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.
Perhaps you're confusing me someone else. I tend to run a bit more towards the middle of the road on a lot of things. I do not demagogue or idolize my party. I see their flaws and I see the things I agree with. I am fundamentally right but do not spare even my own party when they screw up.
I am not wrong. Obama kept saying it was the movie long after they knew it was a terrorist attack, even at the UN speech. He thought the left wing media would be able to squelch it. So "yes" the president knew but lied.
Now who changed the talking points before Susan Rice went out on 5 different shows to say it was the movie.
Ok lets go with incompetence too. Obama should have attended his Intel meetings but the left wing used the excuse that he got them electronically but there is nothing better than face to face meetings with "discussion" between advisers. Obama should have attended instead of golfing or campaigning.
But off to Vegas Obama went the very next day. Either he was going along with trying to keep attention off the Benghazi attack by acting like business as usual or it was pure incompetence or both.
Ok-- so you're thinking is that because Obama gave the order for the successful operation that took down Bin Laden, he thought that would be outweighed by the event in Benghazi... He was trying to hide the facts so he wouldn't look bad?
At least that's somewhat plausible. But you really find that convincing? So every time there is an attack, and American personell are killed, you think the President's foreign policy is failing.
Seems like a lot of risk for an election he was already winning... Seems like weak reason to start a cover-up when Al Quada could easily take responsibility...
There's no "coverup". They simply spun it..they lied about what really happened so that it didn't sound as bad because the election was coming up. They knew the election was relatively close and fear of a strengthening "Al Queda" or whatever you want to call Islamic nuts, might lead people on the fence to vote R.
They didn't pretend that no one was killed..they didn't ask anyone to throw away the film of the consulate burning, they simply said that A was B. Those who already despise the President think that's an impeachable offense..it isn't. Every other word spoken by politicians on both sides is a lie or half truth. What exactly is the CRIMINAL activity here?
I am not wrong. Obama kept saying it was the movie long after they knew it was a terrorist attack, even at the UN speech. He thought the left wing media would be able to squelch it. So "yes" the president lied.
Now who changed the talking points before Susan Rice went out on 5 different shows to say it was the movie.
Ok lets go with incompetence too. Obama should have attended his Intel meetings but the left wing used the excuse that he got them electronically but there is nothing better than face to face meetings with "discussion" between advisers. Obama should have attended instead of golfing or campaigning.
But off to Vegas Obama went the very next day. Either he was going along with trying to keep attention off the Benghazi attack by acting like business as usual or it was pure incompetence or both.
And this is the crux of how you guys think this scandal will somehow unseat a President. That he read his briefs on an i-pad and didn't fly to Libya the next day.
If you read my previous post you will see I don't think Obama will be impeached. The left wing media will circle and protect Obama as they have always done.
Since Benghazi there have been about a 5 fold increase in radical islamic websites and propaganda machines urging attacks on U.S. and Israeli targets. There is a perception that the U.S. is weak. You see what is happening today in Israel. Our enemies are emboldened because they look at Benghazi and how Obama handled it and they view Obama as weak. They also view the U.S. as weak because we are in so much debt.
There's no "coverup". They simply spun it..they lied about what really happened so that it didn't sound as bad because the election was coming up. They knew the election was relatively close and fear of a strengthening "Al Queda" or whatever you want to call Islamic nuts, might lead people on the fence to vote R.
They didn't pretend that no one was killed..they didn't ask anyone to throw away the film of the consulate burning, they simply said that A was B. Those who already despise the President think that's an impeachable offense..it isn't. Every other word spoken by politicians on both sides is a lie or half truth. What exactly is the CRIMINAL activity here?
We had this same conversation on another thread, but yes, I fundamentally agree with you. I still think it's important to have the proper investigation to determine it was nothing more than incompetence, misleading, or spin. If it just turns out to be spin for political expediency then it's not impeachable and I believe we agree upon that. At that point, voters get to decide how they feel about that at the mid-terms with respect to these actions.
How was that part covered up, exactly? All I keep seeing here is "they said it was a movie!! they said it was a movie!!"
How is that covering up bad decision making?
the only reason why we have a lot of information we currently do is because that original story pushed by the president and his admin was questioned. im sure obama wanted everyone to accept that it was a movie and move on.
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.