He's not "my guy". You're speculating, and you're wrong. I was just setting the record straight.-PaulQuote:
Originally Posted by dback
He's not "my guy". You're speculating, and you're wrong. I was just setting the record straight.-PaulQuote:
Originally Posted by dback
You are "setting the record straight" in the same way the MSM is attempting to do to cover Obama's rear. It isn't working for them or you.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul young
Thats not the straight record ask candy when she had to go on anderson cooper as soon as the debates ended and back peddle as fast as she could.
I see you've changed your name to Diamondback. But i see you still ignore facts, so i think you're probably still Bill Davis......Quote:
Originally Posted by huntinman
Candy is a talking head. I prefer to use the official, unedited transcript to form my opinions.-PaulQuote:
Originally Posted by gmhr1
You're right, I'm still Bill Davis, which evidently means I have been paying more attention to the issue since Sep 11 than you have. You choose to stick to the liberal talking points and drink the kool-aid. I choose to to actually follow the the trail of evidence as it comes out. Obama and his crew have tied themselves in knots to avoid calling this event an act of terror no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise. Hell, he still calls the Fort Hood shootings "workplace violence" as opposed to terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul young
Easily, the most damning video yet.
No matter what.
Regardless, why all the talk of the video AFTER the Rose Garden?
I'm not really asking, won't change my vote, just saying.
Odd that in my six plus years here I've never once witnessed you come to the defense of a conservative.....under any circumstances. Possibly, in your opinion, there has never been a mischaracterization of former conservative Presidents......seriously Paul......you lean so far left you line your dog on the gallery so you only have to give 'over lefts'. Obama is now thanking some speech writer for inserting the word 'terrorist' in the text (in any context) to help cover for the FACT that he spent the next week blaming "Spontaneous Demonstration". **Where is the nimrod that made the "movie"???** I'm not sure but I am unaware of Obama DIRECTLY characterizing the death of the four Americans as a 'Terrorist Attack' to this day. But....what the hey Paul.....at least he did clarify the situation and say the loss of their lives was "not optimal".Quote:
Originally Posted by paul young
Just following your lead on "setting the record straight."Quote:
I was just setting the record straight.-Paul
O's Rose Garden speech said "acts of terror" ... in the plural. Was the plural supposed to also include the attack on the Cairo embassy? Could be, since the A-Q flag was raised over the Cairo embassy? That was also pre-meditated since the Egyptian govt gave the US staff the word to vacate the embassy. Yet the Cairo embassy released a statement (not sure if just before or just after the attack on the Cairo embassy) that the act there was in response to the video thing.
O seems to now be saying that the other embassy attacks in the region were a domino effect from the first attack in Cairo. So ... if the attack in Cairo was blamed on the video, it makes me think that they were going to lump the Benghazi attack in with that? Interestingly, the statement by the Cairo embassy (upon which Romney had commented) was later removed from the State Dept. website.
Makes me wonder if this whole set-up was even more complex than it appears. That words were used in such a way that they could back-pedal if the video ploy did not work. I believe (though am not sure) that the Cairo embassy statement preceded the Rose Garden speech. Then they had to remove it from the website because it would have interfered with the back-pedaling.
It is just as possible that it was pure luck that the words "acts of terror" were included in the Rose Garden speech; and they found a way to use that to their advantage later. Also possible that the phrase actually was hinting at what they already knew, or very strongly suspected, by the time of the Rose Garden speech, but didn't want to have to put it out there before the election if they could avoid doing so.
The Fox Report of Brett Bair's last night really had the time line down as to what ACTUALLY happened. The administration and the sycophants that are in the tank for him just don't want to believe Obama could have been so stupid about all this.
First, not realizing the jihadists are building at a rate this oligarchy can't compete with...and then, because he wants the image that because he got Osama, he has the al-Qaeda on the run, he doesn't want to admit more protection is needed for these embassies. What an incredible fool.
Had this been a cover-up by anyone but Obama/Clinton...the Senate would be circulating impeachment papers. This type of ignorance and arrogance that believes they can pull the wool over the American's eyes is incredulous. Yet there are the many 'fools' that follow this totally inept and corrupt empty suit, and think he's worthy of their vote...again?
How can any 'thinking' journalist continue to fall on the sword for this loser? It's absolute insanity.
UB
PS
The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but the citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.
It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency, than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.
The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.
Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those that made him their President.