U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-18-2012, 01:47 PM
 
3,938 posts, read 3,972,467 times
Reputation: 1933

Advertisements

She takes the blame with a big smile on face. Only thing I can think of is "WOW"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-22-2012, 09:04 AM
 
5,787 posts, read 4,641,176 times
Reputation: 852
Quote:
Originally Posted by pooterposh View Post
What about all the soldiers who died because Bush lied....no problem there.. There is no "Statute of Limitations on murder...
Then can we hold Roosevelt's and Lincoln's relatives over for murder?

Liberals who don't have a clue ought not to comment on adult topics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Texas
9,183 posts, read 7,453,755 times
Reputation: 7786
And this thread should be merged with all the others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 09:22 AM
 
5,787 posts, read 4,641,176 times
Reputation: 852
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzy24 View Post
And this thread should be merged with all the others.

Why?

There isn't another asking who should take the blame for the cover-up.

Does this thread make you uncomfortable?

It should because your leadership tried to lie to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 10:06 AM
 
1,062 posts, read 1,006,723 times
Reputation: 402
I think Hillary is one very savvy politician. She took the blame, fell on the sword so to speak...or did she? She used a very calculated phrase-"The buck stops here". Knowing full well that the buck stops with the President. A point she made during the primary against Obama in 2008. She knew that using that phrase would of course invoke commentary on all sides, and remind everyone that Obama had NOT taken responsibility. He eventually did, of course...forced to use the very same phrase in his statement the following day. Bottom line..she came out looking better of the two.

Of course, 'looking better' is relative here. The State Dept and the White House look incompetent at best. Cover-up? Let's call it a concentrated attempt to pull the conversation away from 'terrorist activity' so as not to interfere with the campaign gloats of 'Al qaeda on the run'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 11:16 AM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,894 posts, read 18,209,361 times
Reputation: 6464
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz View Post
Go back and look at your highligted text - Obama never used the words "terrorist attack". He refers to an "attack". Charlene Lamb did the same thing at the hearing and was asked why she didn't refer to the attack for what it was - a terrorist attack. She continued to refer to it as an "attack".

They are strongly trying to avoid the word terrorist. I guess that's because we are winning the war on terrorism and it must have been a bunch of ragtag homeless people who "attacked" the consulate, not terrorists.
Oh you better believe it, this lying administration and all in it, all of them. Every last lying one of them. Covering their own butt's.

They are so obviously trying to avoid the word terrorist, that is quite obvious from day one. They think Americans are dumb, and naive, hint, most of us are not.

Your right, they refuse to use the word terrorist, it was attack, for their own purpose.

All in this administration and this President, are still responsible for the death of 4 innocent americans, who died such a senseless meaningless fearful, death, that did not have to happen. When in June of 2012 letters to the W.H. of wanting and needing more security was denied, infact the orders were to give them less.

Yep i watched that 3 hour special on this whole fiasco. Steven's from June of 0/12 knew something was not right in the area, and over and over again, his letters ignored, and less security was given.

The person who sits in the Big W.H. is who! and he should know what the hell is going on with security, and who is asking for it, and who is denying it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 11:21 AM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,894 posts, read 18,209,361 times
Reputation: 6464
Oh and by the way, the role of a moderator, is exactly that, to moderate and nothing more. Not critique, not interupt every friggin 5 seconds, but to moderate.

And guess some people don't know the meaning of moderate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 11:52 AM
 
Location: A safe distance from San Francisco
12,350 posts, read 9,415,586 times
Reputation: 13878
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt800 View Post
I DON'T CARE what he said the following day at all.

Obama, Jay Carney, UN Ambassador Rice, and Hillary ALL stated AFTER that, for nearly two weeks, that it was due to a protest over a film that got out of control.
And the most troubling aspect of the serial lies is the implication that the film was the evil act in all of this and thus they felt it necessary to repeatedly make clear that the United States had nothing to do with it. The implication that of course a film such as this is going to provoke violence and general havoc against non-Muslims. The implication of a clear restraint on free speech so as not to provoke Muslims.

If we are to have any hope whatsoever of freedom in our future, we are going to have to take on this issue directly and do whatever it takes to prevail. Obama's diametrically opposite approach is the biggest problem I have with him....among many.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 12:23 PM
 
4,279 posts, read 5,109,290 times
Reputation: 2372
Cheap talk..who did she fire? Or at least did she offer to resign?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
36,118 posts, read 20,807,128 times
Reputation: 12726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilt11 View Post
Next debate is foreign policy. Obama has a lot to answer for, especially for Libya. Romney is going to get a chance to bring up things he did not last night.
And Romney needs to get 0bama to answer why he, the president who went to war in Libya in 2011, did not bother to inform himself about the security situation for his diplomats in Libya in 2012. why did the president go on dozens on entertainment shows and never talked to ambassador Stevens' even once over the past six months?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

¬© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top