|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Dear Leader's Pack of Lies on Benghazi (10/27/2012 6:44:41 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I agree.
Oh, I've seen "explanations", but I'd like more proof before I jump onto the bandwagon.
It was either normal bureaucratic screwup, or it was intentional.
If it was a screwup, then fine ... but why the WH kept up the untrue story for two weeks in a compounding of a "normal bureaucratic snafu" is beyond me. It would have been a doubling, or triple-downing on a bad situation. If true, this doesn't reflect well on the WH.
If it was intentional ... then, well, damn. I hope the floodgates of hell open up on the Administration, because they would deserve it.
Either way, I see no positive side for Obama. Do you?
How many more times does this need saying. Obama said it was a terrorist attack the very next day, in a speech from the Rose Garden.
Its easy enough to find but facts dont actually fit the bullshit floating about on here, so I guess it gets ignored.
Polite,
We can argue whether or not he actually called it a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden speech. To me, it appeared that he wasn't directly referring to that specific incident, but even if I grant you are correct, his later speeches were pretty specific as the cause being the video. As well, he sent Susan Rice on the Sunday talk shows (all of them) to give an Administration line that it was a spontaneous demostration that just 'accidently" turned into an attack, and caused by the outrage of over the video.
If he knew it was a full blown, dedicated terrorist attack on the second day, why did he and his minions then proceed to say otherwise for almost two more weeks?
Back to my original post above: it was either the mother-of-all bureaucratic snafus that exposed some real incompetence of political leadership, or it was intentional.
Can you give me another possible scenario?
Firm
|
|
|
|
