WHY DID OBAMA HIDE AL QAEDA'S INVOLVEMENT ???

For the record JD, your guys lost the Presidential election on November 6. You not only lost it, you lost the White House by a substantial margin, 62%-38% (rounded off) to be exact. There is nothing that you can do or say that will put a Republican in the White House until January 2017, at the very earliest! If Hillary decides to run in 2016, the best you can probably hope for is January 2025.

Get over it, the Obama/Biden team will be the President for 4 more years!

Would it make you feel better if I bought the next round? Originally Posted by bigtex

Just for the record, 49.4% of American voters voted against Odumbo, BigKoTex. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results

A loss is a loss I didn't know there was a spread.

Just for the record, 49.4% of American voters voted against Odumbo, BigKoTex. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Do the math I B Crying! The electoral vote was 332 (62%) for Obama, 206 (38%) for Romney. That's the vote that determines who the POTUS will be, not the popular vote. The rest is just water under the bridge!

I B Crying, you're an Idiot! Go cry yourself to sleep!

Nighty, Night, Loser!

WAH, WAH, WAH!

That is NOT what he said ... King was clear about what he said IN CONTEXT....

#1: Patraeus's first version was different from his most recent version; and
#2: Patraeus just this week said the "talking points" he sent out were different from what Rice said.
#3: King gave NO details as to the differences.

Finally, the Pro-Obama crowd on this board, just like on the media, are engaged in the same bullshit scneario of "correcting" what people say under the pretense of "explaining" what the "really" meant to say ..... like posters in her, pundits, and reporters in the media actually have some special knowledge about what was going on between the ears of those involved .... INCLUDING I MIGHT ADD ...

........ a now dead Ambassador Stevens.

If King is correct and the testimony of Patraeus differs in a material way from his first version then Patraeus has placed himself in a position to be indicted for perjury. There is no need for King to "recall" what Patraeus said before, because there is a record of his prior testimony behind closed doors.

Finally .... how does anybody on this board have any KNOWLEDGE of what was said behind closed doors in a closed hearing! I am no fan of Feinstein since her days as Mayor, but she maintains a respect for the closed session mandates AND she has historically been balanced in her criticism of national security issues ... she has only said that Rice is not being treated "fairly" in the media .... as to what that means in the CONTEXT of the series of events that lead up to the disparate statements between Patraeus's and hers is yet to play out.

The President has laid the ground work for that inquiry .... he has taken the SOLE responsibility for her actions and statements. He needs to explain why she said what she said to the media when the facts KNOWN were inconsistent. Originally Posted by LexusLover

great ... theres no reason for an investigation, and this entire fiasco is over ... an idiot on a P4P board solved the case ...

Do the math I B Crying! The electoral vote was 332 (62%) for Obama, 206 (38%) for Romney. That's the vote that determines who the POTUS will be, not the popular vote. The rest is just water under the bridge!

I B Crying, you're an Idiot! Go cry yourself to sleep!

Nighty, Night, Loser!

WAH, WAH, WAH! Originally Posted by bigtex

BigKoTex, 49.4% of American voters voted against Odumbo. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results

I have to kind of give it up to the Fox segment I saw last evening. Hannity was trying to be his douchey self but there were 2 military analysts on there who provided non-partisan insights.

1 - The CIA called it a terrorist attack from the get go. There were other attacks going on around the world due to the "Youtube video" and someone up the chain tried to fit a square peg into a round hole. The changes were unnecessary and why they did that ... no one knows. They have 2 days to work on a spin story before the press comes a calling on Monday.

2 - Our embassies in Africa and the Middle East are under constant threat of attack. However, in light of the fact that the Red Cross and British had evacuated the area and considering the anniversary of 9/11 was approaching, there should have been pre-staging of additional military assets (at a minimum armed predators offshore and additional Global Hawks overhead) and a workable extract plan. They failed to do this and therefore receive an 'F'.

The criticism was sharp, non-partisan and on point. This I can accept.

p.s. Yes I voted for Obama

Aren't we forgetting one question that everybody seems to be dancing around.

Who made the decision to have such a weak force guarding a US Embassy in such a hostile enviroment. And most of all, why was this decision made. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Exactly.

But the Tea Nuts are losing focus with this Rice crap. The WH is after the peeps and when they get them, they will say that they did not want them to think that they knew they did it. Game over.....and then this more revelant point will wind up moot.

BigKoTex, 49.4% of American voters voted against Odumbo. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You do realize that Bush got less votes than Gore.

Even so, I never whined about Bush winning the election.

Actual the administration is using Rice to divert attention away from the deception. Obaminable sent her out to the Sunday talk shows (his admission) and she was provided the "talking points" (his admission). He is responsible for the lies (his admission). We take it up with him (his request).

Since when did our government convert to "creating" ... "talking points" to inform the citizens and voters about what happened in current events. Why do we need "talking points" ....how about FACTS!

Since when did our government convert to "creating" ... "talking points" to inform the citizens and voters about what happened in current events. Why do we need "talking points" ....how about FACTS! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Sure ...How about we just send the CIA out with all the details so that the terrorist can see exactly wtf we know.

Great idea LL.

Keep'em coming.

Yeah. Let's keep them fooled by lying to the American people. Great idea, WPF. Are you getting your input from the Obamatron in Chicago, too? Or did you copy and paste it from Wikipedia?

Yeah. Let's keep them fooled by lying to the American people. Great idea, WPF. Are you getting your input from the Obamatron in Chicago, too? Or did you copy and paste it from Wikipedia? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I got it from your boyfriend.

This story is dead.

I watched the GOP congressman get interviewed and even they think it is much ado about very little.

Like I said, the main focus should have been on lax security beforehand.

Actual the administration is using Rice to divert attention away from the deception. Obaminable sent her out to the Sunday talk shows (his admission) and she was provided the "talking points" (his admission). He is responsible for the lies (his admission). We take it up with him (his request).

Since when did our government convert to "creating" ... "talking points" to inform the citizens and voters about what happened in current events. Why do we need "talking points" ....how about FACTS! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Maybe they just took a page from the right hand media...

Yoyoma; thanks for posting...

I have to kind of give it up to the Fox segment I saw last evening. Hannity was trying to be his douchey self but there were 2 military analysts on there who provided non-partisan insights.

1 - The CIA called it a terrorist attack from the get go. There were other attacks going on around the world due to the "Youtube video" and someone up the chain tried to fit a square peg into a round hole. The changes were unnecessary and why they did that ... no one knows. They have 2 days to work on a spin story before the press comes a calling on Monday.

2 - Our embassies in Africa and the Middle East are under constant threat of attack. However, in light of the fact that the Red Cross and British had evacuated the area and considering the anniversary of 9/11 was approaching, there should have been pre-staging of additional military assets (at a minimum armed predators offshore and additional Global Hawks overhead) and a workable extract plan. They failed to do this and therefore receive an 'F'.

The criticism was sharp, non-partisan and on point. This I can accept.

p.s. Yes I voted for Obama Originally Posted by Yoyoma

I have to kind of give it up to the Fox segment I saw last evening. Hannity was trying to be his douchey self but there were 2 military analysts on there who provided non-partisan insights.

1 - The CIA called it a terrorist attack from the get go. There were other attacks going on around the world due to the "Youtube video" and someone up the chain tried to fit a square peg into a round hole. The changes were unnecessary and why they did that ... no one knows. They have 2 days to work on a spin story before the press comes a calling on Monday.

2 - Our embassies in Africa and the Middle East are under constant threat of attack. However, in light of the fact that the Red Cross and British had evacuated the area and considering the anniversary of 9/11 was approaching, there should have been pre-staging of additional military assets (at a minimum armed predators offshore and additional Global Hawks overhead) and a workable extract plan. They failed to do this and therefore receive an 'F'.

The criticism was sharp, non-partisan and on point. This I can accept.

p.s. Yes I voted for Obama Originally Posted by Yoyoma

So are you happy that Obama threw the First Amendment under the bus and then sent the brownshirts to arrest the film producer? I'm not.