Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

djones520 wrote:
Some things to look at, Obama has the highest Unemployment numbers in over 60 years at his time of reelection. That doesn't bode well for him.

Population rates grow. There are more people in the US than in 35, which is why the number of people unemployed is greater. This is why we use "rates" to determine the percentage of people unemployed. As of last month, the rate is 7.9%.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

djones520 wrote:
He's in a statistical tie in all the polls. That favors the challenger.

Your speaking of national polling. If the president was elected via popular vote, that would matter.

djones520 wrote:
Benghazi is looking more and more like a snafu, while getting more attention, and that will do nothing at all to help him, and a lot of negative press on Sandy response will only hurt as well (whether or not it's justifiable).

Fox news is doing its best to potray that. I just went to CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. The only site that showed a story of Benghazi on the front page is Fox News.

DAaddict wrote:
Adding 50% to the national debt with a basic plan to add another 5 trillion. Good plan.

So let me get this straight. The fact that the US debt increasing is the sole measuring stick for a presidency being a "disaster".
By that logic, Ronald Reagan's presidency was a disaster.

djones520 wrote:
Christie would say yes it was, actually he has repeatedly. Just because he walked down the beach with Obama doesn't mean he thinks he's done a good job of things.

Christie has done more than just a photo-op.
http://www.examiner.com/article/gov-christie-praises-obama-s-leadership-amidst-sandy

djones520 wrote:
The unemployment rate is climbing again if you haven't paid attention to today's news.

Its still under 8 percent. After it goes over 8% you can say my claim was invalid.

djones520 wrote:
And kudo's to him on the Bin Laden thing, which would have happened no matter who sat in that office.

Why did Bush's team not kill Bin Laden then? They had Bin Laden wounded in Tora Bora. If they were focused on the ball instead of Iraq they could have sealed the deal.
I'm not saying Bush was a bad guy, or even a bad presedent. He did what he could given the advice and knowledge he was given.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora

 whembly wrote:
I'm not saying he's wrong... just saying his modeling is "new" and he hasn't had enough "election years" to add sufficient rigors to his methodology.

It's all crapshoot.... I will not be surprise who wins.

But, whomever loses... it's going to be freakout time...

Your correct on all 3 of those points.
I guess the only thing I can add is that we don't expect to see a big change in the house/senate so no matter who wins Washington will still be gridlock as normal. The biggest impact I think were going to see over the next 4 years will be the replacement of supreme court judges.

Relapse wrote:
Yep, those SEALs did a good job on Bin Laden

Much credit goes to the US SEALs for being bad-ass extraordinaires. Heck, remember what they did to those somali pirates who held US captains hostage? They sniped pirates holding human hostages from another ship on a rolling ocean. At the same exact time! US SEALs are amazingly bad ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maersk_Alabama_hijacking

Who ordered the SEALs to invade a nuclear nation and assassinate a known terrorist? Who ordered those SEALs to rescue those hostages? That was Obama.

Relapse wrote:
I'd hope he's doing something good for the disaster victims with the resources at his disposal

He is. Obama is using all the resources FEMA has to help. Luckly after the Katrina incident, FEMA has been under enough spotlight so they had to get more streamlined at addressing these instances.

 Seaward wrote:
We're basically rehashing a different (locked) thread at this point, so it's not really worth continuing. I'll just say, as I said there, that various intelligence sources have claimed they provided solid data on who hit the consulate within a couple hours of the attack concluding, and that information was almost without question available long before spokespeople stopped attempting to cast the event as a protest gone wrong.

I'll also say that I think both sides of the aisle would try to cover their ass in an event like this, so I don't regard it as particularly malicious, just disappointing.

So we have the CIA saying its initial official intelligence estimate was based on certain info they received, but was eventually shown to be incorrect, and 'sources' saying they had solid evidence of what went on ages ago, which which obviously didn't get to the CIA. I still don't see that reflecting badly on Obama, it was a CIA mistake, which happens, as I mentioned.

Also, you still haven't said why this is a problem, considering, as I said earlier, that it didn't change the US response in any way, and as such wasn't nearly an intel failure on the scales of 9/11, Iraq or a bunch of other incidents. It's still a non-issue.

Maddermax wrote:
So we have the CIA saying its initial official intelligence estimate was based on certain info they received, but was eventually shown to be incorrect, and 'sources' saying they had solid evidence of what went on ages ago, which which obviously didn't get to the CIA. I still don't see that reflecting badly on Obama, it was a CIA mistake, which happens, as I mentioned.

Except said sources were CIA sources.

It's been pretty openly confirmed that the Benghazi consulate was largely a CIA operation; my understanding is that it was the main hub of the hunt for shoulder-fired SAMs on the loose in Libya. It was also the CIA that scrambled a team out of Tripoli to respond during the attack. The notion that they were unclear as to whether or not there was a protest is, frankly, laughable.

Also, you still haven't said why this is a problem, considering, as I said earlier, that it didn't change the US response in any way, and as such wasn't nearly an intel failure on the scales of 9/11, Iraq or a bunch of other incidents. It's still a non-issue.

So you'd be comfortable with the administration in charge of your country spinning a false narrative that makes themselves look better just prior to an election?

 Seaward wrote:
So you'd be comfortable with the administration in charge of your country spinning a false narrative that makes themselves look better just prior to an election?

Come on guys, lets be a little more rational here.

Saying that Obama spun a narrative for political reasons is as crazy as saying Bush knew there were no WMDs when he invaded Iraq.
Presedents operate with the best intel they have at the time. Intelligence gathering is not a solid science and takes time to get all the details. Read the book Black Hawk Down to see a good example of just how much guesswork can be in Intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

Were the FUBARs? Sure. Americans died to enemy terrorists. That means its FUBAR and needs to be addressed. The administration may be at fault for not taking enough precautionary measures. Sometimes it happens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

However saying Obama was malicious does not help a conversation. Lets be rational, people.

Let me jump in before I'm go on my Memphis road trip...
'

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
So you'd be comfortable with the administration in charge of your country spinning a false narrative that makes themselves look better just prior to an election?

Come on guys, lets be a little more rational here.

I'm trying to be rational... that's why I pushed that spreadsheet of the dual timeline earlier in the post. I hope you took the time to look a that... if you did, then at the very least the administration's response afterwards is suspect. How can you not see that?

Saying that Obama spun a narrative for political reasons is as crazy as saying Bush knew there were no WMDs when he invaded Iraq.

Not an apple-to-apple comparison .

Presedents operate with the best intel they have at the time. Intelligence gathering is not a solid science and takes time to get all the details.

Absolutely...

But here's something you may have missed. The intelligence agency knew that it wasn't protest gone bad and it was an organized attack within two hours. There are briefing paper trails supporting that. The WH had this information. Keep that in mind when you juxapose the WH's reaction to the event. It doesn't add up...

Read the book Black Hawk Down to see a good example of just how much guesswork can be in Intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

I have... very familiar with it.

Were the FUBARs? Sure. Americans died to enemy terrorists. That means its FUBAR and needs to be addressed. The administration may be at fault for not taking enough precautionary measures. Sometimes it happens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Right... and where's the accountability again? Just asking...

And you'll notice that the WH tried to throw the intelligence agency under the bus... here's a telling response. The CIA's spokeperson basically repudiated the WH's attempt to blame the CIA.

However saying Obama was malicious does not help a conversation. Lets be rational, people.

I don't think he's Dr. Evil...

The whole thing just looks really bad. What got *me* angry more than anything was that right after his morning Rose Garden speach in 9/12, he hopped on the plane to fundraise in Las Vegas with Jay-Z and Beouncy. Really bad optics

Two questions for America:

1) Are you going to vote for a guy named after an oven glove?

2) Why is Ohio always a problem. In the days before the revolution, Ohio was a pain in the ass for Britian due to land grabbing and fighting with the Native Americans. Now I'm informed the entire election could swing on how Ohio votes. What's so special about this place?

 Seaward wrote:

Maddermax wrote:
So we have the CIA saying its initial official intelligence estimate was based on certain info they received, but was eventually shown to be incorrect, and 'sources' saying they had solid evidence of what went on ages ago, which which obviously didn't get to the CIA. I still don't see that reflecting badly on Obama, it was a CIA mistake, which happens, as I mentioned.

Except said sources were CIA sources.

It's been pretty openly confirmed that the Benghazi consulate was largely a CIA operation; my understanding is that it was the main hub of the hunt for shoulder-fired SAMs on the loose in Libya. It was also the CIA that scrambled a team out of Tripoli to respond during the attack. The notion that they were unclear as to whether or not there was a protest is, frankly, laughable.

Also, you still haven't said why this is a problem, considering, as I said earlier, that it didn't change the US response in any way, and as such wasn't nearly an intel failure on the scales of 9/11, Iraq or a bunch of other incidents. It's still a non-issue.

So you'd be comfortable with the administration in charge of your country spinning a false narrative that makes themselves look better just prior to an election?

Firstly, I've provided sources, so if you're saying that the CIA has made statements contrary to the official statements it put out, could you link them? Also, did those mysterious 'sources' say if the intel went to the president, or stayed with the CIA, because it obviously didn't make it into the official intel estimate.

For your second point, That's the thing: It didn't and wouldn't have made him look any better, quite the opposite. Something I've explained several times. That's the big hole in the "it's a giant coverup" conspiracy theory - there wasn't any downside to him just saying that it was a pre-planned attack, if that had been the intel he had received, and in fact it would have been better for him, as he could use it aggressively as a patriotic rallying cry, as presidents have before with terrorist attacks. Your idea that it's a big deliberate lie falls apart right there. There's no motive, completely the opposite. All you keep saying is that he, somehow, must have known and, for some unexplained perverse reason, lied about it. It really is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Yep, those SEALs did a good job on Bin Laden

Much credit goes to the US SEALs for being bad-ass extraordinaires. Heck, remember what they did to those somali pirates who held US captains hostage? They sniped pirates holding human hostages from another ship on a rolling ocean. At the same exact time! US SEALs are amazingly bad ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maersk_Alabama_hijacking

Who ordered the SEALs to invade a nuclear nation and assassinate a known terrorist? Who ordered those SEALs to rescue those hostages? That was Obama.

Indeed, and don't forget that he would take the blame if something went wrong as well. Just think about how people crucified Carter when the Iran rescue mission. It comes with massive political risks, if the intel was wrong, if the mission fails for any reason, if a SEAL got captured.

 whembly wrote:
I'm trying to be rational... that's why I pushed that spreadsheet of the dual timeline earlier in the post. I hope you took the time to look a that... if you did, then at the very least the administration's response afterwards is suspect. How can you not see that?

I will review it more after the election. That's why I have not paid much attention to it. If Obama loses in 3 days, then it will be a moot issue. If he wins, then it should be investigated.

 whembly wrote:
Not an apple-to-apple comparison

The point is that neither person is Dr. Evil. They are operating off the best intel they have at the time. In that sense it is an apple-to-apple.

 whembly wrote:
But here's something you may have missed. The intelligence agency knew that it wasn't protest gone bad and it was an organized attack within two hours. There are briefing paper trails supporting that. The WH had this information. Keep that in mind when you juxapose the WH's reaction to the event. It doesn't add up...

It's possible. As mentioned, I will review it more in 3 days time if required.

 whembly wrote:
The whole thing just looks really bad. What got *me* angry more than anything was that right after his morning Rose Garden speach in 9/12, he hopped on the plane to fundraise in Las Vegas with Jay-Z and Beouncy.

Why?

He made orders to have the incident investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice. Its not like Obama had to call every CIA agent individually to ask what happened. Was he supposed to deligate and then sit down and twiddle his thumbs for the next 48 hours?
The president of the US has lots of power and ability to do different things at once.

Obama was there to greet the bodies when they arrived home. He was there to watch them get buried. Obama said that he is ultimately responsible for any failures that occured.
IMHO that fills the role of Commander in Chief quite well.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

Durandal wrote:
Nate Silver is heavily biasing the polls to forecast an Obama win.

All these bloggers who "analyze" are heavily biased towards someone. People are easily convinced, so you can't blame them for trying.

All the news media too. Dont leave them out of the heavily bias catagory. Their polls this year were a joke in so much that they kept weighting them in one direction. Telling me Obama is up by 4 in a CBS/NYTimes poll when its a D+8 poll doesnt help any.

Which weighting, again? Isn't weighting done demographically (race, sex, age) rather than by party affiliation, since party affiliation is fluid?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
According to the timeframe posted earlier, Obama was notified less than 2 hours before the body of ambassador Stevens was found. Even if you expected him to send fighters the second he was told about troubles at the embassy (which would probably earn him the title of Most Trigger Happy President of all times), he wouldn't have saved those lives.(well, maybe Doherty and the other)

General Ham and admiral were removed from duty for trying to help send aid to those fighting. Someone sent a do not help order higher up, despite 3 calls for aid.

http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/top-us-general-and-admiral-reported-canned-over-benghazi-actions-

If they were prepared to send aid in clear risk of their careers, its foolish to say he wouldnt have saved those lives.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Which weighting, again? Isn't weighting done demographically (race, sex, age) rather than by party affiliation, since party affiliation is fluid?

The weight is usually something lie R 30%, D-32% and I-40% Roughly. They might be up or down 1-2 points, I forget the exact value.

So when the NY Times olls has the polling data at R-26% D-38% and I-38% it weights the poll democrat. D+8

ALWAYS check the polling datat at the bottom or fine print, no matter who is doing the polling. That tells you more then the percentage.

carmachu wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
According to the timeframe posted earlier, Obama was notified less than 2 hours before the body of ambassador Stevens was found. Even if you expected him to send fighters the second he was told about troubles at the embassy (which would probably earn him the title of Most Trigger Happy President of all times), he wouldn't have saved those lives.(well, maybe Doherty and the other)

General Ham and admiral were removed from duty for trying to help send aid to those fighting. Someone sent a do not help order higher up, despite 3 calls for aid.

http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/top-us-general-and-admiral-reported-canned-over-benghazi-actions-

If they were prepared to send aid in clear risk of their careers, its foolish to say he wouldnt have saved those lives.

Strange, I can't find any reputable news sources carrying anything like this story, only right-wing circle-jerk sites like 'the blaze' and 'American Thinker'. That link you gave us has lots of wonderful conjecture, but about as much fact as a UFO magazine.

Meanwhile NPR has this pretty in depth article about what went on: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/02/164140811/u-s-offers-new-details-of-deadly-libya-attack

And where do all these pollsters keep the master list of "phone-numbers based on party affiliation" that they use to " bias" their polls.

If there are less republicans in the polls it is because less people identify themselves as republicans, probably because they don't like Mitt.

carmachu wrote:

General Ham and admiral were removed from duty for trying to help send aid to those fighting. Someone sent a do not help order higher up, despite 3 calls for aid.

http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/top-us-general-and-admiral-reported-canned-over-benghazi-actions-

If they were prepared to send aid in clear risk of their careers, its foolish to say he wouldnt have saved those lives.

That's a horribly flawed proposition. That they were ready to violate the chain of command doesn't mean at all that they would've been able to actually saves lives.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

carmachu wrote:

General Ham and admiral were removed from duty for trying to help send aid to those fighting. Someone sent a do not help order higher up, despite 3 calls for aid.

http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/top-us-general-and-admiral-reported-canned-over-benghazi-actions-

If they were prepared to send aid in clear risk of their careers, its foolish to say he wouldnt have saved those lives.

That's a horribly flawed proposition. That they were ready to violate the chain of command doesn't mean at all that they would've been able to actually saves lives.

Tyrone Woods violated the chain and was able to save 30 people out of there, and paint a target for a gunship he thought was there to back him up.

There were drones that were send in. He could have been pairing them for the drone to focus in on.

There was a gun ship that was also in strike range but told to stand down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The point of the matter is that help could have been called in and saved lives. Better yet, the administration could have actually given the requested security in the time prior to the attack instead of stripping it away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/27/U-S-Had-Two-Drones-AC-130-Gunship-and-Targets-Painted-In-Benghazi-But-Obama-Didn-t-Pull-The-Trigger

Because shooting and bombing into a sovereign is a horrible idea besides all the "feth every other country if an American is at risk" frothing-at-the-mouth talk from the right.

Agree with the need to find out what all could have been done to prevent it.

 d-usa wrote:
Because shooting and bombing into a sovereign is a horrible idea besides all the "feth every other country if an American is at risk" frothing-at-the-mouth talk from the right.

Agree with the need to find out what all could have been done to prevent it.

As I said, all talk of planes aside, the ambassador was stripped of his protection is spite of his pleas for beefed up security. The administration left him to die either way this gets sliced.

I'm not sure I understand why people think that these rioters would have acted differently if the security detail had been even doubled or tripled. They were facing a riot that contained, at least from the pictures shown, a few hundreds. Is there any indication that the terrorists behind the act actually knew the strength of the security detail, and that it factored in their decision?

On top of things, mortar rounds were dropped. I think it's as likely that more security would have ended in more american casualties.

Relapse wrote:
Better yet, the administration could have actually given the requested security in the time prior to the attack instead of stripping it away.

And, once again, hindsight is 20/20. It seems obvious now that security should have increased, but how credible was the threat at the time the request was made? Did it stand out at all from the other possible threats and places where security could be increased?

And, once again, there is no plausible motive for removing security as a malicious act.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/27/U-S-Had-Two-Drones-AC-130-Gunship-and-Targets-Painted-In-Benghazi-But-Obama-Didn-t-Pull-The-Trigger

So is there any legitimate source for this claim, or is it all from right-wing fantasy land sites with a long and glorious reputation of lying?

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Better yet, the administration could have actually given the requested security in the time prior to the attack instead of stripping it away.

And, once again, hindsight is 20/20. It seems obvious now that security should have increased, but how credible was the threat at the time the request was made? Did it stand out at all from the other possible threats and places where security could be increased?

And, once again, there is no plausible motive for removing security as a malicious act.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/27/U-S-Had-Two-Drones-AC-130-Gunship-and-Targets-Painted-In-Benghazi-But-Obama-Didn-t-Pull-The-Trigger

So is there any legitimate source for this claim, or is it all from right-wing fantasy land sites with a long and glorious reputation of lying?

The guy was a trained SEAL that knew what resources were available who revealed himself by painting the target. It was a 7 hour fight. The resources were available that could have made it.

Given the desperation of the warnings, this goes beyond saying hindsight is 20/20 and borders on the criminal.

Relapse wrote:
The guy was a trained SEAL that knew what resources were available who revealed himself by painting the target. It was a 7 hour fight. The resources were available that could have made it.

Given the desperation of the warnings, this goes beyond saying hindsight is 20/20 and borders on the criminal.

And, I repeat, do you have a source for this story that isn't a right-wing tinfoil hat site? Because until you do the story has absolutely no credibility.


PS: I'm also a SEAL and I was there. The gunship was shot down by republican terrorists so it wasn't really available. If you elect Romney the terrorists will have won.

You think a trained SEAL just revealed his position for the hell of it?

I can already see Peregrines reply.

"So you're saying you don't actually have a source then?"

Wasn't it CIA that painted the target?

And I think some of our military members have given lots of other reasons for painting a target besides directing weapons.

And a trained seal might also make a mistake in assuming that we would violate national borders for an attack.

There is a good write-up of the timeline during the actual attack on CNN.

I can already see Peregrines reply.

"So you're saying you don't actually have a source then?"

Are you a wizard, sir?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I can already see Peregrines reply.

"So you're saying you don't actually have a source then?"

Exactly.

PS: I revealed myself (ooh, sexy!) to paint the target, but I was trying to paint one of our own soldiers (I really hate the guy). Sadly the CIA gunship refused to fire because it was controlled by Romney agents. If you elect Romney the terrorists will win!

I really don't consider left wing rags sources either, so it appears we are at an impasse.

Relapse wrote:
I really don't consider left wing rags sources either, so it appears we are at an impasse.

You're right, left-wing tinfoil hat sites aren't a valid source. But what does that have to do with the validity of your claim?

PS: I'm the pilot of the gunship that was supposedly there. But we weren't there because we were diverted to be security for a Romney campaign event. If you elect Romney the terrorists will have won!