In Case You're Wondering What Crazy Benghazi Lady Is On About...But Were Afraid To Ask

[Anonymous]

Got a text last night from a very liberal close friend of mine. We've been fighting politics since before Obama got elected first time. Said if he finds out Obama is linked to this IRS thing, it's a game-changer for him. That's huge. And now the AP story grows.

I never thought he could be turned away. I was wrong.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Which means that you have seen for yourself that the editing was done before the talk show circuit and what was said by Obama and Rice were planned talking points.

You're just choosing to ignore that because you don't want to admit Obama and Rice lied. Obama said himself that he avoided saying terrorist attack in the rose garden.

You think it doesn't make a different, that it's semantics. Have at it.

Eureka! You have just discovered the obvious. Yes, Rice spoke based on talking points. That's why they are called "talking points". Are you also aware that the President's speeches are written in advance? Also, when a Senator offers prepared remarks, those remarks are actually prepared in advance. Fascinating times in which we live.

[Anonymous]

I think the only "sunshine" some of the frothy & ranting so-called "conservatives" (self-proclaimed "respectable" and otherwise) can see is the minuscule space between their but cheeks as they bend over looking for another conspiracy.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which means that you have seen for yourself that the editing was done before the talk show circuit and what was said by Obama and Rice were planned talking points.

You're just choosing to ignore that because you don't want to admit Obama and Rice lied. Obama said himself that he avoided saying terrorist attack in the rose garden.

You think it doesn't make a different, that it's semantics. Have at it.

Eureka! You have just discovered the obvious. Yes, Rice spoke based on talking points. That's why they are called "talking points". Are you also aware that the President's speeches are written in advance? Also, when a Senator offers prepared remarks, those remarks are actually prepared in advance. Fascinating times in which we live.

Obama's Letterman statements and Rice's were talking points. We were lied to. Yes, that's obvious.

Your point about the speeches? What does that have to do with the price of apples? I would hope that a President would not deliver a speech based on old new when he knew that was old news?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which means that you have seen for yourself that the editing was done before the talk show circuit and what was said by Obama and Rice were planned talking points.

You're just choosing to ignore that because you don't want to admit Obama and Rice lied. Obama said himself that he avoided saying terrorist attack in the rose garden.

You think it doesn't make a different, that it's semantics. Have at it.

Eureka! You have just discovered the obvious. Yes, Rice spoke based on talking points. That's why they are called "talking points". Are you also aware that the President's speeches are written in advance? Also, when a Senator offers prepared remarks, those remarks are actually prepared in advance. Fascinating times in which we live.

Obama's Letterman statements and Rice's were talking points. We were lied to. Yes, that's obvious.

Your point about the speeches? What does that have to do with the price of apples? I would hope that a President would not deliver a speech based on old new when he knew that was old news?

If you agree that Obama and Rice were speaking from talking points, then you can't accuse them of lying. The talking points reflected the combine opinions of several government departments, but primarily CIA and State. The CIA and State told Obama and Rice what to say. If the information was wrong -- which it was -- then Obama and Rice repeated wrong information. But, that is not lying. That is simply saying something that you didn't know was false.

The point about speeches is that you seemed shocked that people speak based on talking points. I assumed that you were also unaware that presidential speeches are written beforehand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Got a text last night from a very liberal close friend of mine. We've been fighting politics since before Obama got elected first time. Said if he finds out Obama is linked to this IRS thing, it's a game-changer for him. That's huge. And now the AP story grows.

I never thought he could be turned away. I was wrong.

I wish there was a yawn smiley. ** zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz**

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Got a text last night from a very liberal close friend of mine. We've been fighting politics since before Obama got elected first time. Said if he finds out Obama is linked to this IRS thing, it's a game-changer for him. That's huge. And now the AP story grows.

I never thought he could be turned away. I was wrong.

this is what you and your liberal friend text about? Seriously just stop lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Got a text last night from a very liberal close friend of mine. We've been fighting politics since before Obama got elected first time. Said if he finds out Obama is linked to this IRS thing, it's a game-changer for him. That's huge. And now the AP story grows.

I never thought he could be turned away. I was wrong.

this is what you and your liberal friend text about? Seriously just stop lying.

Why would this be so far-fetched? Weirdness.

[Anonymous]

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/05/14/the-top-20-benghazi-lies/

[Anonymous]

What was the lie....? Obama did not want to be clearly linked, pre-election, rightly or wrongly, as an administration that let a terror attack get through on 9-11. Motivation? He was down in the polls with Romney and came out swinging on this so he would not lose further momentum. We all know that at some point a loss of momentum can be irreversible. Hence--lots of bluster from his spokespeople, minimizing and hope the 'whole thing would die down' (which is the message to this day from his administration).
What was the lie...? Is this actually confusing to some?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:What was the lie....? Obama did not want to be clearly linked, pre-election, rightly or wrongly, as an administration that let a terror attack get through on 9-11. Motivation? He was down in the polls with Romney and came out swinging on this so he would not lose further momentum. We all know that at some point a loss of momentum can be irreversible. Hence--lots of bluster from his spokespeople, minimizing and hope the 'whole thing would die down' (which is the message to this day from his administration).
What was the lie...? Is this actually confusing to some?

Interesting theory. Interesting, but wrong. On September 11, far from leading the polls, Romney was desperate. His desperation was apparent when he rushed to appear on TV just after midnight in order to accuse Obama of siding with the enemy. That proved to be a huge blunder for Romney. Also, Obama didn't lie. He repeated a claim made by the CIA. Are you accusing the CIA of being part of Obama's reelection effort?

In the run up to the election, Republicans were living in their own parallel universe. In their universe, the polls were skewed. The masses of America were going to vote against Obama. Romney was going to win -- in the words of Dick Morris -- in a landslide. Election night was a rude awakening. But, you don't appear to have learned anything. You are again in a parallel universe where a significant number of Americans even care about the Benghazi attack and, among all those who care, there is support for the Republicans on the issue. Eventually, you will have another rude awakening.

[Anonymous]

as I recall he was building momentum and then housed Obama in the '2nd debate'. However that silly moderator sided with Obama's administration's 'big lie' in the third debate, and even though Romney was right--Obama 'appeared right' to the masses (you) and you know how these things go...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What was the lie....? Obama did not want to be clearly linked, pre-election, rightly or wrongly, as an administration that let a terror attack get through on 9-11. Motivation? He was down in the polls with Romney and came out swinging on this so he would not lose further momentum. We all know that at some point a loss of momentum can be irreversible. Hence--lots of bluster from his spokespeople, minimizing and hope the 'whole thing would die down' (which is the message to this day from his administration).
What was the lie...? Is this actually confusing to some?

Specifically, what did he say that was A LIE. If you're talking about acting like a politician, minimizing, spinning, etc., that's politics and elections for you.

Tell me in plain English. Please QUOTE THE LIE.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:as I recall he was building momentum and then housed Obama in the '2nd debate'. However that silly moderator sided with Obama's administration's 'big lie' in the third debate, and even though Romney was right--Obama 'appeared right' to the masses (you) and you know how these things go...

Romney's statement just after midnight on Sept. 11 was a huge blunder. His trip to Europe was a disaster. The convention was a farce. Then, following the Sept. 11 blunder, the 47% video was released. Romney was floundering. To call that gaining momentum is to completely ignore reality. Romney got a bit of a bump after the Denver debate, but even that was not enough to put him ahead in the polls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:as I recall he was building momentum and then housed Obama in the '2nd debate'. However that silly moderator sided with Obama's administration's 'big lie' in the third debate, and even though Romney was right--Obama 'appeared right' to the masses (you) and you know how these things go...

I think you have snapped. Unable to understand how? why??? Obama won, having discarded the many obvious problems with the campaign and the party, you have latched onto the one last hope: that one moment in a political debate threw the entire thing. A moment in which your candidate was corrected on a point of absolute fact. Here it is in black and white:

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I — I certainly do. I certainly do. I — I think it's interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.

MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you're saying?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.

MR. ROMNEY: I — I — I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript.

MS. CROWLEY: It — he did in fact, sir.

So let me — let me call it an act of terrorism — (inaudible) —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)

MS. CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

MR. ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration — (applause) — indicated that this was a — a reaction to a — to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

MS. CROWLEY: They did.

MR. ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and — and to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday the — your — your secretary or —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy —

MR. ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and — and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, I'm — I'm happy to —

MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me — I —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy.

MS. CROWLEY: I know you — absolutely. But I want — I want to move you on.