Benghazi Hearings (Page 7)

Today's new item:

www.politicususa.com/president-obama-calls-politicization-benghazi-calls-gops-accusations-side-show.html

"The day after it happened, I acknowledged that it was an act of terrorism.” - Obama

Then why did he tell the UN it was due to the video almost 2 weeks after the attack?

The man is lying about his lying...

His rose garden speech said "act of terror".  Remember Candy Crowley?

But he told everyone it was due to the video including Letterman.  

Very interesting article.  But Curl is pretty conservative.  When it comes from other sources, you know it's starting to get ugly... like say Morning Joe and Tom Brokaw...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/13/morning_joe_on_obama_admins_inexplicable_and_mind-boggling_benghazi_response.html

Um at 17 seconds in:

"That is what we saw play out in the last 2 weeks. (Benghazi was about 2 weeks before this)  A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."

Why would he refer to the time period (2 weeks) if not referring to the attack (answer: he was).  And if it WAS truly a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the video then why even bring it up?

Really? Come on Tony... Please tell me what else he meant by this then...

OK so how about on Letterman...7 days after the attack...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_3V7Oqe1q-g

..but, but he said the word terrorist...

Wow. That comment was on for tops, about 4 minutes. Were you guys doing a 30 second refresh of the thread or something? 

I get email notifications whenever anyone responds.  So, it's kind of like the recalled email syndrome.  Any time somebody edits their thread with a "never mind" or a ... like in your case I just go to my email to read it. 

Oh, and I didn't think your comment was bad.

Well, it was a light hearted joke toward Hillary. But given the topic, I felt .. it was a bit disrespectful. Hence the the change.. didn't really have anything smart to add.. lol.. I guess it's better to be quiet and thought a fool than speak up and have it confirmed. 

I didn't know about the possibility of email notifications on these threads.. interesting. 

I think it's clear that they got the testimony from Greg Hicks, they got the edits to the talking points, they got Nuland's ridiculous email, and they're getting a testimony from Patraeus that who knows where that will go. Jay Carney according to George Will (a RINO if ever there was one) is quickly losing his value to the White House. This is not a done deal. Even Tom Brokaw said this is just starting.

This, the IrS, and now the AP, this will get really ugly.

On the Hillary side of things, it wasn't long ago that the Fox News commentators were accusing Hillary of faking a head injury to avoid testifying on Benghazi.  ...and that's what Stewart and Colbert are probably blasting the most.  It does not appear as if fact-finding is the m.o. here.  As you've seen in countless posts in this thread...either the president and/or Hillary is lying, or their incompetence is to blame for the Benghazi mess.  It's just the latest false choice scenario with more soon to come I'm sure.

Obama did all that and more today with two issues.

One reporter put it this way: Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie some more, now say it's old news.

I loved his comment the other day saying that Benghazi is bring brought up again due to "political motivations".

You mean like the way it was swept under the rug during the election due to "political motivations"?

Pot.Kettle.Black.

wait, is that racist?

I think I've made that statement about both Obama and Hillary and I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on it. I was and am specifically talking about the FACT that it was called a spontaneous outburst due to a Video. 

If they weren't lying and they were not incompetent why did Susan Rice, Obama and Hillary say the above?

I think any rational thinking person knows some sudden outburst by a demonstration wouldn't be pulling RPG's and Mortars out of their jackets and firing them off.

But I seriously want to hear your thoughts on this.

Really Rich?  He didn't "vaguely" refer to an act of terror.  He specifically used the words, "act of terror."  I don't understand how that is vague.  Heck, I think it may even be a bit too much as the 3 separate times he used the terminology were extremely close to September 11th...within what, 2 days of the event?  Personally, I'd want a thorough investigation into exactly what caused the attack prior to describing it in any manner.

tri42, you said it best in your first line..."truth or not."  It doesn't matter if it's true or not.  Sling it, sling it, sling it.  Eventually the mud sticks, whether it should or not, right?  That's politics.  What was the DOJ doing?  Were they dealing with national security issues?  Were they doing what was necessary to get information on active terrorist cells intent on killing Americans?  What happens when the investigations that the GOP are pursuing come up against classified info. walls?  There's a lot of gray here.

...and to put forth the president is somehow encouraging and or allowing the IRS to target political enemies is beyond comedy...but then again, the accusations are coming from a party in which 30% of registered Republicans believe the president is Muslim, and over 50% believe he was born outside of the United States.  What's that phrase the kids nowadays use? haters gonna hate.

Most of those clamoring most fervently for investigation on top of investigation are not seeking the truth, they are seeking political points.  It kinda goes back to the boy who cried wolf syndrome Jon Stewart was pointing out.