• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Threats Against Benghazi Whistleblowers Alleged [W:345/361]

so there was no saturation coverage of the attacks between 2002 and 2008, and there were no congressional investigations to reveal our government's response to these 12 attacks? i find that curious. don't we deserve to know what happened? how can i know for sure that the government didn't cover up some mistake? that's a lot of embassy attacks.

Any reason the Coverage hasn't been there for the other Embassies that have been hit on Obama's Watch? Your real good at blaming Fox. Do you have an Answer as to why the MSM hasn't brought up those other Embassy attacks that have happened while Obama runs around and parties?
 
Pathetic is that this is what the GOP considers a "cover-up". Obama and Clinton on the day following the attack call it terror from militants....but somehow something is being "covered-up".

The GOP has tried to to make Obama the fall guy for an economy that collapsed during Bush, now they fear Clinton so much that they think this will stick to her.

Pathetic, indeed.



Really.....did you forget that part about them stating it wasn't a Planned attack and that AQ was not involved. Yeah.....what you have is Obama stated it was an act of terror. Not Terrorism. Do you think Militants equates to Terrorists?

You didn't actually fall for the play on terminology there did you? As that would be truly pathetic.
 
Really.....did you forget that part about them stating it wasn't a Planned attack and that AQ was not involved.
Show where either Obama or Clinton said this.



Yeah.....what you have is Obama stated it was an act of terror.
On September 12 U.S. President Barack Obama condemned "this outrageous attack" on U.S. diplomatic facilities[135] and stated that "ince our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."[135] After referring to "the 9/11 attacks," "troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan", and "then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi"[135] the President urged, "As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it."[135] He then went on to say, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."[135]



Not Terrorism. Do you think Militants equates to Terrorists?
Sure, when the militants are committing acts of terror.

You didn't actually fall for the play on terminology there did you? As that would be truly pathetic.
Wait, you guys have been getting your panties in a twist because of the descriptions of the event...and "we" are falling for a play on terms? This has been the only play in effect by Fox, and somehow "we" are falling for something?

Wow...just wow.
 
Show where either Obama or Clinton said this.


On September 12 U.S. President Barack Obama condemned "this outrageous attack" on U.S. diplomatic facilities[135] and stated that "ince our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."[135] After referring to "the 9/11 attacks," "troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan", and "then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi"[135] the President urged, "As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it."[135] He then went on to say, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."[135]



Sure, when the militants are committing acts of terror.

Wait, you guys have been getting your panties in a twist because of the descriptions of the event...and "we" are falling for a play on terms? This has been the only play in effect by Fox, and somehow "we" are falling for something?

Wow...just wow.



WOW.....Oh WOW.....Fact Check.Org


◾There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
◾Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
◾Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
◾Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’

Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack

Sept. 15-16: Susan Rice Contradicts Libyan President

Sept. 14: Clinton spoke at Andrews Air Force Base at a ceremony to receive the remains of those killed in Benghazi. She remarked that she received a letter from the president of the Palestinian Authority praising Stevens and “deploring — and I quote — ‘an act of ugly terror.’ ” She, however, did not call it an act of terror or a terrorist attack and neither did the president.

Sept. 14: At a State Department press briefing, spokeswoman Nuland says the department will no longer answer any questions about the Benghazi attack. “It is now something that you need to talk to the FBI about, not to us about, because it’s their investigation.”

Sept. 14: At a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Carney denies reports that it was a preplanned attack. “I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false.” Later in that same briefing, Carney is told that Pentagon officials informed members of Congress at a closed-door meeting that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack. Carney said the matter is being investigated but White House officials “don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.”

Sept. 14: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta meets with the Senate Armed Services Committee. Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, reports that Republicans and Democrats came away with the conclusion that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack.

Sept. 24-25: Obama Refuses to Call It a Terrorist Attack

Oct. 9: ’Everything Calm’ Prior to Benghazi Attack, No Protests

Oct. 10: Administration Says It Gave Public ‘Best Information’

Oct. 15: Clinton Blames ‘Fog of War’

Oct. 24: White House, State Department Emails on Ansar al-Sharia

Reuters reports the White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just two hours into the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militant group, had “claimed credit” for it. The wire service report was based on three emails from the State Department’s Operations Center. One of the emails said, “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripol.” The article also noted, “Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.” (It should be noted that Reuters first reported on Sept. 12 that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved.)......snip~

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/


Wow.....Oh wow.....funny how the facts of Reuters reporting sure put that Fox perspective of the left..................................Right Where it belongs. In the ****ter!!!!! :doh

NEXT!!!!! :2razz:
 
Last edited:
Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror'

Sept. 14:She remarked that she received a letter from the president of the Palestinian Authority praising Stevens and “deploring — and I quote — ‘an act of ugly terror'. She, however, did not call it an act of terror or a terrorist attack and neither did the president

????????????

You guys are so hung up on semantic games that you trip all over yourself.

What a bore.
 
Last edited:
Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror'

Sept. 14:She, however, did not call it an act of terror or a terrorist attack and neither did the president

????????????

You guys are so hung up on semantic games that you trip all over yourself.

What a bore.

Exactly that's how the Fact checker is pointing out. So despite your play on the semantics. Team Obama lied. That is just the plain simple truth. I know.....but to difficult for you to swallow.

I doubt you can dispute Fact check.....Politi-fact.....or the UK Daily Mail's Timelines. But just like your BS with Fox News and just like the Liberal you are. That's your game that the left likes to play. Just like with Spelling and all that other deflective BS.

Now as to boring someone.....next time. Come back when you actually understand what took place and actually have some facts. Not all that make believe world, stuff you are talking about.
rolleyes.png
 
Exactly that's how the Fact checker is pointing out.
Um no, I just pointed out how factcheck stated two conflicting items, on the 12th the President did call it an act of terror, the next line down states he did not. That line is incorrect, he was quoted as calling it an act of terror.

But like your garbled mess you consider English, what you quote is in error too.



So despite your play on the semantics. Team Obama lied. That is just the plain simple truth. I know.....but to difficult for you to swallow.
Now, hold on there....what is the "lie"? Specifically state it, accuracy would be good.

I doubt you can dispute Fact check.....Politi-fact.....or the UK Daily Mail's Timelines.
I just did.

But just like your BS with Fox News and just like the Liberal you are.
This doesn't make sense, but go on...


That's your game that the left likes to play. Just like with Spelling and all that other deflective BS.
Words are important....but why are you capitalizing "spelling"?

Now as to boring someone.....next time.
Again, more fragments....but go on..


Come back when you actually understand what took place and actually have some facts.
I just showed contradictions in your fact, but continue...

Not all that make believe world, stuff you are talking about.
Almost a sentence!
 
Um no, I just pointed out how factcheck stated two conflicting items, on the 12th the President did call it an act of terror, the next line down states he did not. That line is incorrect, he was quoted as calling it an act of terror.

But like your garbled mess you consider English, what you quote is in error too.



Now, hold on there....what is the "lie"? Specifically state it, accuracy would be good.

I just did.

This doesn't make sense, but go on...


Words are important....but why are you capitalizing "spelling"?

Again, more fragments....but go on..


I just showed contradictions in your fact, but continue...

Almost a sentence!

It was stated in the first line up about the Demonstration and the Make believe protest then the lie that the Attack wasn't pre-planned. Did you miss it while you were looking for some way out?

Yes you are pointing out what they are saying. What you fail to understand.....is they are pointing out that Obama did not call it an act of terrorism. Meaning that it was pre-planned. So it goes down as not Admitting it was a terrorist act. When it Actually was.

Despite the Libyan President who said all along before the lowly US UN Ambassador Susan Rice humiliated him and basically inferred he didn't know what he was talking about. Or that he was a liar. I am sure overseas you can see which way they took that.

Oh and all that is broken down.....for your Basic easy understanding. As more complex forms of sentence structure would lead you to write an encyclopedia. Over the fact that you were wrong.
 
All right, so I only read about the first three pages of posts on this thread before I got totally disgusted. Unless there was some spontaneous generation of IQ points in the last few pages, I have to say, what a bunch of total shills you people are trying to cover the government’s ample posterior on this.

We don't know much about what happened that night, both in Benghazi and Washington. Do we even know what the president did during the time of this attack?

And it sure is "shoot the messenger" time when the story comes from someone they don't like. But not CNN, they don't run with anything that's not verified, LOL!

They are pulling out every stop to do anything but address this story. Truthers! Huh? We don't even have a full account of what happened yet, but they are truthers? You have to wait until at least one version of the story comes out before you pull that one out! Unless you are hanging your small hats on the Youtube video story that they pushed.

Where was this type of reporting during Watergate, a story that was barely covered in the beginning, until those truthers at the WP wouldn't let it die? I mean, it was just a break in by nobody important at the time. Nobody died.

The President and Sec State either sat there with their thumbs up their asses, or shut down attempts to help those being attack for 1) political correctness so as not to piss off Muslims or 2) to cover up something entirely unrelated, allowing Americans to die for it. Either way it's dereliction of duty in my book.
 
BS, every document coming from the SOS office has her name on it, she did not "sign" off on anything related to this. Stop watching Fox, Fox kills brain cells.

So, the Secretary of State is not responsible for what happens in the Dept of State? Even the stuff she signed. You're amazingly blinded by bias.

LOL! 49 minutes flight time....from airport to airport. Hint: The compound Stevens was at...was not at the airport.....and the troops were not located at the Tripoli airport.

The intent was for the troops to secure the airport and facilitate evacuation.

It took Doherty hours to get to the CIA compound from Tripoli:
The team, which included 2 active duty JSOC operators and five CIA personnel, had commandeered a small jet in Tripoli by paying the pilots $30,000 and forcing them to fly the team to Benghazi.[18]:43 After being held up at the airport for a few hours, the Libyan forces and newly arrived Americans went to the CIA annex at about 5:00am to assist in transporting approximately 32 Americans at the annex back to the airport for evacuation.

They left at midnight and got there at 0115. That's not hours.

You are wrong, the very next day both Obama and Clinton stated:


On September 12 U.S. President Barack Obama condemned "this outrageous attack" on U.S. diplomatic facilities[142] and stated that "ince our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."[142] After referring to "the 9/11 attacks," "troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan", and "then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi"[142] the President urged, "As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it."[142] He then went on to say, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."[142]

After the attack, Obama ordered that security be increased at all such facilities worldwide.[9] A 50-member Marine FAST team was sent to Libya to "bolster security."[143] It was announced that the FBI would investigate the possibility of the attack being planned.[144] U.S. officials said surveillance over Libya would increase, including the use of unmanned drones, to "hunt for the attackers."[144]


Here's the full transcript:

"10:43 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

END"

He clearly associated this attack with religion, a vague association with the video. He later mentions terror attacks in a general way but does not directly associate it with the Benghazi attack.

Secretary of State Clinton also made a statement on September 12, describing the perpetrators as "heavily armed militants" and "a small and savage group – not the people or government of Libya.

Really? Where does she describe who attacked the mission?

Statement on the Death of American Personnel in Benghazi, Libya

Um, your link does not support your claim that Stevens requested increased sequrity at Benghazi.

Did you read it?

My link does show that Benghazi staff requested increased security.

Uh, Clinton works at the SoS offices....duh.

Yes, and?
 
Any reason the Coverage hasn't been there for the other Embassies that have been hit on Obama's Watch? Your real good at blaming Fox. Do you have an Answer as to why the MSM hasn't brought up those other Embassy attacks that have happened while Obama runs around and parties?

I watch multiple news sources daily, and I recall them all being covered. the 9/11/12 attack is the only one which got six months of saturation coverage from one network, though.
 
I watch multiple news sources daily, and I recall them all being covered. the 9/11/12 attack is the only one which got six months of saturation coverage from one network, though.

Seems the MSM in the US didn't want to focus on that which took place with the Embassy in Yemen but that one day. Despite foreign new sources covering events for a 90 day period.

Do you think that's due to to False and misleading information, not getting the whole story out from the beginning. That might have led to the cause?

Considering we have Team Obama holding up the release of documents, giving conficiting statements have all contributed to......as to why this issue is still going on?
 
Why do I feel like I'm eating a rice cake whenever 'shocking news' is brought up about Benghazi?
 
The obvious reason previous embassy attacks may not have been covered as much is the lack of drama. There were no ongoing attacks which the US failed to respond to. There was not a top diplomat killed. They did not take place in a country which the US had previously helped to overthrow. There were no attempts at covering up the motivation. There was no Secretary of State who got a headache and couldn't testify. The President did not withhold information and witnesses. There were no whistleblowers.

In essence the President is making it drag on. Maybe hes a evil genius and doing it to distract Republicans.
 
The Right is wasting it's time-----------They aren't going to impeach Obama and Hillary is so old she's ready to be put out to pasture, not be a potential candidate for anything........................

Oh, to be sure, I would be very surprised if he was impeached. They would never impeach him, it would have to be to the extreme. The only way he gets impeached is if democrats fear that not doing so would hurt their own reelection chances.

And to be clear, I think if he did exactly want Nixon did, a much lesser offense IMO, they wouldn't even be discussing impeachment.

I want to know what the hell happened. American lives were in peril, what did the POTUS and the SOS do to help them?
So far, all we know is that people were ordered NOT to help them.

Where did the youtube video excuse come from? Who researched that and presented it to the president as the cause of the attack? Shouldn't that person(s) be fired? I sure hope Obama is not still relying on him/her for direction. But, I have a feeling he is.
 
The obvious reason previous embassy attacks may not have been covered as much is the lack of drama. There were no ongoing attacks which the US failed to respond to. There was not a top diplomat killed. They did not take place in a country which the US had previously helped to overthrow. There were no attempts at covering up the motivation. There was no Secretary of State who got a headache and couldn't testify. The President did not withhold information and witnesses. There were no whistleblowers.

In essence the President is making it drag on. Maybe hes a evil genius and doing it to distract Republicans.

Don't worry.....after yesterday. Everything will be alright now. The Democrats are now calling for More hearings. This means it is okay to talk about Benghazi now. Because the Democrats now want to have MORE hearings. This means we will get to the bottom of things and will know everything and all there is to know about Benghazi. All it took was for the Good Ole Democrats to scratch their heads and say......we need more hearings. Mr Chairman......we want more hearings.
sarcasm2.gif
 
Seems the MSM in the US didn't want to focus on that which took place with the Embassy in Yemen but that one day. Despite foreign new sources covering events for a 90 day period.

Do you think that's due to to False and misleading information, not getting the whole story out from the beginning. That might have led to the cause?

Considering we have Team Obama holding up the release of documents, giving conficiting statements have all contributed to......as to why this issue is still going on?

i think it's because we have embassies in nations where we should have no physical presence whatsoever. the idea of putting a US embassy in a hostile nation which is in unstable transition is just madness, but we've chosen an interventionist path, and this requires an enormous presence in the region. if i could wave a wand and get us out of the entire area, i would seriously consider doing so.

as for the required second term scandal, i think this one wasn't the best which could have been chosen. the real scandal is that the US has been conducting drone strikes on US citizens and those around them with almost no oversight. this is something that i just can't support, and i wouldn't support it if other governments were doing the same thing to their own rogue nationals within US borders. when the Benghazi incident fades, perhaps the drone strikes should get the spotlight. the most recent two administrations have used drone strikes against US citizens abroad with very little public outcry. i don't know if fox entertainment is covering that, but someone should.
 
Don't worry.....after yesterday. Everything will be alright now. The Democrats are now calling for More hearings. This means it is okay to talk about Benghazi now. Because the Democrats now want to have MORE hearings. This means we will get to the bottom of things and will know everything and all there is to know about Benghazi. All it took was for the Good Ole Democrats to scratch their heads and say......we need more hearings. Mr Chairman......we want more hearings.
sarcasm2.gif

And then when the truth is reached, and the bottom of the barrel has been scraped, the real conspiracy begins. Isn't that generally how it goes?
 
And then when the truth is reached, and the bottom of the barrel has been scraped, the real conspiracy begins. Isn't that generally how it goes?

:lol: Why of course.....I just wonder what the Obamabots will do. Once the Democrats start blaming them along with Republicans. Kinda hard to Blame Bush. When a Democrat is calling for that azz.
thinking.gif
 
:lol: Why of course.....I just wonder what the Obamabots will do.

Probably yawn, grab some popcorn, and watch the Republicans self-destruct over yet another witch hunt.
 
Probably yawn, grab some popcorn, and watch the Republicans self-destruct over yet another witch hunt.

Yeah, We know what they will do when the Republicans step out and speak up. So whats the answer for when the Democrats do it to them. ;)
 
Yeah, We know what they will do when the Republicans step out and speak up. So whats the answer for when the Democrats do it to them. ;)

Much of the same. Let me know when Obama is impeached.
 
Pathetic is that this is what the GOP considers a "cover-up". Obama and Clinton on the day following the attack call it terror from militants....but somehow something is being "covered-up".

The GOP has tried to to make Obama the fall guy for an economy that collapsed during Bush, now they fear Clinton so much that they think this will stick to her.

Pathetic, indeed.

What complete BS.

The WEEKS after the event, Clinton and Obama kept referring over and over and over to a video that no one had ever seen as the cause of this "spontaneous demonstration" that turned violent. They did not call it a planned terrorist attack for a long time.

In fact, their harping of this video actually got people in the Middle East riled up to watch, and THAT led to demonstrations elsewhere that led to more death and casualties. That blood is directly on Clinton and Obama.

Quit defending this. You look childish.
 
Much of the same. Let me know when Obama is impeached.

Never happen.....most he would get is a rebuke. As in.....

Bad Mr President<<<<<(points finger at Obama),
pointlaugh.gif
Very Bad, Don't do that again, Mr President.<<<<<(waves finger in his face)
nono.gif
That's Bad. Very Bad. You're a Bad Mr President.
rulez.gif
 
It was stated in the first line up about the Demonstration and the Make believe protest then the lie that the Attack wasn't pre-planned. Did you miss it while you were looking for some way out?
He did not say on the 12th in the Rose Garden that the act of terror was a result of protests.

And lets make this clear, the House intel committee requested that the CIA begin an investigation, they came back with the preliminary finding that it was a result of protests. This is the basis of your so called "lie". In the weeks following the CIA modified their findings as new intel was made available.

Yes you are pointing out what they are saying. What you fail to understand.....is they are pointing out that Obama did not call it an act of terrorism. Meaning that it was pre-planned. So it goes down as not Admitting it was a terrorist act. When it Actually was.
Again, Superman Obama with his x-ray vision was supposed to be able to see over the horizon that the CIA intel was incorrect less than 24hrs after the event.....because that would have made a difference?

Despite the Libyan President who said all along before the lowly US UN Ambassador Susan Rice humiliated him and basically inferred he didn't know what he was talking about. Or that he was a liar. I am sure overseas you can see which way they took that.
Oooowh...I sure you keep up with the international press, I'm sure you are VERY sensitive for slights against the Libyan leadership.....in fact I bet you were cheering on the admin when Qaddaffi was being ousted....by NATO and the US.

Cry me a river.

Oh and all that is broken down.....for your Basic easy understanding. As more complex forms of sentence structure would lead you to write an encyclopedia. Over the fact that you were wrong.
I still waiting for the logic here, the admin covered up something and lied about something and this something lead to .......what?
 
Back
Top Bottom