View Full Version : Second Presidential Debate, 16 October 2012
In regards to what the president did and did not say in the Rose Garden, the full transcript of his statement, available here, follows (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya).
For Immediate Release
September 12, 2012
Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya
Rose Garden
10:43 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.
Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.
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. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.
It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.
Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned 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. 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.
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.
We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.
Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.
END
10:48 A.M. EDTDoes the mention of "terror" constitute calling the attack an act of terrorism as the president and members of the studio audience believe? Readers must decide for themselves.
Ambush Master
10-16-2012, 21:23
In regards to what the president did and did not say in the Rose Garden, the full transcript of his statement, available here, follows (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya).Does the mention of "terror" constitute calling the attack an act of terrorism as the president and members of the studio audience believe? Readers must decide for themselves.
HELL NO!! I'm waiting for the "Timelines" on the "It was because of the 'Video' Statements" to surface!! Me-thinks that this will end up bad for the admin!!!
craigepo
10-17-2012, 07:19
In regards to what the president did and did not say in the Rose Garden, the full transcript of his statement, available here, follows (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya).Does the mention of "terror" constitute calling the attack an act of terrorism as the president and members of the studio audience believe? Readers must decide for themselves.
Here are Obama's remarks to the U.N. a couple weeks later. You tell us---does this sound like a President calling what happened in Libya a "terrorist attack", or does it seem like he is talking about this being a reaction to a video?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/transcript-obama-address-to-un-general-assembly/
ZonieDiver
10-17-2012, 07:55
Yeah... Romney should have said "a planned terrorist attack" instead of "act of terrorism" - there IS a difference, even to people on Long Island.
He walked right into that one.
Here are Obama's remarks to the U.N. a couple weeks later. You tell us---does this sound like a President calling what happened in Libya a "terrorist attack", or does it seem like he is talking about this being a reaction to a video?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/transcript-obama-address-to-un-general-assembly/Judge--
With respect, I think you're misreading my post and missing my point. Governor Romney drew the audience's attention to the president's comments in the Rose Garden, and suggested that the president did not call the attack an act of terror.
The president, obviously knowing what he said in the Rose Garden, baited Governor Romney into pressing the argument that he did not describe the attack as an act of terrorism. When it was pointed out to Mr. Romney, by Ms. Crawley as well as by the members of the audience who cheered, that he may not have had his facts lined up in a way that scored his point, the governor got flustered and then he rephrased his argument. (Source is here (http://www.npr.org/2012/10/16/163050988/transcript-obama-romney-2nd-presidential-debate).)MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I — I certainly do. I certainly do. I — I think it's interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.
MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you're saying?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.
MR. ROMNEY: I — I — I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
As a topic of historical inquiry the discontinuities and inconsistencies of the forty fourth president's comments on the Benghazi attack may end up being a topic of enduring debate. However, as a moment in a somewhat contentious debate, it was, IMO, clear that Mr. Romney attempted to bait the president into a rhetorical trap and managed to get himself entangled instead.
Stargazer
10-17-2012, 10:26
The President's remarks following the incident are benign by design. I find little value in Romney talking about his jetting off to Vegas or 'acts of terror' v. terrorists or comments made in the Rose Garden. These are 'small matters' and people will perceive them for what they are to them.
IMV, what is more telling is the situation in Libya that was kept under the radar from the public, denial of requests to increase security, what is/was the President's mechanism for receiving SITREP on a country where we overturned the government (or did he feel it was not important to know the situation), and the disingeniunous narrative following the incident. This needs to be the focus and hard questions need to be asked of the President about his policies.
ironyoshi
10-17-2012, 10:43
The president, obviously knowing what he said in the Rose Garden, baited Governor Romney into pressing the argument that he did not describe the attack as an act of terrorism. When it was pointed out to Mr. Romney, by Ms. Crawley as well as by the members of the audience who cheered, that he may not have had his facts lined up in a way that scored his point, the governor got flustered and then he rephrased his argument.
So Obama baited Romney into getting sucker punched by the supposedly impartial moderator? Are you saying Obama actually knew the moderator was going to step into the ring, on his side, at this critical juncture? Because that was the only reason he got as "flustered" as he did. The sheer disbelief at the completely naked cheerleading on display.
That is hardly a mark against Mr. Romney or a credit to Mr. Obama.
As a topic of historical inquiry the discontinuities and inconsistencies of the forty third president's comments on the Benghazi attack may end up being a topic of enduring debate. However, as a moment in a somewhat contentious debate, it was, IMO, clear that Mr. Romney attempted to bait the president into a rhetorical trap and managed to get himself entangled instead.
How the hell did Bush get interjected into this? Are you blaming Benghazi on him too?
ZonieDiver
10-17-2012, 11:08
So Obama baited Romney into getting sucker punched by the supposedly impartial moderator? Are you saying Obama actually knew the moderator was going to step into the ring, on his side, at this critical juncture? Because that was the only reason he got as "flustered" as he did. The sheer disbelief at the completely naked cheerleading on display.
That is hardly a mark against Mr. Romney or a credit to Mr. Obama.
The "impartial" moderator announced in advance what she planned to do in this 'debate'. Should she have done what she did? Probably not. Should she have corrected the president when he lied about not even introducing immigration reform legislation during his first two years in office when he had a super-majority in the US Senate and controlled the US House of Representatives? Probably so.
Does it change the fact that Romney mischaracterized the events and walked into an ambush and instead of assaulting the ambush - he dillydallied in the kill zone? Nope, not at all. He had a great opportunity to bitch-slap the POTUS, and let it slip away. This was a "Big Gun" moment for the challenger, and he should have been well-prepared for it. He messed up.
That's not Candy (Never Met A Buffet I Didn't Like) Crowley's fault.
MOO YMMV etc
ironyoshi
10-17-2012, 11:33
Does it change the fact that Romney mischaracterized the events and walked into an ambush and instead of assaulting the ambush - he dillydallied in the kill zone? Nope, not at all. He had a great opportunity to bitch-slap the POTUS, and let it slip away. This was a "Big Gun" moment for the challenger, and he should have been well-prepared for it. He messed up.
To a certain extent I do agree with you - in theory it was entirely possible for Romney to put the kibosh on both of them - but how exactly are you supposed to react when the moderator decides to interrupt you with a tag-team in the middle of your train of thought?
I'm not really seeing a much better response out of any mere human, here. Were this happen to Biden, of course, he would react in a drunken guffawing rage, but I don't think that's exactly a winning attitude.
Badger52
10-17-2012, 12:10
That's not Candy (Never Met A Buffet I Didn't Like) Crowley's fault.
MOO YMMV etcYup. He missed another one when POTUS challenged him on his 5-point plan, saying that maybe we should see some details.
12 yo (going on 25) grand-daughter could've come up with a response that included POTUS' party passing a massive health care bill, the contents of which by their own admission would not be known until after it was passed. Missed opportunity in my view. (Pre-teen political junkies do have their fun-factor, though.)
Got more out of darkening the TV, swinging some hand-weights & joggin' up to the HS baseball field & back. Later there was a self-proclaimed dem pollster who called and wanted to know what my most crucial concern was that POTUS could address.
Me: "OK, integrity, and adherence to oath."
PhoneLackey: "That's not on my list..."
:rolleyes:
ZonieDiver
10-17-2012, 12:10
To a certain extent I do agree with you - in theory it was entirely possible for Romney to put the kibosh on both of them - but how exactly are you supposed to react when the moderator decides to interrupt you with a tag-team in the middle of your train of thought?
I'm not really seeing a much better response out of any mere human, here. Were this happen to Biden, of course, he would react in a drunken guffawing rage, but I don't think that's exactly a winning attitude.
She is part of the MSM, and if ANYone had ever watched ten minutes of her show, they'd know her partiality often shows.
It's called "Knowing your enemy" and "Being prepared" - something that SF are well-known for doing. Briefbacks can be a bitch for those who fail to realize these things.
I expect NO less from the presidential candidate I pray daily will be victorious in less than three weeks. However, I also worry constantly that he and his 'team' will somehow piss it away.
By the way, I've been interrupted by a two star general in the middle of my train of thought (when I was a mere buck sergeant). I paused and replied. I didn't let it derail the f'ing train.
So [the president] baited Romney into getting sucker punched by the supposedly impartial moderator? Are you saying [the president] actually knew the moderator was going to step into the ring, on his side, at this critical juncture? Because that was the only reason he got as "flustered" as he did. The sheer disbelief at the completely naked cheerleading on display.
That is hardly a mark against Mr. Romney or a credit to [the president].I think you should do a better job at reading posts as written before attempting to engage in snark.
The point I made is that the president was ready for Mr. Romney to talk about his comments in the Rose Garden. Up until that point, the president had sought almost every opportunity to pounce upon his opponent and he had interrupted the Republican candidate constantly. Yet, when Romney made it clear that he was talking about the Rose Garden speech, the president visibly relaxed and said with a gleam in his eyes: "Please proceed."
Now, maybe it is because I used to collect Spider-man comic books, or that I had the good fortune of seeing a similar gleam in Albert Ganley's eyes on those occasions he decided to rough up a student for being unprepared, or that I've been trained in a field that regularly sees ferocious debate. Or maybe it is because I was simply paying attention.
In any case, warning lights flashed, flares exploded, and red flags were being raised when the president invited Romney to continue. And Romney did. So instead of baiting a trap for the president, Romney walked into one set by his adversary.To a certain extent I do agree with you - in theory it was entirely possible for Romney to put the kibosh on both of them - but how exactly are you supposed to react when the moderator decides to interrupt you with a tag-team in the middle of your train of thought?
I'm not really seeing a much better response out of any mere human, here. Were this happen to Biden, of course, he would react in a drunken guffawing rage, but I don't think that's exactly a winning attitude.One of the biggest problems the GOP has is that too many of its supporters make excuses when candidates do not meet expectations that others somehow manage to fulfill. Well, no human being could have done it...and the other guy sucks anyways. Balls.
ironyoshi
10-17-2012, 13:02
Now, maybe it is because I used to collect Spider-man comic books, or that I had the good fortune of seeing a similar gleam in Albert Ganley's eyes on those occasions he decided to rough up a student for being unprepared, or that I've been trained in a field that regularly sees ferocious debate. Or maybe it is because I was simply paying attention.
In any case, warning lights flashed, flares exploded, and red flags were being raised when the president invited Romney to continue. And Romney did. So instead of baiting a trap for the president, Romney walked into one set by his adversary.
The killer moment was the moderator stepping in to literally debate one of the candidates (which is pretty much unheard of in the history of Presidential debates), not anything Obama did himself. Shouldn't Obama have something to do with the trap actually springing to get credit for setting it?
One of the biggest problems the GOP has is that too many of its supporters make excuses when candidates do not meet expectations that others somehow manage to fulfill. Well, no human being could have done it...and the other guy sucks anyways. Balls.
Without a doubt, this is one of the biggest problems in the GOP. But I reserve my ire for Todd Akin and his ilk.
ironyoshi
10-17-2012, 13:07
She is part of the MSM, and if ANYone had ever watched ten minutes of her show, they'd know her partiality often shows.
It's called "Knowing your enemy" and "Being prepared" - something that SF are well-known for doing. Briefbacks can be a bitch for those who fail to realize these things.
Romney is no stranger to being prepared and I am not sure what changes you would have made to his debate prep in order to make it more effective. It was fairly exhaustive.
This is a guy who delivered (as has been noted elsewhere) one of the most incredible showings in a Presidential debate on the strength of substance. Not too many zingers. There is an element of 20/20 hindsight here, in my opinion.
ZonieDiver
10-17-2012, 15:38
Romney is no stranger to being prepared and I am not sure what changes you would have made to his debate prep in order to make it more effective. It was fairly exhaustive.
This is a guy who delivered (as has been noted elsewhere) one of the most incredible showings in a Presidential debate on the strength of substance. Not too many zingers. There is an element of 20/20 hindsight here, in my opinion.
Let me put this to you straight: how the hell do you KNOW that Romney is "no stranger to being prepared" or that his debate prep was "fairly exhaustive"? Were you in the room? Are you taking the word of political flacks from his 'team'? Are you simply repeating what you've heard from "Talking Heads" on Fox, or elsewhere.
I'm simply going by performance with MY estimation that he could have been better prepared. If (in your estimation) he had all this massive, exhaustive preparation, I'm pretty sure his 'team' would have told him to be ready to discuss the events in Benghazi - or even bring it up himself. To then use the words 'act of terror' instead of 'a planned attack by a terrorist group' would seem to me to be a great slip, or a lack of thorough preparation.
Which 'debate' are you referencing with your 'most incredible showings in a presidential debate on the strength of substance' remark? #1 or #2? And who are you quoting with those words ('as has been noted elsewhere' remark)? I've watched all three 'debates' thus far, and have not noticed a great deal of actual 'substance' in ANY of them by ANY of the participants.
"An element of 20/20 hindsight here"? Well, duh?!? In the military, it is called an AAR (look it up) and it is 'de rigeur'. It's how we learn from our mistakes. It is something I hope the Romney campaign engages in quickly, instead of listening to the cheerleading of persons such as you, before they let this very rare opportunity slip from their grasp.
Unless you can come up with something substantial to say... I'm done here.
(Though, in a Dozer-like moment, I must admit that I am still chuckling at your intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Romney's 'debate' preparation. How do you know they didn't sit around sipping Pepsi and telling jokes in French?
Remote viewing, perhaps? (That is something for which you may wish to use the Search button here.)
Dozer523
10-17-2012, 19:15
Let me put this to you straight
(Though, in a Dozer-like moment, I must admit that I am still chuckling at your intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Romney's 'debate' preparation. How do you know they didn't sit around sipping Pepsi and telling jokes in French?
Remote viewing, perhaps? .)
Hahahahahahahaha. Brother, I almost missed that. The young relative of a future padiwan should not be allowed to post again until he has thoroughly researched your last reference. And, Learned the meaning of TSBIYF.
How the hell did Bush get interjected into this? Are you blaming Benghazi on him too?I typed the post with my shoes and socks on so I lost count after I got to President Reagan.
IMO, Romney has so thoroughly bungled the attacks in Benghazi that the GOP should leave it alone.
Under the best of circumstances, going after a sitting president for his/her handling of a crisis is risky. The stakes are especially high as the forty fourth president (no shoes or socks right now) and his supporters are aching to make this election a referendum on the previous president. As Bush the Younger's responses to 9/11 and to Katrina generated significant political controversy, I don't know if a Republican candidate wants to re-activate those debates.
IMO, the opposition has several aces in the sleeve if the GOP presses this point. First, it knows well that many people believe that Bush the Younger rushed to judgement by linking 9/11 to Saddam Hussein and that OIF was a mistake ("Well, we want to make sure we have our facts straight before charging off in the wrong direction"). Second, it can point out that Americans typically rally around the president in times of crisis and ask aloud "Why isn't the GOP doing the same?" Third, the president can (as he did last night) wrap himself in the flag and wave the bloody shirt. While such actions may turn the stomachs of some, the display very much got the attention of others.
Moreover, given Romney's lack of foreign policy experience, I think it behooves him to avoid making statements as a candidate that might limit his flexibility as president. That is, by pressing the current president to adhere to a certain agenda, he leaves himself wide open for Democratic legislators to do the same should he (somehow) manage to win.
(Did that sound pessimistic? Sorry. More positive thinking. Romney will win. / Romney will win. / Romney will win.)
(FWIW, here's a true story.
Many years back, I was sitting in a graduate level seminar offered by the department chair. [The class was on an obscure subject so I was taking it again.] The professor made a comment on some aspect of some obscure point. I looked at him, grinned, and said "That's not what you said last year." He grinned back with a friendly look that said, playfully, You asshole, I'll remember this. He then asked "What did I say last year?" Without hesitation, I told him, he made a slight correction to his comment, and the seminar continued.
The point here is that when one engages in "He said this / he didn't say that" cross talk, you either have your facts straight or you don't. If you don't, you figure out how to hedge ["As I recall..."]. If you do, and someone asks you to proceed, you kick his ass and move on. What ever you do, you don't respond with a vocalized pause ["I--I--I"] so big that one can drive through it a semi-tractor trailer that reads I don't really want to be the president of the United States after all on the side.
My $0.02.)