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.
On Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she took “responsibility” for the terrorist attack that led to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
I agree. We have two options with Obama's "explanation"
1. He knew about the events and is throwing Hillary under the bus to save his electoral chances. This appears weak and shows dishonesty and the tendency to do ANYTHING to avoid repercussions of his actions.
2. If he did not know, he has to be the most incompetent POTUS in US history. We had two attacks on the embassy and an ambassador BEGGING for more security. If Obama did not know (we know he blows off intelligence meetings), he is inept and incompetent.
Either way
Obama is a criminal and a liar
Obama is incompetent
- either option is not very flattering and simply shows what type of person he really is.
I agree. We have two options with Obama's "explanation"
1. He knew about the events and is throwing Hillary under the bus to save his electoral chances. This appears weak and shows dishonesty and the tendency to do ANYTHING to avoid repercussions of his actions.
2. If he did not know, he has to be the most incompetent POTUS in US history. We had two attacks on the embassy and an ambassador BEGGING for more security. If Obama did not know (we know he blows off intelligence meetings), he is inept and incompetent.
Either way
Obama is a criminal and a liar
Obama is incompetent
- either option is not very flattering and simply shows what type of person he really is.
Of course, Obama HAD to know exactly what was happening in Libya since there were multiple surveillance cameras and a drone transmitting what was happening back to Washington in REAL TIME.
Obama snapped into action when he realized his Ambassador was missing....he went to bed.
Then when he learned that his Ambassador was murdered, he flew off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.
We also know that Obama didn't think it was a big deal that 4 Americans were murdered when he called it merely a "bump in the road".
I don't think Romney will use the term "man up" and I do think the security issue was her fault. Obama's part is in the cover-up and if the audience doesn't ask the question....
I don't think Romney will use the term "man up" and I do think the security issue was her fault. Obama's part is in the cover-up and if the audience doesn't ask the question....
0bama himself didn't say much. He let Jay, Hillary, Susan, Axelrod, and Pflouffe do the talking.
During a photo op in Virginia today, obama was asked questions by reporters. One question was refused an answer. I hope it will be asked tonight. "Is Hillary to blame for Benghazi?" It is admirable for Mrs. Clinton to show courage and take the blame. But, will obama follow her lead and take responsibility also? If he is asked this question tonight, he will not be able to just walk away without giving America an answer. Should be interesting.
Good. Let the President explain himself. That's what this process is about.
And GregW is absolutely correct. Romney carries the macho thing too far and Obama will be able to throw it right back in his face. Which would be a ton of fun. Besides the fact that the Republicans are fooling themselves if they think Obama doesn't already have his answer framed in his mind. His team could capitalize on the question big time if Obama answers in in a straight-forward, presidential manner. Gravitas. Obama could use it to make Romney look like a wannabe chickenhawk. (Which, right now, is exactly what he is.)
What "macho thing" exactly is obama supposed to throw in Romney's face? It is not hard to look more "macho" than obama. Michelle looks more macho than obama.
obama should have already had his answer framed. He shouldn't have to wait for a debate to answer questions about this. Why is it takening him so long? He is going to have to come up with some kind of crazy spin to make him look "straight-forward" when he has been dodging giving truthful information to the American public. Nothing presidential about looking like you don't know what the heck is going on and trying to cover up for it.
Obama just won't answer the question directly . . . he will simply use it as a jumping off point to change the subject.
He is still going to come across as smirky and snide b/c that is who he is. He tried to curb his snarkiness in the last debate and we see where that got him. You can't hide your personality! If he can't rely on canned speeches, rehearsed "quips" and his favorite, time worn over-used excuses and put downs, he will end up looking like what he is: a man who is in over his head - a newb who just hasn't been up to the job.
Notice the multiple use of the macho term "man up". Only wimps hide behind words like that or skilled propagandists.
I took it to be autosuggestion.
Man up... we're in the fog of war, the secretary said to da Bears da Bomba.
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.
