Krellin did you watch the damn debate???? Obama didn't place blame on Hillary he said something along the lines of it was his fault and the whole cabinets fault. And Romney was CORRECTED when he said obama never said the attack was terrorism. Obama said it the next day in the rose garden! Did you watch the debate or did to just turn off the tv when someone called mitt out on his lies?

Good to know Invictus doesn't care if this clip is bullshit and that his campaign is thoroughly dishonest. All he cares about is exploiting tragedy to score cheap political points.

Also gunfighter do you expect us to send dozens of marines to the embassies with shoot to kill orders on protesting mobs? That would sure piss off more people than are already protesting.

No, I'm analyzing the likely effects. Obama should have know better than to have said something that would sound so bad out of context. And you have to admit, it sounds really bad. And it's not like Republicans are the only ones placing out-of-context clips in attack ads *cough*47%*cough.

47 percent was hardly out of context...but what do I know I'm a liberal fucktard :)

How is that out of context? The full video was shown in the ads with no commentary at all. You're really desperate here.

It doesn't sound bad at all. But yeah in your racist rightwing bubble Romney doesn't even need to clip ads, he can just make stuff up which never happened at all and they'll believe it.

It's a sad reflection on our country when the so-called intellectual conservatives relish in the unthinking stupidity of their own side.

I hope you're not alone on election night in case it goes Romney's way, Putin33. We'll all be very worried if your posts suddenly stop.

"Any president in American history would have cut the order to kill Osama."

Which is why the Republicans all said they wouldn't go into Pakistan to kill him, including and most especially Romney. They in fact ridiculed Obama in the 2008 debates for suggesting he'd do that. McCain had a field day ridiculing him.

"I hope you're not alone on election night in case it goes Romney's way, Putin33. We'll all be very worried if your posts suddenly stop."

Typical. Keep relishing in your dirty tricks. Your party is on its death bed. Even if you manage to buy this election with your casino & Koch Brothers money, demographically the angry white man demographic isn't going to hold up.

Sure.

"Also gunfighter do you expect us to send dozens of marines to the embassies with shoot to kill orders on protesting mobs?"

No, I except the President to send special forces in to either extract the embassy personnel or reinforce the embassy's Marine detachment. And yes, I would issue shoot-to-kill orders for anyone caught inside the wire who isn't supposed to be there.

Putin, your assertions and rants are so far beyond the realm of reality that they do not deserve the dignity of any response I could give except for this message.

@gunfighter

"How can Obama call himself commander-in-chief when he flatly ignores an overt act of war against the United States?"

Could you please specify any particular act of war against the United States ignored by Mr. Obama?

I will, the attack on the US Embassy that resulted in the death of 4 citizens. An embassy is sovereign soil of the state which it represents. They may as well have set off a bomb outside the White House.

"Cheap political points" Tired of this bullshit lie from Putin. There is significant political issue behind the cover up from the Obama Adminstration about the events in Benghazi...but it's par for the course. This is the Adminstration that came in to office and initially stopped using the phrase "terrorist act" altogether - it was "man caused disasters" or some crap like that. Obama is the guy that took an apology tour around the world and excused America for being successful, foreshadowing his desire to weaken us, which he then did through his various foreign policy actions. He "led from behind" in Libya, helping install what is increasingly becoming a radical Muslim Brotherhood, Anti-American regime; he's thrown Israel under the bus; he help oust that stabilizing force of an ally in Egypt (yes, he was a bad guy, BUT...) in favor of - AGAIN - am Anti-American, Muslim Brotherhood backed government...the list goes on...

Then we can look at domestic terrorism - such as Major Nadal Hassan...and teh Adminstrations feckless response...

So now we have an ACT OF WAR (yes...when an American consulate is attacked, it is equivalent to an attack on US soil, which reasonable people see as an act of war...), NOT a mob action. It is yet another failing of the Boy who would be President in *deep* over his head. The moron who thought just because he could *read* a teleprompter well and scold his country for it success that the Islamic world would worship at his feet. He was 100% wrong in his assessment, and is now paying the consequences.

Romney calling him out on his failure is perfectly within his rights, because the American people deserve to know what a failure Obama has been in foreign policy.

The fact of the matter is the whole thing would have been written off in the media using the Administration's lies if NOT for Romney being man enough to step up and start the conversation. In the absence of Romney's comments, you would never have seen anything except a story about some film maker that made a video - which absolutely was *not* was caused the assassination of 4 Americans in Libya.

Nothing cheap about those politcal points, Fucktard....those political points came with the blood on Obama's hands! American's Died..Obama Lied!

American's Died..Obama Lied!

Any one else having trouble thinking of that guy with the assault rifle, celebrating the carnage, as a "protester"?

What Draugnar said.

See?

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=30FBE75B-731 -4B4F-9688-8E7A47FA13B3

The last thing Obama needs is another bad story on Libya. Everything about this situation looks bad for him. At the very least this will be a question during Monday's debate. I'll be honest and say it isn't fair to be making Obama out to be so heartless here, but it IS happening and he ought to have known not to set himself up for something like this. Contrary to what Putin33 thinks, this does sound really bad.

If the polls are right, Obama has a lot of ground to make up in the few weeks left. Saying something which can be used by others to damage him on foreign policy was the last thing he needs.

You do know that is a subscription service and non of us non-subscribers can read that story, right?

Politico? I just went to the print page so it was one page. Are you sure you can't read it just because there's 1 point in the URL?

Excellent, Draugnar and Gunfighter. Now, according to US law, specifically, 18 USC 2331 (here's a link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331 ), "Act of War" means either:

1. Any act occuring in the course of a declared war;
2. Armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
3. Armed conflict between military forces of any origin.

So, which one of these three fits your declared example of an act of war?

#3 does. It was a terrorist act by armed militants (origin: a terrorist organization) and we are involved in a war on terror, are we not?

So, armed militants are a military organization is what you're saying?

#2. Libyan-backed militia attacked *with arms* US property.

Good god, how stupid are you.
Yes - Libya backed, in that Libya did not stopped them -- tacit approval = backing.

Isn't it ironic that you pull your definition of an act of war from 18 USC Section 1, Chapter 113B - Terrorism? Doesn't that kind of imply an act of terror, which Obama himself now says this was (despite his staff and he himself talking about a crwod of demonstrators getting out of control when there was no crowd), any how, doesn't it imply the terrorist act is an act of war? Why else would they bother to define "act of war" in the Terrorism section of Title 18 of the USC?

Irrelavent of what krellin said. Yes, an armed terrorist militants is a military organization. they train them in camps. The arm them. They are a military organization. they just aren't affiliated with a state, but with a religion. Is the Vatican Police any less a police organizatin despite the fact they get their marching orders from the Catholic Church in the Vatican?

Is this a war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Chicago_riots

People dying due to riots is not the same thing as war.

Hey damina... Get with the times. there were no riots at the embassy. Even Obama admits now that the riots over the movie didn't exist. They were a fabrication by his stuff to cover up and try to excuse a terrorist attack on US soil.

I repeat. there were no riots at the embassy. That was a lie by the current administration.

Can I point out an angry mob with ak47s and RPGs is less an act of war on the U.S. than it is an angry mob of armed 3rd world civilians.