M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
He does not owe you any explainations on anything.
You keep saying he is not your president. Fine. Act like it and stop bothering him with your whining.
Obama wasn't at Bengahzi.
If you want to know something about Bengahzi "Google" it for yourselves.
You are crybabies. He does not like crybabies.
You have nothing coming.
This is outrageous. But please, by all means, conservatives can hope this is the argument Obama makes in Monday's debate! LMAO!
You're saying that after the Obama Administration went on for nearly two weeks implying that the assault in Benghazi was a spontaneous protest spurred by some obscure video as it simultaneously claimed that it didn't have enough of the facts to know precisely what happened (LOL!) that the President doesn't owe the American people an explanation?
Did the cheese slip off your cracker?
Anyone with access to the Internet and equipped with an IQ above that of a gnat knew that it was a pre-planned terrorist attack, at the very least in the sense that these operatives were willing and prepared to strike opportunistically.
State Department officials were monitoring the situation live, for crying out loud! Whether is was terrorists capitalizing on the moment or not, there sure as heck was no protest going on before the attack. These officials knew that what Ambassador Rice and the White House Press Secretary were telling the American people for several days was crap! Our intelligence apparatus knew this, despite the Administration's claim that it was given inaccurate information by the same. Obama rattled on about the video and protests for nearly two weeks; he even claimed as late as his glamour-boy appearance on The View, where he was asked point blank whether it was a protest or a terrorist attack, that "We don't have all the facts yet." Bull!
So, he's either incompetent or a liar.
Which is it?
His not being in Benghazi has nothing to do with the price of burkas in Libya. In fact, the issue has nothing to do with any of your obtuse blather. And what's-her-name won't be around to run interference for Obama again on Monday (and then later, by the way, admit when confronted by other journalists, that Romney was right after all). And you can bet that Romney will be much better prepared to confront Obama's obfuscations now that he knows the shape of the sham Obama thinks to shimmy in debate.
For those of you who don't grasp what this is really all about: Why the Benghazi terrorist attack still dogs Obama - CSMonitor.com
When it comes up in the presidential candidates’ foreign policy debate Monday night, President Obama will have some serious explaining to do about the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last month that killed the US Ambassador and three other Americans. --By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer / October 20, 2012
Last edited: