Obama/Romney final debate 2012 live blog

| October 22, 2012

It should be unlimited now. Everyone should be able to get in. If anyone wants to help with comments, let me know and you’ll get an invitation to be a “producer”. Accept that and your comments will be unmoderated and you’ll be able to help approve comments.

Category: 2012 election

93 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Isnala

Does anyone know the flight time from Rota to Livia? Because I find it very hard to beleave that everything was done to help our people on the ground during a 4+ hour fire fight when according to testimony before congress DOS people were watching it live yet no recation force was mobilized.

-Ish

Isnala

Livia = Libia darn auto correct….

ex AF

Couple hours. But you also have to have a ready reaction force ready to go. Maybe something from Italy or Germany, but you have to worry about SOFA as far as sending forces into combat from a NATO or other nation. Plus you are going into a sovereign nation, Libya. Sending in military to help the consulate is not going to happen real time.

Isnala

Thanks ex AF. I know it isn’t gonna happen real time, however to say we did everything when in reality it was more like stand around with our hands in our pockets, blaming videos almost no one had watched at that point is a little misleading.

-Ish

Green Thumb

I think they should arm wrestle considering the debate forum…

Two out of three with one electoral vote on the line…

The tie-breaker if you will…

BillC

They had enough time to fly a predator to Bengazi. I think that a Navy fast mover is a little quicker than that. Don’t know how much loiter time a F-18 has though.

CI Roller Dude

Sorry, I’m finding that watching the Giants have batting practice with SL

Isnala

With aerial refueling loiter time is more dependant on the endurance of the pilot. So pretty much it was within the realm of the possible, which begs the question: Did we really do every thing possible ?

Also while we may not fight wars the same way we used to, we still cannot fight them without good people and materiel, and we won’t attract the people if you don’t keep the faith with the military, vets, and military families. You can’t say your keeping the faith when you raise the personal costs for promised benefits and say your not going to balance the budget on their backs but then have the SecDef do exactly that.

I’ll get off the soapbox just tried of my leg getting wet and being told its raining…

-Ish

Ex-PH2

I am SOOOOO glad this part is over with!

malclave

Was stuck at work so haven’t watched the debate yet… seen some excerpts on the web. I understand Obama was getting kind of snarky, and I’m looking forward to watching that.

One piece of snark to which I’m looking forward to a fact-check is “we have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.” I wasn’t Navy, but was under the impression that subs are boats and not ships. Isn’t it generally not, um, “optimal” for ships to go underwater?

NHSparky

We call them “boats”, yes. I’d love to hear that exchange, considering Obama probably thinks “Crimson Tide” is a documentary.

Tman

One Yahoo article headlines that Obama rattled Romney on something. Missed the debate as I was at work.

This might very well be one of the closest elections since 2004.

Nik

I must have imagined that training I got in the Corps. I distinctly remember bayonet training culminating in the Bridge over Troubled Waters. I guess Obama would say “You didn’t use that”. :p

Lucky

Now, I went through Basic in the Army in 2003, before Baghdad had been secured, I remember Bayonnet Training, it was my wake up call that the war was still fresh, and that I and my fellow Soldiers might actually have to use parry and thrust to kill people.

Lucky

And all the dumbass comments on Facebook about bayonets and horses by people, how quickly they forget, horses, bayonets, and SF were what liberated Afghanistan…

The Dead Man

Wasn’t there a story a while back of a Scottish unit, I want to say the Black Watch, but that’s probably mixing stories, walked out of Fallujah using their bayonets after running out of ammo?

Lucky

@16: it was the Aryll and Sutherland Highlanders in Basrah in 2006. They were on a LOGOP to their CIMIC (Civil Military Operatiins Center), when a group of insurgents hit them with an Amish from a ditch on the side of the road. The highlanders expended ammo, fixed bayonets, charged, and killed 25, while sustaining no friendly casualties. Also, a Royal Marine LCPL was just awarded the Military Cross for a Bayonnet and grenade attack on talibs in Helmand this year…

2-17 AirCav

@12. Naw. It’s the hype and confused state of affairs among the obamanistas. Romney wins by a margin of 6% of the popular vote. If bad weather hits much of the country, that margin becomes 8-9%.

Old Trooper

@3: A report I read said there was a Marine detachment ready to go, but wasn’t sent in.

The Dead Man

#17 Yeah that was it. Knew I was mixing my stories up, it’s been a while though. Not much an excuse, but I’ll stick with it.

Then again, I still knew more than the supposed leader.

OWB

@ #20: Saw the same thing somewhere. They were not just sitting waiting for the word to roll out, but also watching the events unfold from the aerial view/s. And the Rota team supposedly had back-up at the ready for follow-on support. (No doubt in my feeble mind that the capability should have been there for the rapid response of a fairly large group of warriors able and willing to defend the consulate.)

Tman

In regards to 18, it was a lone Salvadorean soldier that charged a group of Iraqi’s with a hand knife.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/may/3/20040503-115511-7092r/?page=all

Twist

@15, I believe CPT Millet lead the last US bayonet charge in Korea. He used to come talk to my Company at Schofield Barracks. I used to swear that if he had a retention NCO standing behind him then that NCO would deffinitly make mission. As for Afghanistan, you need to read the book “Horse Soldiers”. It is about the SF riding horses toppling the Taliban.

Anonymous

British bayonet charge in Basra:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bd_1249524865

JP

#25 was me…oops.

Also…if you google it there’s plenty of pictures of troops in Iraq with bayonets fixed.

because cold steel kills the enemy….bowing doesn’t.

Nik

“because cold steel kills the enemy….bowing doesn’t.”

Well said, JP. Well said.

Twist

JP, I don’t think I even took my bayonet out of my B-bag in Iraq.

Adirondack Patriot

You Army guys are right about Obama’s comments regarding bayonets and horse, but as a maritime security type, I am furious that President Obama essentially said that ships have gone the way of horses and bayonets in some Crimean War sense.

Does he think that the number of ships we have is an antiquated factor in the national/global defense plan?

Does he (the one who made a snarky adolescent comment about aircraft carriers and submarines) realize that to get one aircraft carrier underway for a deployment cruise, it requires at least 35 other support and defense vessels, including submarines?

And doesn’t he realize that the world also had submarines in 1916 and that we also count them as “ships” in our national defense assessment?

This ass-clown has to go. After four years as commander in chief, he is still as dumb as an immature city councilman from Chicago.

JP

Twist, I’m not saying everybody did. But many did.

My point is bayonets and horses and nowhere near as “obsolete” as Obama seems to think they are. Also, inconveniently for him, this was recently unveiled:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/special-forces-soldiers-unveil-statue-honoring-their-service/

Nik
2-17 AirCav

@31. Used the link to the AP. Evidently, one of the obama ads has him saying, “You can trust that I say what I mean and I mean what I say.” Talk about in-your-face audacity. For a genius, he sure is stupid. I also noticed the side stories at the site, one of which, Christmas at the White House Through the Years, caught my eye. I clicked and, surprise of surprises, there are 10 photos, four of which are of Obama, his kids, and his dog, and NONE depicting George H or George W Bush. Curious, that. I guess the WH photographer misplaced his camera during those years.

malclave

This might very well be one of the closest elections since 2004.

Isn’t that just saying “closer than last time”?

ROS

I have one word for the idiot: Gurkhas.

Screw you, Obama. The hypocrisy of the left will never cease to amaze me. Bitch about drones because they “kill innocent civilians”, but laud the stupid motherfucker who sends them in saying that horses and bayonets are a thing of the past because we’re sooo advanced. Unreal.

CI

“Isn’t that just saying “closer than last time”?”

Well there was that thing in 2008…..

I caught the debate audio on my long commute in this morning, and was left wondering…..why did they bother? Romney not only has reversed most of his foreign policy positions, but essentially agrees with most of Obama’s.

…he called the AFG surge a success? Seriously?

I had that assessment prior to the debate, but was struck at how little intellectual real estate there is between them, on at least this area. Obama was derisive and snarky; Romney was petty and milquetoast.

Ex-PH2

I watched that whole show.

I could not figure out if Bo had gas and was trying not to cut the cheese, or if he was just bored and wanted to go outside for a smoke.

Nik

I’ll revive my initial offering in the thread about what single question would you ask:

Mr President, what the fuck makes you think you’re qualified to lead our country?

ROS

@36- I got the impression he wanted to bite Rombney’s face.

Nik

@38

He kinda did look like Patient Zero in any zombie outbreak.

Insipid

I’

Insipid

I’m enjoying the straw man you’ve created here. Just pretend that Barack Obama stated that horses and bayonets are not in use AT ALL and then just pretend that it was Obama that came out looking llike an idiot and not President Obama who has now decisively beat Mitt Romney in 2 out of the 3 debates. Can we dispense with the “he needs a teleprompter” talking point now.

Unfortunately for you he did NOT state that bayonets and horses aren’t in use, he stated we have FEWER of these:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/presidential-debate-full-transcript/story?id=17538888&page=14

You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have FEWER (emphasis mine)horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

Insipid

Ok, anyone who wants to mercilessly make fun of me for that god-awful first paragraph above, have at it. I deserve it. I’m used to arguing on boards that let me edit. Sorry, i’d rather take the abuse than re-write it. You get the idea. I think.

Long-ass day. I’m going to sleep now.

NHSparky

Face it, sippy–everyone saw who the adult was on stage last night, and it wasn’t Obumbles. Nuff said.

malclave

@41

But do we have fewer bayonets now than in 1916?

Maybe if you’re lumping horses and bayonets together. But then, we probably have fewer wooden ships and aircraft carriers now than we did during the Revolutionary War.

Insipid

My sum total of bayonet work was a couple of hours in basic training. His point was obvious and unarguable- it is silly to make comparisons with what we have now to 1916.

@43- What is “obvious” is that President Obama won this last debate, Sparky. And he won the second debate and Biden beat Ryan. An average of the three polling groups has President Obama winning by 16 points. That’s Democrats winning three of the 4 Presidential debates according to these same polling groups:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/obama-unlikely-to-get-big-debate-bounce-but-a-small-one-could-matter/#more-36520

Of course, the only poll that really matters is the one on November 6.

Nik

Actually, the point IS arguable. There are more bayonets now than in 1917.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/23/not-to-be-a-stickler-on-bayonets-but/

NHSparky

If by “won” you mean being a petty, snarky, asshole, I’ll grant you that. He didn’t look presidential at all. YMMV.

And frankly, the “polls” you cite don’t mean shit relative to the fact your guy got the shit stomped out of him in the first debate, to the point he may not (probably won’t) recover.

But take heart, sippy–you got Honey Boo-Boo Child’s vote locked up.

Insipid

There’s also a lot more people. Either way, the fact that you’re going into these semantical points is kind of an admission that Obama won the point, isn’t it? Here’s my question, why aren’t YOU hopping mad about these debates? Particularly this last one? Romney won the first debate by throwing the tea partiers under the bus. He had become the defender of Medicare, the advocate of Wall Street regulation, the scourge of the big banks, the enemy of tax cuts for the rich, and the champion of tax relief for the middle class. Like Obama, but more biz friendly. Fine. I can understand the lack of outrage in the first debate because at least Romney won. And the hatred of Obama is such that the right will accept a bit of a beating if it’s for the cause. Plus it’s been a long-standing contention on the right, not without merit, that it’s the Congress that is mostly responsible for domestic policy. So, ok, i can kind of get the lack of outrage over his abandoning conservative principles on the first debate. But in this debate, he completely embraced most of Obama’s policies, threw the Tea party under the bus AND lost. And he embraced Obama’s foreign policy, INCLUDING that of setting a definate pull-out date for Afghanistan. A position which Jonn excoriated Obama for (and praised Romney for opposing) here: http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=29477 In the comments section, Hondo typed 20,000 listing in painstaking detail how this policy of Obama’s is a recitation of Johnson’s Vietnam policy and an outright betrayal of all we hold dear. Nhsparky lamented how this policy leaves our troops “completely hamstrung” and left to “twist in the wind”. Now, Mitt Romney, two weeks before the election, with no explanation as to why, suddenly embraces this formally excoriated position of Obama’s and the collective reaction of this board towards this news is: BAYONETS! I’m SURE that if Obama had done the equivelent of what Mitt has done, suddenly throw out the fixed date of withdrawal I’d be outraged. I’d certainly be talking about that more than some stupid-ass… Read more »

Insipid

@47- Sparky, as much as you may want to deny reality, Obama is winning. Barring some major happening in the next two weeks, President Obama will still be POTUS on January 21st, 2013.

Nik

“Either way, the fact that you’re going into these semantical points is kind of an admission that Obama won the point, isn’t it?”

Nothing semantical about it. You said it was an unarguable point. The fact that there’s more people is utterly irrelevant.

Secondly, it’s no admission of anything. The statement was made, the statement was proven to be incorrect. Beyond that, Obama thought he was going to be cute saying Romney didn’t know how the military worked. OK, that’s fine, but you better be damn correct in each and every one of your points. He simply was not.

As far as the rest of your missive, I see two possibilities.

One, your use of “you” was in the plural and a broad statement about all or most of the people posting here. If that’s the case, obviously your attempts at discerning the reasons people aren’t more upset about are sweeping indictments. I’m fairly sure that poeple have a variety of reasons for feeling the way they do about the debate that are far deeper than a sentence or two.

Or two, your use of “you” was directed at me. If that’s the case then you’re making assumptions about me that are not in evidence and your suppositions may safely be summarily dismissed.

I’ll leave you with this though. Ignoring the fact that for most people the decision of Romney’s performance vs Obama’s is very likely deeper than a one or two sentence castigation by you, I’ll toss out some other possibilities. This is by no means an exhaustive list.

2b. They can have similar foreign policies, if so that’s a wash and can be dismissed when determining who to vote for. In that case, Romney’s superior economic expertise wins out over Obama’s string of failed promises.

5. Obama’s churlish behavior combined with his demeanor and falsehoods outweighed any other factors.