[metaglypto]

I understand some of the negativity here towards Fox News, and it isn't all just liberalism run amok. Same goes for the other media outlets and their liberal bias. As for what is going on with Benghazigate, this was clearly an attempt at a cover-up by Obama and any one else in the White House that spoke on the matter. In comparison to Watergate this cover-up is a tsunami and and Watergate was a ripple in a pond. No one died at Watergate. Perhaps Republicans did cut some funding. That had absolutely NOTHING to do with the SEALS being told to "stand down" when they requested to go help out. On the other hand the White House knew full well that the deaths had nothing whatsoever to do with some movie someone made months before this attack, and that it was not a spontaneous riot that occurred because of the movie, yet they continued for several days to try and make it look like that was the cause.

[Medium FormatPro]

Does every one agree with Obama that the death of an American ambassador, not to mention three other Americans, is nothing more than a "bump in the road"?

The facts are against Obama on that issue. Simply take a look at the timeline of events in relation to the Embasy killings. america had the clear ability to do something as simple as sending over planes for visual confirmation, or even could have called in people on foot.

And to this very day, since these Embasy attacks have occured, not much has really changed at most american Embassies. The enemies have found yet another weakness which hasn't been fully addressed or corrected

[normhead]

YOu of course have references to back this up... that's where we start in a discussion, first party references. There's an order of credibility, someone putting political spin on an issue is not a credble source. Someone in a position to know who was there stepping forward and saying "this is what I saw" is a credible source.

this was clearly an attempt at a cover-up by Obama and any one else in the White House that spoke on the matter.

Clear to who?

In comparison to Watergate this cover-up is a tsunami and and Watergate was a ripple in a pond.

How many Americans died in the Republican wars, Iraq and Afghanistan after Bush lied about WMDs? Funny how the death of this ambassador is major, while the deaths an injury of thousands of American soldiers in one of the most ill conceived conflicts of the century is not important. And efforts to look after soldiers coming home are killrd by Republcans as too costly. You know some cuontries have actually called for Bush to be tried for crimes against humanity don't you?

That had absolutely NOTHING to do with the SEALS being told to "stand down" when they requested to go help out.

I have absolutely no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding that decision. Obama gave the order to go in after Bin Laden, but told the seals to stand down when they could have saved the Ambassador, forgive me if there is something a little stinky about that assumption, to the point that without some kind of confirmation I'd guess it's simply one of those "facts Republicans make up when they have nothing." Prove me wrong.

On the other hand the White House knew full well that the deaths had nothing whatsoever to do with some movie someone made months before this attack, and that it was not a spontaneous riot that occurred because of the movie, yet they continued for several days to try and make it look like that was the cause.

OK, I know I'm supposed to be outraged... but I'm a little confused. If the WhIte House tried to use this incident to try and slow down the making of inflammatory movies who's sole purpose is to make muslims mad at us and that goes on in the US all the time, that's a good thing right? You're saying the Presidents message shouldn't have been, quit trying to incite muslims? I'm not convinced that's what happened, to know exactly what happened, you'd have to be there and know what was going on wouldn't you? Do you have a source... see that's what you need in political discussion, a source. We have Romney on tape talking about the 47%, that is a source, Romney himself, mindless speculation from talk networks that don't even claim they are reporting on facts, is not a credible source. Hope you're beginning to understand the difference.

[normhead]

The facts are against Obama on that issue. Simply take a look at the timeline of events in relation to the Embasy killings. america had the clear ability to do something as simple as sending over planes for visual confirmation, or even could have called in people on foot.

And to this very day, since these Embasy attacks have occured, not much has really changed at most american Embassies. The enemies have found yet another weakness which hasn't been fully addressed or corrected

See, that is not a fact, that is a series of assumptions made by folks who don't know anything about the situation, what the process was, if Obama even knew it was happening.

Reagon once said " I've left instructions I'm to be awakened from my sleep in an emergency, even if it's a cabinet meeting." We have no idea if Obama has left tthe same instructions. Are you saying Obama messed up, or are you saying someone in the military messed up, and Obama should take the blame for it. From the post, it's so imprecise, all you're really saying is "I don't like Obama."

[larryinlc]

I've read through the timeline several times, and I guess I'm not smart enough to draw any conclusions. Obama's Watergate? I think this is a John McCain quote that I suspect is for political advantage for the upcoming election. I don't know how anyone can be judge, jury and executioner based on what's known. I see there is still an ongoing investigation into the incident and hopefully, the truth will come out.

FactCheck.org : Benghazi Timeline

[NewportPreacher]

Keep up the excuse-making for your failed President. I find desperation highly entertaining!

[metaglypto]

Excuse me Normhead, I assumed you had been paying attention to the most recent news. Not only were they told to "stand down" the two Navy SEALS that were killed had to defy orders and went to try and help the ambassador anyway. It has been getting reported for a couple of days now that the White House had been getting reports during the attacks on the embassy.

Ok, here is one report from (oh the shame of it) Fox News. Of course I don't expect you to believe anything they say, but here is the reference anyway. EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say | Fox News

[normhead]

Keep up the excuse-making for your failed President. I find desperation highly entertaining!

I haven't made one excuse for Obama. Desperation? As if I care who wins. I'm Canadian. The whole thing is a joke to me.

[metaglypto]

BTW, what the hell does Watergate have to do with Bush?

[metaglypto]

Oh yeah, both Nixon and Bush were Republicans.

[kswier]

One only has to peruse the thread titles to see criticism after criticism of Mitt Romney, or other Republicans with barely a peep about Democrats.

Good question. I think there is plenty to criticize Obama on, but I think people often choose the wrong things (like blaming him for huge unemployment numbers...which I think we would have no matter who was president).

I understand some of the negativity here towards Fox News, and it isn't all just liberalism run amok. Same goes for the other media outlets and their liberal bias.

My opinions is that all US TV news channels are garbage. I am more likely to learn what someone just posted on Twitter than I am to hear a piece of real journalism. And when they are covering real events, I am more likely to hear what a particular politician said than I am to hear a story that goes into depth on an issue (i.e. to tax cuts actually help the economy, in what ways is the affordable care act good or bad,

In comparison to Watergate this cover-up is a tsunami and and Watergate was a ripple in a pond. No one died at Watergate.

I think I have to disagree with this. Watergate was an intentional scandal. It was fraud, and if it would have been allowed to happen it would have undermined our political system. My understanding is that the Benghazigate attack was not really known about ahead of time (at least not with 100% certainty). There may have been some poor decisions made before the attack and perhaps intelligence information did not flow as freely as it should have (everything is clear in hindsight), but there is never a 100% certain way of preventing an attack like that. The cover-up occurred after the attack (after the deaths), and showed that Obama or somebody in his administration or in congress probably made a poor decision (in hindsight...just like Bush should have connected the intelligence leading to 9-11...in hindsight).

If this occurred two years ago, and the president did not cover anything up, I think the American people would have forgiven Obama for it. Unfortunately, since it occurred just before an election the Republicans would have seized the opportunity and spent their billion dollar advertisement to distort the facts and make this issue much larger than it is (and democrats would have done the same thing if the tables were turned). It would have been political suicide, and any republican or democrat in his same position would have also tried to cover up the mistake (unfortunately).

If Obama made the decision to reduce security, I think we should judge him for that. But we need to judge him in the context of all of his other foreign policy decisions and domestic decision as well.

[metaglypto]

I think I have to disagree with this. Watergate was an intentional scandal. It was fraud, and if it would have been allowed to happen it would have undermined our political system.

As I recall, Nixon was unaware of the break-ins until after they occurred, and it was only after he learned of what happened that he tried to gain from it and then cover it up. And it was the cover up and the lies after the fact that got him into so much trouble. Though I will admit my memory may not be serving me correctly here.

At any rate, yours is a point well made. My argument is that they, Obama and staffers screwed up in trying to cover up the whole SNAFU, and then instead of trying to set the record straight, they continued to lie about it and put it out to the American public that it was a spontaneous riot that occurred during a protest over some poorly done film by a nobody from nowhere. This continued for several days. It is also being reported that much of the intelligence was contemporary with the attack and that three different requests were made for military intervention, and nothing was done. It is conceivable (barely) that Barry knew nothing about the fresh intel, but that just leads me to believe that he was seriously out of touch.

[larryinlc]

Wow, Benghazi or no Benghazi, would it be safe to assume that you won't be voting for President Obama next month?

Keep up the excuse-making for your failed President. I find desperation highly entertaining!

[Rondec]

Honestly, I just wish that there was less hatred on both sides. I just think it is not useful to call anyone names on either side. At one point in history, Republicans and Democrats were able to sit down together and come up with compromises that worked for both. The more polarized and toxic the environment, the less likely that is going to happen.

Mitt Romney is Mitt Romney's biggest problem. He is unable to speak clearly, he appears awkward and out of touch, but I really don't think he is a liar and I think (despite his swing to the right in the primaries) that he is pretty moderate, particularly for the Republican Party. And if he would win (he won't), he would govern from the middle. Most of the people who run for president are at least moderately wealthy, but few have the constant gaffes that Romney has had in oddly flaunting that he has more money than the average voter.

[jeffkrol]

Just give up ever hoping for anything anti democrat ever appearing on this forum you will learn that all conservatives are wing nuts or nitwits that all Republicans may as well drop dead or be though of a liars or hellspawn by the vast majority of posters in this forum. There a a few of us that are soooo stupid that we continue to post from time to time but I think we are masochists. But welcome to the forum and post away oh by the way the only acceptable sources of information are the huffington post, the daily kos, Msnbc, and other liberal new outlet. Should you watch FNC you are an idiot that enjoys being lied to and you have swallowed the lemonade brewed by the secret world order led by the Koch brothers and a few others. Ok I think I covered all the bases for the uninformed conservative new to these threads. Carry on there is nothing to see here take you camera and go outside.

That is the most whiny bs I've ever read here.......................... Remember gingeM? AFAIKT they left on their own.. but who knows..
When I read stuff like the above it all looks like cop out.. or a whine because you apparently think you "can't win" i.e to get everyone to believe like you...
I personally prefer everyone think for themselves.. or LOOK deeper into it.. regardless whether they agree w/ me or not.. BUT it certainly wouldn't stop me from presenting what I think interesting from my perspective.. and throwing a bit of 2 cents into it..

I've posted articles from all over the political/social spectrum...... I just avoid those that lack facts or are a bunch of rah rah jingoism crap... IF it eliminates "conservative sources" best to ask why than shooting the messenger..


so lets take a look .. just for fun.. Random pick (just went to redstate........

The Man Without A Mandate | RedState

My take WHO CARES.. what does it mean?? Nothing. Just a bunch of cheap statistics that mean nothing to the more educated...

Just because something never happened (a re-election w/ a minority (and currently it certainly is poll wise not only iffy but if true a very very very statistically small outlier) doesn't "make it bad" as they imply.........

(A final note, of prediction: If the Romney-Ryan ticket wins a popular vote majority, wins Florida, Virginia and New Hampshire, and the GOP holds its House majority, but Obama improbably holds the White House on the strength of Nevada and the industrial Midwest, there will be enormous momentum within the Republican party to clear the 2016 primary field for Paul Ryan).

Weinermobile Ryan......... I'm sorry he is from my state..and is still an idiot..............from my point of view.