Did the Obama administration lie about the embassy attacks?

• BoatShoes

  jmog;1282195 wrote:Come on Boat, I know you can read. People are saying the President lied about the Libya attacks, no one here is saying he has lied about all the other attacks that happened since then.

  Well the answer to that is no. He did not lie. Was the message bungled? We're they maybe too hesitant in calling it declaratively a terrorist attack a couple days late (even though they immediately condemned it as an act of murder)? Sure, perhaps. Either way we are grasping at straws here boys and girls.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;1282431 wrote:"Yes, such a terrible use of words! How dare he suggest that we shouldn't degrade other religions."
  
  So where is our Messiah suggesting that Trey Parker, Bill Maher and Seth MacFarlane stop degrading religion.
  
  I curiously await your response. You make this too easy.

  I really think you're missing the point...He did not suggest that anti-islamic people stop degrading Islam...rather that the people in the middle east who would condemn such offensive speech should be inclined to similarly condemn other offensive speech...but that here in America we have free speech and no amount of offensive speech justifies violence.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  What's grasping at straws is the defending of this administration and its one claim to success in the last four years (because everyone knows the economy still sucks donkeys and Obamacare? Don't get me started). The Bin Laden "narrative" was ridiculous, we were to believe that Bin Laden went out blazing (can he even hold a gun anymore?) when anyone that knows anyone in the military would know it was a targeted assassination.
  
  Now there's this. It's a video. No, it's terrorism. No it was the video so we'll apologize for free speech. No it was terrorism and we had intelligence in advance. No we didn't it was the video.
  
  This transcends politics. This is incompetence. Not grasping at straws. We elected someone with zero experience and it is showing. You want this for four more years?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  BoatShoes;1282448 wrote:I really think you're missing the point...He did not suggest that anti-islamic people stop degrading Islam...rather that the people in the middle east who would condemn such offensive speech should be inclined to similarly condemn other offensive speech...but that here in America we have free speech and no amount of offensive speech justifies violence.

  I didn't miss crap, I read our POTUS favoring one religion over others because their radicals act out in a petulant manner. If a child whines that they want a candy bar, a parent can give them the candy bar or discipline them. Doing the former just results in more petulant behavior. And he shouldn't use the word "prophet" Muhammed in an official capacity. I'm an American citizen and I'm not Muslim, Muhammed is not a prophet to me, he's at best a historical figure and likely a mythical being. I don't like that our government is favoring the neighborhood bully because they don't have the competence to deal with them.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1282431 wrote:"Yes, such a terrible use of words! How dare he suggest that we shouldn't degrade other religions."
  
  So where is our Messiah suggesting that Trey Parker, Bill Maher and Seth MacFarlane stop degrading religion.
  
  I curiously await your response. You make this too easy.

  I'm sure he would if people started rioting and killing over it. wtf does it matter to you anyways lol. You're reeeeeeeeaching for anything possible. And your anger and defensiveness is hilarious. You need to chill the fuck out before you go to an early grave over this stress lol
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;1282456 wrote:I didn't miss crap, I read our POTUS favoring one religion over others because their radicals act out in a petulant manner. If a child whines that they want a candy bar, a parent can give them the candy bar or discipline them. Doing the former just results in more petulant behavior. And he shouldn't use the word "prophet" Muhammed in an official capacity. I'm an American citizen and I'm not Muslim, Muhammed is not a prophet to me, he's at best a historical figure and likely a mythical being. I don't like that our government is favoring the neighborhood bully because they don't have the competence to deal with them.

  Well I think you're overreacting and exaggerating over a couple lines that was actually, overall a decently stern defense of free speech but what else is new? I take it you're having a tough time coming to terms with the ever growing certainty that he's going to be re-elected.
• jhay78

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1282456 wrote:I didn't miss crap, I read our POTUS favoring one religion over others because their radicals act out in a petulant manner. If a child whines that they want a candy bar, a parent can give them the candy bar or discipline them. Doing the former just results in more petulant behavior. And he shouldn't use the word "prophet" Muhammed in an official capacity. I'm an American citizen and I'm not Muslim, Muhammed is not a prophet to me, he's at best a historical figure and likely a mythical being. I don't like that our government is favoring the neighborhood bully because they don't have the competence to deal with them.

  From Cairo 2009 to the present . . . I still can't get over what he said at the UN. Very un-presidential.
• HitsRus

  

  Footwedge;1281691 wrote:Exactly...
  
  3000 dead on Bush's watch....crickets.
  4 dead on Obama's watch.......weak on terrorism.
  
  These people are nothing but political nimrods who cannot desipher issues without a far right AM dial idiot giving them their daily pitch points.
  
  Somehow Obama should have stopped these attacks. But 9-11...well I guess it was Clinton's fault...even though Richard Clark...a guy who knew...put the blame squarely on Pinnochio....and rightfully so.

  
  wow...Wedge being an apologist for Obama, who basically continued the policies of GWB. ???????
  
  I think most reasonable people would concede the inevitability of a successful attack on American institutions, but I think it is fair expect the POTUS to be reasonably truthful in such matters, and not brazenly lie to cover his behind. Sooner or later a terrorist plot was going to get through, but instead of calling a spade a spade, Obama puts out there that an anti muslim/Mohammed video is a cause for the unrest. Really?
  Worse, what appears to have happened is that Obama managed to link American values of free speech to a hate video, and that has inflamed the muslim world.... and now we have continuing anti- American demonstrations throughout the world.
  
  .and yet, from the Obama apologists...we have (how did you say it, Wedge?)...crickets?
• believer

  

  HitsRus;1283651 wrote:wow...Wedge being an apologist for Obama, who basically continued the policies of GWB. ???????

  Honestly...I've stopped trying to figure it out. It's hard to follow the logic when it's all over the map.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1282447 wrote:Well the answer to that is no. He did not lie. Was the message bungled? We're they maybe too hesitant in calling it declaratively a terrorist attack a couple days late (even though they immediately condemned it as an act of murder)? Sure, perhaps. Either way we are grasping at straws here boys and girls.

  It has been shown that the administration knew within 24 hours it was a terrorist attack and the President spent a week or more blaming the video and calling it a spontaneous reaction to the video.
  
  If you don't call that lying then what is? Is this the Clinton definition?
• QuakerOats

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWnwDtc_gJw&feature=player_embedded
  
  Americans are attacked on September 11th, and obama decides to appear on The View with a bunch of leftist soccer moms.
  
  Thankfully there is now a good ad out regarding his failed leadership.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;1282447 wrote:Well the answer to that is no. He did not lie. Was the message bungled? We're they maybe too hesitant in calling it declaratively a terrorist attack a couple days late (even though they immediately condemned it as an act of murder)? Sure, perhaps. Either way we are grasping at straws here boys and girls.

  Another lie; yes HE DID LIE. We know it, and you know it, but the media hides it because it will cost him even more votes than he has already lost.
  
  Even Pat Caddell knows it:
  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/29/pat_caddell_media_have_become_an_enemy_of_the_american_people.html
• believer

  

  Anyone remember this BS 4 years ago?? Hard to believe the American sheeple are actually asking for 4 more years of it......
  
  [video=youtube;hCeSvdBvBfE][/video]
• BGFalcons82

  

  Y'know, believer, that 2 minute clip could easily be the backdrop of any Tea Party candidate. Problem is, if those words were uttered by someone with Tea Party connections, they would be called racist, owned by big business and completely unfit for office. Truth is, I agree with the ideals and promises championed in the video. I wonder how our resident leftists will react to his lying through his teeth. He's pretty good at telling us what we want to hear, rather than what he believes.
  
  4 more years of these falsehoods? Really?
• gut

  You really have to be a koolaid drinker to not only forget why you elected him in the first place, but to also invent new justifications to vote for him again.
• Footwedge

  HitsRus;1283651 wrote:wow...Wedge being an apologist for Obama, who basically continued the policies of GWB. ???????
  
  we have (how did you say it, Wedge?)...crickets?

  Underline and bold any apologetic statement I've made regarding Obama. It's not there.
  
  I made my point. Both were attacks by terrorists. One on foreign soil...one at home. 4 dead versus 3000 dead. Why is it so hard to understand?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  BTW not to hijack my own thread but I just got back from Singpost mailing our absentee ballots. The idea that showing ID at a polling locale is a "tough" requirement is so idiotic I could spit nails. I'm tired of inmates running our country.
  
  For those that want to know, to vote absentee overseas first you must submit a mail application (although you can do so via fax, which we did). You have to give your name, your SS or drivers license number, and the approximate date and location you registered to vote. You additionally have to provide the last date and polling place you voted in the United States, and the date you left the United States. Moreover you must provide the name and address of your overseas employer (this is streamlined a bit for military folks) and whether you intend on moving back to the U.S. If approved you will then be emailed a ballot and it is up to you to make sure it gets to the election clerk by election day - FedEx or other registered mail is recommended (and can be reimbursed in some cases) or you can go to the embassy - which fortunately for us isn't under attack right now but regardless we elected to use registered mail.
  
  The process took about an hour or so to understand and altogether in the span of 3 days we were able to vote. Compare that to the "horrific" idea of showing your freaking ID at the poll. Ridiculous.
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1285060 wrote:The process took about an hour or so to understand and altogether in the span of 3 days we were able to vote. Compare that to the "horrific" idea of showing your freaking ID at the poll. Ridiculous.

  Listen...It's one thing to enter the United States illegally and cast an illegal vote without prejudice. It's an entirely different scenario to be a legal American citizen overseas and cast a legal vote. After all, you need to prove you are who you say you are.
• HitsRus

  

  4 dead versus 3000 dead. Why is it so hard to understand?

  I suppose I can play the same game.
  Afghanistan 2000 dead...Viet Nam 50,000.
  In both situations it's apples to oranges.
  Besides, what does GWB have to do with this situation and its handling?
  
  Most certainly the intelligence networks and level were not the same, and in fact, degraded during the Clinton administration. The attack in New York occurred only a short while after Bush took office, and in the wake of the first attack communication between agencies was facilitated. As I said, most reasonable people would concede the inevitability of a successful attack against our interests, and so I am not criticizing BHO for the attack per say...other than to wonder why higher security measures weren't in place considering it was the anniversary of the 9/11 attack. I think the real problem here is the lack of recognition and the initial spinning of it as a muslim reaction to a little known controversial film. By focusing on the film and drawing attention to it, he managed to link America, freedom of speech, and this film together...give it plenty of publicity, and inflame muslim sensitivities in regions beyond Libya and Egypt. It is/was a bungled mess and a complete failure of crisis leadership.
• bases_loaded

  

  HitsRus;1285081 wrote: Besides, what does GWB have to do with this situation and its handling?
  
  .

  
  It's all they got. Four years later its still their only play. And worst , they're supporters will justify it
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  bases_loaded;1285101 wrote:It's all they got. Four years later its still their only play. And worst , they're supporters will justify it

  Their supporters know correct usage of homophones though.
• TedSheckler

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1285123 wrote:Their supporters know correct usage of homophones though.

  
• jhay78

  

  Requests for extra security in Benghazi may have been ignored leading up to 9-11-12:
  
  http://www.therightscoop.com/bombshell-house-oversight-says-requests-for-increased-security-in-benghazi-before-911-denied-by-washington/
  

  House Oversight and Government Reform Committee leaders today sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking why requests for more protection were denied to the U.S. mission in Libya by Washington officials prior to the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. The denials came after repeated attacks and security threats to U.S. personnel.
  
  “Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012. It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, write. “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”
  
  The letter outlines 13 security threats over the six months prior to the attack.
  
  &#8220ut together, these events indicated a clear pattern of security threats that could only be reasonably interpreted to justify increased security for U.S. personnel and facilities in Benghazi,” the chairmen write.
  The Committee indicated it intends to convene a hearing in Washington on Wednesday October 10, 2012, on the security failures that preceded the attack

  Is there anything this President can do that you Obama drones will be outraged about? Anything?
• BoatShoes

  jhay78;1285292 wrote:Requests for extra security in Benghazi may have been ignored leading up to 9-11-12:
  
  http://www.therightscoop.com/bombshell-house-oversight-says-requests-for-increased-security-in-benghazi-before-911-denied-by-washington/
  
  
  
  Is there anything this President can do that you Obama drones will be outraged about? Anything?

  d00d...there was a piece in the New Republic the other day wherein the author was arguing why liberals could not morally vote for Obama. There are just as many purists on the left as their are ron paul people on the right. I personally find electoral politics not to be the place for deontological purity. And so, despite his faults, Obama's getting my vote over Romney/Ryan and the supposed endorsement of today's insane version of the GOP that would come with that election. There are plenty of people on the left who no longer hope for audacity from Obama...
  
  With regard Benghazi; I think this event was bungled in many ways. I don't think the administration told deliberate bald-faced lies knowing the whole truth of what they were saying was false nor maliciously tried to cover things up. I thought it was a bungle and a bad one but hindsight is 20-20. How many things do I have to list that he's done wrong? You won't accept anything but foot-stomping outrage that this was a total and complete disaster. Which it simply doesn't amount to in the grand course of history.
  
  I voted to give a guy who was on the watch when planes were flown into buildings on American soil and then used it as an excuse invade the wrong country four more years. This fail isn't going to deter me from voting for four more years for our current commander in chief.
• QuakerOats

  At least you're big enough to publicly tell us you are voting for the Marxist, despite his epic failures as president.
  
  Unfortunately, it still makes absolutely no sense.