It is a measure of how skewed the reporting is and how intellectually inconsistent is most of the “analysis” from the mainstream media that while Mitt Romney’s comment on the embassy attacks held the attention of the press for days (when in fact he had correctly surmised that the administration was trying to make excuses for the embassy attack by expressing regret over an anti-Muslim video), there has been comparatively little concern with a much more critical story: Did the Obama team intentionally lie to voters (or just shoot first and aim later) for a week about what it knew, and did the deaths of four Americans result, in part, from defective security and preparation at the Benghazi consulate?
There is ample evidence that the administration screwed up. The Wall Street Journal has a must-read in-depth report that explains what the administration has refused to tell us:
The deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya on Sept. 11 was preceded by a succession of security lapses and misjudgments, compounded by fog-of-battle decisions, that raise questions about whether the scope of the tragedy could have been contained.
That is a scandal of the first order, which in any unbiased media environment would be the biggest story of the year and reason to demand a full explanation from the White House. Did Obama and his advisers incorrectly assess the ongoing threat of jihadists, lack sufficient intelligence on the ground in Libya (after chest-thumping about our leading-from-behind strategy in the war) and fail to grasp that blaming a video is only feeding into the mentality of the jihadists (i.e., the West is to blame for violence)?
National security reporter Eli Lake is one of the few to connect the dots and point the finger back to the White House. He writes:
"Ten days after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House’s official story about the incident appears to be falling apart."
You just keep on posting your crap. No one here cares. You aren't changing anyone's mind and it just makes you look like a douche.
What do you hope to accomplish?
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
"mikey, You just keep on posting your crap. No one here cares. You aren't changing anyone's mind and it just makes you look like a douche. What do you hope to accomplish?"
Geraldo Rivera on tonight's O'Reilly Factor: "If my 93 year old mother living in Florida knew the attack on the Libyan embassy was a terrorist attack, how come the Obama White House DIDN'T?"
90% of those people are also just reading to see what other juvenile posts mikey can come up with.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
Here is a fantastic clip from the 2007 Democratic Primary debate. Charlie Gibson tells Sen. Obama that every time we have increased the capital gains tax, the revenue from the tax GOES DOWN, and every time we CUT capital gains tax, the revenue INCREASES. But Sen. Obama still says he would consider increasing the tax for reasons of "fairness"!! HUH???? The purpose of a tax is to raise revenue, RIGHT?
Here we see a classic example of Obama's complete incompetence in dealing with economic policies, and we see how he wants to use tax policies to shape social norms. Is it any WONDER we are in the mess we are currently in??
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
On tonight's Gretta Van Susteren show on Fox, Gretta asked Newt Gingrich why Hillary Clinton found time to meet with world leaders during the UN Conference, but Pres. Obama did not. Newt responded: "There is HUGE difference. Hillary Clinton is a SERIOUS person, Barack Obama is an AMBITIOUS person. They are very different personalities. Hillary Clinton actually gets up every day thinking about public policy, Barack Obama gets up every day thinking about Barack Obama."
I'm still waiting on the answer that was forthcoming about how many lies Pres. Obama told on Letterman. What's the matter Mikey, couldn't actually find any?