• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney campaign blunders again

HoongLoong said:
For an avowed Lefty (according to your avatar) your comments get the credibility they deserve.
Click to expand...

I saw that too..I laughed.. I guess the echo chamber he is in is soundproof...
 
hazlnut said:
The toilet has been flushed and this turd of a campaign is gone...

All that remains is the smell.
Click to expand...
Mark this down right now. Romney is going to win this election by a landslide. Not because he is such a great guy. Not because he will be such a great President. Not because he is just so damn likeable. He is going to win because people have seen through the fraud that the Obama Presidency has been. Conditions in this country have not improved. The economy is STILL in the toilet and any recovery that there has been is being quickly eroded by $4.00+ per gallon gas prices. He had 2 years of free reign to do anything he wanted and nothing he has done has worked. The Democrats can whine and cry all they want about an "obstructionist" opposition party but the bottom line will be... Has your life gotten any better?

"It's the economy, stupid". It always has been and it always will be.

Romney by 7%.
 
clownboy said:
Keep trying to convince yourself of that. You have this whole fantasy-based narrative going on across the liberal, obama cheerleading sites and you're taking that for actual reality. It's fine when you keep it to yourselves, but laughable when you try to bring it into the public light.
Click to expand...

What's laughable is the GOP couldn't field a candidate to beat Obama in this economy.
 
Einzige said:
Do you even know who it is in my avatar?
Click to expand...

I could care less..do you know whos in mine?
My comment was how you have only heard negatives about Romneys correct words about the attacks on our embassies..

but Im going to guess your avatar is very deep...
 
Travis007 said:
I could care less..do you know whos in mine?
Click to expand...

Here's what you said in reference to HoongLoong's frankly bizarre characterization of Max Stirner as a 'Lefty':

Travis007 said:
I saw that too..I laughed
Click to expand...

My comment was how you have only heard negatives about Romneys correct words about the attacks on our embassies..
Click to expand...

Because it's true. I follow politics on a number of forums, and most of the friends on my Facebook profile are politically active - most of them are not party-line liberals, either (though likewise few of them tend to be 'conservatives' either; I gravitate towards nonideological political realists). Most of them think this was a pretty bad move on Romney's part, especially after it came out that the attacks had nothing to do with the YouTube video in question.

Certainly all the Nixonians I know - which is more than a few - think Romney was being moronic.
 
Travis007 said:
My comment was how you have only heard negatives about Romneys correct words about the attacks on our embassies..
Click to expand...

The negatives Americans are hearing come straight from the mouths of Romney and Ryan.

They play too fast and loose with the truth and their entire campaign has turned to human feces. Yesterday, they self-flushed.

But the stink will remain until Nov. 6.

I really suggest Romney tones it down, as he's undermining the the credibility of his concession speech at this point.
 
VanceMack said:
Those terrorists you speak of. Who was president when they moved here? Trained here? Who presided over the intel agencies that ignored the reports of suspicious activities.

You are pathetic.
Click to expand...

GW Bush on all counts. He was the first President to hear about the "scary guys from the flight schools" and then not tell anybody about it. Plus he told his security advisor Clark not to even mention Bin Ladens name, he didn't want to hear it. Bush took his eye off the ball because of his juvenile obssesion with Sadaam. Because he wanted to hurt his Daddy.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
GW Bush on all counts. He was the first President to hear about the "scary guys from the flight schools" and then not tell anybody about it. Plus he told his security advisor Clark not to even mention Bin Ladens name, he didn't want to hear it. Bush took his eye off the ball because of his juvenile obssesion with Sadaam. Because he wanted to hurt his Daddy.
Click to expand...
riiiiight. So you are into revisionist history.

Like I said...you are pathetic.
 
VanceMack said:
riiiiight. So you are into revisionist history.

Like I said...you are pathetic.
Click to expand...

It's not particularly 'revisionist'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.

On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.
Click to expand...
 
Einzige said:
It's not particularly 'revisionist'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html
Click to expand...
Initial question. When did the terrorists first arrive. Under which president did they begin training? Under which president where the initial intel reports on their activities ignored? And since you are keen on blaming everything on Bush, what does that say about Clinton and the terrorist attacks that occurred during his watch? And for that matter...what does it say about Obama and the recent revelations dood 1 doesnt even bother attending intel briefings?
 
It is sickening and disgusting to watch Romney trying to use a terrible event like this to score political points since he is falling farther behind in the polls.

Justice says this will continue to blow up in his face as independent voters throw up at his self serving shameless antics.
 
Romney is a pretty big d-bag to do this..
 
VanceMack said:
Initial question. When did the terrorists first arrive. Under which president did they begin training? Under which president where the initial intel reports on their activities ignored? And since you are keen on blaming everything on Bush, what does that say about Clinton and the terrorist attacks that occurred during his watch? And for that matter...what does it say about Obama and the recent revelations dood 1 doesnt even bother attending intel briefings?
Click to expand...

Most of them actually arrived in early 2000, after Bush II's inauguration. But I'm perfectly willing to give Clinton his fair share of the blame, insofar as he continued to pursue neo-realist policies in the Middle East that angered al-Qaeda.

For a political 'independent', you're sure vested in the Republican Party for some reason.
 
I posted this on another thread, but it really needs to be watched and listened to:



 
Einzige said:
Most of them actually arrived in early 2000, after Bush II's inauguration. But I'm perfectly willing to give Clinton his fair share of the blame, insofar as he continued to pursue neo-realist policies in the Middle East that angered al-Qaeda.

For a political 'independent', you're sure vested in the Republican Party for some reason.
Click to expand...
Ummm....dood...you might want to check your history and basic simple facts about elections, inauguration dates, etc. Having at least a partial clue makes you look less blindly myopic and...in a word...idiotic.
 
VanceMack said:
Ummm....dood...you might want to check your history and basic simple facts about elections, inauguration dates, etc. Having at least a partial clue makes you look less blindly myopic and...in a word...idiotic.
Click to expand...

Bush II was inaugurated on January 20th, 2001.

n spring 2001, the secondary hijackers began arriving in the United States.[155] In July 2001, Atta met with bin al-Shibh in Spain, where they coordinated details of the plot, including final target selection. Bin al-Shibh also passed along bin Laden's wish for the attacks to be carried out as soon as possible.[156]
Click to expand...

You might want to check your history and basic simple facts about elections, inauguration dates, etc.
 
Einzige said:
Bush II was inaugurated on January 20th, 2000.



You might want to check your history and basic simple facts about elections, inauguration dates, etc.
Click to expand...
Sigh...

Really?

Im TRYING to help you here...
 
VanceMack said:
Yeah...a bit late...but certainly revealing.
Click to expand...

Of the fact that the terrorists arrived during the Bush II Administration? Yeah, I know.

You're certain you're an 'Independent'?
 
Einzige said:
Of the fact that the terrorists arrived during the Bush II Administration? Yeah, I know.

You're certain you're an 'Independent'?
Click to expand...
I thought you caught on to your mistake. I thought you edited it to 'fix' it. You were right about the date but then INSIST they arrived AFTER Bush's inauguration.

So...who did your parents vote for in that all important presidential election of November 1999?
 
Verax said:
After Romney's bizarre gaffe ridden trips abroad now this. If he can't even handle foreign policy as a candidate, how would it be with him as President?

Foreign Policy Hands Voice Disbelief At Romney Cairo Statement
Click to expand...

Romney's handling of this scenario was somewhat poor -- but what he said has plently of validity, and no one seems to want to talk about that.

Let's be real -- why was the embassy commenting on the video at all? The role of an embassy is to be a voice for our interests abroad. The US government (which includes embassies) should never comment on a video like this. Period. It makes no sense. There are plently of examples of horrible affronts to Christianity, but it would be idiotic to expect the government to come out and make a statement about freedom of religion. The only scenario when they should is if the government made the video -- which they obviously did not.

The last four years have been a disaster in the Middle East (and frankly Europe, and Asia) for the United States. The foreign policy trajectory we are on is pathetic -- and that all gets glossed over because Gov. Romney made his statement in a poor fashion....fine...but the real issues are still there -- and still being ignored, to our own detriment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom