Monday, January 13, 2014
Nah, There's No Cover-Up
According to CNN's Jake Tapper, Robert Baer, and Drew Griffin, approximately three dozen witnesses and survivors (a large chunk of them working for the C.I.A.) of the Benghazi terrorist attacks have been forced by the federal government to sign nondisclosure agreements (the purpose of which being to keep them from talking to the media and to Congress, obviously) and take almost weekly lie detector tests to verify their compliance to it. If this isn't proof-positive that this administration clearly does not want the American public to know what truly happened in Libya, then I don't know what is. And the fact that this media of ours (aside from the three individuals mentioned above and CBS's Sharyl Attkisson) hasn't been putting more pressure on them is an absolute disgrace.................................................................................P.S. It has also been alleged that the consulate in Benghazi was essentially functioning as a gun smuggling operation into Syria and that we had actually been arming the rebels (some of which were undoubtedly al Qeada) in Syria for several months (ergo the reason for so many C.I.A. operatives) prior to the whole Benghazi episode. Man, is this Obama fellow looking more and more like George W. Bush.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I think Bush was a tad more honest then Obama.
It was uncovered today that on the evening of the attack Obama was told it was a terrorist attack,yet the next day in the Rose Garden he said it was from a mob incited by an anti-muslim video....within a few days Hillary had the same story and that weekend Susan Rice made her tour of the Sunday shows.
It seems with the election less then two months away calling it a terrorist attack may have swayed a few votes.....liar...liars....pants on fire.....in Hillary's case pant suit on fire....
Really, Bush was a lot more honest than Obama.
I think that both men have made foreign policy decisions that were based at least in small part on political considerations (Iraq in Bush's case and Afghanistan in Obama's; the surge) and for that I criticize them BOTH.......As for which one of them had told the greater number of lies, I think that Rusty might actually be correct here; Benghazi, "you can keep your insurance", etc..
And if they can uncover declassified documents and testimony which definitively prove that Panetta and Dempsey briefed the President that this indeed was a terrorist attack and that the President still went out and delivered this line of bullshit, wow, the man could be toast.......It is also my understanding that the F.B.I. has interviewed numerous Benghazi survivors and that NONE of them have said anything about a protest. Not a damn one.
dmarks...I said I thought Bush was a "tad" more honest then Obama and I believe Bush is a more honorable man then Obama is.
Obama is slowly but surely approaching Nixon territory and, no, it doesn't give me much pleasure in saying it (the fact that I voted for him one time, defended him, etc.).
Will: Obama is less extreme than I thought he would be. He is lot more corrupt than I thought he would be. He is as incompetent as thought he would be, and that was already low, considering he was objectively the least qualified Democrat (least experienced, thinnest resume) of those running in 2008.
I was skeptical of Obama initially but eventually fell prey to the same disease of many others; serious projection. In my case I saw him as a mixture of Ike and JFK and, yeah, I was a little bit off.
Will: You should have looked at his career before he ran. His appointment to his Harvard Law post by supposedly well-meaning racists not because he was qualified at all, but explicitly because of his skin color. His involvement as a "community activist" in which he encouraged people not to work for a better life, but instead to beg for handouts from those who did, teaching people to blame others for problems they brought on themselves. His listless and lazy and by any objective standard, unremarkable legislative record.
Really, Will, do you see anything of the makings of a JFK or Ike in there at all?
You guys are in a pretty big club....many fell for his flowery hope and change crap.....for others the bullshit detector was pegged on Obama from jump.
Actually, I still more or less stand by the vote in that I really had (and continue to have) some serious reservations about his opponent, Mr. McCain; his temperament, his hawkishness, his flip-flopping, etc........And come to think of it, didn't you vote for Bob Barr, Russ?
Rusty: He's kind of like Jimmy Carter but with a streak of mean...
I voted for Carter once, too (once of course being the operant term).
Yes I did vote for Bob Barr.....I just couldn't hold my nose and vote for McCain.
Him and his buddy Lindsey Graham make me want to puke.
Only once? If you go to one of those states which Eric Holder protected in 2012 as a voter fruad zone, you can vote for Carter or anyone you want more than once. Voting AS Carter, if that pleases you also.
Post a Comment