posted October 24, 2012 02:12 PM            

To make matters even worse, this attack went on for 6-7 HOURS and there was plenty of time to send in close by military operators to either kill the terrorists or rescue our people. There was even a drone overhead viewing the attack and sending real time video back. But not a finger was lifted to help them.

O'Bomber is a massive liar and so are the brain dead O'Bomber minions, Susan Rice and Jay Carney who trotted out in front of television cameras to tell America the attack was the result of an Internet video insulting to Muslims...for the next 14 days.

It was always a terrorist attack, there was no protesting mob in Libya and O'Bomber knew that, lied about it and continued to lie about it for more than 2 weeks.

This lying Marxist twit, O'Bomber isn't fit to be President of the United States. He's got to go.

White House, State Dept knew within hours that Benghazi was a terrorist attack
John Hayward
10/24/2012

Update 9:18 a.m.: It’s useful to remember that Obama and his political team think in terms of news cycles. They generally believe that if they can “win” the 24 to 72 hour news cycle after any given event, their version of history will become conventional wisdom. He even debates that way – once he “woke up” for the second and third debates, he said a lot of small-ball, media-friendly things designed to grab him a little favorable coverage and pump up his base… but like “horses and bayonets” or his false statement of Mitt Romney’s position on the auto bailout, they soon evaporate in a cloud of fact-checking and common sense.

I’ve always thought the key to understanding Obama’s twisted performance on Benghazi is to consider that his goal was “winning” the first couple of news cycles after the event. He didn’t want his decision to fly to Vegas questioned; he didn’t want the media immediately running stories about the dangerous environment in Benghazi over the weeks leading up to the attack, or asking why protection for the Ambassador was so thin. He loves to blame other people for his errors, and the maker of the “Innocence of Muslims” video was the best scapegoat ever. And Obama’s team saw the media excoriating Mitt Romney for daring to offer his entirely accurate critique of the way Obama and his State Department were handling the situations Cairo and Benghazi. Everything Obama did during the first week after the attacks was a calculated strategy to win the first few news cycles; everything he’s done since then is part of a strategy to obscure his initial goals.

Many observers wondered why Mitt Romney didn’t press Barack Obama on the Benghazi debacle during the third presidential debate. A common theory is that Romney felt the story was already developing in a way that would hurt Obama, so there was no reason for him to spend debate time on it. I wondered if Romney might have gotten wind of some upcoming revelation that would do more damage than anything he could say during the debate.

Maybe he knew this was coming, courtesy of Fox News:

A series of internal State Department emails obtained by Fox News shows that officials reported within hours of last month’s deadly consulate attack in Libya that Al Qaeda-tied group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility.

The emails provide some of the most detailed information yet about what officials knew in the initial hours after the attack. And it again raises questions about why U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, apparently based on intelligence assessments, would claim five days after the attack that it was a “spontaneous” reaction to protests over an anti-Islam film.

Ansar al-Sharia has been declared by the State Department to be an Al Qaeda-affiliated group. A member of the group suspected of participating in the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi has been arrested and is being held in Tunisia.

The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence.

(Emphasis mine.) These emails were flying out to hundreds of top national security officials and their aides in real time, while the attack was happening. The first email in the series actually mentions that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens had been withdrawn to the consular safe house, where he would later be killed. The information was marked “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

Barack Obama turned in early, and flew to Las Vegas to attend a fundraiser the next day. Then he spent weeks lying right to the faces of the American people, claiming the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans – or as he put it on the Jon Stewart show, their downgrade to “not optimal” status – was the result of a “spontaneous video protest.” He did this because he didn’t want the shockingly lax security precautions in Benghazi on September 11 to be questioned, and because he desperately wants to preserve his campaign narrative of a “decimated” al Qaeda, and a liberated Libya made safe for democracy. Obama was still lying through his teeth about Benghazi during the presidential debates.

And all along, beyond all doubt and question, he knew the truth. There was never the slightest reason to believe the murder of our diplomatic personnel was a spontaneous mob action, tied in any way to the YouTube video that Obama blamed relentlessly. To buy the excuse he and Vice President Joe Biden have been peddling about “faulty intelligence briefings” misleading them into thinking the Benghazi attack was an exceptionally vigorous act of film criticism, you would have to believe that hundreds of intelligence officers within both the State Department and White House received the emails uncovered by Fox News – during the attack, and in the hours afterward – but decided to ignore them and cook up a story about spontaneous protests, entirely for the purpose of… what? Making Obama and Biden look stupid? Telling Obama something they knew he wanted to hear?
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/24/white-house-st ate-department-knew-within-hours-that-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack/

posted October 24, 2012 02:21 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted October 24, 2012 02:49 PM            

In that supposed revelation of a terrorist attack in Benghazi the day after the attack, O'Bomber did not say one word about an attack in Libya from the Rose Garden being an act of terrorism. Not one word. O'Bomber talked about terrorist attacks in general and was specifically talking about the original 9/11 attacks and others by terrorists. But not Benghazi!

posted October 24, 2012 03:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
since you continue not to notice anything you haven't already decided can't be true, you will, i guess, continue to ignore the fact that there is transcript of obama calling the attack an act of terror.

so tell me, what point is there in anyone talking to you except to pat you on the back and slobber on your boots?

---

I have never seen someone so willing to make ten million excuses for what is obvious.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted October 24, 2012 03:49 PM            

My 4 year old causes Acts of Terror everyday.
If someone would have just kicked the front door of the embassy in it is, by legal definition, an act of terror.

Act of Terror vs. Terrorist Attack is VERY different.

posted October 24, 2012 04:26 PM            

quote:

---

There is no such transcript of O'Bomber calling the attack in Benghazi a terrorist attack. That's a damned lie told by O'Bomber and moderator Candy Crowley...which she has now backtracked on.

---

What? Is this Fox News nonsense?

Obama in the rose garden:

"Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe," he said. "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. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

posted October 24, 2012 04:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
What? Is this Fox News nonsense?

Obama in the rose garden:

"Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe," he said. [b]"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. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

It's not a matter of interpretation either, as Obama very clearly believed that he had indeed called it an act of terror the very next day. There's no reason to suspect Obama doesn't know the meaning behind his words.[/B]

---

You are unbelievable in the lengths you will go to obfuscate the obvious

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted October 24, 2012 04:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Reporting that the President correctly recalled having labelled it an act of terror the day after the attack isn't obfuscating anything. To obfuscate is to make a matter less clear. I didn't make the obvious less clear. I presented the obvious in a very clear, concise manner. I don't get why you Conservatives are always trying to relabel things differently than they really are.

---

O'Bomber can't get out of this lie, AG. That is to NOT obfuscate the obvious!

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted October 24, 2012 04:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fairaqua:
Well.. If one wants to get technical.

My 4 year old causes Acts of Terror everyday.
If someone would have just kicked the front door of the embassy in it is, by legal definition, an act of terror.

Act of Terror vs. Terrorist Attack is VERY different.

In the words of Herman Cane: We are not Stupid!

---

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted October 24, 2012 05:06 PM            

2 hours after the attacks started the State Department received an email stating that Ansar al-Sharia (who has ties with Al Qaeda)was claiming responsibility for the Benghazi attack

posted October 24, 2012 05:22 PM            

quote:

---

Obama wanted to hide the fact that this was a terrorist attack to aid in his allusion that Al Qaeda was on the run.

---

I don't think so. I've already reported here (not in this particular thread) that the government was preparing security aid for the region prior to the attack.

The Obama administration quietly won Congress’s approval last month to shift about $8 million from Pentagon operations and counterterrorism aid budgeted for Pakistan to begin building an elite Libyan force over the next year that could ultimately number about 500 troops. American Special Operations forces could conduct much of the training, as they have with counterterrorism forces in Pakistan and Yemen, American officials said.

The effort to establish the new unit was already under way before the assault that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans at the United States Mission in Benghazi, Libya. But the plan has taken on new urgency as the new government in Tripoli tries to assert control over the country’s militant factions.

According to an unclassified internal State Department memo sent to Congress on Sept. 4, the plan’s goal is to enhance “Libya’s ability to combat and defend against threats from Al Qaeda and its affiliates.” A companion Pentagon document envisions that the Libyan commando force will “counter and defeat terrorist and violent extremist organizations.” Right now, Libya has no such capability, American officials said. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/us-to-help-create-libyan-commando-force.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

posted October 24, 2012 05:43 PM            

This is the transcript for O'Bomber's Rose Garden speech. While you're not well versed enough in the English language to decipher what O'Bomber said acoustic, others are.

Rose Garden

10:43 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack (not a terrorist attack, just an attack) on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack (not a terrorist attack, just an attack). We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.(now, here's O'Bomber blaming an internet video for the "senseless violence", but not a terrorist attack)

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack (this attack, not a terrorist attack) will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers (merely "attackers", not terrorist attackers) alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

(now O'Bomber begins to talk about the terrorist attack of 9/11/2001)
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

(O'Bomber is still on the same subject..the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks)
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. (Here O'Bomber switches back to the present...using Today) Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act (this terrible act, not terrorist attack). And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers (attackers, not terrorist attackers). These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

END
10:48 A.M. EDT
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/16/replay-obamas-rose-garden-remarks-on-libya/

posted October 24, 2012 05:54 PM            

I am stumped about it, but there is nothing I can do.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted October 24, 2012 05:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fairaqua:
Obama wanted to hide the fact that this was a terrorist attack to aid in his allusion that Al Qaeda was on the run.

2 hours after the attacks started the State Department received an email stating that Ansar al-Sharia (who has ties with Al Qaeda)was claiming responsibility for the Benghazi attack

The White House watched the attack LIVE.
L.I.V.E.
They still did nothing.

---

Thank God for you Fairaqua--another voice of reason! My sanity needs it, as I get really down about O'Bomber.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted October 24, 2012 07:06 PM            

I pre-empted this already.

quote:

---

It's not a matter of interpretation either, as Obama very clearly believed that he had indeed called it an act of terror the very next day. There's no reason to suspect Obama doesn't know the meaning behind his words. - me, a few posts ago

---

You are trying to spin things to fit your narrative instead of understanding the way they actually are.

Now, why do you label it a terrorist attack perpetrated by terrorists? Because the definitions of terrorism and terrorist are inherent in the situation. You don't have violence against a diplomat on one hand, and understand it to be anything different than terrorism on the other hand. One necessarily goes with the other.

Second, you missed something very important in the posting of the text of the Rose Garden speech. You missed the fact that the speech was primarily about the Benghazi attack. It starts with Benghazi, and it ends with Benghazi. To think that the SINGLE use of the word "terror" was meant in any other context is kind of ludicrous.

But, I think I already sufficiently addressed all of this in my previous post. Obama would know whether he characterized the attack in Benghazi as an act of terrorism. He would know how he processed it as the President of the United States, and he would know what the content of his comments meant to him. You're essentially try to argue that Obama accidentally might have used the word "terror" in connection with Benghazi, but in no way meant anything like that. That's a ridiculous way to intentionally see things.

If you can stop being intent on perceiving things as different from what they are, then your commentary will take on a whole new value.

quote:

---

AG
I am truly shocked, all kidding aside, how purposely blind you choose to be about O'Bomber. I tried to figure out why but I can't.

---

posted October 25, 2012 01:10 AM            

In the meantime, O'Bomber brought up the Internet video as the cause of the mob violence in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East...and he did that 6 times in his UN speech...on September 21, 2012...ten days after the terrorist attack in Libya.

So acoustic, save the happy horseshiit that O'Bomber BELIEVED he had called the attack in Libya on September 11, 2012...a terrorist attack. He and his brain dead minions were still putting out the lying notion a mob had gotten out of control in Libya because they were angry about an Internet video for the next 2 weeks.

Part of O'Bomber UN speech on September 21st...ten days AFTER the terrorist attack which killed 4 Americans in Libya...and 9 days after YOU SAY O'Bomber believed he had called the killing of 4 Americans in Libya...a terrorist attack. Further acoustic, not once in O'Bomber's UN speech did O'Bomber call the attack in Libya..a terrorist attack. Not once.

"That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well -- for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so.

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.

We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond?

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us if that’s how we respond.

More broadly, the events of the last two weeks also speak to the need for all of us to honestly address the tensions between the West and the Arab world that is moving towards democracy.

Now, let me be clear: Just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not and will not seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad. We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans. However, I do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders in all countries to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism"....

posted October 25, 2012 01:39 AM            

How does mentioning a video discount the terrorism from the act?

I think you just need to get your head screwed on straight.

quote:

---

So acoustic, save the happy horseshiit that O'Bomber BELIEVED he had called the attack in Libya on September 11, 2012...a terrorist attack.

---

There's no "horseshiit" in aptly pointing out that the President knew what he said, and what he meant. You used to try to pull some nonsense making up a scenario in which you resurrected Hitler in order that he might tell me himself that he was a Socialist. In that case, you seemed to be under the impression that a person knew, and correctly identified themselves (though Hitler demonstrably varied wildly against what any rational person would deem to be Socialism). Now, you're reversing that course, and deciding that you know better than Obama did both about what he said as well as what he thought. That's clearly horseshiit if there's any to be found here.

posted October 25, 2012 07:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
You didn't "preempt" anything acoustic. O'Bomber made no such declaration about a terrorist attack in Libya from the Rose Garden or anywhere else for more than 2 weeks.

In the meantime, O'Bomber brought up the Internet video as the cause of the mob violence in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East...and he did that 6 times in his UN speech...on September 21, 2012...ten days after the terrorist attack in Libya.

So acoustic, save the happy horseshiit that O'Bomber [b]BELIEVED he had called the attack in Libya on September 11, 2012...a terrorist attack. He and his brain dead minions were still putting out the lying notion a mob had gotten out of control in Libya because they were angry about an Internet video for the next 2 weeks.

Part of O'Bomber UN speech on September 21st...ten days AFTER the terrorist attack which killed 4 Americans in Libya...and 9 days after YOU SAY O'Bomber believed he had called the killing of 4 Americans in Libya...a terrorist attack. Further acoustic, not once in O'Bomber's UN speech did O'Bomber call the attack in Libya..a terrorist attack. Not once.

"That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well -- for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so.

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.

We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond?

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us if that’s how we respond.

More broadly, the events of the last two weeks also speak to the need for all of us to honestly address the tensions between the West and the Arab world that is moving towards democracy.

Now, let me be clear: Just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not and will not seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad. We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans. However, I do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders in all countries to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism"....

[/B]

---

HOW can these people i.e the usual suspects, give these predigested responses like ENSURE

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted October 25, 2012 09:31 AM            

They went in the middle of the night and knocked on the movie makers door and had him arrested (and do NOT make the argument with me it was for a probation violation.. Funny how that timeline happened, huh?). They arrested him to make the US people think this was REALLY the reason, all the while knowing there never was a riot and this was an attack by a known terrorist group.

THEN he went on to sympathize with these terrorist groups and then TOPS IT OFF by BASHING our freedom of speech.
Did you know he tried to get the 1st Amendment REPEALED?!?!?!

If he does not like our way of doing things here in America why does he want to lead our country?
Why does he not move to a country with a dictatorship and run for leader there?

posted October 25, 2012 05:51 PM            

I agree Obama alluded to terrorism but didn`t call a spade a spade. A terrorist group did take the blame. Stephens did call for more security.

Every thing that could go wrong did.

The admin. simply didn`t have a handle on the situtation and I personally believe it belongs at The presidents door step.

I hope we agree, lessons learned and security will now be in place for all our embassy people & others in harms way. Not to minimize the blame or the deaths, but get your vote out there to make a change in the current admin . That`s the most logical and positive way to address the horrors of the disaster.