My response to Obama on Benghazi attack (Vanity)

Self | 10/17/2012 | Self

[GlockThe Vote]

As with everyone on this site - I am sure we were all screaming at the lies told by O-THUG last night. Anyway - don't know if Romneys' people read this site.

But here is what i cobbled together in 2 minutes that romney could have said within the time limit.

"Mr. President - spare me your lecture. Your record speaks for itself. You have failed to attend 3/4 of your intel briefings opting for golf and fundraising instead, your admn denied the Benghazi embassy the requested added security on at least 4 occasions, as the embassy was under attack you jetted off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas and a photo op on The View as well as a fundraiser w Jay Z. You proceeded to blame a non-existent youtube video at the UN and spent $74,000 of taxpayer money on ads in Arabic on pakistani TV to apologize for said video. The FBI was not on the scene for 3 weeks while CNN was able to secure the Diary of Ambassador Stevens the day after the attack. And now you hide behind Hillary Clinton who has said she will not be serving a second term and have the gaul to lecture us? Mr. President shame on you. Americans deserve better than the incompetent and faiiled and non-existent leadership you provide. That is going to change when I am elected President three weeks from now."

[SC_Pete]

Too much information. He should have just said: “If you believed it was a terrorist attack, why did you, your secretary of State and the UN ambassador say for two weeks that it had something to do with a stupid video? If you knew it was a terrorist attack, why didn’t you level with the American people instead of perpetrating a politically motivated coverup?”

Game, set, match.

[Nervous Tick]

>> I am sure we were all screaming at the lies told by O-THUG last night.

LOL! Boy you got that one right. Between the heifer’s biased moderating and the blue-lipped Kenyan monkey’s dissembling, I was fairly well screaming at the computer screen most of the debate (watched on C-SPAN). It’s a good thing I was by myself where no one could see me... I was probably foaming at the mouth!

Nice summary.

[GlockThe Vote]

I just can’t believe Romney screwed that one up so poorly. I was shouting the answer myself.

When obama gave that little lecture I would have stood right up and shouted to him: “Enough with your lies! 4 people are dead due to your Admn’s lies in the ME and you want to lecture me?”

[TomGuy]

I hope Romney was just holding back because the next debate is going to be the foreign policy debate.

Crowley put him at a definite disadvantage by corroborating Obama’s lie about addressing the Benghazi attack as terrorism.

So what if Crowley was also WRONG.

She managed to kick Romney’s legs out from under him. Could he call HER a liar on a national stage? She was waving a sheet of paper, as if she had the direct quote right in front of her.

So what if Crowley admitted she was WRONG — AFTER the debate was over.

[Romney was tag-teamed, just like Ryan was.]

[GlockThe Vote]

Romney should have immerdiately called him out for going to the UN and then he and hillary using 75000 to run the ad in pakistan.

[UKrepublican]

Brilliant, exactly right.

He could have won the debate in one exhange, instead he tied/lost it....on Obamas worst topic, a subject he has lied about and has no credibility he some how managed to make Romney look bad and escaped real exposure for this scandal.

Romney had better come out swinging next time and lines like these that cut deep are exactly the ammo he needs. If he doesn’t cut Obama down sharp he will only try it on again.

[GlockThe Vote]

I just don’t understand how I can type something in 2 minutes on the fly liek that and romney can’yt after days of debate prep?

WTF!!!!

[bgill]

I just don’t understand how I can type something in 2 minutes on the fly liek that and romney can’yt after days of debate prep?

Neither one of the candidates are ready for prime time. The GOP has gone so far over to the dark side that I'm not sure America hasn't gone past the point of no return.

[PieterCasparzen]

She managed to kick Romney’s legs out from under him. Could he call HER a liar on a national stage? She was waving a sheet of paper, as if she had the direct quote right in front of her.

No, but he should have turned on her, graciously, and asked if he she wanted to debate him. "Right now, I'm debating the pResident, but I'd be happy to debate you another time."

[PieterCasparzen]

Romney had better come out swinging next time and lines like these that cut deep are exactly the ammo he needs. If he doesn’t cut Obama down sharp he will only try it on again.

The idea of being aggressive versus graciously cutting deep logical holes in the opponent with a minimum number of words is something that most people, including debate consultants and politicans, don't get.

Getting "pushy" aggressive, i.e., going into the other's personal space, pointing at them, showing anger through body language, raising one's voice, etc., all leave the debater wide open for being labeled as anything from disrespectful to crazy in the all-important spin time following the debate.

Most importantly, if one is aggressive in these ways, it wins nothing in the most crucial effect: the effect on the mindset of the viewer as they watch the debate. The implication - even if most people are not aware of it - is that unable to verbally spar, one is resorting to the non-verbal. It's a tacit admission of defeat.

Successful verbal sparring delivers logical blows. Every big logical punchline that bares your opponent's lies sticks in the mind of the voter. It's similar to the tactics attorneys use in presenting cases to juries: get something to be said that the jury/viewer can't get out of their mind, something big and obvious. Often it is done with questions rather than statements, i.e., it's what the opponent does not say that sticks in the viewer's mind. To make it clear for the viewer, one can even tell the viewer that the opponent will not answer this before one asks the question.

This debate was the longest one in history - it's still going on. Because Obama did not answer the question on Libya yet. The nice gentlemen in the audience asked: a) WHO denied the requests for additional security at the Libyan consulate and b) WHY. He asked in such a way that it appeared that he and his friends who came up with the question really would just like to know the answer, and rightfully so. If I was debating the WH occupant, I would most certainly (and most calmly and pleasantly) pressed and pressed and pressed for an answer to the gentlemen's question. Every time I spoke, I would simply ask the same question in one quick sentence. The debate could not move on until Zero responded and said he did not know the answer to either one. At that point, I would turn to the audience and the camera: WHO - WHY - 35 days and still no answer.

Pacing is important: sometimes saying a lot and going fast works well. But most often, successful debate points are made short and sweet; the debate can be slowed down to a snail's pace, simply ask a simple question and keep on it. Ok, no answer, ask another simple question. Do a whole series.

Then at convenient point, ease up on him. Turn to the audience, and do your little one minute diatribe as if you're sitting across the kitchen table from the viewer. Simply point out - still no answer to these questions and list them out very succinctly. Ask the viewer: if you ask a simple question and get no answer but a whole discourse on talking points, we all know what that means. Turn and walk away, don't stand there for one second looking at the viewer with nothing to say. Wait to stand up and start talking until everyone else is done and everyone is waiting for you to speak. Don't compete for the stage. If being talked over, say I'll wait until you're done and go sit down. Over and over. Do not ever allow an interruption. Hold the room in the palm of your hand or go sit down.

[pepsi_junkie]

After Candy supported Obama and it was firmly established that Obama's position is that he knew and said it was terror on Sept 12th, Romney should have said "Well then when you said at the UN and on The View and everywhere else that it was over a video, you knew it wasn't. You just said you knew on Sept 12th that it was terror but then you told everyone repeatedly that it wasn't. Well then why did you lie about something this important?"

We ought to stop trying to prove Obama didn't really acknowledge it was terror on Sept 12th because that supports his narrative that he had bad intel when he said it wasn't terror in the weeks after. Instead, embrace that he knew immediately and chose to lie and coverup. He admitted it publicly at that debate, we just need to drive it home.

[genghis]

ditto

[SC_Pete]

If an amateur like me can do it, why can’t these professionals who have sppent their entire lives in the political arena do it?