Funny Boo. That is precisely how Obama sees things. No personal responsibility, it's always someone else who is at fault.
He had to cover this up. His team could not figure out how to blame Bush.
Frankly, the whining I see is as much, if not more, from conservatives who blame everyone around them.
As for the cover up, provide some evidence. A claim is not evidence.
Susan Rice making the talk shows and saying that the attack was due to some protest based on the intel they had at the time. Was the beginning of the evidence. Then Obamas Press Secretary Jay Carney stating the same thing. Only to come out 10 days later stating they now knew it was a planned attack by militants. Notice the Terminology. Militants. There are several videos of what she stated and we do have a thread here on what she stated. So there is no getting around that fact.
Moreover Obama if you recall at the second debate yelled for Candy. Show the tape, show the tape. Yeesssss show the tape in the Rose Garden. Any reason Obama didn't want to reference his first speech at Andrews Air Force base with Clinton upon receiving the Bodies of Stevens and the fallen. Notice he didn't mention an act of terror in that Speech.
In addition Both Clinton and Obama knew that a trade Association and some Pakistani minister used world wide media to put a bounty on the guy that made the Anti Islam Movie. Which after 23 Muslim countries protested and rioted our Embassies. Clinton a week later was still imploring the Indians, Mali and Pakistan from resorting to violence. Stating they condemned the making of the movie.
Seems the only ones whining are those that keep asking for more details. Do you think this is why Fienstein and other Democrats wants answers and why Fienstein has called For Senate hearings after the Election? there goes that theory about only conservatives looking to blame everyone around them.....huh?
When the left has EJ Dunne, Lanny Davis, and James Carville questioning this Administrations actions and statements over Benghazi.....speaks Volumnes for those who have ears!
I'm sorry, but in order to accept that as evidence, you have to read in a conclusion you have started with. It is usually a mistake to begin with the conclusion.
Nice. Wishing for a terrorist attack on the Capitol. You're so much better than Ahmedinijad. :roll:
No actually I can look in the thread we have and see the Video of Susan Rice and her very own words. Especially about the intel that was had at the time. Course now the rest have validated it was a planned attack. So how was that again that Susan Rices own words can't be used against her as evidence with evidence starting as a conclusion?
Frankly, the whining I see is as much, if not more, from conservatives who blame everyone around them.
As for the cover up, provide some evidence. A claim is not evidence.
Because that isn't even the issue. A lot of people said a lot of things. Some accurate, some not. But you have to show a deliberate cover up. Not that people said inaccurate things.
Could it be they're doing the blaming because the blamed are actually at fault? Obama's record shows his lack of honesty. He failed on so many levels it's a miracle people still support him.
What part of "Obama said it two weeks later" and "they knew within 24 hours" didn't make sense to you? They knew right away, everyone involved did. Yet two weeks later they came out spewing the same bogus lie.
In your opinion how long should the investigation go on before Obama finds out what role he played?
Because that isn't even the issue. A lot of people said a lot of things. Some accurate, some not. But you have to show a deliberate cover up. Not that people said inaccurate things.
How wasn't it a deliberate cover up when the CIA, Libya, and Clinton have come and stated there was no protest. Rice made all the talk shows on a Sunday. Why do you think Republicans want her Resignation? There is no doubt Rice stated there was a protest outside the Libyan Consulate. She was flat out denying that it was a planned attack and only after the CIA and Clinton with Obama stating they now knew it was pre-planned. Did she then change her remarks.
So some things were covered. Maybe not all of it.....but that doesn't give them the right to play it like they didn't know what was happening and going on.
Which later Obama confirmed on 60 minutes. When he stated he thought there was something going on there.
Either way incompetency will not be a valid excuse to chase away a failed policy.
The comments of the human debris that occupies the leftmost part of the political spectrum disgust me. We see them here. They believe they are oh-so-intelligent. But they are shells of human beings. There is a thin veneer with no core, no center, no soul.
You are one of the reasons why Obama's Benghazi Massacre will not go away.
You mean like saying Obama closed down Jeep and had those jobs outsourced to China? Or the entire "you didn't build that" dishonesty? Or how about this gem: "Regulations have quadrupled. The rate of regulations quadrupled under this president." Or this one: President Obama has "doubled" the deficit.
What you have to show, with evidence and not speculation, is an actual cover up.
If he corrected it, it's not a cover up. What don't you get?
So, even you give an alternative possibility. And others may see a third, or a fourth, or a fifth. So, what is needed is more evidence. Speculation isn't news. And that is the point here.
So, even you give an alternative possibility. And others may see a third, or a fourth, or a fifth. So, what is needed is more evidence. Speculation isn't news. And that is the point here.
He only corrected it when the evidence came out in the hearing. There was evidence to support the claims that they knew 24 hours after the event happened though, so why didn't they just come out and say it? It was a cover up UNTIL the hearing when they started calling it a terrorist attack. It's like getting in trouble for something but only admitting you did it after they find proof that you did. It doesn't changed what happened or lift any fault, but it begs the question, "Why did you lie to us?"
You may rightly criticizing him for being slow to correct. I do that. But it simply is not the scandal some are trying to make it. A coverup requires much, much more. it is like with nearly ever criticism of Obama, some feel the need to try and hype it. For the life of me I don't understand why your side has to destroy any real criticism by jumping off hyperbole mountain. It destroys your credibility when you do that, giving him a pass because few reasonable people will go with you.
Edumatcation is great!
Watergate scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And it is not actually clear that the President denied anything. You are simply jumping at what you want to be true and dismissing everything you don't like as false.
You may rightly criticizing him for being slow to correct. I do that. But it simply is not the scandal some are trying to make it. A coverup requires much, much more. it is like with nearly ever criticism of Obama, some feel the need to try and hype it. For the life of me I don't understand why your side has to destroy any real criticism by jumping off hyperbole mountain. It destroys your credibility when you do that, giving him a pass because few reasonable people will go with you.
President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully denied deliberately misleading Americans about the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi, telling radio host Michael Smerconish, "I've always been straight with the American people."
Asked whether the administration's shifting explanation for the September 11 strike reflected the intelligence he was receiving, Obama replied: "What's true is that the intelligence was coming in and evolving as more information came up.
"And what is true," he continued, "...This is something that the American people can take to the bank—is that my administration plays this stuff straight. We don't play politics when it comes to American national security," the president said. "As information came in we gave it to the American people. And as we got new information, we gave that to the American people."
Asked whether he knew Americans in Libya had asked for more security, Obama replied: "I was not personally aware of any request. Obviously we have an infrastructure that's set up to manage requests like that," in reference to the State Department.....snip~
Obama rebuts claims he
He has always been straight with the American People.....does anyone actually believe this point Obama make? Is that why there are leaks coming out of the WH all because he always plays it straight with the American people? Or is that so he can influence the MSM with whatever story he wants to project. Head them off at the pass so to speak. Get in those diversions and deflections so focus doesn't force them to come up with answers.