The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
Only a few places to get hardcore Benghazi conspiracy talk - wingnut blogs, hate radio, and FOX.
No, I do not listen to Rush.
GL2 said:
Only a few places to get hardcore Benghazi conspiracy talk - wingnut blogs, hate radio, and FOX.
Two days before election day the Times has another front pager on what happened in Benghazi
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/world/africa/benghazi-attack-raises-doubts-about-us-abilities-in-region.html?ref=todayspaper
So, the president, Ambassor Rice, Hillary, Jay Carney, NYTimes, etc, etc told the lie about the video for almost a month after the terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11! Even in light of real investigative reporting which told of the incompetence following the murders of four Americans. The White House denied any hint that it was a planned, terrorist attack and any one who said it was, was a conservative "wingnut"!
Remember, the president desperately tried to say he reported it as a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden during the debate? Too little, too late for any credibility!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/world/africa/benghazi-attack-raises-doubts-about-us-abilities-in-region.html?ref=todayspaper
So, the president, Ambassor Rice, Hillary, Jay Carney, NYTimes, etc, etc told the lie about the video for almost a month after the terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11! Even in light of real investigative reporting which told of the incompetence following the murders of four Americans. The White House denied any hint that it was a planned, terrorist attack and any one who said it was, was a conservative "wingnut"!
Remember, the president desperately tried to say he reported it as a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden during the debate? Too little, too late for any credibility!
"So, the president, Ambassor Rice, Hillary, Jay Carney, NYTimes, etc, etc told the lie about the video for almost a month after the terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11!"
There was no lie (he says for the gazillionth time), and the fact that you believe there was is exactly my point about the incompetence of the major media on this story.
There was no lie (he says for the gazillionth time), and the fact that you believe there was is exactly my point about the incompetence of the major media on this story.
No lies? Repeated assertions that the little video was the cause were what if not lies? The White House already knew at that point that it wasn't the video! The effort to avoid looking totally incompetent in matters of foreign affairs was paramount.
Is that jerk who made the video still safely stashed away in jail for "his own protection"? I'm sure he will be released sometime after Tuesday.
Now it's the major media who are incompetent? It was the major media's support of the White House cover-up which has protected the President's image. So, maybe you are right, the major media is incompetent.
Yesterday's Times also had a front page story on the president's exhaustion and loss of connection to his 2008 believers. I guess campaigning for another term for 18months of the first four years made minding the store in DC tough-going!
Yes, I know Osama is dead. But his followers are very much alive.
Is that jerk who made the video still safely stashed away in jail for "his own protection"? I'm sure he will be released sometime after Tuesday.
Now it's the major media who are incompetent? It was the major media's support of the White House cover-up which has protected the President's image. So, maybe you are right, the major media is incompetent.
Yesterday's Times also had a front page story on the president's exhaustion and loss of connection to his 2008 believers. I guess campaigning for another term for 18months of the first four years made minding the store in DC tough-going!
Yes, I know Osama is dead. But his followers are very much alive.
mtierney said:
No lies? Repeated assertions that the little video was the cause were what if not lies?
They. Didn't. Say. This.
Reality.
I've gone through this umpteen times already. I've posted several links proving my point. Show me a quote where you think they said what you claim, and I'll show you that when you read the entire quote, you're wrong.
I've gone through this umpteen times already. I've posted several links proving my point. Show me a quote where you think they said what you claim, and I'll show you that when you read the entire quote, you're wrong.
Every"assertion" was hedged and qualified. None were statements that something or another was an absolute fact.
The failure of the media is evidenced by people like you, who desperately need a scandal. You should have zero credibility by now.
The failure of the media is evidenced by people like you, who desperately need a scandal. You should have zero credibility by now.
I've tried to stay out of this ridiculous argument for a while... especially because it involves the shameless exploitation of dead American heroes (in every sense of the word) for political gain.... but one thing that needs to be pointed out is that those on the right have tried to re-write history to pretend that there were no protests related to the video and there is no way that anyone could have thought for a while that the attacks on the consulate spawned from those protests. At the time of the attack on the embassy, violence was spreading rapidly due to the video, in many places. Now suddenly the GOP uses every instance of someone from the administration mentioning the video and protests as "proof" of a cover up, when that is far from the case. Events were unfolding rapidly all over the middle east and it was a chaotic time-- MOSTLY due to the video and the protests that it spawned.
Many people were killed due to that stupid video and at the time that the consulate was under attack, anti-American protests were spreading and getting more and more violent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world/middleeast/mideast-turmoil-spreads-to-us-embassy-in-yemen.html?pagewanted=all
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/14/world/la-fg-middle-east-violence-20120915
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203129/U-S-embassies-Muslim-world-prepare-violence-Friday-prayers--traditional-Middle-East-time-protest.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/%E2%80%98innocence-muslims%E2%80%99-protests-death-toll-rising-pakistan-794296
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/world/asia/unrest-protests-over-mohammed-film.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/world/middleeast/anti-american-protests-over-film-enter-4th-day.html?pagewanted=all
Many people were killed due to that stupid video and at the time that the consulate was under attack, anti-American protests were spreading and getting more and more violent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world/middleeast/mideast-turmoil-spreads-to-us-embassy-in-yemen.html?pagewanted=all
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/14/world/la-fg-middle-east-violence-20120915
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203129/U-S-embassies-Muslim-world-prepare-violence-Friday-prayers--traditional-Middle-East-time-protest.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/%E2%80%98innocence-muslims%E2%80%99-protests-death-toll-rising-pakistan-794296
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/world/asia/unrest-protests-over-mohammed-film.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/world/middleeast/anti-american-protests-over-film-enter-4th-day.html?pagewanted=all
The right has thrown so much sh** against the wall to see what will stick that they don't even know what the "scandal" is about anymore.
Nov 4, 2012 at 10:18am Edited
The panic in the poster's heated, emotional assertions of "lies" and "coverup" belies his/her political stance. No wonder it was so difficult working/communicating with them on inclusion and differentiated instruction. This poster is a right winger to the hilt. Mtierney does NOT want Obama to win.
Might have missed this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-loin-king.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-loin-king.html?pagewanted=all
mtierney said:
Might have missed this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-loin-king.html?pagewanted=all
I'm looking for the connection to this thread, but can't find one. Did you post this by accident?
C'mon, Ridski... The OP is critical of Obama, the second half of the article is critical of Obama.
The connection is clear as day!
;-)
BTW, I hope you're all safe, warm and dry. And if you're not, I hope you are soon.
The connection is clear as day!
;-)
BTW, I hope you're all safe, warm and dry. And if you're not, I hope you are soon.
Do you think Dowd would have written this prior to the Benghazi mishandling? Her disillusionment shines through. The first page on either Saturday or Sunday had a photo essay on the changed Obama as well.
Seriously? You're going to a Dowd op-ed as proof of - well, anything?
Why don't you try to make your case that the administration has been lying?
Why don't you try to make your case that the administration has been lying?
mtierney said:
Do you think Dowd would have written this prior to the Benghazi mishandling? Her disillusionment shines through. The first page on either Saturday or Sunday had a photo essay on the changed Obama as well.
I neither know the answer nor care either way. You asked a question at the beginning of the thread over a month ago, if you still don't know the answer to that question then I'm not sure MOL can help you.
I wonder if cons are having trouble with the intelligence agency angle. They seem to be ignoring the fact that the administration was working off of the best intel from the CIA.
Could it be that the sainted General Petraeus is running CIA, and they can't bring themselves to even imply criticism of him?
Could it be that the sainted General Petraeus is running CIA, and they can't bring themselves to even imply criticism of him?
mtierney said:
Do you think Dowd would have written this prior to the Benghazi mishandling? Her disillusionment shines through. The first page on either Saturday or Sunday had a photo essay on the changed Obama as well.
Yes, the physical toll on a president is always noticeable. It would be funny if Obama dyed his hair and used a spray tan booth, though.
Every President shows the stress of the office. Look at any President at the beginning and end of his term. It's usually pretty striking.
Plus presidents are typically of an age where four or eight years show big differences, even without the stress.
Plus presidents are typically of an age where four or eight years show big differences, even without the stress.
mtierney said:
Do you think Dowd would have written this prior to the Benghazi mishandling? Her disillusionment shines through. The first page on either Saturday or Sunday had a photo essay on the changed Obama as well.
As much as you would wish that it were so, neither Dowd's attitude nor the President's weariness were caused by the non-stop lying, and shameless exploitation of the deaths of four Americans, by the the right wing ranters.
I just read the Maureen Dowd column. She is much tougher on Romney than she is on Obama. And I do not see any connection to Benghazi.
I have been trying to get the message through that supporters of candidates for election become slightly deranged as election day grows near. For folks like Mtierney it's not enough that they don't like Obama's policies they have to begin believing he is evil.
On the other side a young voter I know opined that he thinks Mitt Romney is the Devil.
I have been trying to get the message through that supporters of candidates for election become slightly deranged as election day grows near. For folks like Mtierney it's not enough that they don't like Obama's policies they have to begin believing he is evil.
On the other side a young voter I know opined that he thinks Mitt Romney is the Devil.
Nov 5, 2012 at 9:19am Edited
nohero said:
mtierney said:
Do you think Dowd would have written this prior to the Benghazi mishandling? Her disillusionment shines through. The first page on either Saturday or Sunday had a photo essay on the changed Obama as well.
As much as you would wish that it were so, neither Dowd's attitude nor the President's weariness were caused by the non-stop lying, and shameless exploitation of the deaths of four Americans, by the the right wing ranters.
Was it not "shameless exploitation" to finger one man and a short video for the Benghazi horror? Over and over again for several weeks - even before the United Nations? Was it not a failure of our government to leave pleas for security and previous terror incidents in the region ignored?
Oh, please. There is ABSOLUTELY no proof that incidents in the region were ignored. Listen to Hillary Clinton around the time of the incident. She knew of it. I am sure everything that could have been done, or thought, or planned, or offered, was so. Obama would not leave people untended, especially people he cared personally about. Just get off it, finally, already.
mtierney said:
Was it not "shameless exploitation" to finger one man and a short video for the Benghazi horror? Over and over again for several weeks - even before the United Nations? Was it not a failure of our government to leave pleas for security and previous terror incidents in the region ignored?nohero said:
As much as you would wish that it were so, neither Dowd's attitude nor the President's weariness were caused by the non-stop lying, and shameless exploitation of the deaths of four Americans, by the the right wing ranters.
You're equating a few days of trying to figure out what happened, with the blatant lies and exploitation by the right-wing ranters? That is so wrong.
mtierney said:
Was it not "shameless exploitation" to finger one man and a short video for the Benghazi horror? Over and over again for several weeks - even before the United Nations?
Show us where they did that. Tell us what he said to the UN.
You're just regurgitating - you have no clue as to what actually was said. Abysmal, really.
Based on what I've read, hind sight would suggest we made a major error in judgment in not responding to requests for more security. I'm sure those decision makers wish they could have that one back. And I would bet the administration is quickly reviewing (providing) security at other "hot spots".
Once the attack began, it seems all efforts were made to help the ambassador and his team. But I suspect it happened so fast there was nothing that could be done. David Ignacius's column covered the timeline pretty well, IMO.
All the actions/comments by the administration after the fact smells terrible. If we knew it was terrorism, say so, and then cancel campaigning for a few days. The president should have spoken to the American people with a press conference and/or oval office speech as soon as possible. The frequent references to the video smacks of an inner circle strategy to confuse the issue. And poor Susan Rice, who appears to have gone into hiding (so she won't be put into a position of lying?), comes across looking dishonest and/or clueless. And a sacrificial lamb.
Let's face it...terrorist attacks ain't going away. There are endless terrorists and endless targets, and there is no timeframe. They could happen in five minutes or in twenty years. Every administration will have to deal with them. Same with the American people.
It seems to me both sides made this a political football, which is shameful, IMO. And as I've said, I have already voted for Obama (again).
Once the attack began, it seems all efforts were made to help the ambassador and his team. But I suspect it happened so fast there was nothing that could be done. David Ignacius's column covered the timeline pretty well, IMO.
All the actions/comments by the administration after the fact smells terrible. If we knew it was terrorism, say so, and then cancel campaigning for a few days. The president should have spoken to the American people with a press conference and/or oval office speech as soon as possible. The frequent references to the video smacks of an inner circle strategy to confuse the issue. And poor Susan Rice, who appears to have gone into hiding (so she won't be put into a position of lying?), comes across looking dishonest and/or clueless. And a sacrificial lamb.
Let's face it...terrorist attacks ain't going away. There are endless terrorists and endless targets, and there is no timeframe. They could happen in five minutes or in twenty years. Every administration will have to deal with them. Same with the American people.
It seems to me both sides made this a political football, which is shameful, IMO. And as I've said, I have already voted for Obama (again).
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
mtierney must be listening to Rush, who continues to be outraged by both Benghazi and about the MSM's treating Sandy differently than they treated Katrina. Yup, the guy believes that if the victims were largely black and the administration Republican, that the MSM would be all over the "incompetence" of FEMA and BHO. He's literally disappointed that there was (so far) an adequate response.
There's no talking to these folks. Just gotta let them sit on the sidelines for another 4 years and spin tales of conspiracy.