Are Republicans seriously claiming Romney was right on Obama's Libya comment

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let me ask you another question. Why did he declare war on Libya without the consent of Congress?

[Silent Hunter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let me ask you another question. Why did he declare war on Libya without the consent of Congress?

He didn't declare war. The US hasn't since 1941.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I see. I suppose that means that invading other countries to depose their leaders is a good thing. Thank you for convincing me of this.

[Silent Hunter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I see. I suppose that means that invading other countries to depose their leaders is a good thing. Thank you for convincing me of this.

He didn't even invade either - the air strikes were in support of the rebels.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, so toppling a dictator named Q-Daffy was a good thing?

[Likely Voter]

Bottom line is that for the debate Romney was handed a question on a silver platter and it ended up being one of Obama's best moments. Romney screwed up, deal with it. Even Charles Krauthammer says so, as does Joe Scarborough and other GOP pundits.

On top of that, I dont really get this whole issue. The White House took 10 days to confirm it was a planned terrorist attack, so the F what? Why is that some horrible thing? I really dont see how this is an issue that any swing voter is going to give a crap about, but if you watch Fox its like the whole election pivots off this. I just dont get it.

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

yjod od mpy yjr sthir,rmy tihjy moe. er str yslkimh snouy vsnires portail of the terror comments.

[Silent Hunter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, so toppling a dictator named Q-Daffy was a good thing?

Yes, considering he was a murderous dictator and a sponsor of terrorism (who killed American soldiers).

[GMantis]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I see. I suppose that means that invading other countries to depose their leaders is a good thing. Thank you for convincing me of this.

I agree with you that it's not a good thing, the problem is the US voters won't agree.

[WEWallace]

"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."

Clearly referred to the incident as a terrorist act.  It is indisputable that Romney was wrong and his zinger backfired, and it probably clinched Obama's reelection.

Wrong, and sadly for you even the Candy Klown admitted that she got it wrong.

[Cryptic]

Yes, it's called the plane of 'Reality'.

I'll repost my previous statement.

Let's look at that section of the transcript, shall we. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

Used Fox so no one can accuse me of only using liberal sources or something.  Also, the link was on hand cause a Facebook friend had it, but let's get into it.   

In the transcript, Obama clearly refers to the attack in Benghazi in the same paragraph as 9/11.  He talks about 9/11 and says "AND THEN last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi."  He tied 9/11 back to Benghazi in the very text of the transcript.  The "acts of terror" line applies to the attack on Benghazi just as much as 9/11.

Are you really going to try and argue that line only refers to 9/11 when he brought Benghazi up in the same paragraph in a clear comparison to 9/11 and doesn't switch the topic back to 9/11 before referring to "acts of terror?" 

Is referencing the text of the transcript to show Obama DID refer to the Benghazi attack as an "act of terror" a good enough dose of reality for you?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just like this man, right?

[Cory]

Oh, so toppling a dictator named Q-Daffy was a good thing?

Don't you remember? You shouldn't question the President in a time of war. Why do you hate America and the troops?

Oh wait, that only applies when a Republican is President.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see an R by my name. Odd that. Yet you support Obama when he does the exact same things that Bush did.

Odd that.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is he referring to the attack that he launched and instigated?

[DrScholl]

It's better to just admit Romney lied instead of playing word games to suggest otherwise. He thought he would get away with it, but he got caught.

[GMantis]

It's better to just admit Romney lied instead of playing word games to suggest otherwise. He thought he would get away with it, but he got caught.

Admitting that you lied is generally not a winning strategy.

[SPQR]

It's just so true...whenever Democrats are in trouble, they panic and fight amongst themselves.
Whenever Republicans are in trouble, they go berserk and deny plain truth.

[pbrower2a]

It would seem so. But what can one expect of a Party whose members believe in such high numbers that the President is a Muslim and was not born in the United States?

[Edu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not a democrat, hell, I'm not even american but how are the two things comparable?

One was deposed by the US after a full scale invasion and then an occupation that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
The other was deposed by his own people helped only by air strike support from the US who as far as I know never really invade or fought on the ground and with far less casualties for every side.

As far as I view it, it's not really inconsistent to support the latter while denounce the former.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting. I once believed that liberals were principled. Then I swiftly learned that a liberal has no principles whatsoever. Power > principles.

[izixs]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting. I once believed that liberals were principled. Then I swiftly learned that a liberal has no principles whatsoever. Power > principles.

If you want to retread the Iraq war, have fun. But there are a couple key differences that the rest of us are taking into account when we ponder what makes a foreign policy move good or bad.

1. Iraq and Libya are very different situations when we got involved. In Iraq you had a stable despotic state. Libya had a civil war. In Iraq you had a guy who did some kind of terrible things in the passed and was doing the usual horrible dictator stuff today. In Libya you had a guy who was looking to slaughter an entire city to show the rebels who was boss. Threat of action on the level of mass murder is justification to do something, the question is then, what do we do?
2. Did we need to invade either Iraq or Libya to accomplish the mission? In the case of Iraq, the answer was yes. In Libya, the answer was no. Invasion, as in putting soldiers into a country in mass numbers to kill enemy soldiers, is effectively taking over that country which is very much not ok because we are not the people of Iraq. In the case of Libya, the people that were rebelling were the people of Libya. They have the right to 'invade' their own country by taking out their dictator. So in the case of Iraq, we did a bad thing, and we did not do this bad thing in Libya.
3. What do we need to do to protect the most lives? In Iraq, there has been a number of estimates of the death tolls of civilians due to our invasion. Some small, some quite large. Its laughable to think Saddam would of murdered the numbers of people that died as a result of our actions over the same time period. If he tried, then us liberals might of been more interested in doing something. But that was an if, and not a reality in the situation. On the other hand Qaddafi was telling people he was going to slaughter a city to show the rebels what's up. That was unacceptable. Thankfully we didn't need to send the army in, we could just bomb his army for a while and let the rebels take care of themselves. That wasn't really a useful strategy in Iraq.

So in the end, you are comparing Apples to Pineapples. They might rhyme but there are some key differences that you are actively over looking.

Now all, get back to the usual crazy that I disapprove of.

[7,052,770]

It's really not worth using logic to a guy who believes Obama is a Muslim.

What's sad it's that the entirety of the Republican Party is fine with the necessary doubethink of Obama not calling the attack a terrorist act when there is indisputable video of him doing so.  It's seriously reminiscent of "1984."

[7,052,770]

Even though everyone living in reality already knows this, Candy Crowley has again stated that she has NOT backtracked on her correction of Mitt Romney:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/candy-crowley-libya-fact-check-backtrack_n_1973431.html

(I know it's Huffington Post, but there's a video of Crowley stating it. Watch the whole video, and she confirms that Obama called the Benghazi attack an act of terror.)

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed. Obama good, Bush bad. You'll make excuses for Obama forever rather than admit that while he promised not to be a warmonger like Bush, he's done the exact same things as Bush did.

I find it telling, really.

Declare war on a nation that wasn't a threat to the US? Check.
Claimed connections to terrorism and Al Qaeda? Check.

It's all right there. All the things you've been railing against Bush for the last 8 years, and when Obama does it, why do I hear not a peep from his syncophants? Clearly you aren't anti-war at all. You're anti-this-war.