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.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm not sure what you're talking about, honestly. When did anyone advocate dropping bombs on embassy protests? There wasn't one in Libya, which is what we were discussing.

I guess you haven't been paying attention, have you. Just to be nice, I'll repeat myself:

At the time when bombs could have been used it was unclear what was going on. Therefore, you have either two choices for your "how to use 500lb bombs" policy:

1) Use them carefully, in which case by the time we had a clear picture of what was going on and who should get the bombs it was too late to do anything about it.

or

2) Use them aggressively, with a loose standard for what counts as a "threat", in which case you will inevitably have bombs dropped on angry protests that, in hindsight, weren't a threat.


Unfortunately option #2 is what another conservative poster was arguing for.

I'd love to live in this fantasy world where countries do not get away with exactly as much as they can get away with out of principal.

The question wasn't "what can we get away with", it was "what is right". And the answer is that it's massive hypocrisy to complain about the (hypothetical) country bombing the US to protect their embassy while supporting the bombing of other countries to protect our embassies.

Does this mean you're hoping Obama's not reelected, by the way? Because the Osama raid is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Absolute violation of Pakistani sovereignty, illegal under always-nebulous international law, and the sort of thing not a lot of other countries in the world could get away with.

That action at least had a purpose.

Some guy on Facebook was telling me today how "random right wing talking head" has the best prediction record out of anybody and he trusts him to accurately predict this election. He then told me that talking head gave the following prediction:

"It is going to be 1 of 3 things:

1) Obama wins by a little.
2) Romney wins by a little.
3) Romney wins by a lot."

Gee, thanks captain obvious....

 Peregrine wrote:
I guess you haven't been paying attention, have you. Just to be nice, I'll repeat myself:

At the time when bombs could have been used it was unclear what was going on. Therefore, you have either two choices for your "how to use 500lb bombs" policy:

1) Use them carefully, in which case by the time we had a clear picture of what was going on and who should get the bombs it was too late to do anything about it.

or

2) Use them aggressively, with a loose standard for what counts as a "threat", in which case you will inevitably have bombs dropped on angry protests that, in hindsight, weren't a threat.


Unfortunately option #2 is what another conservative poster was arguing for.

No, I've certainly been paying attention. I was responding to someone who hadn't been.

The question wasn't "what can we get away with", it was "what is right". And the answer is that it's massive hypocrisy to complain about the (hypothetical) country bombing the US to protect their embassy while supporting the bombing of other countries to protect our embassies.

I don't see that as hypocritical at all. Nor, incidentally, does your choice for president. Drone strikes (with attendant civilian collateral damage) have ramped up significantly under Obama, and have been his primary method of fighting the GWOT. What's wrong with striking targets within another country if we believe doing so protects Americans?

That action at least had a purpose.

So if we'd been able to save American lives by bombing the attackers in Benghazi, would that have served a purpose?

I'm not suggesting we would have been able to do that, necessarily, though some people certainly seem to believe we would have.

 Seaward wrote:
No, I've certainly been paying attention. I was responding to someone who hadn't been.

You were acting like nobody advocated bombing protests, I pointed out that another poster in this thread did advocate a policy that would result in bombing protests. Just because you personally didn't advocate it doesn't make those posts disappear.

I don't see that as hypocritical at all. Nor, incidentally, does your choice for president. Drone strikes (with attendant civilian collateral damage) have ramped up significantly under Obama, and have been his primary method of fighting the GWOT. What's wrong with striking targets within another country if we believe doing so protects Americans?

The point is that you can't have it both ways. If you feel that bombing other countries to protect our interests is justified then you can't turn around and say that Russia bombing a protest to "protect" their US embassy is unacceptable.

Also, I hate Obama's drone policy, I just don't think that Romney is going to do any better on that issue.

So if we'd been able to save American lives by bombing the attackers in Benghazi, would that have served a purpose?

Sure, but that's a huge "if". So far there's no credible evidence that we had a useful attack ready to go before it was too late, and the only bombing policy proposed so far in this thread is one that pretty much consists of "drop 500lb bombs on anyone waving an angry sign outside our embassies".

 Peregrine wrote:

You were acting like nobody advocated bombing protests, I pointed out that another poster in this thread did advocate a policy that would result in bombing protests. Just because you personally didn't advocate it doesn't make those posts disappear.

I was acting like I didn't advocate bombing protests, which I didn't. Another poster - not you, I'm not sure why you decided to throw your hat into the ring on this sub-issue - responded to me as if I had. I've been talking strictly about Benghazi, which did not involve protests of any sort.

The point is that you can't have it both ways. If you feel that bombing other countries to protect our interests is justified then you can't turn around and say that Russia bombing a protest to "protect" their US embassy is unacceptable.

From a moral standpoint, you're right, save for a moral system where US > everybody else. From a practical standpoint, though, the point I've been making is that, right or wrong, we certainly could have bombed Benghazi to protect our embassy, because we're the ones with the diplomatic and military muscle, whereas we can pretty generally be sure no other country is going to openly try to do the same thing to us anytime soon, due to the aforementioned reasons.

Realpolitik, my friends. Idealism's fun, but I think we should play in the right sandbox.

 Seaward wrote:
I was acting like I didn't advocate bombing protests, which I didn't. Another poster - not you, I'm not sure why you decided to throw your hat into the ring on this sub-issue - responded to me as if I had. I've been talking strictly about Benghazi, which did not involve protests of any sort.

What you said is "when did anyone advocate dropping bombs on embassy protests", not "when did I advocate dropping bombs on embassy protests".

I commented on it because his ridiculous claims shouldn't be forgotten. If you want to distance yourself from him and say that you meant to ask the the "I" version of the question that's fine and I'll leave it at that. But phrased as a general "anyone" question it deserves an answer.

And it's relevant to Benghazi because, at the time when the yes/no decision on launching an attack and/or rescue mission had to be made it looked like a protest. Hindsight is 20/20, but you can't judge actions taken with limited information according to the information we only had once it was too late.

Realpolitik, my friends. Idealism's fun, but I think we should play in the right sandbox.

Give it a fancy name if you like, but it comes down to "might makes right". Which I suppose is fine if your governing principle is "do what is best for me and ignore what is ethically correct", but I prefer to hold our government to a higher standard.

(And yes, I realize that's idealistic right now. If I had any alternative choices with a sane foreign policy I'd vote for them, but sadly the choices are "might makes right" and "the other guy isn't bombing enough people".)

 Peregrine wrote:

And it's relevant to Benghazi because, at the time when the yes/no decision on launching an attack and/or rescue mission had to be made it looked like a protest. Hindsight is 20/20, but you can't judge actions taken with limited information according to the information we only had once it was too late.

No, it didn't. This is why I have such a problem with the way the administration handled the aftermath. It didn't look like a protest. It was an attack, start to finish, and the guys on the ground knew it, which is why the secret squirrels in Tripoli were chartering a plane within ten minutes of being informed of it, and the other secret squirrels in Djibouti were rerouting robots.

Give it a fancy name if you like, but it comes down to "might makes right". Which I suppose is fine if your governing principle is "do what is best for me and ignore what is ethically correct", but I prefer to hold our government to a higher standard.

What's best for everyone is, then, quite often military intervention. Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Syria...all places where we could have - and still could, in some cases - make a real difference, save lives, and give people far better futures. As I said before, right is irrelevant without might.

 Seaward wrote:
No, it didn't. This is why I have such a problem with the way the administration handled the aftermath. It didn't look like a protest. It was an attack, start to finish, and the guys on the ground knew it, which is why the secret squirrels in Tripoli were chartering a plane within ten minutes of being informed of it, and the other secret squirrels in Djibouti were rerouting robots.

There's only one problem there: chartering a plane is not the same as bombing another country. You can charter a plane and get an unarmed drone in the air on a 10% chance of the "protest" being a deliberate attack. You don't need convincing evidence since there's no penalty for being wrong, at worst you've lost a bit of money that you spent on fuel or airplane rentals. There's a much higher confidence threshold involved when you start talking about air strikes and the price of being wrong is massacred civilians, and the most plausible answer right now is that the threshold was not met. At the time when an air strike could have been used there was not enough confidence that one was justified.

Just look at it this way. Which is more likely:

1) The situation was a chaotic mess, it wasn't certain right away whether it was a deliberate attack and attempt to kill the ambassador (where an air strike might be justified) or a riot gone too far where the most likely outcome is smashing windows and other property damage (where an air strike would be a massacre of innocent civilians). By the time anyone had anything remotely resembling a clear picture of what was going on and where the 500lb bombs should land it was too late to do anything. That is, if any appropriate forces were even able to get there before the attack was over.

or

2) Obama, the president who is perfectly happy to brag about his credentials on killing terrorists, turned down an opportunity to win an easy popularity boost right before the election with a dramatic rescue mission, or at least some nice terrorist corpses to satisfy our need for vengeance. Even though he had nothing to gain from a refusal to act he did it anyway.



Since option #2 is absolutely ridiculous that leaves option #1: the ambiguity of "protest" vs. "attack" was too high at the time of the attack to do more than charter a plane and arm the local security guards.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
No, it didn't. This is why I have such a problem with the way the administration handled the aftermath. It didn't look like a protest. It was an attack, start to finish, and the guys on the ground knew it, which is why the secret squirrels in Tripoli were chartering a plane within ten minutes of being informed of it, and the other secret squirrels in Djibouti were rerouting robots.

There's only one problem there: chartering a plane is not the same as bombing another country. You can charter a plane and get an unarmed drone in the air on a 10% chance of the "protest" being a deliberate attack. You don't need convincing evidence since there's no penalty for being wrong, at worst you've lost a bit of money that you spent on fuel or airplane rentals. There's a much higher confidence threshold involved when you start talking about air strikes and the price of being wrong is massacred civilians, and the most plausible answer right now is that the threshold was not met. At the time when an air strike could have been used there was not enough confidence that one was justified.

Just look at it this way. Which is more likely:

1) The situation was a chaotic mess, it wasn't certain right away whether it was a deliberate attack and attempt to kill the ambassador (where an air strike might be justified) or a riot gone too far where the most likely outcome is smashing windows and other property damage (where an air strike would be a massacre of innocent civilians). By the time anyone had anything remotely resembling a clear picture of what was going on and where the 500lb bombs should land it was too late to do anything. That is, if any appropriate forces were even able to get there before the attack was over.

or

2) Obama, the president who is perfectly happy to brag about his credentials on killing terrorists, turned down an opportunity to win an easy popularity boost right before the election with a dramatic rescue mission, or at least some nice terrorist corpses to satisfy our need for vengeance. Even though he had nothing to gain from a refusal to act he did it anyway.



Since option #2 is absolutely ridiculous that leaves option #1: the ambiguity of "protest" vs. "attack" was too high at the time of the attack to do more than charter a plane and arm the local security guards.

Obama didn't have much of anything to do with the as-it-happened approach to the situation, which is why I think trying to tag him with the fact that it happened is a pretty dumb tactic that's only going to work on people who already dislike him.

I also think attempting to claim "oh, it was ambiguous" with regards to a seven-hour attack that involved one of the primary CIA installations in Libya is a stretch worthy of Gumby. You're still buying into the (false) narrative initially put out that there was a big crowd standing around voicing displeasure, and suddenly it turned violent. Not how it happened.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm not sure what you're talking about, honestly. When did anyone advocate dropping bombs on embassy protests? There wasn't one in Libya, which is what we were discussing.

Really? Because you said this; "We could actually do that to Libya without fear of consequence. The same would not be true with anyone else doing it to us. I'm not suggesting we'd go to war over it or anything - though we might - but that we're a pretty powerful nation you generally don't want to bomb. Libya is not."

Pretending there is no consequence to poor relations with another country, any other country, is pretty stupid. Claiming it for a country with important natural resources and a key place in a highly political region of the world is really stupid.

I suspect this is because you think the only consequence of poor relations is conventional military combat. Which is basically why you probably need to read a lot more and talk a lot less.

I'd love to live in this fantasy world where countries do not get away with exactly as much as they can get away with out of principal.

Over here in the real world, however...

That countries will push the limits of international law for their own gain is well known, but to pretend that means they ignore international law unless there are consequences is a crude, almost child like description of the world.

Does this mean you're hoping Obama's not reelected, by the way? Because the Osama raid is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Absolute violation of Pakistani sovereignty, illegal under always-nebulous international law, and the sort of thing not a lot of other countries in the world could get away with.

I recognise the complexity of issues in which a country, like Pakistan, has at best a grossly compromised intelligence service, and consider there to possibly be times when international law can acted outside.

Which, in short, means I think the Osama raid was probably for the best, but the drone strikes Obama has undertaken are most certainly not.

But I am also sensible enough to know that most of these things would continue no matter who was president.

 sebster wrote:
Really? Because you said this; "We could actually do that to Libya without fear of consequence. The same would not be true with anyone else doing it to us. I'm not suggesting we'd go to war over it or anything - though we might - but that we're a pretty powerful nation you generally don't want to bomb. Libya is not."

I did say that, yes. I'll ask my question again, with the correction Peregrine helpfully made: where did I advocate doing that? Saying we have the capability to do something is not the same as saying we should do something.

Pretending there is no consequence to poor relations with another country, any other country, is pretty stupid. Claiming it for a country with important natural resources and a key place in a highly political region of the world is really stupid.

What are some examples of regions of the world that aren't "highly political," out of curiosity?

You're correct, though, I should have qualified "no consequence" with "meaningful." No meaningful consequence.

I suspect this is because you think the only consequence of poor relations is conventional military combat. Which is basically why you probably need to read a lot more and talk a lot less.

As with most of your suspicions, this one is, also, sadly incorrect.

That countries will push the limits of international law for their own gain is well known, but to pretend that means they ignore international law unless there are consequences is a crude, almost child like description of the world.

No, it's actually pretty accurate. We are, for example, thoroughly engaged in doing just that on a daily basis. We're not the only ones, either. I understand feelings may be hurt by the notion that countries with significant diplomatic, economic, and military clout play by different rules than the ones without, but that's not unlikely to change.

I recognise the complexity of issues in which a country, like Pakistan, has at best a grossly compromised intelligence service, and consider there to possibly be times when international law can acted outside.

Which, in short, means I think the Osama raid was probably for the best, but the drone strikes Obama has undertaken are most certainly not.

But I am also sensible enough to know that most of these things would continue no matter who was president.

So, just to ask the question again: I believe the US can get away with violating international law, and should do so when it's in our interests. Obama is actively violating international law because he believes it to be in our interests. Does this mean you do not support Obama, because you made it clear you hope someone with my view of the worth of international law never comes to power?

 Seaward wrote:
I did say that, yes. I'll ask my question again, with the correction Peregrine helpfully made: where did I advocate doing that? Saying we have the capability to do something is not the same as saying we should do something.

Talking about it as if it were an option, whether or not you want to do it, is just stupid.

I did overstate how stupid you were being, whoops. But your position remains very, very stupid.

What are some examples of regions of the world that aren't "highly political," out of curiosity?

Seriously? You think North America is as political as North Africa. What about Oceania?

I mean, is that really what you're trying to make an argument over?

You're correct, though, I should have qualified "no consequence" with "meaningful." No meaningful consequence.

Really, you think dropping bombs on Libya has no meaningful consequence?

No, it's actually pretty accurate. We are, for example, thoroughly engaged in doing just that on a daily basis. We're not the only ones, either. I understand feelings may be hurt by the notion that countries with significant diplomatic, economic, and military clout play by different rules than the ones without, but that's not unlikely to change.

And I'll explain it again... that countries push the limits of international law for national advantage does not mean that there is no limiting element to international law.

So, just to ask the question again: I believe the US can get away with violating international law, and should do so when it's in our interests. Obama is actively violating international law because he believes it to be in our interests. Does this mean you do not support Obama, because you made it clear you hope someone with my view of the worth of international law never comes to power?

And I'll explain it again - there is a difference between balancing international law and national interest, and coming down on the side of national interest in a particular case, and believing there is no need to consider international law whereever you can get away with it.

The first is the basic reality of international politics, the second is what happens when Yr 9 students hear the term realpolitik and begin inventing an exciting, hard man world without ever bothering to actually read about how the world works.

 sebster wrote:
Talking about it as if it were an option, whether or not you want to do it, is just stupid.

I did overstate how stupid you were being, whoops. But your position remains very, very stupid.

We've used air strikes against people for a lot less than attacking our diplomatic outposts. You're welcome to think it's stupid, I suppose, but if you can't come up with arguments more cohesive than, "It's stupid! You're stupid! Everything's stupid!" I'm not sure what the point in discussing any of this with you is.

Seriously? You think North America is as political as North Africa. What about Oceania?

I think they're all as concerned with politics as the other, yeah. I'm pretty sure you wanted to use a different adjective.

I mean, is that really what you're trying to make an argument over?

Nope, trying to understand an unclear sentence.

Really, you think dropping bombs on Libya has no meaningful consequence?

I think dropping bombs on terrorists attacking a consulate of ours in Libya would have no meaningful consequence, yes. It didn't happen, so there's no definitive proof either way. I can, however, give you a whole list of countries where we have performed air strikes on terrorists in the past decade, and we can discuss the meaningful consequences that came from doing so, if you like.

And I'll explain it again - there is a difference between balancing international law and national interest, and coming down on the side of national interest in a particular case, and believing there is no need to consider international law whereever you can get away with it.

Alright, let's discuss why the US needs to consider international law whenever it could otherwise get away with something. Why?

The first is the basic reality of international politics, the second is what happens when Yr 9 students hear the term realpolitik and begin inventing an exciting, hard man world without ever bothering to actually read about how the world works.

I think it's more realist vs. idealist, actually.

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Talking about it as if it were an option, whether or not you want to do it, is just stupid.

I did overstate how stupid you were being, whoops. But your position remains very, very stupid.

We've used air strikes against people for a lot less than attacking our diplomatic outposts. You're welcome to think it's stupid, I suppose, but if you can't come up with arguments more cohesive than, "It's stupid! You're stupid! Everything's stupid!" I'm not sure what the point in discussing any of this with you is.

I think you missed this bit:

The F-16 Fighting Falcons could come to the rescue from their base in Aviano, some officials thought. But there were no clear targets, it was decided. An unarmed Predator drone flew over the area, just before the consulate attack ended. But it offered only a "soda straw" view hundreds of feet below near the annex. There were no armed drones in the area.

Officials watched the grainy footage from the drone. It was hard to determine, among the hundreds of people, who was with a militia supporting the U.S., who was taking part in that second attack, and who was a spectator — people, as the source said, "watching a war movie in front of them." Sporadic gunfire added to the confusion about separating friend from foe.

So they decided that dropping bombs onto a friendly country, onto what were possibly friendly forces (because there was no way to tell terrorists from Libyan allies) was a bad idea. That would have been a huge diplomatic mistake, undoing the good will that the US has garnered there with it's intervention and any chance the US could work with Libyans against terrorist groups, and igniting more anti-US sentiment in other countries, endangering more lives. Sounds like the right decision was made.

Also some more insight as to why some guy would "risk exposing himself to paint targets with lasers":

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/04/what-laser-capability-did-benghazi-team-have/?test=latestnews

Sources who have debriefed the team that was at the CIA annex the night of the attack in Benghazi say that the CIA operators from the Global Response Staff, or GRS, were equipped with Mark 48 machine guns and had two types of laser capability. Each weapon had both a “passive” as well as a “visible” laser that could be used against the Libyan attackers.
.....
Fox News has learned the guns were fitted with PEQ-15 lasers. The “passive” laser is not visible to the naked eye but can help team members identify hostile forces when the shooter is wearing NODS, or Night Observation Device attached to their helmet. The visible laser system places a red dot on the attacker and warns the attacker not to shoot, encouraging them to flee the scene. U.S. troops often use the visible laser to scare children or other civilians who find themselves in the middle of combat activity. When civilians see the laser they often back off in order not to be shot.
.....
The CIA told the Washington Post’s David Ignatius that “the rooftop defenders never ‘laser the mortars’ as has been reported,” a reference to an earlier Fox News report. The CIA added the “defenders have focused their laser sights earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire.”
.....
U.S. military sources say that the second Predator was not armed even though it took off from Sigonella Air Base in Sicily after the attack began to provide back up to the first Predator which was at the end of its orbit and running low on fuel. US commanders say that in reference to the drones positioned at Sigonella: “Not all aircraft are armed. Ours are not.”

According to military sources, Libyan authorities have not given the U.S. military permission to fly armed drones over populated areas like Benghazi. However, for some time the unmanned aerial drones that have been watching Libya’s chemical weapons sites did have permission to be armed.

Maddermax wrote:

I think you missed this bit:
[url=http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/02/164140811/u-s-offers-new-details-of-deadly-libya-attack]
The F-16 Fighting Falcons could come to the rescue from their base in Aviano, some officials thought. But there were no clear targets, it was decided. An unarmed Predator drone flew over the area, just before the consulate attack ended. But it offered only a "soda straw" view hundreds of feet below near the annex. There were no armed drones in the area.

Officials watched the grainy footage from the drone. It was hard to determine, among the hundreds of people, who was with a militia supporting the U.S., who was taking part in that second attack, and who was a spectator — people, as the source said, "watching a war movie in front of them." Sporadic gunfire added to the confusion about separating friend from foe. [/url]

So they decided that dropping bombs onto a friendly country, onto what were possibly friendly forces (because there was no way to tell terrorists from Libyan allies) was a bad idea. That would have been a huge diplomatic mistake, undoing the good will that the US has garnered there with it's intervention and any chance the US could work with Libyans against terrorist groups, and igniting more anti-US sentiment in other countries, endangering more lives. Sounds like the right decision was made.

I don't disagree that the right decision was made.

Please stop acting as though I'm advocating we should have conducted air strikes in defense of the consulate and the Americans within. I am doing something quite different - saying that if we had established viable targets, we could have hit them without fear of violating international law, because enforcement of international law is largely dependent on having a big stick, and nobody has a bigger stick than us. Whether or not we should have bombed - or done anything else - has, at no point, entered into my discussion of this topic here.

I now anticipate several more, "But there weren't any viable targets!" posts, because this merry-go-round doesn't seem interested in stopping.

You all crack me up

Okay, well then it seems we're all arguing different things. At any rate, we agree the right decision was made in this instance, so lets move on rather than arguing round and round about the pro's and con's of intervensionism.

Fivethirtyeight now has Obama as an 86% favourite to win,


the Princeton Electoral Consortium has him as a 96% favourite to win,



and RCP is showing him ahead in states with 303 Electoral Votes.


betting odds are showing him at about an 80% chance to win,



But that doesn't mean Romney is completely out of the game, just as at the beginning of the thread, he still has a 1 in 6 chance of victory in most predictions, so it'll be a roll of the dice.

I also suggest taking a look at 512 Roads to the white house, which helps you understand which states will be the tipping points. Without Ohio, Romney has very few paths, and most of those are through much more unfavorable states. If Obama gets either Florida or Virginia, which are currently very close (Obama slightly ahead in Virginia, Romney in Florida), then Romney has, basically, no chance of victory. If he picks those up, it's almost certainly going to come down to Ohio.

36 hours, and it'll be all done, one way or another.

My problem is not with Obama's actions or to be more accurate inaction during Bengazi. I am confused/disgusted that they were denying it was an attack for a week later. Why?

Either it was a political attempt to sweep it under the carpet or it was a sign of their incompetence. 4 years in office and it takes weeks to get to the truth? Thank God we don't have a Cuban Missile Crisis level event.

Those polls:



(text: "The choices we make Tuesday could have MASSIVE and PERMANENT effects on the charts on Nate Silver's blog!")

I'm a bit sad that after Tuesday, we will be back to "normal".

I love this crazy time of year!

Yup... bring out the popcorn 'cuz it's gonna be crazy in the next 48 hours...!

I think you should change the title of the thread if its all about Benghazigate, and not rolling 1s.

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
I think you should change the title of the thread if its all about Benghazigate, and not rolling 1s.

It's not my thread...

Speaking of which... Buried Bombshell: CBS Video Shows Obama Refusing To Call Benghazi A Terrorist Attack...On September 12th:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50134495n

 whembly wrote:

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
I think you should change the title of the thread if its all about Benghazigate, and not rolling 1s.

It's not my thread...

Speaking of which... Buried Bombshell: CBS Video Shows Obama Refusing To Call Benghazi A Terrorist Attack...On September 12th:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50134495n

What a bombshell. Truly, this fascinating and as-yet unpresented viewpoint really this cracks the whole thing wide open.

Looks like the only other country where Romney is more popular than Obama is Pakistan... wonder what that says about things

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Looks like the only other country where Romney is more popular than Obama is Pakistan... wonder what that says about things

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

Yeah... don't show that here...

I know people (lots), who'll vote for the other guy out of spite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
I think you should change the title of the thread if its all about Benghazigate, and not rolling 1s.

It's not my thread...

Speaking of which... Buried Bombshell: CBS Video Shows Obama Refusing To Call Benghazi A Terrorist Attack...On September 12th:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50134495n

What a bombshell. Truly, this fascinating and as-yet unpresented viewpoint really this cracks the whole thing wide open.

Er...it directly contradicts Obama's pre-planned statement during the second debate with Romney. You know, the one where the moderator Candy Crowely vouched for Obama's lie, whom later recanted that evening?

Did some say Banghazigate!

They did!


<Yawn>

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Looks like the only other country where Romney is more popular than Obama is Pakistan... wonder what that says about things

I hope it says we'll get another hilariously pathetic "I'm sorry, I didn't vote for him," picture campaign if Romney wins, a la Bush in 04.

 Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Looks like the only other country where Romney is more popular than Obama is Pakistan... wonder what that says about things

I hope it says we'll get another hilariously pathetic "I'm sorry, I didn't vote for him," picture campaign if Romney wins, a la Bush in 04.

now... now...

don't be like that.

Just get the popcorn & brewski ready... 'tis gonna be a rough ride tomorrow.