K-9

They even posted their responsibility for the attacks on facebook and twitter. That's all I need for confirmation.

Proof? From Egypt to Libya to India to Indonesia, Muslims hit the streets in DIRECT response to the youtube video. This is undeniable. I'm not going to waste any time linking the media reports, etc. that bare this out. For the record, I am NOT confusing the terrorists with the protesters.

Regarding the video and the ensuing protests throughout the Muslim world in the Middle East. Is it possible that a terrorist organization exploited that opportunity? Would they have attacked the consulate on their own without the support and confusion of the protesters who were there? There is no doubt that the protests were directly related to the video so I think it's a fair question to ask.

Hollow or not, it means that the Romney campaign failed in trying to suggest that the President shirked his responsibilities and that led to what happened in Benghazi. But nobody could speak more hollow words than Romney in the hours after the attack occurred.

I posted my theory as to why during the debate. I guess I was hoping for a little more detail than "it was a strategic decision." Why the strategic decision not to engage on the question of Benghazi?

What was more sickening was trying to score political points by exploiting the death of four Americans. In the midst of confusing reports from the CIA and others, when details were still coming in, what Team Romney offered within hours of the attack was planned, measured, and deliberate and for no other reason than to further his campaign. Like bad economic news, it was seen as a great opportunity by his campaign. The immediate aftermaths of national tragedies have always been rallying points for us and times when politicians put down their swords and come together in a show of strength to the world. I can find nothing honorable in how Romney acted. And his shameful attempt to link himself with Glen Doherty while stumping further underscores that. And he'd STILL be doing it if Doherty's own mother hadn't demanded that he stop. The President has said point blank that the buck stops with him on the question of Libya and every other US diplomatic outpost. I'd like to see just an ounce of contrition out of Romney for how he acted. I guess all he can do is simply agree with Obama's foreign policy instead.

Thanks. Just as all the bloggers out there. Just as all the op-ed writers out there. Why do you suppose Romney didn't make hay out of the Benghazi attack when he had a wide open opportunity in the last debate?

I wonder if he carved that thing himself. Pretty good work. And it IS funny. C'mon folks. Where's our sense of humor about these things? GO SABRES!!!

Stands to reason why the President referred to the attack as "an act of terror" the very next day.

Last year it was news that Obama fathered a love child. Last week it was Obama was gay and covered up sexual harassment charges while at Harvard. This week he's the love child of his mom and a communist activist in Chicago (I heard a rumor that is now a direct mail piece in Ohio). Now we have divorce papers and the Republican machine once again sticking their noses in private family business. Such a proud and courageous group. Jerome Corsi hard at work and earning every nickel of his salary.

Just a carryover from the lessons learned from the first debate. What "lost" that debate for Obama was the downward cast of his eyes as Romney was merrily dancing to the middle on every issue. Obama's team was simply not prepared for that kind of tectonic shift. In debate number two you could see the difference. Obama looked Romney in the eyes the entire time and called him on every contradiction and it worked. Made sense to carry that over to debate three. But again, the Obama team was unprepared for yet another iteration of Romney: the liberal Romney that simply agreed with Obama on every foreign policy issue. I think it was a good strategy by Romney, too.

That comment is gonna bite him in the ass. That said though, the whole question of sequestration comes down to opposing political ideologies on how best to reduce the budget deficit. Groundbreaking news, I know. I submit that as soon as the decision was made to LOWER taxes and then prosecute TWO WARS, a tax increase was inevitable. We weren't asked to sacrifice back then, we will have to sacrifice now. The obstructionist Republicans in Congress, including Paul Ryan and the others that voted FOR sequestration, will simply have to put aside their interests and compromise on the issue.

Being an insufferable internet Spelling Nazi seems to be your most endearing feature. Well done.

I don't think Obama wants to cut the defense budget by $500 billion but he's gonna need cooperation of Congress before they automatically kick in to prevent them. Personally I think this is all posturing during a Presidential election year. And that's never without the requisite amount of fear-mongering that goes along with it. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/07/opinion/wilson-sequestration-pentagon-cuts/index.html

As per your usual insults, you are wrong and have no phucking idea of what you're talking about when it comes to even beginning to understand my thinking on the topic or any other topic for that matter. The only thing you know about me, my political philosophies, and personal motivations is that I'm not voting for the same guy you're voting for. Period. But go right on pretending that you do and continue to make an ass out of yourself in the process.

Totally serious question. There are numerous terrorist groups around the world that label themselves Al Queda that never had anything to do with the organization put together by Osama bin Laden in the 1980s to combat Soviet troops and go on to become the terrorist organization that attacked us. Osama bin Laden's Al Queada were organized, armed (ironically by the US), and well funded. That organization is a shadow of it's former self. Many people use the word "Al Queda" to represent a generic term for a movement of Islamic terrorists that have little to do with each other and nothing in common except for their use of terrorism as a military tactic. While I'm sure Gen. Looney was referring to Osama bin Laden's Al Queda in 2006, I was simply wondering if he also used the term in a more generic sense as well. There are certainly remnants of bin Laden's Al Queda who are and will be seeking to re-organize. But Obama labeled terrorism as the number one security threat to this country and like I said earlier, that hardly qualifies as burying our head in the sand.

Obama labeled terrorism as the number one national security threat this country faces. Given his approval for increased use of special ops, drones, and other tools since he took office, I'd hardly classify that as "burying our head in the sand."

When you refer to "Al Queda" what exactly are you referring to? A unified organization? A 'movement' by extremists? A single military organization? I'd seriously like to know what the context of the word was at the conference you attended.

The key is that he looked presidential while not saying anything. He was smart though. Obama's team fully expected the same Romney from the first two debates but he was no where to be found. It's difficult to debate issues when your opponent all of a sudden agrees with your position. Doesn't matter though. Like TrueBlue said upthread, debates on foreign policy, absent a giant gaffe by either party, just isn't gonna sway people one way or the other.

I'd settle for just not LOWERING them while trying to prosecute TWO wars. Perhaps the DUMBEST fiscal policy decision in the history of the country. But the Iraq war was gonna pay for itself, right? Well, oil companies are in Iraq as we speak making billions of dollars so I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they start paying back the US taxpayer. Where's Paul Wolfowitz when you need him?

The US is always more than happy to let others fight their own battles. It just depends where they are and how valuable the natural resources that need protecting. When you say Iran would cease to exist are you suggesting that Iran would be nuked to smithereens? That's never gonna happen. Even if they launch a first strike nuke of their own. Iran will be taken out conventionally so in those terms their present government would cease to exist but turning their desert into glass is out of the question.

Definitely playing it safe. And it's never easy debating a sitting president on foreign policy issues simply because you're not privy to so much of the information. From a tactical standpoint it was smart. I also think both campaigns know full well that most voters aren't going to base their decision on a foreign policy debate absent that game changing gaffe. I'm looking at Romney's policy shifts as something that can't please the hard right wing of the party. If elected, he's gonna be held to some of these positions that he's waffled on. "Syria is Iran's gateway to the sea." I would think basic geography is a prerequisite.for a president.

Romney was out of his depth on foreign policy and it showed. But to his credit he stayed away from those areas pretty deftly. He agreed with Obama's policies more than I thought he would so I'm not sure what that says. He once again changed some positions but I don't think it matters at this point. My favorite line was, "Syria is Iran's gateway to the sea."

Stop being so sanctimonious, hypocritical, and condescending.

I fully understand why he left it alone. It prevented Obama from having his 'presidential' moment and avoided a repeat of the embarrassment over the same subject from the previous debate. It was a smart move by Romney not to let him have it.