I love how President Obama acts when his administration has a rare victory... like killing Bin Laden (as if). He's fast to come out with any details he can and there's the many me's my's and I's just to make sure you don't forget who to thank. And I'm pretty sure he didn't have ALL the facts when he made that speech, but did it anyway. And meanwhile, the real hero rots in a Pakistani prison.
But then there's this Benghazi thing (and a couple other things that won't fit in this thread)... Now here's an 'incident' that wasn't as fun to talk about... especially with that damn election coming up. So he sends out this messenger (or maybe he was once again clueless and out of the loop)... anyway, Susan Rice gives a lovely story to five shows and says that based on their "best" evidence, it was just a spontanious protest that turned deadly. Now here's wher Mr Both-Ways comes in...
So no evidence that he spent the night in the situation room strategizing a rescue in case this drags out for a while. Then the next day he makes speech which included a line where he talked about "acts of terror". Why didn't he just say it was a terrorist attack? I think it's because he wanted to get on that plane to Vegas and fundraise. It would be a little diffecult to do that if he came out and said " Last night we had a terrorist attack at our embassy and four dead". So he's smart enough to slip terror in there somewhere for later use (hopefully after the election). Off to Vegas Baby!
So if we are to believe Obama today, he said he called it "an act of terrorism"... sounds a little more definitive does it not? So, he knows it was terrorism YET, Susan Rice says it was a video, Hillary says it was a video (then didn't), and Mr-Both-Ways talks about the video for 2 weeks and when asked if it was terrorism, well, he just doesn't know that yet. Reeeeeaaaaaalllllyyyyy? Didn't you see that first set of CIA talking points that talked about the terrorists in the area? Now don't tell me he was going to compromise something by saying it was a terrorist attack, because remember, he said it was an "act of terrorism" the day after.
So you telll me, which is it? Did he believe after the first few days that it was a video, or did he believe it was a terrorist attack (or maybe like Hillary, it just didn't matter)? Please help me figure this out.
Reason for this thread: I got to thinking about what Obama said to those college students the other day... something about reject the notion of government tyranny... leave that to the extremists (my interpretation).
And then this IRS thing happened and how it could have potentially cost some votes for the Rs. That was undeniable tyranny. And then the AP thing for added fun.
So what about a president that holds back information or attempts to shape the facts in order to save his image, his legacy, his job? Talk about using the power of office for personal gain... I'm sick of this creep
(and that's my fuckin right). Goodnight
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
