Most people aren't going to care if he's gay. What's important is that the man was murdered....and our own president allowed him to be murdered. Why is it liberals always change their talking points to social issues when they are caught being wrong?
Did Obama Watch While They Fought for their Lives?
- Thread starter American_Jihad
- Start date
Most people aren't going to care if he's gay. What's important is that the man was murdered....and our own president allowed him to be murdered. Why is it liberals always change their talking points to social issues when they are caught being wrong?
jillian
Princess
Did Obama Watch While They Fought for their Lives?
By Karin McQuillan
10/26/12
They fought for their lives for seven hours. 9/11/ 2012. Benghazi. The White House watched. No help was sent and they died.
hey, loser... did bush watch while ny'ers jumped from the world trade center because of his incompetence?
did he watch while thousands of soldiers died in a war he lied to start?
loon
Joe Steel
Class Warrior
Every year, thousands of Americans die violent deaths by gun shot wound as Congress and State legislatures watch. As long as the National Rifle Association wants more guns on American streets, our legislators watch and refuse to help.
True story.
Did Obama Watch While They Fought for their Lives?
By Karin McQuillan
10/26/12
They fought for their lives for seven hours. 9/11/ 2012. Benghazi. The White House watched. No help was sent and they died.
hey, loser... did bush watch while ny'ers jumped from the world trade center because of his incompetence?
did he watch while thousands of soldiers died in a war he lied to start?
loon
Not at all the same thing, and you know it. Twisting the facts to suit your nutty point of view. But, if you insist on going down this slippery slope, then I guess Bush should have immediately sent troops to Iraq/Afghan and bombed the shit out of the terrorists. And, no, Bush didn't lie.......there were WMD in Iraq but since the US waited a year to go to war, the Iraq regime had no problem slipping them out of the country before any of our people got there. Why is it you idiots refuse to accept that, I'll never know. And then there's this......nearly every single person in Congress signed on to go to war and only when the war became inconvenient and a political football, did the liberals start to scream about how terrible an idea it was to go to war in the first place.
The problem isn't guns......the problem is arming people who have no business owning guns. Aside from that, there is always a black market willing to sell guns to someone who shouldn't have them. Sorta like the drugs liberals always scream about.......their constant reminding that we should just legalize drugs because that will fix the problem. No.....you will still have drug addiction and all the problems that go along with it, not to mention a black market to provide whatever drug someone is looking for........so what does drug legalization really solve? None.
Did Obama Watch While They Fought for their Lives?
By Karin McQuillan
10/26/12
They fought for their lives for seven hours. 9/11/ 2012. Benghazi. The White House watched. No help was sent and they died.
hey, loser... did bush watch while ny'ers jumped from the world trade center because of his incompetence?
did he watch while thousands of soldiers died in a war he lied to start?
loon
Perhaps you should ask if Clinton was watching. After all he had several opportunites to take out UBL way before 9-11.
He had the same intel that was passed to Bush. No time, place or method of delivery but hey. He had the same intel. He could have closed the whole country down on those vague warnings. He didn't just as Bush didn't. He's just lucky it happened 8 months after he left office.
Last edited:
American_Jihad
Flaming Libs/Koranimals
- Thread starter
- #187
Krauthammer: Benghazi threatened White House narrative
November 27, 2012 | O'Reilly Factor | Bill O'Reilly
---
O'REILLY: And joining us from Washington to react, Fox News analyst Charles Krauthammer. So it's a bigger mess now than it's ever been. And here is my assessment based on what happened today. I'm just going to go on the record. And this is what I think is going to happen and you can tell me if I'm right or wrong in your opinion.
I think that the White House and the Obama re-election committee, all right, that means David Axelrod, basically said that after the murder of the Ambassador, they were going to tamp the story down so it didn't intrude on their narrative that the Obama administration had decimated al Qaeda.
And so they ordered Dr. Rice, the Ambassador to the U.N., to go out on the Sunday shows and say that the stimulus for the murder was a video rather than a planned terrorist attack, which the Ambassador did. She followed orders. She was a good soldier.
Now it's all caught up to them. Am I wrong?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I think you're absolutely right. In science, there is a principle called Occam's Razor, which means that the simplest explanation for any physical phenomenon is most likely the true one. This is the clearest and most simple explanation for why a complete whopper was told to America on all five shows by Susan Rice. It did -- the real story would have gone against the narrative.
Remember the time frame here. We're just a week and a half after the Charlotte Convention. We are just after day after day after day of Democrats dancing on the grave of bin Laden, proclaiming al Qaeda dead since that was their only achievement in foreign policy, saying it over and over again, saying "GE alive and bin Laden dead".
So after saying that as a way to fend off all attacks on their otherwise feckless foreign policy, they now have the assassination of an Ambassador, first time in 30 years, happening within a week and they have to find a cover story. I'm not saying that there was a deliberate conspiracy from day one, but as this story unfolded, they saw a way to make this non-political.
One other context you got to remember, Bill, that for the first three days after the Benghazi attack, the media were concentrated exclusively on trashing Mitt Romney for a statement he made on September 11 about the Cairo demonstration and the craven statement issued by our embassy in Cairo as it was developing.
So that -- it would have been very logical for someone in the White House to say, look, the media is high on the trail of Mitt Romney. They're not interested in the real story. It is a perfect way for them to bash Romney as they had on everything else. We can get away with this. Let's go with the video story rather than that it was a terrorist attack.
---
Read more: Krauthammer: Benghazi threatened White House narrative | Interviews | The O'Reilly Factor
November 27, 2012 | O'Reilly Factor | Bill O'Reilly
---
O'REILLY: And joining us from Washington to react, Fox News analyst Charles Krauthammer. So it's a bigger mess now than it's ever been. And here is my assessment based on what happened today. I'm just going to go on the record. And this is what I think is going to happen and you can tell me if I'm right or wrong in your opinion.
I think that the White House and the Obama re-election committee, all right, that means David Axelrod, basically said that after the murder of the Ambassador, they were going to tamp the story down so it didn't intrude on their narrative that the Obama administration had decimated al Qaeda.
And so they ordered Dr. Rice, the Ambassador to the U.N., to go out on the Sunday shows and say that the stimulus for the murder was a video rather than a planned terrorist attack, which the Ambassador did. She followed orders. She was a good soldier.
Now it's all caught up to them. Am I wrong?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I think you're absolutely right. In science, there is a principle called Occam's Razor, which means that the simplest explanation for any physical phenomenon is most likely the true one. This is the clearest and most simple explanation for why a complete whopper was told to America on all five shows by Susan Rice. It did -- the real story would have gone against the narrative.
Remember the time frame here. We're just a week and a half after the Charlotte Convention. We are just after day after day after day of Democrats dancing on the grave of bin Laden, proclaiming al Qaeda dead since that was their only achievement in foreign policy, saying it over and over again, saying "GE alive and bin Laden dead".
So after saying that as a way to fend off all attacks on their otherwise feckless foreign policy, they now have the assassination of an Ambassador, first time in 30 years, happening within a week and they have to find a cover story. I'm not saying that there was a deliberate conspiracy from day one, but as this story unfolded, they saw a way to make this non-political.
One other context you got to remember, Bill, that for the first three days after the Benghazi attack, the media were concentrated exclusively on trashing Mitt Romney for a statement he made on September 11 about the Cairo demonstration and the craven statement issued by our embassy in Cairo as it was developing.
So that -- it would have been very logical for someone in the White House to say, look, the media is high on the trail of Mitt Romney. They're not interested in the real story. It is a perfect way for them to bash Romney as they had on everything else. We can get away with this. Let's go with the video story rather than that it was a terrorist attack.
---
Read more: Krauthammer: Benghazi threatened White House narrative | Interviews | The O'Reilly Factor
HUGGY
I Post Because I Care
UMMMmm... Joe. It is against USMB rules to miss quote a member. Your quote associated with me is bogus. Find a mod and get it fixed. Thank you.
American_Jihad
Flaming Libs/Koranimals
- Thread starter
- #189
idb
Gold Member
- Dec 26, 2010
- 14,986
- 2,590
- 265
idb
Gold Member
- Dec 26, 2010
- 14,986
- 2,590
- 265
Is that really the simplest explanation?
It looks rather convoluted to me.
Wow!
Deja vu!!!!
Last edited:
Did Obama Watch While They Fought for their Lives?
By Karin McQuillan
10/26/12
They fought for their lives for seven hours. 9/11/ 2012. Benghazi. The White House watched. No help was sent and they died.
hey, loser... did bush watch while ny'ers jumped from the world trade center because of his incompetence?
did he watch while thousands of soldiers died in a war he lied to start?
loon
He wouldn't allow the flag draped coffins of the dead military to be photographed so no, Bush didn't have to watch and he didn't want anyone else to know how many had died either.
Did Obama Watch While They Fought for their Lives?
By Karin McQuillan
10/26/12
They fought for their lives for seven hours. 9/11/ 2012. Benghazi. The White House watched. No help was sent and they died.
hey, loser... did bush watch while ny'ers jumped from the world trade center because of his incompetence?
did he watch while thousands of soldiers died in a war he lied to start?
loon
Did Clinton watch?? He had the info on the warnings long before Bush came to office. You can bet your ass Clinton is on his knees every night thanking God that the attack came 8 months after he left office. I know I sure would be.
He didn't shut the country down on a vague warning. Neither did Bush. No time, place or method was known.
Jill, Most of the time I respect your posts. Your a good person and a strong liberal but this bs about Bush being responsible for 9-11 is just that bs.
Clinton had the same info and he had it far longer than Bush did. He passed it to Bush.He certainly did nothing. What did you expect either he or Bush to do?? Shut the whole country down because of a vague warning??
He and Bush are both blameless. America is a big assed place and those warnings sure as shit didn't highlight a place, a time or a method of attack.
Blame the dirtbags who are responsible. AQ, UBL and those ******* dirtbags who flew the planes.
Freewill
Platinum Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 31,158
- 5,080
- 1,130
That is exactly why, in my opinion, they had Rice do the lying and not Hillary, she wouldn't do it. Too big of lie, at least she is more honest then Bill. Except she should have released the papers at least then the American people would know what they for what they were voting. I doubt it would have made a difference but at least we would have known.
Freewill
Platinum Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 31,158
- 5,080
- 1,130
What we are sure of is that the liberal left sure doesn't.
HUGGY
I Post Because I Care
So the American voters trust more in the brown skinned liar that looks on when four people die than they do in the republicans?
Why do you suppose THAT is? Don't you think you need to repair whatever it is about the republican party that Americans reject over the evil Barack Obama?
Freewill
Platinum Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 31,158
- 5,080
- 1,130
they didn't know. And sadly yes. As I have said often, the liberal left isn't stupid just uninformed, by design I believe. I'll bet if I ask any of my liberal friends about Benghazi the best they will say is it is a Republican witch hunt and won't know one thing about what happened.
Last edited:
HUGGY
I Post Because I Care
Only in your imagination. Maybe you feel that Benghazi wasn't publicised enough but to suggest it was swept under the pollitical carpet is sheer nonsense. Anyone would have to be deaf dimb and blind to have not had the opportunity to understand the basics concerning what transpired in Benghazi.
It was constantly in the news and all over the internet for almost a month preceding the election.
Yet you talk now as if America was uninformed. The truth is that no matter what happened in Benghazi most Americans don't believe a word that comes out of the mouths of most republican representatives. Until you restore trust in your party you can look forward to a lot more dissappointment.
American_Jihad
Flaming Libs/Koranimals
- Thread starter
- #200
Chairman King Calls on President Obama to Release Intelligence Reporting of Benghazi Attack
Last evening, Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, called on President Obama to release Intelligence Community reporting that led Administration officials to initially characterize the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya as a “spontaneous reaction” to a film. Likewise, Chairman King requested that the President release Intelligence Community data and intelligence which led the Administration to change its characterization from a “spontaneous reaction” to a “terrorist attack.”
In a letter to the President, Chairman King wrote:
In recent debates, Vice President Biden made an absolute commitment to “get to the bottom” of the Benghazi attack, and pledged that “wherever the facts lead us … we will make [them] clear to the American public.” You made an identical promise to “investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us.” Vice President Biden added that the Administration blamed the attack on a film protest “because that was exactly what we were told by the Intelligence Community,” but that as the Intelligence Community “learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.”
Chairman KingÂ’s signed letter to the President is available HERE.
To continue reading the entire article, please visit: PeteKing
Last evening, Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, called on President Obama to release Intelligence Community reporting that led Administration officials to initially characterize the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya as a “spontaneous reaction” to a film. Likewise, Chairman King requested that the President release Intelligence Community data and intelligence which led the Administration to change its characterization from a “spontaneous reaction” to a “terrorist attack.”
In a letter to the President, Chairman King wrote:
In recent debates, Vice President Biden made an absolute commitment to “get to the bottom” of the Benghazi attack, and pledged that “wherever the facts lead us … we will make [them] clear to the American public.” You made an identical promise to “investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us.” Vice President Biden added that the Administration blamed the attack on a film protest “because that was exactly what we were told by the Intelligence Community,” but that as the Intelligence Community “learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.”
Chairman KingÂ’s signed letter to the President is available HERE.
To continue reading the entire article, please visit: PeteKing
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Meteorologist makes rare admission about forecast that shut down DC- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 0
-
-
There's a case to be made that inexperience and ignorance lead us to war.- Started by berg80
- Replies: 7
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
Would Americans support US troops seizing and occupying Kharg Island ?- Latest: CrusaderFrank
-
-
