Benghazi-gate

[swchandler]

"the American people deserve and demand answers"


Needless to say, I'm in full agreement with mac and keycocker. As I see it, if there are any answers to the Libyan incident, you'll have to wait for them. I'm willing to be patient.

Now, when it comes to the Romney/Ryan ticket and our future, I have to say that the American people deserve and demand answers that Romney and Ryan flatly refuse to answer. That's where I'm losing patience.

What is more important, to rehash something that already happened in Libya that can't be changed, or being frank and transparent about what's being proposed for the next 4 years? We all know that the most important issues in this campaign are the economy, jobs, taxes and budget cuts. Why haven't you, mrgybe, NW30, Bard and techno900 been up in arms about the total lack of specifics coming from the Republican candidates? Surprisingly, none of you seem to care much at all. Are you all just a bunch of airheads believing in a poorly presented fantasy terribly lacking in crucial details?

[isobars]

Just now, at 76 minutes into the debate, Obama lied that he had called Benghazi an act of terror the day after the attack, in the Rose Garden. Romney, during his turn, asked Obama to repeat that claim; Obama refused (because, I assume, he knows the speech is still on YouTube). Romney then accurately stated that it was two weeks before Obama admitted it was a terrorist act. Then the moderator backed up the President's lie, and would not let Romney dispute Obama's lie. IMO, That should disqualify her and her network from presenting anything represented as news to the American public.

Even if Obama had, as he claimed, attributed it to terrorism the day after, why were he and his U.N Ambassador still claiming weeks later that it was the video, not a planned attack?

Given the hard proof and sworn congressional testimony that the administration knew real time of the attack, in fact watched it live for hours, how can anyone with morals or who understands the Prime Directive of the Commander in Chief support a man who lies about something that important just to keep from admitting that his UN speech about Al Qaeda being on the ropes was BS?

[mac]

Iso has truly gone the rest of the way to insane. Romney was caught in a lie--claiming that Obama was spinning for 2 weeks--when he said, backed by the commentator, that he described it as an act of terrorism the next day.

Now let's compare the facts, and compare them with the Bush Administration's treatment of the death of Pat Tillman and the failures of the Corps of Engineers in New Orleans. In the case of Libya, the chief of security asked--unsuccessfully--for more money, but was not supported by the head of the State Department group that developed budgets. There is no information that this kind of debate was elevated to the White House--although in every governmental agency that I know anything about there is a process for appealing such decisions. Obama described it as an act of terrorism the next day, and I think he will retaliate before the election. I'm not sure that that is a good idea, but that is the WYSIWYG nature of Obama.

In sharp contrast, the conspiracy to hide the facts on the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman was hidden from his parents by Cheney and Rumsfeld. I've not seen compelling information that says that Bush knew about it, but Tillman's parents are both on record. On Katrina, I know the two UC Berkeley engineers that ran the fact finding commission into the failures. The Corps of Engineers had approved construction that did not meet the design specifications. The levees failed because the contractor failed to clear organic vegetation and key the flood wall into the underlying levee. It involved corruption in the engineering community in New Orleans and at the Corps of Engineers. According to one of those individuals, George Bush personally ran the coverup on malfeasance. I asked him why, saying that the corrupt behavior occurred long before he came into office. His response? You and I both know that, but by the time the Bush administration figured that out they had decided to cover up the matter.

So I will remind you again of the soul of prejudice and bigotry in the particular case. Holding Obama to a fundamentally different standard than you held Bush to, in the curious case of Libya, is bigotry at its most basic.

[mrgybe]

So the President knew it was an act of terror the day after the occurrence..........September 12.

Jay Carney, September 13 - "The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States."

Jay Carney, September 14 - "We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent."

Susan Rice, September 16 - "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

These people should have talked to their boss. He could have set them straight before they made fools of themselves in public.

[mac]

Is that the best you can do? You politicize the death of a good man, against the will of his parents, you believe the worst of a man without complete information, and you watch Romney lose the election on the issue.

If there are people who screwed up over Libya they should be fired--but there should actually be an inquiry, not a witch hunt. Cheney and Rumsfeld suborned perjury to hide the cause of death of Pat Tillman--they should have been indicted. But then you apply a different standard to Obama. Of course it has nothing to do with racial animus--it is a different kind of prejudice that you will kindly explain to us that know so much less than you.

[LHDR]

[isobars]

Crowley now admits her statement was wrong, that Romney was right.

How long will it take her to admit that even if she had been right, she committed the most egregious moderator sin in presidential debate history. Only the candidates are allowed to debate; anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the concept.

[DanWeiss]

Isobars is so upset that the Moderator stepped over the limits but simply ignores the post in direct reply and contradiction to his own post asserting the President lied.

Let's agree not to elect Ms. Crowley.

[techno900]

mac said:

[windoggi]

Can this non issue be over please? Who cares if it was a riot or a terrorist act? The results were the same. And who cares if the white house said it was one thing or another? This is just like the fast and furious brouhaha... the Republicans trying to connect some evil intent to Obama when it was nothing more than a standard issue low level fuck up.