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
43 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 505 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 505 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 505 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 506 days ago.

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

Posted 506 days ago.

What does OMB stand for Betsy?

Posted 506 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 506 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 506 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 506 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 506 days ago.

harryanderson

There’s a new poll that supports what you said, tiredofit.

“While voters overall may think Congress' focus should be elsewhere there's no doubt about how mad Republicans are about Benghazi. 41% say they consider this to be the biggest political scandal in American history to only 43% who disagree with that sentiment. Only 10% of Democrats and 20% of independents share that feeling. Republicans think by a 74/19 margin than Benghazi is a worse political scandal than Watergate, by a 74/12 margin that it's worse than Teapot Dome, and by a 70/20 margin that it's worse than Iran Contra.”

Voters overall aren’t moved, Republicans think it’s the worst, and Democrats think it’s the least.

ww w.publicpolicypolling.c om/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html

Posted 506 days ago.

Originally I didn't think this thing would take hold. Now I'm not so sure, perhaps not with Obama but I do think it will be an issue in the future. If Hillary runs in 2016, I'm sure her "who cares" testimony will come back to haunt her.

"I hate put-downs."

I don't worry about it Harry. When the mods of the world have to resort to comments like that, I know the debate is over as they have nothing else.

Posted 506 days ago.

harryanderson

“I also don't think it will do a thing other than further entrench to left and right, the middle, what there is of it, will be unmoved or further disgusted with the system.”

Well tiredofit, you’re probably right. I’m sure that highly partisan Americans have already cemented their opinions and that less partisan Americans will be either unmoved or turned off.

The less partisan both commence and conclude less moved. And the foofaraw will further frustrate those already repelled.

Posted 506 days ago.

RANDOM21

They won't throw them into the fire, but, the White House has put out bids for five new buses with custom high clearance to get rid of more baggage. <sarc> (in case burning wants proof.)

Posted 506 days ago.

harryanderson

It seems we have some rats in the Benghazi thing. Maybe they too will throw their fellow rats into the fire.

Posted 506 days ago.

harryanderson

“Actually the people who did the heavy lifting Harry was the ones who got arrested. Had they just kept their mouths shut, they would likely have did a little time for B&E's and that would have been it but they first thing they did was to talk about a previous break in.”

Good point. The rats also did some very heavy lifting when they threw their fellow rats into the fire, eh?

Posted 506 days ago.

harryanderson

“I have noticed that you have difficulty with reality, aarons, but I do not mind working with people who are challenged.”

I hate put-downs.

Posted 506 days ago.

Actually the people who did the heavy lifting Harry was the ones who got arrested. Had they just kept their mouths shut, they would likely have did a little time for B&E's and that would have been it but they first thing they did was to talk about a previous break in. The majority of the evidence against them, and those above them, came from them. Even Nixon's own undoing was by his own hand in the form of his tapes.

Posted 506 days ago.

moderation

Archie Cox

Posted 506 days ago.

harryanderson

As to the more current and important issue--whether the media is more bought now, I suspect that’s true, but I can't swear to it because I have no evidence to support any claims I might make.

And of course I agree that partisan politics keep this stuff alive today. That’s why I have little regard for Congressional investigations. I see them as more driven by politics than search for truth. When partisans do all the scheduling and select all the witnesses, I don’t see how I can conclude anything else.

I don’t worry about media bias because I believe God, who says, “All things hidden will be revealed.” God protects believers from lies.

Posted 506 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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