Benghazi

[mrveggieman]

anything said negative about obama will be viewed as inaccurate or a lie, it is part of the game they have been playing.

the shame is 4 Americans died and both sides blame the other

i wonder why they want to seal his records for the last 4 years?

Just like I wonder why Romney who if elected president would have a lot of influences over who and what taxes we pay is so adamant about sealing his tax records.

[pghin08]

Then why did Rice and Jay Carney expressly deny that it was a terrorist attack for two weeks afterwards, and why did Obama specifically blame it on the video in his address to the United Nations? This is indefensible.

No. What's indefensible is why this attack was able to be carried out. I don't give a rat's backside what the administration wants to call it, I want to know where the lapses in security were. The question should be "Why did this happen?" not "Why aren't we calling it a terrorist attack?"

[AUTaxMan]

Just like I wonder why Romney who if elected president would have a lot of influences over who and what taxes we pay is so adamant about sealing his tax records.

Say what?

[AUTaxMan]

No. What's indefensible is why this attack was able to be carried out. I don't give a rat's backside what the administration wants to call it, I want to know where the lapses in security were. The question should be "Why did this happen?" not "Why aren't we calling it a terrorist attack?"

I agree with your first point, but I want to know why the administration was so hellbent on its NOT being called a terrorist attack. There must be a reason for it.

I read this am we outsourced the security for the consulate to the 17th of February Militia, which was an offshoot of Ansar al-Sharia, who claims responsibility for the attack. I also want to know why Stevens was meeting with the Turkish Ambassador in a CIA safe house.

[mrveggieman]

Say what?

Just responding back to my buddy shrew. Carry on.

[AUTaxMan]

Just responding back to my buddy shrew. Carry on.

Stay on topic please.

[pghin08]

I agree with your first point, but I want to know why the administration was so hellbent on its NOT being called a terrorist attack. There must be a reason for it.

I read this am we outsourced the security for the consulate to the 17th of February Militia, which was an offshoot of Ansar al-Sharia, who claims responsibility for the attack. I also want to know why Stevens was meeting with the Turkish Ambassador in a CIA safe house.

Totally legit questions.

[Wickabee]

Habs is completely correct. Romney accused Obama of politicising it, but was it not Romney's campaign that denounced Obama for a message on a website? Thereby politicising the event?

And it was a message posted days before it ever happened. But no, Obama is the one politicising it. Just another lie from the GOP.

I will agree with AUT that his use of "act of terror" was a weak defense on that part. I, too, took it as a general statement and not specifically related to this event, but I also don't think that really matters either. What does matter is how it was allowed to happen, not how it was labelled after. What also matters is that the GOP is politicising it to the point of ridiculousness while accusing Obama of politicising. That's where the lies and hypocrisy is.

[AUTaxMan]

Another important question is that since they all knew it was happening WHILE it happened, why did we do nothing to protect them?

[Wickabee]

Another important question is that since they all knew it was happening WHILE it happened, why did we do nothing to protect them?

Another important question is why are conservatives ignoring the fact that Ryan voted to cut money from defending embassies?