Page 69 of 69 FirstFirst ... 1959676869
Results 681 to 689 of 689
Thanks Tree203Thanks

Thread: Benghazi: Before the CIA talking points

  1. #681
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    64,938
    Thanks
    45481

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    Obama argued for proven leadership, that over the next four years after his reelection, allowed a rebirth in terror that blew up the peace in Iraq and extended the threat in ways that exceeded the high water mark of Al Qaeda. You may argue for a literal meeting of his promises, but his "proven leadership" was not affirmed by what happened next.

    One might argue that Romney would have not done better, but you cannot argue that the Benghazi event should not have precipitated a national debate about foreign policy just before an election.

    It did not happen. Benghazi was covered up and inappropriately re-defined by a press whose tendency to bend reality and insist on its own story lines was just getting started.
    Wow. I'm not supposed to judge him by the "literal meeting" of his promises?! I'm supposed to judge him by your bizarre interpretation of his performance?

    The rise of ISIS was a direct consequence of the unnecessary and disastrous invasion of Iraq.

    You need to reread post #677 as to why you don't know everything about Benghazi even though you think you do.

  2. #682
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,003
    Thanks
    13356

    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    Nice dodge. The Benghazi event begged for an examination of the Obama foreign policy. It never happened. "in 2014, the war will be over......"
    Listen to this 50 second clip and tell me how much of it came true?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0LT0uv5VAU
    Al Quada is on the path to defeat. we aren't out of afghanistan,bummer. If I were to post presidential promises over the past 30 yrs I might find half of them actually happened.

  3. #683
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,003
    Thanks
    13356

    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    Obama argued for proven leadership, that over the next four years after his reelection, allowed a rebirth in terror that blew up the peace in Iraq and extended the threat in ways that exceeded the high water mark of Al Qaeda. You may argue for a literal meeting of his promises, but his "proven leadership" was not affirmed by what happened next.

    One might argue that Romney would have not done better, but you cannot argue that the Benghazi event should not have precipitated a national debate about foreign policy just before an election.

    It did not happen. Benghazi was covered up and inappropriately re-defined by a press whose tendency to bend reality and insist on its own story lines was just getting started.
    Obama has already been rated as our 18th greatest president and he ain't going anywhere but up. We get it, you didn't like him, that changes nothing.

  4. #684
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,431
    Thanks
    3671

    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    Wow. I'm not supposed to judge him by the "literal meeting" of his promises?! I'm supposed to judge him by your bizarre interpretation of his performance?

    The rise of ISIS was a direct consequence of the unnecessary and disastrous invasion of Iraq.

    You need to reread post #677 as to why you don't know everything about Benghazi even though you think you do.
    And Obama was running for re-election. He had already had 4 years to deal with Iraq. And I don't care about knowing everything about Benghazi. I care about the collusion of the press and the Democrats in the handling of the aftermath of the attack. This is what is relevant to the election of 2012.

    Obama ran on his proven leadership to end the war on terror. I don't expect Obama to have pointed the high beams on the event. But I do expect the press to do so. They didn't.

  5. #685
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,003
    Thanks
    13356

    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    And Obama was running for re-election. He had already had 4 years to deal with Iraq.
    We were out of iraq when he was running for re-election.

    And I don't care about knowing everything about Benghazi. I care about the collusion of the press and the Democrats in the handling of the aftermath of the attack.
    You want collusion what about Niger, practically not a word from the press. If Hillary was president we would have 6 different investigations by now, you are so full of shit.

    This is what is relevant to the election of 2012.
    Benghazi was irrelevant to his re-election.

    Obama ran on his proven leadership to end the war on terror. I don't expect Obama to have pointed the high beams on the event. But I do expect the press to do so. They didn't.
    Utter bullshit, he was treated no better by the press than any other. What president isn't trying to end the war on terror.
    Thanks from NightSwimmer

  6. #686
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    64,938
    Thanks
    45481

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    And Obama was running for re-election. He had already had 4 years to deal with Iraq. And I don't care about knowing everything about Benghazi. I care about the collusion of the press and the Democrats in the handling of the aftermath of the attack. This is what is relevant to the election of 2012.

    Obama ran on his proven leadership to end the war on terror. I don't expect Obama to have pointed the high beams on the event. But I do expect the press to do so. They didn't.
    Obama didn't promise to end the war on terror. Partly because I doubt he believes we're at war with an emotion. He never looked at it like that. Iraq was a mess. Obama did manage to reduce the fighting. He did very well in relation to Al Qaeda. And ISIS lost ground.

    The press did NOT collude with the Democrats. You just don't like the facts. They don't conform to your twisted view of what went down. And depending on that stupid Fox News video is your first mistake on that.
    Thanks from Pragmatist

  7. #687
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,431
    Thanks
    3671

    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    Obama didn't promise to end the war on terror. Partly because I doubt he believes we're at war with an emotion. He never looked at it like that. Iraq was a mess. Obama did manage to reduce the fighting. He did very well in relation to Al Qaeda. And ISIS lost ground.

    The press did NOT collude with the Democrats. You just don't like the facts. They don't conform to your twisted view of what went down. And depending on that stupid Fox News video is your first mistake on that.
    The bulk of the press has given up on being news organizations. They want to promote provocative story lines that influence behaviors. Everything I pointed out in this thread years ago has continued and continued to get worse. Benghazi was not a constructed event but the press tried to turn it into one. This has always been my concern and I think my concern is justified.

  8. #688
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    64,938
    Thanks
    45481

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    The bulk of the press has given up on being news organizations. They want to promote provocative story lines that influence behaviors. Everything I pointed out in this thread years ago has continued and continued to get worse. Benghazi was not a constructed event but the press tried to turn it into one. This has always been my concern and I think my concern is justified.
    News orgs want to promote provocative story lines that make them money. That's what they're about. Money. Period. That concerns me and has meant a distortion of some things.

  9. #689
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,431
    Thanks
    3671

    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    News orgs want to promote provocative story lines that make them money. That's what they're about. Money. Period. That concerns me and has meant a distortion of some things.
    Influencing a behavior to buy an alternate reality is certainly a way of making money.

    Informing people with facts so they can make their own decisions and interpret events according to their own lights is a cornerstone of news.

    So read the Ben Rhodes memo and tell me what he was suggesting.

Page 69 of 69 FirstFirst ... 1959676869

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 24th July 2013, 03:00 AM
  2. CIA Deputy Dir Mike Morell and the Benghazi Talking Points
    By Telecaster in forum Political Controversies
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 22nd May 2013, 11:22 AM
  3. Alternative Explanation for Benghazi Talking Points
    By Babba in forum Political Controversies
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 16th May 2013, 03:11 PM
  4. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10th May 2013, 12:14 PM
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 22nd November 2012, 12:03 AM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed