What is wrong with you dems/libs?

[The_Grand_Illusion]

It's pretty obvious this president lied and sent other people out to lie for him about and cover up what happened in Benghazi. All because he was running a narrative for this campaign that Al Queda and its related groups were diminished and on the run after killing Bin Laden.

The truth coming out is that was not true and the Ambassador had requested more security because of the Al Queda threat and related activity and was denied by this administration. Had those requests been granted, there may have not even been an incident or people dying. Instead he played politics with their lives and now 4 Americans are dead.

Then, when there could be more help for the Americans fighting in Benghazi, it appears so far, little was done to help. Obama bragged to the victims of Hurricane Sandy that no Americans would be left behind, yet it appears he left Americans behind in Benghazi. There are a ton of questions he needs to respond to but so far hasn't. It might interfere with his election.

It's coming out many mistakes were made, and I understand mistakes happen, but what also made all this worse was the lies and cover up afterwards. This is not a party issue, this is an American issue and what is right. It's pretty obvious this president was in way over his head and does not deserve another term on this alone. If Bush had screwed up this bad, you know you dems/libs would want his head on a platter. I would agree he would need to be held accountable. But for many of you your party, ideology, power comes way before country and what is right here. You dem/libs need to look in the mirror and see just what you've become.

TGI

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

Media Matters is just a propaganda arm of the democrat party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

Benefactors and staff

MMfA started with the help of $2 million in donations from liberal philanthropists connected to the Democratic party. According to Byron York, additional funding came from MoveOn.org and the New Democrat Network.[16][17][18]

But facts is facts.


Interesting comparison to past events:


On September 20, 1984, there was a truck-bomb explosion at the U.S. embassy annex in Aukar, Lebanon, just outside Beirut. Twenty-four people were killed. It was third terrorist bombing aimed at U.S. interests in Lebanon in a year and a half.

What did Ronald Reagan do on September 21, 1984? He made three campaign appearances in Iowa.

The Associated Press report linked to above notes that Reagan was asked if he had considered canceling the campaign swing. Reagan replied: "We talked about that but realized that whether I'm there or here you're president wherever you are, and as fast as communication is on these matters, wherever I am."

The Benghazi freak-out has stemmed, in part, from the claim that the Obama administration failed to protect the American embassy in Libya and that it's not combating Islamic terrorism in the region.

More context:

*April 18, 1983: Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Sixty-three people were killed, including 17 Americans.

*Oct. 23, 1983: Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut. A suicide bomber blew detonated a truck full of explosives at a U.S. Marine barracks; Two hundred and forty-one U.S. Marines were killed.

* Sept. 20, 1984: Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex. In Aukar, northeast of Beirut, a truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy annex killing 24 people, two of whom were U.S. military personnel.

In less than 18 months under Reagan, more than 320 people were killed by terrorist attacks on the U.S. Embassy in and around Beirut. And after the third attack, which killed two Americans, Reagan refused to curtail his campaign for re-election (which he won in a rout) even for one day.

But today, the deaths of four Americans killed during the assault on the Libyan consulate has some conservatives demanding Obama be tried for treason.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

Just because you say so? It's your media that has kept you in the dark. I posted on another thread that CBS News is finally releasing more of an interview with Obama, that does not paint him in a good light over this. Of course they waited til the day before the election to do the least amount of damage to the Obama campaign.

TGI

No, because pretty much every president since then has had something they have tried to "cover up." I don't know, maybe Ford didn't. He wasn't there very long and I don't remember it that well.

Frankly, Obama has had the least amount of real "scandals" as any president in a very long time.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

My gosh, there is already plenty out there that has been leaked but be in denial.

TGI

How credible is the leaked information? We don't know who leaked it, what their position in it is, why they leaked it etc.

You want us to jump to conclusions for the sole purpose of helping your cause and is not going to happen.

Furthermore, saying Obama is a liar for justification of his removal and pointing to Romney, an alternative who couldn't even keep the same identity for a year, is laughable at best.

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

But facts is facts.


Interesting comparison to past events:


On September 20, 1984, there was a truck-bomb explosion at the U.S. embassy annex in Aukar, Lebanon, just outside Beirut. Twenty-four people were killed. It was third terrorist bombing aimed at U.S. interests in Lebanon in a year and a half.

What did Ronald Reagan do on September 21, 1984? He made three campaign appearances in Iowa.

The Associated Press report linked to above notes that Reagan was asked if he had considered canceling the campaign swing. Reagan replied: "We talked about that but realized that whether I'm there or here you're president wherever you are, and as fast as communication is on these matters, wherever I am."

The Benghazi freak-out has stemmed, in part, from the claim that the Obama administration failed to protect the American embassy in Libya and that it's not combating Islamic terrorism in the region.

More context:

*April 18, 1983: Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Sixty-three people were killed, including 17 Americans.

*Oct. 23, 1983: Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut. A suicide bomber blew detonated a truck full of explosives at a U.S. Marine barracks; Two hundred and forty-one U.S. Marines were killed.

* Sept. 20, 1984: Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex. In Aukar, northeast of Beirut, a truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy annex killing 24 people, two of whom were U.S. military personnel.

In less than 18 months under Reagan, more than 320 people were killed by terrorist attacks on the U.S. Embassy in and around Beirut. And after the third attack, which killed two Americans, Reagan refused to curtail his campaign for re-election (which he won in a rout) even for one day.

But today, the deaths of four Americans killed during the assault on the Libyan consulate has some conservatives demanding Obama be tried for treason.

Or propaganda, people can decide for themselves. It's run by democrats but I guess the democrats are the only ones that can be truthful.

Nevermind the lies, coverup and what it appears to be abandoning Americans in Benghazi, do you realize this situation could have most likely been avoided if Obama hadn't played politics with Libya prior to the attack?

TGI

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

Or propaganda, people can decide for themselves. It's run by democrats but I guess the democrats are the only ones that can be truthful.

Nevermind the lies, coverup and what it appears to be abandoning Americans in Benghazi, do you realize this situation could have most likely been avoided if Obama hadn't played politics with Libya prior to the attack?

TGI

Propaganda? Those are straight-up facts. Birther, somewhere along the line you have apparently suffered a head trauma.

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Propaganda? Those are straight-up facts. Birther, somewhere along the line you have apparently suffered a head trauma.

I read the rest of the article and they blame it on the hatred of the right of Obama. How is that not partisan? Of course it's run by democrats, It's not hatred of Obama, it's the incompetence of Obama throughout this whole event.

TGI

[stonedstooge]

I don't think US citizens like being lied to to their faces. I have the most problem with the 2 week facade the White House tried to force feed upon us, even when news groups were saying at the time "Why is O'Bama running with this? He knows it's not the truth." I've always had troubles with people that think they are above the truth.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

I read the rest of the article and they blame it on the hatred of the right of Obama. How is that not partisan? Of course it's run by democrats, It's not hatred of Obama, it's the incompetence of Obama throughout this whole event.

TGI

Yes, they blame the vicious, unsubstantiated allegations and double standard on irrational hatred of Obama. That is their opinion. However, the facts they present are simply facts.

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Yes, they blame the vicious, unsubstantiated allegations and double standard on irrational hatred of Obama. That is their opinion. However, the facts they present are simply facts.

It's like little kids saying "he did it too" mentality. It's merely a deflection tactic. It shows your media just can't be trusted to give the American people the truth because they are so partisan and biased. They, like you, care more about power for your party over what happened in Benghazi and what is right.

TGI

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

It's like little kids saying "he did it too" mentality. It's merely a deflection tactic. It shows your media just can't be trusted to give the American people the truth because they are so partisan and biased. They, like you, care more about power for your party over what happened in Benghazi and what is right.

TGI

It's more like illustrating that the outrage is mostly partisan-based, phony, and not based on facts.

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

It's more like illustrating that the outrage is mostly partisan-based, phony, and not based on facts.

Not true, but your liberal media has kept you in the dark. That's not anyone's fault but your own.

TGI

[Inspector]

Originally Posted by Chief Faithful

That's right, it is Bush's fault.

I KNEW it. I just knew it was Bush's fault.

[|Zach|]

I admit...it's a comb over.

[nstygma]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

In less than 18 months under Reagan, more than 320 people were killed by terrorist attacks on the U.S. Embassy in and around Beirut. And after the third attack, which killed two Americans, Reagan refused to curtail his campaign for re-election (which he won in a rout) even for one day.

But today, the deaths of four Americans killed during the assault on the Libyan consulate has some conservatives demanding Obama be tried for treason.

i'm wondering, was the Reagan administration watching those attacks live-fed in real time? were there requests for help that were denied? does any of that matter at all to you? i guess we'll have to wait till the investigation is over to have any idea of that.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

Cigars & fat hairy nasty pussy

I would have done it. And smoked the cigar afterwards.