Can someone explain this to me?

[Guest]

Suppose there had never been a stupid anti-Muslim YouTube video posted at that time. Would there still have been an attack on September 11?

I think that's a pretty important question.

If the answer is "no", then it's fair to refer to the video as a factor in the attacks.

If the answer is "yes", then the White House is screwed.

And, as far as I can tell, they "lied" according to Kevin's definition of what a "lie" is.

I wish this weren't turning into an election-year issue, with all the associated distortions (Rush Limbaugh just said this is "worse than Watergate...worse than no WMDs", and no I don't usually listen to him, the radio was just left on that station after the previous show ended!)

But this is the reality of Presidential politics, and I have no doubt the same thing would be happening if it were a Republican in the White House. It's the price you pay for being the incumbent. It will be interesting to see how this plays over the next two weeks, and what kind of damage control Obama is able to deploy.

[_Analytics]

If the answer is "yes", then the White House is screwed.

If Obama proves that he accurately reflected the intelligence he received from the CIA, what then? The Republican spin-masters can’t implicate the white house on this intelligence failure without also implicating the director of the CIA, David Petraeus. Do they really want to do that?

[_cinepro]

If Obama proves that he accurately reflected the intelligence he received from the CIA, what then? The Republican spin-masters can’t implicate “the Obama administration” on this intelligence failure without also implicating the director of the CIA, David Petraeus. Do they really want to do that?

But if someone says something that isn't true, they've "lied", even if they were basing their statement on another source that they thought was reliable.

Just ask Kevin.

So Obama (and other administration officials) lied about it. Whether or not that should influence our vote, we'll each have to decide...

[_Bob Loblaw]

But if someone says something that isn't true, they've "lied", even if they were basing their statement on another source that they thought was reliable.

Just ask Kevin.

So Obama (and other administration officials) lied about it. Whether or not that should influence our vote, we'll each have to decide...

Here's another Obama lie (by Kevin's definition):

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/10 ... tml?hp=l11

Woodward reports in his book that White House Office of Management Director Jack Lew and Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors took the proposal for sequestration to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and then it was presented to congressional Republicans.
During the debate, however, Obama said the idea originated on Capitol Hill.

“First of all, the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed,” Obama said, adding his strongest pronouncement to date on its future: “It will not happen.”

Woodward said there’s a possibility the president was unaware of how the idea came about.

“It’s a complicated process — and in fairness to the president — maybe he didn’t know that they were doing this because it’s kind of technical budget jargon,” Woodward said.

“What I wrote — it’s specific date, time, place, participants,” he said. “What I’ve reported is totally accurate. Call Nabors and Lew. Or ask the White House. I mean, they know that’s accurate.”

Still, briefing reporters Tuesday aboard Air Force One, White House press secretary Jay Carney continued to blame sequestration on Congress.

See how easy that is?

[Guest]

If Obama proves that he accurately reflected the intelligence he received from the CIA, what then? The Republican spin-masters can’t implicate the white house on this intelligence failure without also implicating the director of the CIA, David Petraeus. Do they really want to do that?

If they think it will help get Romney in the White House, I suspect there are many Republican campaigners that wouldn't give a second thought to throwing Petraeus under the bus.

[_Bob Loblaw]

And if they think it will help get Romney in the White House, I suspect there are many Republican campaigners that wouldn't give a second thought to throwing Petraeus under the bus.

Absolutely, some would (not me, obviously). I recall a group putting out a full-page ad in the New York Times (If I recall correctly) denouncing General "Betray-Us." For some people, Republicans and Democrats, partisanship and dogma Trump doing the right thing.

[_Brackite]

This Topic has been getting a lot of discussion on the Hannity Forums.

Here is the Link to that main Thread on the Hannity Forum:

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.ph ... -or-Resign

[_bcspace]

Let me first say I don't believe there's necessarily a nefarious cover-up or anything like this, but I truly do not understand why the White House was so adamant for 2 weeks that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest regarding an anti-Islam movie. Joe Biden and Jay Carney have both said that they had no information that there was an organized attack, which we now know is not true.

The reason why the Obama Admin lied about Benghazi is because of the left wing premise that all social violence is because of economic disparity. Hence they erroneously believe that Islamic radicalism will go away once there are democratically elected governments in the Middle East (and wealth redistribution). Part of the problem with that is they believe that a democratically elected government (outside the USA) must needs be legitimate (unless that government is truly committed to democracy). So, for example, they accept that because Hamas was elected democratically in the Gaza Strip, it must needs be legitimate (along with the Stalinist and Maoist governments in the old Soviet Union and China). Such thinking leads them to support the Muslim Brotherhood because a majority, or at least a plurality of the population will support them and therefore it will be democratically elected into power.

Back to the movie, the extreme liberal govt of the USA needed a distraction because they need the US population to tolerate the Muslim Brotherhood and all their ideological offshoots in order to continue their policy of appeasing them. They believe such appeasement will lead to more peace, fewer terror attacks, more love for America, and socially liberal governments in the Islamic ME. Anyone with half a brain can see this will not happen. Hence, the liberals in the USA are nothing more than self-made Janissaries for the Muslim Brotherhood.

[_Bob Loblaw]

This seems like a decent summary:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/national ... y-20121024

[_Kevin Graham]

for what it's worth

http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/10/2 ... k-d/190932

Fox Military Analyst Counters Rest Of Network, Denounces "Second Guessing" On Benghazi Attack Response