Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So as the RWNJ's and conspiracy theorists desperately try to insinuate some type of cover-up on the Benghazi tragedy, I am left with one question: Why?
Why was it advantageous for the president to cover up what transpired in Benghazi? What was the motivation?
Bad intelligence sounds like a much more plausible explanation then a coverup that, in reality, benefits no one. That is, of course, unless you're so desperate and distraught over the reelection of the President that your willing to believe anything-- no matter how implausible that give you hope of reprieve.
So as the RWNJ's and conspiracy theorists desperately try to insinuate some type of cover-up on the Benghazi tragedy, I am left with one question: Why?
Why was it advantageous for the president to cover up what transpired in Benghazi? What was the motivation?
Bad intelligence sounds like a much more plausible explanation then a coverup that, in reality, benefits no one. That is, of course, unless you're so desperate and distraught over the reelection of the President that your willing to believe anything-- no matter how implausible that give you hope of reprieve.
Because all the "Why's" that we'll see here lead back to "The President is a Muslim loving Kenyan..."
There is no reason for the President or his administration to cover it up. The right wingers are trying to invent a scandal. It's a familiar pattern for them-- only now, in light of the recent election.. They just look like asses.
So as the RWNJ's and conspiracy theorists desperately try to insinuate some type of cover-up on the Benghazi tragedy, I am left with one question: Why?
Why was it advantageous for the president to cover up what transpired in Benghazi? What was the motivation?
Bad intelligence sounds like a much more plausible explanation then a coverup that, in reality, benefits no one. That is, of course, unless you're so desperate and distraught over the reelection of the President that your willing to believe anything-- no matter how implausible that give you hope of reprieve.
Are you kidding? No reason at all...except an election that could have been lost. Why was the propaganda machine dead quiet about it? With four people murdered, and the absolute bungling of security, this administration is still deflecting the subject while focusing of how badly Rice has been treated. Come on Man!
How has the "bad intelligence" been spun with regards to WMDs in Iraq?
How has the "bad intelligence" been spun with regards to WMDs in Iraq?
Irrelevant.. however, the bad intelligence got us in to a war that might not have had to be fought. Where was the right wing calling for investigations and impeachment then?
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Petraeus disputed Republican suggestions that the White House misled the public on what led to the violence in the midst of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign. "There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process," Schiff said after the hearing. "They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information. "The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," Schiff said. "He completely debunked that idea." Schiff said Petraeus said Rice's comments in the television interviews "reflected the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly."
Irrelevant.. however, the bad intelligence got us in to a war that might not have had to be fought. Where was the right wing calling for investigations and impeachment then?
The war was not for WMD's people need to grow up. That gave us a case before the UN and was crafty on the part of the Bush Admin.
The American People overwhelmingly wanted to go to war with Iraq and we simply gave them what they wanted. If it was a lie it was surely a lie the American people needed. What would you rather hear? We're going to Iraq to shore up oil futures and to spur democracy in the region? Plus Saddam is a jerk.
It was good television and you all loved it, perhaps we stayed a little too long for some peoples taste.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Petraeus disputed Republican suggestions that the White House misled the public on what led to the violence in the midst of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign. "There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process," Schiff said after the hearing. "They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information. "The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," Schiff said. "He completely debunked that idea." Schiff said Petraeus said Rice's comments in the television interviews "reflected the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly."
Bad intelligence? Could be, Obama rarely went to the Intel meetings. The day after the Benghazi attack he canceled his Intel meeting, gave a speech, but instead of rescheduling his Intel meeting when we were attacked by al-Qaeda off Obama goes to Vegas. Then he sent people out to lie to Americans so they would believe that his foreign policy worked.
Reason for covering up:
Osama Bin Laden is dead and we live in a safer world.
Obama had taken to saying Al Qaeda is on the road to defeat. During a Miami stop on Oct. 11, he said: "And today, Al Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead."
And Obama's faithful followers cheer
Obama wanted you to believe that his foreign policy worked but in fact it failed. Left wing media also did what they could to try to hide the facts and you all bought it hook, line and "sinker".
Why was it advantageous for the president to cover up what transpired in Benghazi? What was the motivation?
The attack contradicted Obama's stump speech: "al-Qaeda is on the run."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, Obamaphobes - more wasted phony outrage
