Jump to content

Is Obama Telling Us The Truth?

75center

By 75center
in Kentucky / National Politics

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest Birdflu

Guest Birdflu

Posted
Posted
Conflicting reports about the assault on the US Consulate.

 

No demonstration before attack on US Consulate, source says | Fox News

 

Is he trying to cover it up due to fears about his foreign policy credentials so close to the election?

 

I am not sure that, politicians in general, would know the truth if it smacked them in the head. The Administration has to say that the film caused the attacks or their credibility (assuming they had any) would seriously be damaged. President Obama has criticized Governor Romney's foreign policy experience, when President Obama had as little or less experience when he was elected. I know President Obama ordered Bin Laden's killing and has taken out several Terrorist leaders with drones. I commend him for these accomplishments. But he apologizes and sucks up to too many foreign leaders, which makes him seem weak. To answer the original question, he is doing the usual political lying that all politicians do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
75center

75center

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It would seem risky to try to cover up the facts of the attack as it appears there are too many other sources that could contradict it. Things like that have a tendancy to snowball out of control and do more damage to a campaign than the original incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluegrasscard

Bluegrasscard

Posted
Posted
It would seem risky to try to cover up the facts of the attack as it appears there are too many other sources that could contradict it. Things like that have a tendancy to snowball out of control and do more damage to a campaign than the original incident.

 

This is probably due to 20 and 30 somethings running the show. This weekend it was the UN secretary making the rounds on the talk shows. Not the Secretary of State. Hillary and the older 'Clinton guard' is probably sitting this sequence out. Why? One way or the other Hillary is making a run in 2016. She (and the older, mature Clinton insiders) want to avoid taking the heat or blame as this unravels. That leaves those who are sympathetic to the Brotherhood (Jarrett) and the youngsters (Jay Carney types) in charge of handling it. Those calling the shots are likely young, inexperienced, hold mis-guided support, etc. And given the critical window of the election period they are likely in spin mode.

 

Even Hillary is not so mature on this. Some gloating over Gaddafi's demise...

 

[video=youtube;NHKneuS-psY]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluegrasscard

Bluegrasscard

Posted
Posted

Back to the original question - "Is (the) Obama (Administration) tell us the truth?"

 

In some statements the self-admitted answer is NO.

 

The State Department originally denied that they had hired a British firm for security in Libya last week. Yesterday they admitted that they lied.

 

State Dept Reverses Denial of Hiring British Security Firm in Benghazi

 

"The State Department signed a six-figure deal with a British firm to protect the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya just four months before a sustained attack on the compound killed four U.S. nationals inside."

 

"Blue Mountain Group was chosen by State, in part, because it was willing to accept the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya that prohibited security guards at Benghazi from carrying weapons that contained bullets."

 

Emphasis added.

 

So it was the State Department itself that set the security or lack thereof with their own policy. Its Brian Terry and F&F all over again.

 

 

Obviously the first reaction to the British firm was to deny it. Since they were hired due to their acceptance of the very policy that likely directly resulted in the deaths of at least 4 and maybe 6 or more Americans.

 

 

So lets get this straight. On the anniversary of 9/11, in a country that is home to the #2 Al Quada guy who was recently killed by our forces, in a country that is still highly volatile after we helped depose of the previous leader our ambassador was protected by people without guns and bullets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watusi

Watusi

Posted
Posted
Well, Ole Mitt doesn't tell us ANYTHING. What do his taxes say? What is his plan? Why did he pick the Ryan boy? How long did he really work for Bain? How many jobs did he outsource to other countries? Come on rich guy America Wants To Know!:idunno:
By all means, start another thread about it. This thread is not about Mitt, let's keep it on topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluegrasscard

Bluegrasscard

Posted
Posted

Former Navy SEALs killed were not part of the official security contingent. More like first responders.

 

See previous post. Security was provided by British firm using unarmed contingent apparently.

 

U.S. officials clarify administration description of two heroes in Libya attack | WashingtonGuardian

 

“Woods and Doherty weren’t part of the detail, nor were they personally responsible for the ambassador’s security, but they stepped into the breach when the attacks occurred and their actions saved others lives -- and they shouldn’t be lumped in with the security detail,” one senior official said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly about the State Department.

 

Emphasis added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.

  I accept