Maybe some of you should read ......... Mitt tried to nail Obama in the debate and Candy Crowley came to his defense. Nothing partisan there. Now the NYT is trying to come to Obama's and Clinton's defense. Big surprise."What difference does it make?" No one was even saying anything about the cause or blaming Obama for Benghazi at the time for this to be a "Planned campaign message". I hate to break it to you, but no one really cared enough for Obama to have to take a position of terrorist attack or not. The only ones that got riled up about the campaign message and some narrative was faux news. This whole event wasn't even critical to his campaign narrative. If you remember, it was more about Obamacare.....
You lefties are right about one thing though. The American public just doesn't care. That's a shame but the truth. Most people just don't pay attention.
IMHO........ It isn't that the attack happened and that Americans died that is the scandal. It is how the Obama administration lied about the cause of the attack because it didn't fit their campaign message. If you don't understand that's what happened IMO you are either to uninformed to post here or you are just a partisan hack. So which is it???????????? Originally Posted by OMGitsHuge
It was just something faux news did to get your panties in a wad to make sure you voted for Mitt. Plus do you guys even know that Obama did call it a terrorist attack the day after???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=rDANcaPx1xg
"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."