Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Truth and belief are two different things. You believe he's lying, and therefore will reject anything that contradicts this. Psychologist call this the circular logic fallacy. Perhaps instead of trashing the "liberal media", you should question if your own media sources are any less biased or are more accurate.
My media source for Benghazi was Al Jazeera who reported that Friday before Rice went on TV that the attack was a planned terrorist attack.
Al Jazeera, European intelligence and the President of Libya were all correct and the US intelligence was wrong.
A CIA base, full of CIA employees in Libya, didn't know it was an attack but the rest of the world did ?
In an effort to uncover the truth about why the Obama administration was not honest and forthcoming with the American people about the attacks in Benghazi, the Republican National Committee sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request letter asking for copies of all emails and documents between Department of State employees and staff on Obama’s reelection campaign between Sept 11 and Nov 7, 2012, that include the words “Libya” and/or “Benghazi.”
The House committee investigating the various scandals, just issued subpoenas for pretty much the same information, concerning the talking points changes from Sept. 12 onward.
The only problem I have with it is, after about Sept. 12 (the day after the attacks), nothing the Obama administration did, or wrote, or planned, made much difference regarding who died, which buildings got burned, etc. Those who were to die, already had. Ditto for the property that got destroyed.
When will the investigators get around to looking into why security at the consulate was progressively reduced over the spring and summer of 2012?
The consulate was attacked several times during that period, with terrorists blowing a 12-foot hole in the wall at one point in June 2012. And the ambassador and others kept asking for security to be INCREASED, not decreased. Yet the State Dept. kept reducing the number of troops there, replacing American personnel with Libyan personnel, and even took away the weapons of the gate and perimeter guards. By September, there were a total of ***three*** Americans guarding the consulate. When Ambassador Stevens came to visit on Sept. 9, he brought two bodyguards with him, which increased the total to 5.
To me, this is a far bigger issue, than who doctored some talking points AFTER the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks.
Why was security progressively lowered for months, even while the consulate was actively under attack?
Was the Obama administration trying to pretend the threat of Islamic militants was decreasing, and hoping nobody was paying attention to the attacks on the consulate? Was he trying to fool the voters into believing that he was the Great Peacemaker who ended the "War against Terror", just before the election, when he actually hadn't? Is that why four Americans had to die?
The House committee investigating the various scandals, just issued subpoenas for pretty much the same information, concerning the talking points changes from Sept. 12 onward.
The only problem I have with it is, after about Sept. 12 (the day after the attacks), nothing the Obama administration did, or wrote, or planned, made much difference regarding who died, which buildings got burned, etc. Those who were to die, already had. Ditto for the property that got destroyed.
When will the investigators get around to looking into why security at the consulate was progressively reduced over the spring and summer of 2012?
The consulate was attacked several times during that period, with terrorists blowing a 12-foot hole in the wall at one point in June 2012. And the ambassador and others kept asking for security to be INCREASED, not decreased. Yet the State Dept. kept reducing the number of troops there, replacing American personnel with Libyan personnel, and even took away the weapons of the gate and perimeter guards. By September, there were a total of ***three*** Americans guarding the consulate. When Ambassador Stevens came to visit on Sept. 9, he brought two bodyguards with him, which increased the total to 5.
To me, this is a far bigger issue, than who doctored some talking points AFTER the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks.
Why was security progressively lowered for months, even while the consulate was actively under attack?
Was the Obama administration trying to pretend the threat of Islamic militants was decreasing, and hoping nobody was paying attention to the attacks on the consulate? Was he trying to fool the voters into believing that he was the Great Peacemaker who ended the "War against Terror", just before the election, when he actually hadn't? Is that why four Americans had to die?
Benghazi was not a consulate. It was a CIA base and the administration wanted to "normalize" their presence there by using local militia and not US military. That was already published.
Well just think. If the Obama administration told the truth in the first place then there would not be an issue.
I agree with this statment. And above to me, i agree to a point. You can be so careful not to leave a paper trail, sometiems when you try to hard, Well you know.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by eRayP
Assuming there was no contact between the State Department and the campaign, handing over the emails should be an easy request to fill,” said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.
Obama Wins Reelection With Highest Unemployment Rate Of Any President Since FDR. Obama won the re-election with the highest unemployment rate of any president since FDR. No president ever won with a UE above 8% but we all remember how the UE rate suddenly and unexpectedly dropped just below 8% and how the left refused to tie the number of people who just gave up looking for work.
And now the IRS targeting conservative and religious groups before the campaign. Along with ridiculous claims of the attack was because of a video especially after Obama campaigns on Osama bin Laden is dead and Al-quaeda is on the run
it didnt suddenly drop, it had been at 8.1 and 8.2% the last 4 months before that, it had been fluctuating. Again, Republicans set up a mental barrier and it fell.
And LOL that no president has been elected with an UE above 8%. The Unemployment rate in our Country(since we have been tracking it on a regular basis) has only jumped above 8% 3 times. It has never been at 8% during election time, so you are making a claim based on a circumstance that has never happened. Under Ford,it was at 7.8% when He lost to Carter and the only other time it has happened was entirely under Reagan and he won with a land slide in 1984.
You assume that anyone who drops out of the work force simply stopped looking for work, You forget that 10,000 baby boomers retire each day, you forget that high school students transition to college and quit their high school jobs. face it, the numbers arent on your side.
The IRS was run by Bush appointees and hires. They targeted Conservative groups because 85% of 501(c)4 group application are by groups considered conservative and despite all of that, not a single conservative political group was denied, but Liberal and Democratic groups were, for God's sake, the IG already said this wasnt political.
So wanting the truth is scoring points. And you better believe when it was very obvious that it was a terrorist attack and Obama and Clinton try to blame it on a video basically calling Americans stupid as f**** it is insulting. You may be stupid but I am not. Just like the Fort Hood and Nidal Hasan shouting “Allahu Akbar” before killing more than a dozen people and injuring well over twice as many at Fort Hood then the Obama administration calling it work place violence.
Osama Bin Laden is dead and Al-Quaeda is on the run.
Of course MSNBC and other liberal media outlets didn't want to report it in the first place.
It was the CIA that linked the attacks in Benghazi to the video. If the RNC is truly interested in the truth then they would be pursing why the CIA made that assessment.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
And did you read the rest of my post.."whether or not they find something is yet to be seen..." ?
All I'm saying is that this reads of someone who doesn't want his reputation tarnished a few months before his re-election.
But the only way it could even begin to "read" that way is if the documents even exist. There is no proof that they do, and again, even so, it doesnt prove guilt.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth
It was the CIA that linked the attacks in Benghazi to the video. If the RNC is truly interested in the truth then they would be pursing why the CIA made that assessment.
Peter King(R-NY) said Petreaus lied(not sure if he was under oath or not), funny how Republicans dont mention that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
