dagblog - Comments for "Why Is Romney Being Taken Seriously on Libya?"

Though it should have been

artappraiser — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:03:03 +0000

In reply to The article never mentions

Though it should have been mentioned there, I am surprised to find people interested in the story who don't know that, because it was in all the initial reporting. Even to the point where there was a bit of spin to how much it was mentioned, along the lines of: there were good Libyans there, too, they went and found the ambassador huddled still alive, alone, and took him to the hospital.

It's a big problem of the continual news cycle, mho, that reporters should feel the need to repeat the same basic facts over and over and over in every story, and not be able to move on to new news. One would think teh googling would have made it easier, you don't have to go to the library to catch up on a story you missed, but noooo, just the opposite sometimes, it seems.

You know, it strikes me that if they don't know it, and are looking into the story now, aren't they interested in finding out how he died? If they think it was something more viciously targeted towards him, don't they want to know the particulars before making judgments about the political points being made now?

The article never mentions

NCD — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:06:06 +0000

In reply to As someone who has been

The article never mentions the that the ambassador, and apparently some or all of the other Americans, died of smoke inhalation. That would seem to be a very important fact complicating the determination of the objective of the attack, and which individuals are responsible for the deaths.

Seriously? I don't get how

stillidealistic — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:43:58 +0000

In reply to Why Is Romney Being Taken Seriously on Libya?

Seriously? I don't get how anyone is taking him seriously on ANY issue. He is the slimiest, most slithery candidate ever, and the fact that the race is close just sickens me.

I hate it that the American people could even come CLOSE to electing a man like Romney. Romneyworld is not a place I will be proud to live in. For the 1st time in my life, I am seriously wishing there was somewhere else I could go.

As what I guess you might

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:33:37 +0000

In reply to "How Romney Based His Libya

As what I guess you might call a pundit/analyst as well as pundit analyst, I am a big fan of Bill Sher.

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/11825

As someone who has been

artappraiser — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 01:52:40 +0000

In reply to "How Romney Based His Libya

As someone who has been following the Benghazi story over time, I highly recommend David Kirkpatrick's NYT article, which is cited in your quote; here's the link again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-over...

...if you grab the most

NCD — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:36:12 +0000

In reply to "How Romney Based His Libya

...if you grab the most politically charged interpretation of sketchy facts and base an entire presidential campaign, you are soon going to suffer for it.

If you grab the most politically charged sketchy facts and use it to start a war the whole nation suffers, and you wind up with lots of dead people, $3 trillion more debt, and a violent Iraq run by Mullahs partial to Iran. But...lying is....OK If You're A Republican, at least to The Base!

CNN: Ambassador Chris Stevens

NCD — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:17:19 +0000

In reply to Didn't know it was from smoke

CNN: Ambassador Chris Stevens and other U.S. diplomats died of smoke inhalation after an attack created a fire at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, senior U.S. officials tell CNN....

There was a gun battle between consulate security and terrorists, the terrorists left, and Benghazis supportive of the US found his body and took him to the hospital.

BBC: US ambassador Chris Stevens died from smoke inhalation but had no other injuries, Libyan doctor says.

"How Romney Based His Libya

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:42:43 +0000

In reply to Why Is Romney Being Taken Seriously on Libya?

"How Romney Based His Libya Strategy on Right-Wing Radio and Got Burned", Bill Scher, Campaign for America's Future blogsite, today, at: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012104217/how-romney-based-his-libya-strategy-right-wing-radio-and-got-burned

The right is in a tizzy claiming that Candy Crowley tipped the debate by "fact-checking" Mitt Romney on President's Obama statements regarding the Benghazi attack, then saying afterwards that Romney was "right in the main" because he was "totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape."

But the right is wrong on both counts.

It was not Crowley that blew the Benghazi question. It was Romney himself, who before the fact-check displayed outright cluelessness on the President's statements, suggesting that he was solely reliant on the manufactured conservative talk radio narrative instead of researching the facts for himself.

More importantly, Crowley's post-debate comment is also wrong. Romney was not just technically inaccurate, he was wrong in the main as well. If Romney bothered to pick up a copy of the New York Times yesterday, he would have rethought betting so many chips on the right-wing narrative.

..........

presidents, and people who would like to become president, should know what they're talking about before they speak.

Because if you grab the most politically charged interpretation of sketchy facts and base an entire presidential campaign, you are soon going to suffer for it.

Sadly, we recently had a president that based an entire foreign policy adventure based on the most politically charged interpretation of sketchy facts. And a lot more people than himself suffered for it.

Didn't know it was from smoke

Anonymous PS — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:17:07 +0000

In reply to The ambassador died of smoke

Didn't know it was from smoke inhalation.

The ambassador died of smoke

NCD — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:00:56 +0000

In reply to Why Is Romney Being Taken Seriously on Libya?

The ambassador died of smoke inhalation. He was not hunted down and killed. The first Libyans to find him said he was still alive, and rushed him to the hospital. Do we even know the fire starters knew anyone was in that building? Did they know the ambassador was there? If they wanted to kill him why didn't they dispatch him with a shot to the head? No one in the media asks these questions.

What we are seeing is pure political posturing from the Republicans, which is what they do.

As I said before, if this was Iraq after the Bush 'liberation', Americans were beheaded or had their corpses strung up from bridges, in The Decider's 'war of choice'. There was absolutely no doubt they hated our guts, with a passion. For a bloody conflict of 'shock and awe' and regime change, that did not support an Iraqi revolt, but created one against us.