Debate III tonight

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Of course they ran with the Mourdock comment, because they want to help Obama with women and pro-abortionists. And yes, the CIA spokesperson said the "stand down" command didn't come from them, not that there wasn't one. But yes, it doesn't have legs because the media doesn't want it too because it would likely be damaging to their candidate.

So you think that it's objective to take another carriers anonymous source and run with it despite a denial straight from the accused?

The Fox anonymous source said that CIA agents were in the area and were told to stand down. The CIA said that never happened. I realize that you want everyone to put on their tinfoil hats and say that Obama said fuck it let my own men die but most people don't make such statements on what is clearly weak backing.

Moreover, the intelligence community turned over the documents relating who knew what and when on the 11th and 12th and the GOP has all those. McCain for one would be all over that like stink on shit had this anonymous sources claims were valid.

The story needs more than a single anonymous claim to get legs. it's just how it works.

 

[VA Cowboy]

Questions should and could be asked, but the msm mainly throw softballs at Obama. Second, the "stand down" aspect is only one component of the story. The other is the email and claim by a terrorist group within 2 hrs of the attack. Yet Obama and the WH spent most of the next 2 weeks claiming a youtube video was the cause.
They ran with the youtube video claim despite not having facts yet brushed aside the terrorist group taking credit.

Bottomline, the WH has misled from day one and the if this were Bush or any R President in office most of the msm would be running with this over the last couple of weeks. Instead, just a small mention and then focusing on an abortion comment. Rather typical.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Questions should and could be asked, but the msm mainly throw softballs at Obama. Second, the "stand down" aspect is only one component of the story. The other is the email and claim by a terrorist group within 2 hrs of the attack. Yet Obama and the WH spent most of the next 2 weeks claiming a youtube video was the cause.
They ran with the youtube video claim despite not having facts yet brushed aside the terrorist group taking credit.

Bottomline, the WH has misled from day one and the if this were Bush or any R President in office most of the msm would be running with this over the last couple of weeks. Instead, just a small mention and then focusing on an abortion comment. Rather typical.

You keep parroting the Fox narrative like a good minion but yet:

Fourteen hours after the attack, President Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" for a previously scheduled interview and said he did not believe it was simply due to mob violence.

"You're right that this is not a situation that was -- exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start," Mr. Obama said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/

The video is at the link. Fox does a very poor job of informing you but a great job at programming the narrative.

 

[VA Cowboy]

You keep parroting the Fox narrative like a good minion but yet:





The video is at the link. Fox does a very poor job of informing you but a great job at programming the narrative.

Yet as late as Sept 25, two weeks later, Obama is at the UN still blaming the attacks on some youtube video.

“I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video,” Mr. Obama said.

...Nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks, or the hateful speech by some individuals, represents the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims— any more than the views of the people who produced this video represent those of Americans.”



http://times247.com/articles/obama-again-pins-libya-blame-on-video-at-u-n

 

[VA Cowboy]

And Fox isn't the only one reporting it, but unfortunately most of the liberal msm aren't. Journalism these days are all about protecting the chosen one rather than reporting and asking questions.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Can you point to me the part where he says that the Libya attacks were not because of terrorists. He said 'over the last two weeks.' It's like you read the headline and then shut your brain off. Were there or were there not violent protests across the Middle East. Are you saying that the protests in front of the Tunisian and Egyptian US Embassies were terrorists and not citizens angered by the film?

There were violent protests in opposition of our right to free speech here across the middle east. He was speaking out against that. Trying to turn it into part of your tin-hat coverup is fun I guess.

The Washington Times is interesting it was started by a South Korean evangelist concerned about the political right getting its views publicized. I always like places whose interest isn't reporting news as much as it is in stopping the communist scourge. He's a fellow fairy tale adherent so I can see why you'd like him.

 

[VA Cowboy]

I would've posted the same article for the Washington Post or NY Times. But alas, they aren't as interested in reporting the news as they are in trying to get their messiah re-elected.

 

[superpunk]

So brave.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I would've posted the same article for the Washington Post or NY Times. But alas, they aren't as interested in reporting the news as they are in trying to get their messiah re-elected.

They are not posting things that the president never said. He was obviously not talking about Benghazi and as I linked you within 14 hours of the attack he was on CBS stating that he did not believe that the Benghazi attacks were simply film protests but they were clearly targeting Americans. Since then he has stated that he is trying to figure out who specifically did it and bring them to justice.

There was an obvious intelligence failure but this notion that Obama just let those men die with good intelligence is pretty damn sad.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And its funny in this third debate Romney made this same accusation and was read the quote from Obama stating that it was a terrorist attack within hours of the attacks. This is pretty sad Bach. You have the correct information from multiple sources and instead go by a Washington Times headline where you cannot even point to he portion of the article that backs the headline.

its intellectual cowardice straight up.

 

[superpunk]

That was the second debate, and the moderator actually corrected him.

I didn't realize at first that when Romney started down that road what Obama meant when he said "Please proceed".

When I first watched it, I thought Obama was just (rightly) annoyed with Mitt trying to politicize this and was trying to convey that.

No, he was fucking BEGGING him to go for it. Please proceed Governor. I'm dying for you too. I think Romney realized he had fucked up right away when Obama dropped that one on him. He was like "wait...he wants me to keep going?" Which was obvious because the next time he starts to talk he is stuttering like crazy.

A Big Balls moment for Obama. Got even worse when Mitt's comeuppance resulted in applause from the audience.

 

[jeebus]

That was the second debate, and the moderator actually corrected him.

I didn't realize at first that when Romney started down that road what Obama meant when he said "Please proceed".

When I first watched it, I thought Obama was just (rightly) annoyed with Mitt trying to politicize this and was trying to convey that.

No, he was fucking BEGGING him to go for it. Please proceed Governor. I'm dying for you too. I think Romney realized he had fucked up right away when Obama dropped that one on him. He was like "wait...he wants me to keep going?" Which was obvious because the next time he starts to talk he is stuttering like crazy.

A Big Balls moment for Obama. Got even worse when Mitt's comeuppance resulted in applause from the audience.

Fuck bro, really?

 

[superpunk]

ya rly