You can't find anyone who thinks that Obama hasn't made a mistake (including Obama). Second term Presidents almost all have sinking poll numbers. Inmature perhaps but your lack of political sophistication is probably a greater sign of inmaturity. Which is why you were dubbed "loser"...what you're citing is barely relevant in one case and patently false in another.
Polls are showing that more people believe there is more to Benghazi and the IRS than meets the eye.
I'm sure there are polls that show that. The IRS scandal is a scandal and the President should have been much more aggressive than he was. Ben-gotcha isn't a scandal and THIS is what you and your enablers at Fox are focusing on.
And I am sorry my "political sophistication" does not meet your standards. I consider myself well informed...and whereas I do not think I know all, I know enough to engage in a debate on this board. If you don't feel I am worthy of your time, then please, do not read or respond to my posts
But to call me a loser because I am not as politically sophisticated as you believe you are is, in my eyes, inappropriate and...as I said....immature.
Fair enough...
If terrorists are NOT to be blamed for terrorism and only those who are in power at the time are--as you're stating-- think about the 9/11/01 attacks.
GWB was in power and was re-elected 3 years later. His CIA/NSA/Military let it happen.
By the time 2016 rolls around, an attack on an American consulate in Lybia that resulted in the deaths of 4 people is going to somehow be front and center five years later?
I believe you are not aware of my position on Benghazi. I do not blame President Obama for the loss of lives there. I do not blame him for the attacks themselves. I do not blame him for what proved to be the insufficient security.
What I blame is the attitude of the administration. The "not caring" optics.
For example.....Secretary Clinton said....(paraphrased)...
'we have read the results of the independent commission and have adopted and are currently implementing their suggestions'..
Now...on the outside, that sounds fine...actually sounds like what they SHOULD do...and yes, they should.
But....
Did the Secretary of State actually need an independent commission to advise her that she should never have let a lower level staffer deny security supplements to an Ambassador who was stationed in a very volatile country in the most volatile region in the world?
I mean.....did she really not know that already?
It seems to me that this administration was very "clueless" to basic logical protocols.
Like Fast and Furious....and please....just hear me out on this....
AG Eric Holder said (Paraphrased)...
"I did not know of the operation because there are many operations that are taking place at once and I can not know of all of them"....
Fair enough....
But if he is not to be informed of an operation that included the smuggling of arms over the border of an ally, without the knowledge of the government of that ally and furnishing them to the enemy of that ally (the cartels were declared enemies of the government of Mexico)....then what would be deemed worthy of him being informed of?
Again, a scandal? no. But to deny knowing about it? That is what makes it
worthy of serious discussion.
And haven't our leaders (not to mention us on this message board) had that serious discussion ad nauseum? Again the point is how it impacts 2016 in this thread.
No impact whatsoever if history holds. Of course Draft Dodger GWB was able to paint decorated Vietnam Veteran Kerry as soft on Defense in 2014 so anything is possible.
First, they are not our leaders. They are our lawmakers. We follow the laws they implement. We are not supposed to follow them as people.
That being said, some of our lawmakers have attempted to discuss Benghazi, but many of them have done all they can to make the discussion one sided. Being retired, I have had an opportunity to watch the hearings. One side asks questions that are not answered while the other side uses their 5 minutes to talk about the hearings being a witch hunt and how the GOP is wasting tax payer money.
But since the pertinent questions have been answered in your eyes, perhaps you can answer these questions for me....
1) How did the military know, while the attack was on going, that the siege would end within 10 hours? After all, the President said he did not give an order to conduct a rescue mission at the consulate because it would take 10 hours to get there and the siege ended within that time period. How did he know it would not take 20 hours for the siege to end?
2) Why was a lower level staffer given permission to deny extra security to an Ambassador who was stationed in a country that was undergoing a violent transition in the most violent region in the world? Why would the Secretary of State feel that it was OK to allow such a decision to be made without her knowledge?
3) Where WAS the President during the siege? We know he was not in the situation room. Why is this important? He had a very important campaign rally the very next day. Chances are good that he was with his campaign team at the time. Nothing wrong with that. However, if he were with them, were they (the campaign team) aware of the siege? If yes, did they offer their opinion? For example, did they say "if you send in a rescue team, and the mission fails, and we have 10 dead marines on your hands, you can consider the re-election campaign a lost cause"...For if they DID offer the opinion on policy, and he used that opinion to make a decision, it would be a breach of his position as President of the United States as a campaign team is, by law, not allowed to sway Presidential decisions.
So tell me...can you answer any of the questions?
Everyone of them have been asked....but none have been answered that I am aware of.
But they must have been for you are so sure that nothing inappropriate was done in regard to Benghazi.
So please, enlighten me with facts....not your opinion.
:
