Freewill
Platinum Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 31,158
- 5,073
- 1,130
This is from a person who certainly should be objective. He at first didn't believe the allegations but now is not so sure.
Why I think this is important is because this same administration, who has shown clearly not to be honest, is killing Americans with Hellfire missiles. All on their say and the say of the CIA whom they pressured to change their report on Benghazi.
From the article:
BBC News - After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll
Black and white
In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.
I remember listening to reports from the BBC and others at the time that did suggest the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a rather puerile anti-Islamic video.
I understand President Barack Obama's careful use of the word "terrorism" when it actually means something, rather than as a knee-jerk description of any violence by foreigners against Americans, often in order to justify a "war on terror".
But the evidence is there in black and white, unless we doubt the documents obtained by ABC, which I don't.
Mr Obama's critics are often not very clear what is behind their allegations. I presume they think that the White House wanted to avoid claims the murders were the result of terrorism because this would undermine his claim that al-Qaeda was seriously "degraded". There's also a vague sense he's "soft on terror".
Why I think this is important is because this same administration, who has shown clearly not to be honest, is killing Americans with Hellfire missiles. All on their say and the say of the CIA whom they pressured to change their report on Benghazi.
From the article:
BBC News - After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll
Black and white
In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.
I remember listening to reports from the BBC and others at the time that did suggest the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a rather puerile anti-Islamic video.
I understand President Barack Obama's careful use of the word "terrorism" when it actually means something, rather than as a knee-jerk description of any violence by foreigners against Americans, often in order to justify a "war on terror".
But the evidence is there in black and white, unless we doubt the documents obtained by ABC, which I don't.
Mr Obama's critics are often not very clear what is behind their allegations. I presume they think that the White House wanted to avoid claims the murders were the result of terrorism because this would undermine his claim that al-Qaeda was seriously "degraded". There's also a vague sense he's "soft on terror".
Last edited:
