may lie to your face, cause you damage, and you don't care. The only people who care about Gitmo are the ACLU and the terrorists who want to see their friends rejoin the jihad.

danivon wrote:

2. That Ryan is a potential candidate. There is no evidence, other than polling, to demonstrate that.

Well, if he's polling well, he is more likely to be convinced to stand.

He doesn't poll "that" well. He registers, but it's not like there's a "draft Ryan" movement. And, again, who was the last sitting member of Congress to be elected President? (Answer is Garfield, btw)

The last sitting member of Congress to be elected President was Barack Obama. Before that it was Kennedy and before that Harding. Garfield was the last (and only) sitting member of the House of Representatives to be elected President.

A fine illustration of your foolishness. When Americans say "member of Congress," the vast majority of the time they mean "a Congressman." You know that, but you prefer to be moronic.

Anyway, Ryan probably won't stand - that was Dag's prediction, and he overestimates how often is he right by some margin I think. Still, he's in the pack behind a currently leading Christie in the GOP nomination polls (RCP average has him in the same 10-11% range as Paul, Bush and Cruz, and ahead of Rubio). I'm not sure a 'draft x' movement is all that good a sign, really, though. I got an email asking me to help draft Cruz today, so was considering sending a foreign dollar to invalidate his campaign :-)

Clinton raised foreign money and was elected President. So, there's that.

It's gotten more attention here than Syria, so you make the call.

Based on what?

Of all your idiotic statements, that one deserves an award. We're discussing THIS FORUM on THIS WEBSITE (to help you, since you clearly need it, it's redscape.com). If we were talking about press reports or international news websites, wow, you'd have me cold. But, we're not--and you know that.

Be as patient as you like, but if you are going to accuse me of a lie, you'd better be telling the truth yourself. The statement in the Rose Garden can be read here - Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya. It is about Benghazi. It mentions the four dead Americans several times, including in the sentence after the one mentioning terror. To claim there is no connection being made between terror and the attack on the embassy is utterly bizarre.

No, it is your inability to think logically. "Terror" in and of itself does not mean "Benghazi" in the speech he gave. How do I know that? Because he explicitly denied linking it to terror many times AFTER that speech. Here's one:

Sept. 24: Obama tapes an appearance on “The View,” and he’s asked by co-host Joy Behar whether the Libya attack was an act of terrorism or caused by the anti-Muslim video. He does not call it a terrorist attack and says, “We’re still doing an investigation.”

Joy Behar: It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie, or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?

Obama: Well, we’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it. But what’s clear is that around the world, there’s still a lot of threats out there. That’s why we have to maintain the strongest military in the world, that’s why we can’t let down our guard when it comes to the intelligence work that we do and staying on top of — not just al Qaeda, the traditional al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan. …

Look it up yourself. Here, I'll help. There's a long list of obfuscations, denials, admissions--at best, a mixed message. The President did not say anything of the stripe that "Benghazi was a terror attack" for quite some time, if ever.

So, yes, you lied.

Except they were only straw men when you turned to dishonesty.

You have not successfully pointed out a lie yet. I have found some errors of fact in your assertions, but I won't take your route and descend to accusations of lying.

I'm just pointing out the truth. Apparently, that's too much for you. Don't skip over what he said in the Rose Garden:

The United States condemns, in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.

And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people. Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.

We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.

This is not an off-the-cuff answer. It has been prepped and vetted. He said exactly what he was supposed to say. He also says:

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.

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.

But, again, he is very careful NOT to directly link the Benghazi attack with terror. It does not happen. He calls it an "attack." He does not call Benghazi a "terror attack," an "act of terrorism," or anything of the like. To say it does is to lie--or to play stupid.

Doctor Fate wrote:What is disappointing is the attitude that a politician may lie to your face, cause you damage, and you don't care. The only people who care about Gitmo are the ACLU and the terrorists who want to see their friends rejoin the jihad.

So I take it that you are OK with the lie that he'd close Gitmo.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:What is disappointing is the attitude that a politician may lie to your face, cause you damage, and you don't care. The only people who care about Gitmo are the ACLU and the terrorists who want to see their friends rejoin the jihad.

So I take it that you are OK with the lie that he'd close Gitmo.

It was a bad idea to try and close it.

I read Obama's speech carefully to see what meaning could be gleaned from it...

3rd paragraph. Description of attackers as being "killers" and reference to "outrageous and shocking attack"
4th paragraph. "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others". This appears to be a reference to the video. But also "brutal acts" and "senseless violence".
5th paragraph. Solidarity with Libya.
6th paragraph. Stevens helped to save Benghazi
7th paragraph. 9-11 and sacrifices made by soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq
8th paragraph. Freedom only persists if we are willing to fight for it
9th paragraph. "No acts of terror" will affect America's resolve.
10th paragraph. Lifes that Americans who died led contrasted favorably with that of attackers.

I think acts of terror referred to the attack in Benghazi. I think acts of terror is a carefully chosen phrase. Using the term "terrorist attack" would refer to an attack by a terrorist group. Acts of terror is vaguer. On the other hand, there are harsh verbal statements about the attackers and there is no linkage between the video and the attack or what happened in Egypt and the attacks. This is a very, very carefully written speech.

DF, if Americans use 'member of Congress' to mean Congressman they are wrong. I am not 'being moronic' when I apply the correct usage:

Wikipedia - general page

Wikipedia - relating to a specific Congress (2009-10)

Govtrack

Congress itself

The Library of Congress

These are the main reference links on google that I can be sure are sourced in the USA and use the exact term.

So you know what? Given your lack of respect and assumption that I deliberately misinterpreted what is a perfectly understandable term in what appears to be the correct way, and that you continue to accuse me of lying simply because I disagree with you, I will not even bother to respond to the rest of your hyperbolic and unreasonable post.

Toodles.

freeman3 wrote:I read Obama's speech carefully to see what meaning could be gleaned from it...

3rd paragraph. Description of attackers as being "killers" and reference to "outrageous and shocking attack"
4th paragraph. "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others". This appears to be a reference to the video. But also "brutal acts" and "senseless violence".
5th paragraph. Solidarity with Libya.
6th paragraph. Stevens helped to save Benghazi
7th paragraph. 9-11 and sacrifices made by soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq
8th paragraph. Freedom only persists if we are willing to fight for it
9th paragraph. "No acts of terror" will affect America's resolve.
10th paragraph. Lifes that Americans who died led contrasted favorably with that of attackers.

I think acts of terror referred to the attack in Benghazi. I think acts of terror is a carefully chosen phrase. Using the term "terrorist attack" would refer to an attack by a terrorist group. Acts of terror is vaguer. On the other hand, there are harsh verbal statements about the attackers and there is no linkage between the video and the attack or what happened in Egypt and the attacks. This is a very, very carefully written speech.

This is all quite right. I note that you use "I think." The speech is written with a specific lack of specificity. The goal was, I think, to stay a politically-safe distance from Al Qaida, so no one could contradict the assertion that "Al Qaida is on the run."

Further, if ithe President was clear that Benghazi was a terrorist attack (as we now know it was), Rice, Clinnton, Obama et al, could not have professed a lack of certainty on so many occasions AFTER the Rose Garden speech.

danivon wrote:DF, if Americans use 'member of Congress' to mean Congressman they are wrong. I am not 'being moronic' when I apply the correct usage:

Wikipedia - general page

Wikipedia - relating to a specific Congress (2009-10)

Govtrack

Congress itself

The Library of Congress

These are the main reference links on google that I can be sure are sourced in the USA and use the exact term.

So you know what? Given your lack of respect and assumption that I deliberately misinterpreted what is a perfectly understandable term in what appears to be the correct way, and that you continue to accuse me of lying simply because I disagree with you, I will not even bother to respond to the rest of your hyperbolic and unreasonable post.

Toodles.

Don't let the door hit you.

What is clear is that you were being moronic in your statement. If you believe I was unaware that Obama was a Senator before he was elected President, then you'd have a point. You don't. If you want to say I was incorrect technically, great, but I don't think my meaning was unclear.

The accusation of dishonesty stands. It was based on your multiple leaps of logic to say the statement in the Rose Garden clearly labelled Benghazi an "act of terror." Only Psaki and Carney would back you up and they are liars of the first order.

I said you lied. You did. I did not say you are a liar. Liars are those who are marked by the habit of lying. I'm not saying that.

Whatever (and I did not accuse you of calling me a liar, btw). Garfield is irrelevant. See xkcd.com/1122

danivon wrote:Whatever (and I did not accuse you of calling me a liar, btw). Garfield is irrelevant. See xkcd.com/1122

Garfield is irrelevant? Okay.

I never said he was relevant. He's just the last sitting Congressman elected President. That was 1880.

Ryan has said, on many occasions, how important being chair of the House Budget Committee is. So, there is zero chance he's going to step down on a quixotic run for President. And, there's no chance he could remain in that position and run.

Sure. Remember though that it is not I who started this thread predicting that Ryan would.be 'made'.

Ryan may change his mind, he may bide his time for another cycle or few, or he may prefer to seek a Congressional career. If he does consider a run in 2016 I don't know whether he would have to stand down as chair then, or only in the event of a victory. I thought he was after a medium term goal of getting into the Way and Means chair , which would preclude a Presidential bid unless he was likely to lose.

He's young, and that means he could stand in 2032 and still be in his early-mid 60s.

Of course, Christie is ahead in the latest poll, taken a week ago (after the press conference). 16% is not massive, but Ryan was on 12% and everyone else on less than 10%. Currently these two are theoretical front runners. If Ryan is not going to stand, who is the main challenge to Christie (or who would be favourite if this or other issues take him out?

In the beginning of the thread, Dag referred to Ryan as "far-right." To us in the party, I would say he's a middle of the road conservative. He's more conservative than, say, Peter King or GWB, but not as conservative as Cruz, Lee, or Paul.

I think the nominee may well be someone further down in the polling. I suspect it will be someone who invigorates the base while speaking to the aspirations of more moderate Republicans. Christie is the opposite: someone who excites the moderates while speaking the language of conservatives.

My fear is the money people will panic and move to "draft Jeb" mode if Hillary looks inevitable. Who wants Clinton v. Bush?

This is interesting: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pol ... op-primary

I don't think Huckabee will run. But, what that chart shows, after you remove Ryan, Christie, and Huckabee, and give a healthy skepticism toward another Bush running, is that the race is wide open.

Perry, Walker, and Jindal are conservative governors with good track records. Perry was quite bad in 2012, but I think he entered the race almost by accident--as if to say, "Well, if Santorum is the best conservative, I can do better than him . . ."

Paul is almost without equal in his ability to speak with conservative principles in a way that appeals to Democrats. If you've seen him in focus groups, he's brilliant. Now, I don't know if that translates to larger audiences. And, he will have to distance himself from his father's neo-isolationism. I think Americans are tired of war and interventionism, but we recognize we can't slink off the world stage either.

Rubio damaged himself with the immigration stand he took. He may recover. His personal story is compelling and he thinks quickly on his feet (the interaction with Kerry on the Senate floor was classic).

Cruz is, contra his detractors on the Left, a very intelligent, articulate, thoughtful man. You don't do what he has done without being smart.

Mike Lee is a personal favorite. I think he's brilliant and comes across as very optimistic, which I think is vital.

I'm just not sure that the US is ready for another Senator with a minimal track record (applies to all of the last four).

All of that to say I think the nominee is likely to be a governor or former governor.

Perry was awful last time. I don't see too many donors wanting to touch him this time round

The really interesting choice would be Paul I think. He hasn't really been subjected to serious scrutiny yet, so he's obviously a major gamble, but he takes the Repuboicans in a new direction and appeals to a younger audience that isn't likely to be turned on by many of the others. Libertarianism is the coming thing on the right in my opinion. It's been obvious for a while. The younger generation aren't so fired up by traditional morality issues as Republican voters have been in the past. It doesn't mean that they're not potentially receptive to conservative ideas, but they're more relaxed about what happens in other peoples bedrooms. Social conservatism is going to have to take a back seat in the future because it's a major turnoff to younger voters who might otherwise be enthused by conservative positions.

I think ultimately that the hardcore libertarianism of Rand Paul's dad will prove to be unelectable if it's ever put to the test, but nevertheless it does have potential if it's watered down a bit. The son seems a lot more electable than the father, while still retaining that sense of authenticity which could be priceless. It could be worth taking a punt on him.

Sassenach wrote:Perry was awful last time. I don't see too many donors wanting to touch him this time round

Yes, he was awful. But, he's been elected governor of Texas three times. That he stumbled (albeit massively) is not a disqualifier. His policies and positions are very popular in conservative circles. He's not popular with the Bush family, which is good.

I think ultimately that the hardcore libertarianism of Rand Paul's dad will prove to be unelectable if it's ever put to the test, but nevertheless it does have potential if it's watered down a bit. The son seems a lot more electable than the father, while still retaining that sense of authenticity which could be priceless. It could be worth taking a punt on him.

I think he has a shot, precisely for the reasons you've outlined. Plus, he defeated the establishment Republican in KY, which shows he knows something about campaigning. He has removed some of the rough edges off his father's policies and is therefore more appealing to a broader audience.

The other thing Rand Paul has of course is access to his father's political operation, which has spent the last 10 years building up a massive network of activists and donors who should logically all switch over to Rand en masse if he runs. It's a big advantage over the other candidates.