Last Debate: We Have Enough Beer

This debate season has definitely taken a few years off my liver so far, but about to begin is the last Presidential debate on Foreign Policy, which is at least something Presidents can control. But I would still consider it unsafe to watch these farces without a healthy about of alcohol to make it tolerable.

UPDATE: The beer for tonight’s debate is Innis & Gunn. I highly recommend the Rum Oak Cask aged Scottish Ale.

UPDATE: The big news is that Mitt Romney apparently supports the insurrectionist view of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by suggesting we ought to be arming the Syrian rebels. CSGV would not approve.

UPDATE: I don’t know why Mitt Romney considers it a privilege for this nation to defend freedom and stability in the world. I consider it a curse. If the British were still willing and able to do it, I’d be happy to let them have at it.

UPDATE: I have to give a slight edge to Obama on this one. Foreign policy, as a topic, is a softball to an incumbent President. But after the first debate knockdown, and the second debate being a draw at best, I don’t think Obama did anything int his debate to change the momentum of the race.

22 thoughts on “Last Debate: We Have Enough Beer”

  1. Dumb fuck!
    Mittens gave it away at the
    opening bell.
    Letting the issue of the embassy
    attacks in Libya lide away(intentionally)
    34 minutes into a 90 minute debate and
    Mittens is babbling about small business
    Mittens, what a mutt!
    Fellow blog readers, are you aware
    that the man behind ‘Innocence of Muslims video,
    Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is still being
    imprisoned with bail denied.
    Regardless of the Prez,and his administration,
    rabidly denying they never claimed that it was
    responsible for the embassy attack.


    1. “Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is still being imprisoned with bail denied. . .”

      Sincere question: Is that all that unusual in cases of alleged parole violations? Isn’t the theory that the suspect is merely being returned to his former condition of imprisonment, pending further review, and therefor bail is optional? Also, he is not being imprisoned (technically, at least) for the content or results of his film, but for parole violations, some of which may involve facts regarding the production of the film.

      In terms of reality law, he will probably be handled relatively severely, not for anything he did, per se, but for becoming a celebrity parole violator. He will be used as a high profile example for other potential parole violators. The film is only the foundation of his celebrity.

      1. “Parole violation is the scapegoating
        that the arrest(continued imprisonment)
        is hiding behind.
        Initially, he was buffaloed out of his
        home in the middle of the night to
        be questioned about the video, not
        a possible parole violation.
        Their is ample demonizing/witchunt
        reporting of that by the pandering whores
        of state propoganda(mainstream media).

        1. I agree that this debate probably went to the Obama as most foreign affair debates do but I don’t think it moved the dial.

          Not to hijack the thread by cavmedic do you know what Nakoula was on probation for? He was issuing the internet and was defrauding investors out of money. Now I agree that we didn’t necessary need the night time pick-up (unless they feared for his safety) but I am pretty sure that using an alias to raise money on the internet to fund the video would probably raise some serious flags with the parole board.

          1. I agree. My issue was the manner in which this was handled, which was done in a manner guaranteed to get the most press attention. The parole violation was real. But there’s no question in my mind the Administration intended to benefit from those circumstances.

        2. This speaks to what I meant by “reality law.” At this moment there are probably thousands of parole violators walking around with no one too interested in detecting or pursuing them. But once they come to authorities’ attention for whatever reason, something is going to happen. If they run a red light and thus are detected, they will be treated somewhat better than if they run the red light, kill a mother and three children, and get their names splashed all over page one. If they get their name splashed all over page one of every media outlet in the country, they are going to have hell to pay. You can call it pretense, or you can call it human nature and universal politics.

  2. Ah, Innis & Gunn…

    I’ve been turning people on to it for several years now. It is by far one of my favorites.

    I’d skip the Rum variant, didn’t care for it. But DEFINITELY try the “whiskey” one (in green label).


    My personal favorite drinking ale.

  3. Cavmedic: I, too, was disappointed in Romney’s pulled punches. No mention of Benghazi or Mr. Obama’s commitment to reduce our nuclear missile forces from over 1500 down below 900 and then ultimately 300 (source:AP), while the Russians are producing and successfully testing NEW ICBMs (source: Reuters) that are designed to defeat our nascent missile defense system (which Obama has also undermined), North Korea has a suspected five or six nukes in its arsenal, and China is adding more nukes every year.
    It wasn’t even mentioned! *sigh*

    Sign me – Frustrated

  4. Snoozer. Not even a third of the way through the debate, my brother and I pulled over to the kitchen table to lay up a foundation plan for the new barn. Everyone bailed on the TV long before it was over – and we watched the previous ones in earnest.

    Romney was pulling his punches, which in hindsight was probably a good move. He’s ahead – those ahead do not look to squabble. Obama, on the other hand, was itching for a fight. Frankly, I like that look on him more than his normal aloof tone.

    Even MSNBC noted that it’s the guy behind who needs to get rough. And they noted Obama was behind.

    1. Agreed, and with Sebastian’s point below.

      After his first debate, Romney’s been in the position of Royal Navy Admiral Jellicoe at the WWI Battle of Jutland. It was widely accepted that he was “the only man on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon“.

      After having destroyed Team Obama’s entire campaign strategy of painting him as an eeeevil space alien in the first debate when the people could see him unfiltered, all he’s had to do is continue to act Presidential and manage a “draw” or thereabouts in the subsequent debates. Going for more ran the real risk of a campaign ending gaffe.

  5. Not clear how Romney intends to benefit by endorsing the president’s policies across the board. Rope-a-dope?

    1. It’s very difficult to debate an incumbent President on foreign policy if you’re a challenger because the incumbent has access to considerably more information than you do as the challenger. The trick is just to come off as knowing your shit and looking Presidential. If you start challenging a policy, and then get in and find out information you weren’t previously aware, you run the risk of having to look like a chump by… well… say promising to close Guantanamo and not doing it, or promising to pull out of Iraq, and taking your time about it.

    2. I think you overstate the level of agreement. In the small, it’s not clear how many he should have disagreed with. In the large, his points that foreign policy by apology tour (to which Obama could only reply the reporters didn’t agree, according to what I’ve read), that gutting our military isn’t wise right now (and too many of know we used horses in our lightening conquest of Afghanistan, and/or that the bayonet is still relevant), or that we need to be economically strong for any of this to work out were spot on and should be devastating.

  6. My take is that Romney wasn’t talking to the American People, but to the World Audience, and any of their American Relatives. He was sending the message that his Administration would be much more Pro-Active, not “outsourcing” Foreign Policy to “Coalitions” and “Partnerships” and the UN. But he also came across as Calm and Rational, unlike the way the Left is now claiming that “WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE IF ROMNEY ATTACKS IRAN!”

    I think he was specifically trying to get the Jewish-American and the Muslim-American Vote. And calm the American Voter who actually pays attention to World Events.

    We’ll see if it worked.

  7. (Reuters) – Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

    The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

    The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

    U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

    Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

    While officials did mention the possible involvement of “extremists,” they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

    There were indications that extremists with possible al Qaeda connections were involved, but also evidence that the attacks could have erupted spontaneously, they said, adding that government experts wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.

    U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized since shortly after the attack that early intelligence reporting about the attack was mixed.

    Spokesmen for the White House and State Department had no immediate response to requests for comments on the emails

    1. This is not much of a smoking gun; if an asteroid hit Israel, “Islamic militant groups” would be claiming credit….

      For me, the most damning thing to come out of this is how Obama was informed of the beginning of the attack and then went to bed, and how we had military assets in close range who, if prepared, could have helped (granted, they’d have to be on a very serious alert status and it’s generally not kosher to call in air support to defend against an attack on diplomats in a nominally sovereign nation). One also has to wonder if the sustained denial of protection resources to the diplomatic mission in the country was a factor in encouraging the attack.

      The failure to take any action in response besides jailing the designated scapegoat in the US is also telling.

      1. The article verfies what has been
        known since the beginning, that
        DC blamed (for no less than fourteen
        days) an anit-islamic youtube video
        (completely unknwon to most people in
        the US/world) as being solely
        responsible for the attack in
        Furthermore, DC not only blamed the video, but beat that
        “dead-horse”(ad nauseum)and spread that lie
        with the complete and deliberate complicity of the pandering whores of state propaganda(American mainstream media).
        That is what the Reuters article confirms (not a
        smoking gun), for
        anyone that is a sound and critical thinker and not
        a naive fool.

      2. Action is being taken against the
        “scapegoat”, he is still impriosned
        without being charged and bail denied.

  8. In closing, Amendment 1 of the
    Constituion(found in the Bill
    of Rights) and also granted
    by birth as a human being, is
    not a parole violation.
    Moreover, it is certainly not
    subject to the whims of vindictive
    political thugs.

  9. Treason By Administration In Libya?
    Posted 2012-10-24 10:33
    by Karl Denninger
    in International

    Well well well what do we have here?

    I’ve talked a bit about rumors that just won’t die that our real purpose in being in Libya with that “Diplomatic Mission” was more related to trying to buy back portable anti-aircraft missiles that we sold or gave to Gaddafi (or was it the “Rebels”) and then went “missing.”

    Now it appears that we have national media that are talking about it and have uncovered proof that these are not just rumors.

    Our national hubris in handing a thug anti-aircraft missiles that are both man-portable and not secured is pretty far over the line. What’s worse is that when we discovered they had “disappeared” we apparently then turned around and stuck a ****load of cash in what amounted to an unguarded CIA outpost-cum-“safehouse” and tried to buy them back.

    Ok, it wasn’t quite unguarded. But it was damn close, and it was certainly not sufficiently guarded, as we now know.

    The ugly of course is that this adds materially to the coverup attempt that Obama and his administration attempted to pull when the attack happened. Not only are there emails that form hard documentation that the White House knew that this was a raid and not in response to some “Youtube video” in addition they knew damn well what they were doing there and that the “mission” was a high-value military target in that it held both large sums of cash and weapons.

    This is damn close to treason folks, and I do not use that word lightly.

  10. PICKET: Anti-Muslim filmmaker detained for almost a month…next court date three days after election
    By – The Washington Times October 20, 2012, 08:43PM

    Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the 55-year-old filmmaker responsible for the anti-Muslim video that President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice initially and wrongly blamed for inciting the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, is still being held at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) without bond.

    It has been almost one month since Mr. Nakoula was arrested for allegedly violating the terms of his probation for a 2010 bank-fraud conviction. According to reports, under his probation, Mr. Nakoula was prohibited from using computers and the internet without supervision. According to ABC News:

    Nakoula had met with federal probation officers on Sept. 14 about whether his involvement in the film violated the terms of his probation, which barred him from accessing the internet without prior approval and from using any name other than his legal name.

    Nakoula told authorities he was involved in the film and asked law enforcement for help in regards to death threats he received since the film surfaced online.

    “Nakoula was ordered detained — held without bond — by a federal judge, who determined he posed a flight risk,” said Thom Mrozek of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California.

    Mr. Nakoula’s next court date is on November 9, three days after the presidential election. In the meantime, while the Obama administration passes blame around over who dropped the ball with the attack in Benghazi, Mr. Nakoula remains locked up and muzzled in a Los Angeles detention center until after the ballots for president are counted on November 6.

Comments are closed.