The truth about Libya - for those interested in truth

[landrun]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znVqyfxfbRQ&feature=player_embedded

The Obama admin doesn't care about the deaths of Americans, they only care about their own political careers. Obama's crowd tried to cover up their failures by lying.

[BigTip]

lol, and there is Candy calling the administration out about lying about it! Perfect!

[cleller]

lol, and there is Candy calling the administration out about lying about it! Perfect!

Have I just missed it, or has this not been featured in the major news outlets?

[MamaMia]

This was a debate, not the Candy Crowley Show. She should have just moved on and let the news commentators and politicians hash over all the talking points afterward, like they have always done.

Both candidates were concerned when she went on shows saying that she was not going to just be a "fly on the wall." As it turned out, they were obviously justified in their concerns.

She was the first female commentator. As a woman I expected more professionalism out of her. I was embarrassed and disappointed. I hope the next female commentator will respect the protocol and do a better job.

[sappstuf]

Suspect in Libya Attack, in Plain Sight, Scoffs at U.S. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/world/africa/suspect-in-benghazi-attack-scoffs-at-us.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all)

From the NYTimes.


Witnesses and the authorities have called Ahmed Abu Khattala one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 attack on the American diplomatic mission here. But just days after President Obama reasserted his vow to bring those responsible to justice, Mr. Abu Khattala spent two leisurely hours on Thursday evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping mango juice on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan governments.

Mr. Abu Khattala’s defiance — no authority has even questioned him about the attack, he said, and he has no plans to go into hiding — offered insight into the shadowy landscape of the self-formed militias that have come to constitute the only source of social order in Libya since the fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

[yermom]

i think the truth about Libya is that they had the CIA there and really don't want to talk about it

[StoopTroup]

She was the first female commentator. As a woman I expected more professionalism out of her. I was embarrassed and disappointed. I hope the next female commentator will respect the protocol and do a better job.

Have you ever watched Megan Kelly on Fox? You aren't embarrassed when you watch that?

Honestly...I think you feel that way because she actually Fact Checked the Statement Immediately which is what a good journalist would and should do. Matter of fact....if Megan Kelly and the folks on Fox hadn't been setting Romney up for that since it happened....maybe he wouldn't have fallen into that trap? He obviously wasn't well prepared for that conversation or expected to be able to just have President Obama tell him it was a lie before moving on to "Goodnight and thanks for having me Candy."?

When a guy you are debating goes...."Carry on Governor" and you go right on with your lie.....obviously you can predict the Moderator is going to be Unprofessional right after you step right into a moving Truck.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Are you high...again?

[hawaii 5-0]

Some people flat out don't want to handle the truth.

Especially on this topic.

It's one of those "it depends on what is is." moments, 'cept the word now is 'terrorism' not 'is'.



5-0

[StoopTroup]

Are you high...again?

Are you?

[SicEmBaylor]

Have you ever watched Megan Kelly on Fox? You aren't embarrassed when you watch that?

Honestly...I think you feel that way because she actually Fact Checked the Statement Immediately which is what a good journalist would and should do. Matter of fact....if Megan Kelly and the folks on Fox hadn't been setting Romney up for that since it happened....maybe he wouldn't have fallen into that trap? He obviously wasn't well prepared for that conversation or expected to be able to just have President Obama tell him it was a lie before moving on to "Goodnight and thanks for having me Candy."?

When a guy you are debating goes...."Carry on Governor" and you go right on with your lie.....obviously you can predict the Moderator is going to be Unprofessional right after you step right into a moving Truck.

Romney was right -- he did not refer to it as a terrorist act. Obama explicitly referred to the Libyan embassy attack as an act prompted by that f'n YouTube video. This was after the US government had intelligence to the contrary. At the very end, he said acts of terror would not be tolerated but he was speaking in general terms and not specifically of the Libyan attack.

There is no getting around that the State Dept. and White House royally f'd up and that mistake cost the lives of several Americans including our ambassador.

[StoopTroup]

Romney was right -- he did not refer to it as a terrorist act. Obama explicitly referred to the Libyan embassy attack as an act prompted by that f'n YouTube video. This was after the US government had intelligence to the contrary. At the very end, he said acts of terror would not be tolerated but he was speaking in general terms and not specifically of the Libyan attack.

There is no getting around that the State Dept. and White House royally f'd up and that mistake cost the lives of several Americans including our ambassador.

That's what you call spin. They both do it. Get hold of yourself.....the room is spinning and you don't know it again.

[MamaMia]

Have you ever watched Megan Kelly on Fox? You aren't embarrassed when you watch that?

Honestly...I think you feel that way because she actually Fact Checked the Statement Immediately which is what a good journalist would and should do. Matter of fact....if Megan Kelly and the folks on Fox hadn't been setting Romney up for that since it happened....maybe he wouldn't have fallen into that trap? He obviously wasn't well prepared for that conversation or expected to be able to just have President Obama tell him it was a lie before moving on to "Goodnight and thanks for having me Candy."?

When a guy you are debating goes...."Carry on Governor" and you go right on with your lie.....obviously you can predict the Moderator is going to be Unprofessional right after you step right into a moving Truck. The times I don't feel you know what the heck you're talking about are increasing in number. After reading your post in the "Bob Stoops refuses to take calls in his call in show" thread on the football forum, and now this, I believe tonight is one of those times.

[SicEmBaylor]

That's what you call spin. They both do it. Get hold of yourself.....the room is spinning and you don't know it again.

Too easy. Way way too easy.

[hawaii 5-0]

Romney was right -- he did not refer to it as a terrorist act. Obama explicitly referred to the Libyan embassy attack as an act prompted by that f'n YouTube video. This was after the US government had intelligence to the contrary. At the very end, he said acts of terror would not be tolerated but he was speaking in general terms and not specifically of the Libyan attack.

There is no getting around that the State Dept. and White House royally f'd up and that mistake cost the lives of several Americans including our ambassador.


I believe at the time of his speech in the Rose Garden Obama didn't really know what the truth was so he generalized by using the term 'acts of terrorism'.

He didn't say 'results of a film' or 'wait for the closing credits, there's more'.

5-0

[StoopTroup]

Too easy. Way way too easy.

You got it started YoYo.

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/161911_146823948723444_1130463397_n.jpg

[StoopTroup]

I believe at the time of his speech in the Rose Garden Obama didn't really know what the truth was so he generalized by using the term 'acts of terrorism'.

He didn't say 'results of a film' or 'wait for the closing credits, there's more'.

5-0

No that would be to easy. Let em spin it into another four Years of President Obama. They got this.

[SicEmBaylor]

You got it started YoYo.

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/161911_146823948723444_1130463397_n.jpg

Eh..yeah...did you actually watch the Obama press conference that Romney referred to? Because I have. There is no spin -- Obama said what he said and didn't say what he didn't say. There is no way to "spin" that.

I'm definitely not the one "tripping."

[SicEmBaylor]

I believe at the time of his speech in the Rose Garden Obama didn't really know what the truth was so he generalized by using the term 'acts of terrorism'.

He didn't say 'results of a film' or 'wait for the closing credits, there's more'.

5-0

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't know (although I think he did) it was a terrorist attack. How in the hell is it responsible for a President of the United States to go before the cameras and blame something like this on a YouTube video if, in fact, he didn't know the facts? The truth is, he was trying to defuse the situation by appearing sympathetic to islamic extremists. It was irresponsible. The only statement that should have been made at that point was to condemn the attack and vow to learn all of the facts and ensure those responsible were dealt with.

[StoopTroup]

Eh..yeah...did you actually watch the Obama press conference that Romney referred to? Because I have. There is no spin -- Obama said what he said and didn't say what he didn't say. There is no way to "spin" that.

I'm definitely not the one "tripping."

Post it. Maybe I haven't seen what you are talking about. I'll run through it again just for you.

If you are talking about this though....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7bDUhxNEDg

Don't bother. I've poured through it so many times I've lost count. I think I've even seen transcripts of it. I know I've seen people using and mis-using statements from it.

And I didn't say you were tripping....I said you were spinning it...so quit tripping.

[StoopTroup]

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't know (although I think he did) it was a terrorist attack. How in the hell is it responsible for a President of the United States to go before the cameras and blame something like this on a YouTube video if, in fact, he didn't know the facts? The truth is, he was trying to defuse the situation by appearing sympathetic to islamic extremists. It was irresponsible. The only statement that should have been made at that point was to condemn the attack and vow to learn all of the facts and ensure those responsible were dealt with.

Where did he go before the cameras and blame it on the video?

Post it. I want to see the transcripts too.

Now if you are going to post something someone else said and then spin that into he went before the cameras...

That's spin SicEm. I'm tired and headed to bed but I'll check back to review all of your facts tomorrow.

[cleller]

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't know (although I think he did) it was a terrorist attack. How in the hell is it responsible for a President of the United States to go before the cameras and blame something like this on a YouTube video if, in fact, he didn't know the facts? The truth is, he was trying to defuse the situation by appearing sympathetic to islamic extremists. It was irresponsible. The only statement that should have been made at that point was to condemn the attack and vow to learn all of the facts and ensure those responsible were dealt with.

Obviously a very likely scenario. Also lucid.

[StoopTroup]

I think I remember some folks telling to admit it...Obama lost the debate. (you know...after the 1st debate - The one that landed on his wife and his Anniversary)....

Face it....Romney got his milk tits in a wringer on Libya.

Just let it go....

[cleller]

i think the truth about Libya is that they had the CIA there and really don't want to talk about it

Sounds like it, based on some new reports about what the CIA in Libya communicated to Washington after the attacks.

The truth is very easy to find by anyone interested in doing a very few minutes of research. The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington in under 24 hours that it was an organized attack by militants, and not a mob attack.
http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2019472644_apususlibya.html

Even though Obama was far more concerned about heading out for his campaign commitments than this "bump in the road", he had to have been informed. Yet for several days his handlers kept trying to lay it on the video. On Sept 18, he sat on Letterman and with a serious, straight face laid the emphasis for the attacks on the video, while throwing in the word "terrorists" at the end as if an afterthought.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7422152n
When Obama spoke to the UN on Sept 24 he first eulogized Chris Stevens. He then thanked the Libyan government for its help and understanding. He then drifts into a broad rebuke of violence due to intolerance, then on to the Arab Spring, and growing democracy. He then brings up conflict, and says "that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the muslim world" Then he gives a long pause, and cold glare and says, "Now I have made it clear that the United States is not responsible for this video." His implication is clear. He is trying to infer the violence, including the killing of Ambassador Stevens was a result of this video. This was 13 days after the attack.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7423260n

If you don't mind watching a Fox timeline of the events with plenty of video documentation, you can see the pattern of deception clearly. The main point to remember, which has come out since Fox did this piece, is that Washington had been informed by the CIA within 24 hours that the attack was organized by militants. Most likely the CIA gave much greater detail, which has not been released. The White House either knew quite well who was responsible for the attacks and attempted to hide it, or was just more concerned with other activities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDgA4-ZGTr8&feature=related

[Turd_Ferguson]

ST and Yermoms head are gonna explode...

[StoopTroup]

Sure it is....

21 days till you see if you get to see if Ted Nugent shoots himself.

[cleller]

Well, I stopped listening before the best part of his UN speech. A little further along Obama says, "there is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy". He then continues on to paint the video as the cause for all the violence. Talk about your smoking gun!

Either a huge lie, or an inconceivably ill-informed president. And all of it in front of the UN. That's up their with Khrushchev and his shoe.

[MamaMia]

Well, I stopped listening before the best part of his UN speech. A little further along Obama says, "there is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy". He then continues on to paint the video as the cause for all the violence. Talk about your smoking gun!

Either a huge lie, or an inconceivably ill-informed president. And all of it in front of the UN. That's up their with Khrushchev and his shoe.http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y86/OUmom/smilies/coffee-2.gif...or the best con artist that ever sat foot in the Oval office.

[pphilfran]

Start at the 10 minute mark... UN Speech http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7423260n

"In every country there are those that find different religious beliefs threatening. In every culture. Those that love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others. And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks is a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. (10:15 mark) Now I have made it clear that the US government had nothing to do with this video and I believe it's message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is not an insult only to Muslims but to America as well. For as the city outside these walls makes clear we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims that worship across our country.
We not only respect the freedom of religion we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense of this video because millions of our citizens are among them. I know there are some who ask why we just don't ban such a video. The answer in enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the rights to practice free speech. Here in the United State countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are christian and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander in Chief of our military I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day. And I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express themselves of their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech but because our founders understood that without such protections the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened......there is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents, there is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy... (13:57 mark)

That should be enough transcribing...

Good reading!

[StoopTroup]

You do realize the Embassy in Cairo and Yemen were also attacked?

Why of course you don't....It doesn't fit your spin.

[pphilfran]

You do realize the Embassy in Cairo and Yemen were also attacked?

Why of course you don't....It doesn't fit your spin.

I didn't spin ****....those are his words...I heard no mention of terrorist attack in the speech...take them however you wish...

[Turd_Ferguson]

I didn't spin ****....those are his words...I heard no mention of terrorist attack in the speech...take them however you wish...

You have to understand, anything that doesn't fit ST's eye...is spin.

[pphilfran]

You have to understand, anything that doesn't fit ST's eye...is spin.
I know...I am quite the spin doctor...a 30 minute video of his entire UN speech...he talks about embassy burnings...and schools and churches getting burned down...and people and Ambassadors getting killed...and violence throughout the world due to hatred and free speech...but not a single word about terrorist acts...and many accusations about a disgusting video...

No doubt...I am the spin doctor...

[StoopTroup]

You have to understand, anything that doesn't fit ST's eye...is spin.

And your body of work in this forum borders on being a Barker outside a Tijuana Donkey Show.

[pphilfran]

And your body of work in this forum borders on being a Barker outside a Tijuana Donkey Show.


You said I was the spin doctor...yet you are unable to back up any terrorism claim from his speech...he never uttered the words...a lot about free speech....and tolerance....religious freedom...and a whole **** pot full of talk about that crappy *** video...

[SicEmBaylor]

And your body of work in this forum borders on being a Barker outside a Tijuana Donkey Show.
Holy God you are dense as hell.

[Whet]

Also, the CIA is at ALL embassies and consulates, so there is nothing special about them being there that would require the liar in chief to lie to protect the CIA.

[hawaii 5-0]

I didn't spin ****....those are his words...I heard no mention of terrorist attack in the speech...take them however you wish...


This whole argument is about Romney's claim that it was 2 weeks before Obama admitted it was an act of terrorism.

He had been making this claim since the attack.

When Romney yet again made the claim at the 2nd debate both Obama and the Moderator were quick to remind him of his lie.....that Obama had called it terrorism since the day after the attack. 9-12-12.

All the U.N., video, etc. didn't matter as far as Romney's claim was concerned. He was wrong and was called to task.

What's amazing is that no one on Romney's Team bothered to fact check and learn the truth before letting Romney lie during speeches for 2 whole weeks.

Pretty sad group of advisors.

5-0

[pphilfran]

Hot off the press...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/libya-attack-cia-discovery-us-consulate-killings_n_1984429.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D222984

WASHINGTON (AP) — The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Much more at link....

[pphilfran]

This whole argument is about Romney's claim that it was 2 weeks before Obama admitted it was an act of terrorism.

He had been making this claim since the attack.

When Romney yet again made the claim at the 2nd debate both Obama and the Moderator were quick to remind him of his lie.....that Obama had called it terrorism since the day after the attack. 9-12-12.

All the U.N., video, etc. didn't matter as far as Romney's claim was concerned. He was wrong and was called to task.

What's amazing is that no one on Romney's Team bothered to fact check and learn the truth before letting Romney lie during speeches for 2 whole weeks.

Pretty sad group of advisors.

5-0

Then why did his underlings keep talking about the video for such a long period of time...shouldn't he have set them straight at some point in time?

How do you explain the video on the first post of the thread?

I am usually pretty easy at giving the benefit of doubt...but damn...everyone under him was saying the same thing about the video...

[hawaii 5-0]

Some nice analysis Phil, but it doesn't change the transcript of Obama's speech the day after the attack.

I hope the whole truth eventually comes out, including why the House voted to decrese spending for Embassy security.

5-0

[8timechamps]

I think the White House thinks they covered their *** on this. They used the phrase "act of terror" in reference to the attacks. What is the difference between "act of terror" and "terrorist action", well, for starters an "act of terror" can be just about anything. A "terrorist act" would mean a planned action. Which, is exactly what happened. They never came out and called it a "terrorist action/attack". Why?

When I first thought about this, I thought maybe I was putting too much emphasis on semantics. But, the more I think about it, the more I think the White House screwed up on this, then in retrospect, realized that using the phrase "act of terror", they could save face.

In the end, most anyone that has followed this knows that the White House spin was to blame the video. Hell, we discussed it here. We knew then it was BS.

[pphilfran]

Some nice analysis Phil, but it doesn't change the transcript of Obama's speech the day after the attack.

I hope the whole truth eventually comes out, including why the House voted to decrese spending for Embassy security.

5-0

The whole mess was a cluster ****...we have our finger in every pie in the world...sooner or later we are going to lose a finger or two...sometimes an arm...

[hawaii 5-0]

I've no doubt there was some spinning going on. I believed the UN ambassador myself, initially, then thought the demonstration was just a cover for the attack.

There's been a lot of info thrown out there regardless. And still not enough.

I doubt the people at the top knew immediately what happened and released info as it came in, without checking for accuracy.

5-0

[8timechamps]

I've no doubt there was some spinning going on. I believed the UN ambassador myself, initially, then thought the demonstration was just a cover for the attack.

There's been a lot of info thrown out there regardless. And still not enough.

I doubt the people at the top knew immediately what happened and released info as it came in, without checking for accuracy.

5-0

I'm thinking along those same lines.

Honestly, I hate that this has become a political football. But, it's that time and anything that can be argued, will be.

[pphilfran]

I've no doubt there was some spinning going on. I believed the UN ambassador myself, initially, then thought the demonstration was just a cover for the attack.

There's been a lot of info thrown out there regardless. And still not enough.

I doubt the people at the top knew immediately what happened and released info as it came in, without checking for accuracy.

5-0

I agree...it is easy to jump the gun when the pressure is on...but we just can't afford for that to happen in these type situations...and if you do misspeak you should fess up, say you were wrong, and move on...

[StoopTroup]

I think the White House thinks they covered their *** on this. They used the phrase "act of terror" in reference to the attacks. What is the difference between "act of terror" and "terrorist action", well, for starters an "act of terror" can be just about anything. A "terrorist act" would mean a planned action. Which, is exactly what happened. They never came out and called it a "terrorist action/attack". Why?

When I first thought about this, I thought maybe I was putting too much emphasis on semantics. But, the more I think about it, the more I think the White House screwed up on this, then in retrospect, realized that using the phrase "act of terror", they could save face.

In the end, most anyone that has followed this knows that the White House spin was to blame the video. Hell, we discussed it here. We knew then it was BS.

I'd speak and say things a bit differently if this wasn't an election year but Romney is using it to try and get elected and IMO it's just not an Election Topic. I do think we maybe need to consider ways to make sure our Embassies are better protected on the many days where it's obviously al jazeera or 9-11 or something in the news that increases tensions but in this case I think Ambassador Stevens and his detail were really responsible for increasing the risk they were under. Of course I have no proof to go with that but it makes more sense than all this crap being tossed around that Americans here at home intentionally turned down extra security requests that endangered them. If you didn't want to get killed on 9-11....I would have stayed close to the new Libya Leaders instead of treat it like a vacation and head to Benghazi for some pool time. We just don't know WTH happened. This entire thread IMO is an exercise in futility.

[pphilfran]

I'd speak and say things a bit differently if this wasn't an election year but Romney is using it to try and get elected and IMO it's just not an Election Topic. I do think we maybe need to consider ways to make sure our Embassies are better protected on the many days where it's obviously al jazeera or 9-11 or something in the news that increases tensions but in this case I think Ambassador Stevens and his detail were really responsible for increasing the risk they were under. Of course I have no proof to go with that but it makes more sense than all this crap being tossed around that Americans here at home intentionally turned down extra security requests that endangered them. If you didn't want to get killed on 9-11....I would have stayed close to the new Libya Leaders instead of treat it like a vacation and head to Benghazi for some pool time. We just don't know WTH happened. This entire thread IMO is an exercise in futility.

Both sides make a big deal every time the opposition farts...

But people died in this case...something went terribly wrong and there are still few answers...somebody needs to have their *** in a crack...I seriously doubt that Obama is where it ends but there damn sure needs to be someone help accountable for some terrible decisions...

[olevetonahill]

Both sides make a big deal every time the opposition farts...

But people died in this case...something went terribly wrong and there are still few answers...somebody needs to have their *** in a crack...I seriously doubt that Obama is where it ends but there damn sure needs to be someone help accountable for some terrible decisions...

All Yall missin the whole ****in Point, Listen to the Spin master Then hang yer heads in shame


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

[MamaMia]

And your body of work in this forum borders on being a Barker outside a Tijuana Donkey Show. Really ST, really? You've got NOTHING, but you just cant let go. If Obama claimed this was terror in his speech then come up with it. So far, all I see are layers of nothing coming from you but this kind of unsubstantiated nonsense.

[C&CDean]

Jeezus Greg, please stop. I mean c'mon and ****. ****ing criminy.

[cleller]

I don't think its as muddled as the White House hopes we will believe. In the aftermath, the White House would have had a roomfull of advisors going over the recent events in Libya. Requests for more security which were ignored, no planning for the likelihood of attacks on 9-11, etc.
There would also be CIA personnel immediately identifying that the nature of the attack, and firepower used were not the tactics of a mob of civilians. Basically, an Ambassador was dead due to neglect.

The fact that there was widespread outrage, and even more widespread media coverage of the mohammad video provided an timely opportunity to let the two events blend together. It is much more palatable to let the world believe your embassy was overrun by a manic and unpredictable mob than to admit it was attacked by militants on 9-11 that you should have prepared for.

Using the phrase "act of terror" afterward is meaningless in the context of this argument. Obama and his people repeatedly and deliberately attempted to blame the incident of the mob from the video, it too could be called an act of terror.

The administration simply got caught flat footed and culpable, and tried to find a smokescreen. They were concentrating so much on the election as the 9-11 anniversary approached, they had ignored the danger. Then, Obama still leaves for a campaign trip. That was the higher priority.

[StoopTroup]

Jeezus Greg, please stop. I mean c'mon and ****. ****ing criminy.

You see it the way you want. I see it differently. I have reason for liking the Current POTUS and you can make it stop come November 6th by getting Romney elected. Then you won't even need this forum because the clouds will part, the sun will shine and the massive debt will begin to disappear by the end of his first year as POTUS. Our Troops will be home by Febrauary, Obamacare will be repealed, The rich will begin to create jobs and we will all quit having to pay Federal Income Tax as the States will be in charge of their own problems again.

The Pipeline will begin being built and we can drain every ounce of oil we have left from the ground and everyone will live comfortably except the 47% of the scum that are on food stamps and are what have ruined America. China will quake in fear and the jobs we lost will return for those who can do them. The rest can help Walmart Shoppers who will begin to prep for the month we take to bring Iran to their knees and stop them from terrorizing us and Israel with their Weapon of Mass Destruction.

So it's like what...21 days till Romney is POTUS, and around 90-120 days before the mess that this current POTUS has made over the last 4 years is fixed and America can relax and praise Mitt Romney for being an even better POTUS that President Reagan.

The salad days are near Dean.

Just chill out.

We can all still hate texas together.

[SicEmBaylor]

This whole argument is about Romney's claim that it was 2 weeks before Obama admitted it was an act of terrorism.

He had been making this claim since the attack.

When Romney yet again made the claim at the 2nd debate both Obama and the Moderator were quick to remind him of his lie.....that Obama had called it terrorism since the day after the attack. 9-12-12.

All the U.N., video, etc. didn't matter as far as Romney's claim was concerned. He was wrong and was called to task.

What's amazing is that no one on Romney's Team bothered to fact check and learn the truth before letting Romney lie during speeches for 2 whole weeks.

Pretty sad group of advisors.

5-0

This issue is a quibble over semantics. Obama did condemn "attacks of terror" at the end of his rose garden press conference, but he was speaking in general terms and never specifically referred to the embassy attack as an act of terror -- he condemned the YouTube video.

Obama consistently condemned acts of terror, but again he was speaking in broad general terms.

[StoopTroup]

It was started by Romney's Statement and the media ran with it. Semantics? It's damage control for Romney spun into trying to make something out of it for the POTUS and it's sickening.

[olevetonahill]

Read this, Then STFU already

http://news.yahoo.com/candy-crowley-self-destructs-070000864.html;_ylt=A2KJhzpsKoJQEwYA1ALNt.d_;_ylu= X3oDMTVxbDQzYTk4BGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraX VwcmVzdARtaXQDQXJ0aWNsZSBNaXhlZCBMaXN0IE5ld3MgZm9y IFlvdSB3aXRoIE1vcmUgTGluawRwa2cDNDhmN2ZlYjItNDMwMC 0zZDQ1LWE5OWEtNWNmZDYzNmZjMWI5BHBvcwMxBHNlYwNuZXdz X2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyA2Q2NzdhMTQwLTE5ZGMtMTFlMi1iZmIyLT lhNzRlMzYwZjcxOQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTM1MGkwZDI5BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDOGE3ODUzNWMtZjdiOS0zNjcyLWFkNGItOGFiNzM1Mj RlNGJiBHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3x0aGV0aWNrZXQEcHQDc3Rv cnlwYWdl;_ylv=3

[sappstuf]

Some nice analysis Phil, but it doesn't change the transcript of Obama's speech the day after the attack.

I hope the whole truth eventually comes out, including why the House voted to decrese spending for Embassy security.

5-0

There was $2.2 billion set aside in a discretionary fund for Libya that the Obama administration could have used for security if they wished to use it. Instead it set there unused.

Charlene Lamb, the State Department official that actually received security requests for Libya stated under oath that funding was never a concern in her decision making process.

http://wideworldofnovelwriting.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/redherring1.jpg

[hawaii 5-0]

http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Republican-Admits-House-GO-in-General_News-121011-587.html


Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

When the Utah Republican was asked if he had 'voted to cut the funding for embassy security.' 'Absolutely,' Chaffetz said. For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

Looks like lots of people are to share the blame.

5-0

[olevetonahill]

http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Republican-Admits-House-GO-in-General_News-121011-587.html


Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

When the Utah Republican was asked if he had 'voted to cut the funding for embassy security.' 'Absolutely,' Chaffetz said. For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

Looks like lots of people are to share the blame.

5-0

Spin an deflect all ya want shell boy
What YOU posted means squat IF they had 2.2 Billion and Din use it. Sounds Like they could have cut another 2Bil and still been good .

[cleller]

There was $2.2 billion set aside in a discretionary fund for Libya that the Obama administration could have used for security if they wished to use it. Instead it set there unused.

Charlene Lamb, the State Department official that actually received security requests for Libya stated under oath that funding was never a concern in her decision making process.

http://wideworldofnovelwriting.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/redherring1.jpg

Someone better check to see if The Libya Discretionary Fund has been making thousands of $52 donations to the Obama campaign via the anonymous credit card system for overseas donors.

[hawaii 5-0]

Spin an deflect all ya want shell boy
What YOU posted means squat IF they had 2.2 Billion and Din use it. Sounds Like they could have cut another 2Bil and still been good .


I have a feeling that 2.2 Billion was for every Embassy the US has, not the Libyan Embassy, which BTW isn't in Benghazi, but in Tripoli.

5-0

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Has anyone picked a good booger lately?

I did, just now. And boy howdy, was it tasty.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Has anyone picked a good booger lately?

I did, just now. And boy howdy, was it tasty.You greedy bastard...you could have given me half of it.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Yeah, and rumor has it I could've got a mud pie out of the deal, too.

[soonercruiser]

I'd speak and say things a bit differently if this wasn't an election year but Romney is using it to try and get elected and IMO it's just not an Election Topic. I do think we maybe need to consider ways to make sure our Embassies are better protected on the many days where it's obviously al jazeera or 9-11 or something in the news that increases tensions but in this case I think Ambassador Stevens and his detail were really responsible for increasing the risk they were under. Of course I have no proof to go with that but it makes more sense than all this crap being tossed around that Americans here at home intentionally turned down extra security requests that endangered them. If you didn't want to get killed on 9-11....I would have stayed close to the new Libya Leaders instead of treat it like a vacation and head to Benghazi for some pool time. We just don't know WTH happened. This entire thread IMO is an exercise in futility.

"Election Year"....."not an issue"!!!!????
GMAFB! Remember Watergate? It was the cover up that got Nixon in trouble.
No one got killed in Watergate. It was the cover up of a breaking and entering/burglery.....you know, like Sandy Burgler....who stole all the Clinton documents.
So, this is just gross negligence by someone, that resulted in and the cover up of why murders of our Ambassador and the troops happened.
Of course, it's "less than optimal" reason for Stoop to criticize the Obama administration.

The whole series of bad happenings are putting the Obama strategy in the ME under the microscope.
Since the last debate is heavy on foreign affairs, that will be the highlight issue.
And, it speaks volumes about "The Amateur"!
:upset:

[cleller]

"Election Year"....."not an issue"!!!!????
GMAFB! Remember Watergate? It was the cover up that got Nixon in trouble.
No one got killed in Watergate. It was the cover up of a breaking and entering/burglery.....you know, like Sandy Burgler....who stole all the Clinton documents.
So, this is just gross negligence by someone, that resulted in and the cover up of why murders of our Ambassador and the troops happened.
Of course, it's "less than optimal" reason for Stoop to criticize the Obama administration.




I watched the "less than optimal" interview on the Jon Stewart show at Youtube. Those two together just turn my stomach, to realize that so many Americans can be so easily influenced, and follow men like this. I actually hesitated just now typing "men".

Can you imagine Jon Stewart in any setting you might think of as manly? He'd wet his pants, or run away.

[SicEmBaylor]

Cruiser, and I generally think I very little of your political analysis, but in this case you are absolutely right.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sure .it is....

21 days till you see if Nugent shoots himself.
Ted Nugent may off himself on election day while others may overdose if the election has a different result.


And your body of work in this forum borders on being a Barker outside a Tijuana Donkey Show
Give me a f'n break. The rambling bull**** posts you plaster all over this place on a daily basis is the kind of writing more likely to be found on the wall of a padded mental institution wall than at any place someone would ever take it seriously. 'Body of work' my *** -- like your crap is journal worthy pontificating.

[hawaii 5-0]

All I can say is, "Thanks for the entertainment, guys."


5-0

[olevetonahill]

All I can say is, "Thanks for the entertainment, guys."


5-0

:watermelon:

[olevetonahill]

Ted Nugent may off himself on election day while others may overdose if the election has a different result.

Give me a f'n break. The rambling bull**** posts you plaster all over this place on a daily basis is the kind of writing more likely to be found on the wall of a padded mental institution wall than at any place someone would ever take it seriously. 'Body of work' my *** -- like your crap is journal worthy pontificating.

And once again
Sicempwned

[okie52]

Cruiser, and I generally think I very little of your political analysis, but in this case you are absolutely right.


LOL....well you can't beat a compliment like that.

[olevetonahill]

LOL....well you can't beat a compliment like that.

Sicem is kinda like that Blind squirrel . He do find one every now an then

[okie52]

Sicem is kinda like that Blind squirrel . He do find one every now an then

Heh heh....