Wapo gives Obama 4 pinnochios on benghazi

This wont be significant to the mental case left on here.........but it is very strong evidence that the depth of the poop is about to get waaaaaaaaaaaaay deeper.

When you see The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post and New Yorker Magazine calling Obama a liar, it is indeed significant.


The same dynamic occurred with MonicaGate.........at first, all the k00ks called it a "right wing witch hunt"......then the lefty media bandwagon started.


And once it starts............:eusa_dance::eusa_dance::eusa_dance:



Although......to be real, some manufactured/engineered "event" will be happening in short order.......probably the next ten days.


Watch......
 
403 threads now.



Apparently a lot of people think it's important when the administration screws up, people die, and they try to blame it on freedom of speech and go so far as to arrest a scapegoat.

Sucks for you.
 

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”
— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12



obama-pinocchio.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]



Washington Post FTMFW
 

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”
— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

Go argue with the Washington Post.

The Pinocchio Test

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed.

It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack.

He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.


pinocchio_4.jpg


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html
 
Last edited:
"Act of terror" vs "Act of terrorism"

I see grounds for impeachment and definite grounds for 400 threads
 
"Act of terror" vs "Act of terrorism"

I see grounds for impeachment and definite grounds for 400 threads



Yeeeesh........for somebody who spends 17 hours per day in the POLITICS forum, you have the political IQ of a small soap dish s0n!!!



s0n.....the fact that every lefty mental case is falling all over themseves this am with about 4 billion distraction/MSNBC-like posts should tell you something..........but I'll give you a hint: there is alot of lefty pooping of their shorts this morning.
 
Last edited:

Cripes even Britain's numero uno liberal left wing progressive powerhouse the BBC has turned on Obama.

Check this out.

After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll

There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission, which killed four people including the US ambassador to Libya.


Now this is Mark Mardell; a true heavy weight in liberal media. He's done a complete about face with hard evidence that ABC released. And he admits it. :eusa_angel:

Conservatives have long maintained that the administration deliberately suppressed the truth about the attacks.

This is the first hard evidence that the state department did ask for changes to the CIA's original assessment.

Specifically, they wanted references to previous warnings deleted and this sentence removed: "We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack."

There's little doubt in my mind that this will haunt Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for president, unless she executes some pretty fancy footwork.

State department spokesperson Victoria Nuland is directly implicated, and the fingerprints of senior White House aides Ben Rhodes and Jay Carney are there as well.


BBC News - After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll
 
"Act of terror" vs "Act of terrorism"

I see grounds for impeachment and definite grounds for 400 threads


He made a general comment about an act of terror.........one who drives drunk is commiting an act of terror....but such a person is not deemed a "terrorist" in the light it is used in todays day and age.

So in other words...he tossed in that "act of terror" in his rose garden speech so he can say "I called it terrorism on the first day" if he needed to.

It was an act of terror. Anytime someone uses artiliary against someone else who is not acting with hostility, an act of terror is being committed. What he refused to admit was that it was a "terrorist attack"

Sad how people are so easily fooled by his uncannny way of saying one thing with multiple meanings so he can use whatever meaning he deems necessary when the time comes.
 

Forum List

Back
Top