Obama Blames Fox News For Benghazi During Pre-SuperBowl Interview

Oh c'moooon bubble head, is that the best limp lipped, empty gazed, slack jawed insult you can come up with?

The pictures contain "QUOTES," which I notice you took NO opportunity to DISPUTE. Typical leftard tactic, talk your pathetic SHIT and then move on.

Well, I've got one for you, dumbass... FUCK OFF.

Quotes taken out of context for maximum effect by people who think that making meme style pictures is legitimate political comment. Probably people who think that putting 2 words together to make their own new word like Dumbocrite, Libtard or Islamofascist are also legitimate political points. Do try harder next time.

Obama didn't want anyone to think he was lying about winning the war against al Qaeda, so they made up this story about a video being the cause. The real cause was lax security and a fear of failure after the attack began. This is bad enough, but since the attack the administration has been involved in a cover-up. Nixon wash't impeached for breaking into the Watergate hotel. He was impeached for covering it up and lying about it.

They made this up?

No let-up in protests over anti-Islam film - CNN.com

"More than 50 people have died around the world in violence linked to protests against the low-budget movie, which mocks Islam and the Prophet Mohammed, since the first demonstrations erupted on September 11"

Here is Article of Impeachment for Nixon.

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment
 
didn't these guys also request extra security more than one and get denied?

Typical of a Clinton administration.

Before Blackhawk Down 5th Group requested armored vehicles and it was refused because they felt it would upset the locals, yet every other country used armored vehicles almost exclusively. Instead they decided to glue Kevlar plates to the inside panels, assuring that a well placed explosive would drive the plates into the interior compartment crushing the occupants.
 
Quotes taken out of context for maximum effect by people who think that making meme style pictures is legitimate political comment. Probably people who think that putting 2 words together to make their own new word like Dumbocrite, Libtard or Islamofascist are also legitimate political points. Do try harder next time.

Obama didn't want anyone to think he was lying about winning the war against al Qaeda, so they made up this story about a video being the cause. The real cause was lax security and a fear of failure after the attack began. This is bad enough, but since the attack the administration has been involved in a cover-up. Nixon wash't impeached for breaking into the Watergate hotel. He was impeached for covering it up and lying about it.

They made this up?

No let-up in protests over anti-Islam film - CNN.com

"More than 50 people have died around the world in violence linked to protests against the low-budget movie, which mocks Islam and the Prophet Mohammed, since the first demonstrations erupted on September 11"

Here is Article of Impeachment for Nixon.

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

Many of the protesters were asked if they'd seen the video. Some said no they hadn't, but they heard it was really bad.

That must have been why those guys showed up at a CIA Safehouse with RPGs, mortars, and machine-guns, because they heard the video was really bad. I wonder how many of them had access to a computer in war-torn Libya?
 
Last edited:
Bill O'Reilly shouldn't interview this guy, especially before the Super Bowl. All it does is give him a chance to lie even more. He actually blamed what people think of his conduct after Benghazi on Fox News. Interviewing him only gives him a form of legitimacy.

Please post the Presidents exact words from the interview to back up your claim.

Obama lashes out, blames Fox News during O'Reilly pre-Super Bowl interview - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

"Your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn't want that out," O'Reilly said.

"And they believe it because folks like you are telling them that"

It's an obvious truth. This thread is a testament to that fact. Does anyone truly believe Fox (and the entire right wing echo chamber) didn't present that point of view?

It's okay. There was plenty of time before the election to get that message out. Didn't resonate well.
 
Obama didn't want anyone to think he was lying about winning the war against al Qaeda, so they made up this story about a video being the cause. The real cause was lax security and a fear of failure after the attack began. This is bad enough, but since the attack the administration has been involved in a cover-up. Nixon wash't impeached for breaking into the Watergate hotel. He was impeached for covering it up and lying about it.

They made this up?

No let-up in protests over anti-Islam film - CNN.com

"More than 50 people have died around the world in violence linked to protests against the low-budget movie, which mocks Islam and the Prophet Mohammed, since the first demonstrations erupted on September 11"

Here is Article of Impeachment for Nixon.

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

Many of the protesters were asked if they'd seen the video. Some said no they hadn't, but they heard it was really bad.

That must have been why those guys showed up at a CIA Safehouse with RPGs, mortars, and machine-guns, because they heard the video was really bad. I wonder how many of them had access to a computer in war-torn Libya?

So what? It is well known that the radical Muslims follow what their Mullahs tell them, right? I mean it was a stupid (flaming) video that was obviously dubbed over.

It wasn't until the response team from Tripoli made it's way from the Benghazi airport to the Annex that they were attacked with mortars. Why do you think that is?
 
They made this up?

No let-up in protests over anti-Islam film - CNN.com

"More than 50 people have died around the world in violence linked to protests against the low-budget movie, which mocks Islam and the Prophet Mohammed, since the first demonstrations erupted on September 11"

Here is Article of Impeachment for Nixon.

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

Many of the protesters were asked if they'd seen the video. Some said no they hadn't, but they heard it was really bad.

That must have been why those guys showed up at a CIA Safehouse with RPGs, mortars, and machine-guns, because they heard the video was really bad. I wonder how many of them had access to a computer in war-torn Libya?

So what? It is well known that the radical Muslims follow what their Mullahs tell them, right? I mean it was a stupid (flaming) video that was obviously dubbed over.

It wasn't until the response team from Tripoli made it's way from the Benghazi airport to the Annex that they were attacked with mortars. Why do you think that is?

Assuming you're correct one can assume the mortar attack wasn't part of a protest. I think it would be clear to anyone that the mortar attack wasn't just innocent protests, but a coordinated military attack, which was launched by an al Qaeda affiliate.
 
Many of the protesters were asked if they'd seen the video. Some said no they hadn't, but they heard it was really bad.

That must have been why those guys showed up at a CIA Safehouse with RPGs, mortars, and machine-guns, because they heard the video was really bad. I wonder how many of them had access to a computer in war-torn Libya?

So what? It is well known that the radical Muslims follow what their Mullahs tell them, right? I mean it was a stupid (flaming) video that was obviously dubbed over.

It wasn't until the response team from Tripoli made it's way from the Benghazi airport to the Annex that they were attacked with mortars. Why do you think that is?

Assuming you're correct one can assume the mortar attack wasn't part of a protest. I think it would be clear to anyone that the mortar attack wasn't just innocent protests, but a coordinated military attack, which was launched by an al Qaeda affiliate.

Considering that over 50 people were killed I don't think any of the protest should be considered innocent.
 
Only to a warped mind.

We've found out that Obama knew within the first 24 hrs it was not some protest. Yet he chose to tell the world it was for weeks. He never admitted to screwing it up. He even arrested the producer of that video.

What is wrong is this failure by his supporters to face the truth. They never question any bold-faced lie he makes. The latest is his claim that Fox dreamed up the whole thing.

It's just a pattern you refuse to see.

The pattern following the release of the infamous video was one of violent protests throughout the Middle East and N. Africa, how does anyone know that it was not the catalyst (or excuse) for the attack in Benghazi?

Do you have any evidence that the film was not the spark which lead to the attack? Has anyone interviewed the attackers? aren't they the only credible source?

How do we know? We don't. Except that it happened on 9/11, and they just happened to bring RPGs, mortars, and machine-guns to the rally. Then the fact that Obama refuses to allow any actual witnesses to be questioned.

Other than that, Obama could be telling the truth. Nothing to see here.

^^^ Appeal to Ignorance

"This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim".

Begging the Question

"The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question"

I see, oh, and the fact that Gaddafi's weapons of war were distributed throughout Libya had nothing to do with said weapons ending up in Benghazi.

In your opinion and that of Fox News the attackers went to Mohammed's Sporting Arms and purchases said weapons then trained for weeks to attack the U.S. Mission on Sept. 11, 2012 (well, there is some hyperbole here, but not much).

Here's another side to the story, one which has more credibility than anthing Muddy posts or is broadcast by Fox:

BBC News - Benghazi US mission attack: 'No direct al-Qaeda role'
 
Is there any proof that Fox News wansn't involved?

If FoxNews was doing its job, they could have prevented the attack

You screwed up again.

FOX isn't news.

Apparently, Obama takes FOX seriously enough to agree to an interview with Bill O'Reilly. So, does he think "FOX isn't news"?

Take that MediaMatters crap somewhere else.
 
You right wingers place all of your trust in a news channel owned by a Saudi Prince and an Aussie billionaire with a power seeking agenda who wants to destroy liberals and who seeks to distract you with non-issues.

Benghazi should never have been an issue. Fox made it one. That's what they do to distract low information voters from the really important stuff - like jobs going overseas, and the ongoing transfer of wealth to guys like Rupert Murdoch.

"Benghazi should never have been an issue"

Four Americans shouldn't have died that night, and it wouldn't have been.
 
The pattern following the release of the infamous video was one of violent protests throughout the Middle East and N. Africa, how does anyone know that it was not the catalyst (or excuse) for the attack in Benghazi?

Do you have any evidence that the film was not the spark which lead to the attack? Has anyone interviewed the attackers? aren't they the only credible source?

How do we know? We don't. Except that it happened on 9/11, and they just happened to bring RPGs, mortars, and machine-guns to the rally. Then the fact that Obama refuses to allow any actual witnesses to be questioned.

Other than that, Obama could be telling the truth. Nothing to see here.

^^^ Appeal to Ignorance

"This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim".

Begging the Question

"The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question"

I see, oh, and the fact that Gaddafi's weapons of war were distributed throughout Libya had nothing to do with said weapons ending up in Benghazi.

In your opinion and that of Fox News the attackers went to Mohammed's Sporting Arms and purchases said weapons then trained for weeks to attack the U.S. Mission on Sept. 11, 2012 (well, there is some hyperbole here, but not much).

Here's another side to the story, one which has more credibility than anthing Muddy posts or is broadcast by Fox:

BBC News - Benghazi US mission attack: 'No direct al-Qaeda role'

Care to try that again? Yours is an appeal to ignorance.

Al-Qaeda said the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was in revenge for the killing of the network’s number two Sheikh Abu Yahya al-Libi, SITE Intelligence Group reported Saturday, as Libyan authorities have identified 50 people who were involved in the attack.

“The killing of Sheikh Abu Yahya only increased the enthusiasm and determination of the sons of (Libyan independence hero) Omar al-Mokhtar to take revenge upon those who attack our Prophet,” al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula said in a statement, quoted by the U.S.-based monitoring group, according to AFP.

Al-Qaeda’s Yemen-based offshoot did not claim direct responsibility for Tuesday’s attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans.

But it stressed that “the uprising of our people in Libya, Egypt and Yemen against America and its embassies is a sign to notify the United States that its war is not directed against groups and organizations ... but against the Islamic nation that has rebelled against injustice.”

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/09/15/238197.html
 
Bill O'Reilly shouldn't interview this guy, especially before the Super Bowl. All it does is give him a chance to lie even more. He actually blamed what people think of his conduct after Benghazi on Fox News. Interviewing him only gives him a form of legitimacy.

Obama blames everyone but the man in the mirror
 
So should the Obama administration have known, and they have a lot bigger Army than Fox news. The people that knew in the Obama administration were promoted for lieing about the attack.
Don't you think CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS AND NBC should have done something as well, or did they not know?

Deflection

I'm tired of rightwingers covering for FoxNews ineptness in Benghazi. Any quality news organization should have been able to report the pending attack. Did Fox cover up an attack they knew was coming?

FoxNews dropped the ball big time on Benghazi

So Fox has access to highly classified intelligence?

Get real guy. It's not up to news organizations to protect our State Department employees.

Next you'll be saying that Fox should run the IRS and the NSA because Obama isn't up to the job.

I love you Mud. I mean it. I love, love....LOVE you. You are the greatest!
 
Is there any proof that Fox News wansn't involved?

If FoxNews was doing its job, they could have prevented the attack

You screwed up again.

FOX isn't news.

Apparently, Obama takes FOX seriously enough to agree to an interview with Bill O'Reilly. So, does he think "FOX isn't news"?

Take that MediaMatters crap somewhere else.

He has been on Jay Leno and The View as well.

It is a tradition of sorts for the network who has the Super Bowl telecast to get a sit down with the POTUS. Pay attention.
 
You screwed up again.

FOX isn't news.

Apparently, Obama takes FOX seriously enough to agree to an interview with Bill O'Reilly. So, does he think "FOX isn't news"?

Take that MediaMatters crap somewhere else.

He has been on Jay Leno and The View as well.

It is a tradition of sorts for the network who has the Super Bowl telecast to get a sit down with the POTUS. Pay attention.

I do pay attention. Why lend a network you don't believe is news any credence by agreeing to an interview with them?

Idiot.
 
article-0-15A6FE6C000005DC-982_634x420.jpg


First missive: The first email was sent by the diplomatic mission in Benghazi 20-30 minutes after the attack on the complex began

article-0-15A6FE61000005DC-344_634x378.jpg


False hope: A second email stated that the attack on the mission had stopped and the compound had been cleared

article-0-15A6FE5A000005DC-120_634x373.jpg


Attackers named: A third message stated that a group called Ansar al-Sharia ha claimed responsibility on the attack on Facebook and Twitter

White House knew al Qaeda-linked group claimed responsibility for deadly Libya attack just TWO HOURS later, emails reveal | Mail Online
 
Apparently, Obama takes FOX seriously enough to agree to an interview with Bill O'Reilly. So, does he think "FOX isn't news"?

Take that MediaMatters crap somewhere else.

He has been on Jay Leno and The View as well.

It is a tradition of sorts for the network who has the Super Bowl telecast to get a sit down with the POTUS. Pay attention.

I do pay attention. Why lend a network you don't believe is news any credence by agreeing to an interview with them?

Idiot.

I just told you. Can you understand English?
 

Forum List

Back
Top