EZ-E Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I do not frequent this side of the board because football and politics should never be mixed. But this morning I am completely bored out of my mind at work. So I began to read the thread pertaining to the 2nd debate and here is my take on the Libyian incident and the cover up by the administration: First, as much as anyone wants to say there's transcripts of Barack labeling this as terrorism, there isn't. Although the word was used in his speech afterwords, he used it very general and he was meaning for the American people to take him out of context. Even if you want to say no he wasn't, okay. That's fine, then why did he continue to back track and blame the video on Letterman and The View? So even if you want to claim he labeled it terror you have to wonder why he would back track like he did in the weeks after. Furthermore, why would he let any member of his cabinet blame the video or anything other than terrorism for that matter? If he labeled it terrorism, everybody in his cabinet should have as well. For example, why did press secretary Jay Carney blame the video and blatantly lie about it multiple times as late as October the tenth? Why did Susan Rice do the same? If the president was labeling it as an act of terror from day one why in hell are people he trusts with his reputation and that of the country's singing a completely different tune? Candy Crowley even admitted the next day on CNN she was wrong and Romney was right. While I am pretty middle of the road on either candidate as it stands, Barack Obama has a lot of explaining to do on this front. 2 Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya Link to comment
EZ-E Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya Okay, and to the rest of the post about why he back tracked??? Link to comment
EZ-E Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 And as the above post states, that is a very general statement. Never once did he say that this was an organized terrorist attack. He has explaining to do. Even if you say he was referring to Benghazi, then why did he back track and blame the video? Why did his press secretary? Why did Susan Rice do the same??? Explain. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Okay, and to the rest of the post about why he back tracked??? Covered ad nauseum in a couple other threads. You started a new one for some reason instead of joining one already in progress. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 And as the above post states, that is a very general statement. Never once did he say that this was an organized terrorist attack. Ah, yes. If only he had said "organized." Then things would be different. Did you know that George W. Bush never talked about the World Trade Center in his first speech after 9/11? Not once. I think that he's hiding something . . . for some reason . . . that I don't know. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I'd start here: http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/61803-2nd-debate-discussion/ http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/61798-9112001-vs-9112012/ And if you're wondering: I think it probably varied from city to city and country to country. The Benghazi attack, no matter what is said by the Obama administration, was not a spontaneous riot protesting that video. That doesn't mean that all other riots were premeditated attacks as well. Link to comment
Street Novelist Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 People shouldn't get wrapped up in politics. If history has shown us anything, it's that politics divide, not unite. I would hate to see the election come down to a simple matter of semantics. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I would hate to see the election come down to a simple matter of semantics. I can't see that happening. This is just bickering. It'll have as much impact on the election as teleprompter jokes and Paul Ryan washing clean pots. Link to comment
EZ-E Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 I'd start here:http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/61803-2nd-debate-discussion/ http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/61798-9112001-vs-9112012/ And if you're wondering: I think it probably varied from city to city and country to country. The Benghazi attack, no matter what is said by the Obama administration, was not a spontaneous riot protesting that video. That doesn't mean that all other riots were premeditated attacks as well. Then you agree. I apologize for back tracking conversation as you know I'm not here often. But why are we letting the administration off the hook then if we both agree????? Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 But why are we letting the administration off the hook then if we both agree????? What do you mean by "letting them off the hook"? What satisfactory end do you see? Link to comment
krc1995 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I do not frequent this side of the board because football and politics should never be mixed. But this morning I am completely bored out of my mind at work. So I began to read the thread pertaining to the 2nd debate and here is my take on the Libyian incident and the cover up by the administration: First, as much as anyone wants to say there's transcripts of Barack labeling this as terrorism, there isn't. Although the word was used in his speech afterwords, he used it very general and he was meaning for the American people to take him out of context. Even if you want to say no he wasn't, okay. That's fine, then why did he continue to back track and blame the video on Letterman and The View? So even if you want to claim he labeled it terror you have to wonder why he would back track like he did in the weeks after. Furthermore, why would he let any member of his cabinet blame the video or anything other than terrorism for that matter? If he labeled it terrorism, everybody in his cabinet should have as well. For example, why did press secretary Jay Carney blame the video and blatantly lie about it multiple times as late as October the tenth? Why did Susan Rice do the same? If the president was labeling it as an act of terror from day one why in hell are people he trusts with his reputation and that of the country's singing a completely different tune? Candy Crowley even admitted the next day on CNN she was wrong and Romney was right. While I am pretty middle of the road on either candidate as it stands, Barack Obama has a lot of explaining to do on this front. Initially i agreed with you, but as more anecdotal records are revealed I predict that we wlll learn Presdent Obama suspected terrorism and the term "act of terror" was a slip of the tongue. President Obama wanted Libya to appear to be stablizing to support his administration's position that President Obama is a terrorist slayer and is turning traditional terrorist areas into an emerging normalizing country. The adminisration was informed that al-Queda was establishing a presense in and around Benghazi, yet additional requested security measures were denied. It is a big deal and was unfortunately was not an "optimal" outcome for the victims Link to comment
Recommended Posts