Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
27 days ago.
by Ohwiseone
Ithink
#1

Who Lied About the Attack on 9/11/12?

It is incredible that democrats keep blathering about Romney lying, when we have the shock and disgust of seeing the president and his administration lying to us about the security of Americans. Unbelievable .

 
 

Member Comments

harryanderson

Aaron, I think I see what you mean. Are you speculating that fewer voters might have chosen Obama if Gen. Petraeus had, before the election, “countered the Presidents line policy win, the killing if OBL and the subsequent defeat of terrorism”?

Like many speculations, that can cut both ways. More voters might have chosen Obama if Gen. Patraeus had, before the election, countered the narrative that the talking points had a political motive.

Unprovable speculations aside, I’d like to address another part of your statement by asking when Obama said that bin Laden’s death led to “the subsequent defeat of terrorism.”

I don’t recall Obama saying terrorism had been defeated. I do recall him saying that Al Qaeda’s “core” had been “degraded.”

Posted 489 days ago.

Benghazi was home to rebel forces in 2010, many of which fought against Americans for years in both Iraq and Afghanistan that sought to overthrow Gaddafi and end his 40 year reign of power. Despite their background, our CIA aided those rebels in their overthrow of Gaddafi from the American Consulate in Benghazi.

According to one Senator on the Sunday Morning talk shows, the SD felt like Benghazi was a CIA outpost thus they were responsible for protection and security. After the attack, when the CIA started blaming State, saying they had given numerous warnings and requested increased security, State essentially said, it’s your baby, you deal with it.

Given the fact that CIA used the Consulate to aid the Libyan Civil War and the number of attacks leading up to 9/11/12, there is much more to this story. The more I read about this situation, the more I’m convinced that sooner or later more will come out despite what Obama apologist say.

Posted 489 days ago.

Tiredofit

In light of these abuses of power, still think we who don't trust Govt are the nuts? Does my argument that the mental health components of the Manchin Toomey bill will open up a can of govt intrusion, abuse and mishandled personal information to be used against political opponents?

Posted 489 days ago.

mythravere

And now we have the AP being put under DOJ scrutiny by having their phone communications monitored.

Not much of a surprise really considering the surveillance apparatus that has taken hold since 9-11.

Posted 489 days ago.

mythravere

Al Qaeda cant be defeated. Its a snake with many many heads and the mere act of trying to defeat them just makes more terrorists.

That does not mean that we should stop going after them though. Its just going to be a threat we will have to constantly defend ourselves from.

Posted 489 days ago.

He testified a week AFTER the election and his testimony essentially countered the Presidents line policy win, the killing if OBL and the subsequent defeat of terrorism.

What happens if the General testifies in September and essentially shows that the White House is not only lying about the reason behind the attack but that Al Qaeda has not been defeated and the Presidents win really isn't a win?

Posted 489 days ago.

harryanderson

Aaron, you wrote, "Time will tell."

I couldn't agree more. I'm still open-minded about this.

I'm not sure what you mean about the timing of Patraeus' testimony, etc., but I will consider it with an open mind.

Posted 490 days ago.

You can lead a human to knowledge but you can't make them think!!!

Posted 490 days ago.

What does OMB stand for Betsy?

Posted 490 days ago.

I'm sorry Betsy, I assumed you could use Google. My bad. Fiscal Year 2001 1,991.1 2013 2,712.0

Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; ***********whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/ (last accessed May 7, 2013).

Posted 490 days ago.

Tiredofit

Hush Nancy

Posted 490 days ago.

"When Patraeus said the change was for “intelligence, not political reasons,” that impressed me."

I’m not so sure. Between the timing of Patraeus’ testimony and the fact that the Obama Administration sent Susan Rice out to lie on the Sunday Morning talk shows tells me that there’s more to this than meets the eye. Initially, I thought it was because Obama didn’t want to acknowledge the fact that Al Qaeda was still operational despite his asserting otherwise for political reasons dealing with the election but now I’m not so sure.

After hearing a Senator yesterday on the talk show circuit claim the change in talking points was a result of inter-agency infighting, it added to my belief that someone is trying to cover something big up. I’m just not sure exactly what it was. But the fact that this was a CIA base in a recent overthrown country as part of the Arab Spring on 9/11 leads me to believe that this indeed could be 1985 all over again.

Time will tell.

Posted 490 days ago.

Tiredofit

If we want the opinion of a nancyboy, well let ya know.

Posted 490 days ago.

Tiredofit

Shhhh Scotty the MEN are talking.

Posted 490 days ago.

moderation

Harry, everyone needs a little encouragement to bring their dialogue into focus. And the word hate just isn't becoming of you.

Posted 490 days ago.

Tiredofit

I recall MYTH how the left supported the second Bush term eh? Sometimes you are so blind to your own hypocrisy

Posted 490 days ago.

harryanderson

Aaron, the “talking points” thing angered me at first, but that initial anger abated after David Patraeus testified.

“Gen Petraeus told the lawmakers that references to terror groups were removed from the final version of the administration's ‘talking points’ on Benghazi, although he was not sure which federal agency deleted it.

“Democrats said the former CIA director made clear the change was made for intelligence, not political reasons.”

ww w.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20362941

I realize that these Democrats’ political agenda moved them to claim that Patreaus (whose testimony wasn’t public) said the editing wasn’t politically motivated. I believed these Democrats because neither Republicans with the opposite agenda nor Gen. Patraeus disputed the Democrats’ claim.

When Patraeus said the change was for “intelligence, not political reasons,” that impressed me.

Posted 490 days ago.

mythravere

The Benghazi issue is just the continuation of the make Obama a one term president plan.

Aaron likes to point out my extreme dislike for the right. But it goes both ways.

The right with absolute conviction hates Obama.

The way they conduct their political business proves that.

Posted 490 days ago.

mythravere

Oh and for the record I've been posting on these forums a lot longer than you Aaron.

Nobody twisted your arm to make you respond to me did they.

So why did you waddle on in here and start posting.

Apparently I've pushed some buttons?

So how about this. Just ignore my posts!

LOL! Its real easy.

Posted 490 days ago.

mythravere

"Mod, I know I'm pushing all the right buttons when multiple posters respond to my comments."

"I mean after all, do you really think there are people who value your opinion?

Come on man!!!!!!"

Apparently to some degree you do. After all why would an intelligent person bother responding to an idiot such as myself?

Come on man!!!!!

Posted 490 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or