I don't recall Bush EVER referring to 9-11 as a 'bump in the road'.

Of course his wife didn't have to wait till her 40's to finally be proud of her country either.

Just sayin....

Winner :tro:

btw, did you know Michelle's husband is a Muslim?...jus askin, you and your echo...

Chris Stevens' Death In Libya Shouldn't Be Politicized, Father Says.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1965009.html

you shouldn't encourage dell.

The State Department is so incompetent it is mind-boggling. They hired some tiny, unknown British firm to guard the embassy and the guards were unarmed. All they had were flashlights and batons. It's as if the State Department thought Libya was the safest country in the world. I think the State Department's mindset was basically, "If we pretend it is safe then that makes it safe."

http://news.yahoo.com/benghazi-diplo...014650742.html

Most of the guards were Libyans that had no experience in security. In a country where they just had a revolution, the State Department decided to use unarmed guards with no experience to protect our embassy. Absolutely mind-boggling!

From the article: "The unarmed guards were told to sound the alarm over the radio and then run for cover if there was an attack, a Libyan who acted as a supervisor for the Blue Mountain local guard team at the mission said during an interview with Reuters."

"Despite their inexperience, the Blue Mountain guards said they feared the Americans were not concerned enough about security."

""We used to tell the Americans who spoke to us on many occasions that we needed more support in security, because it felt thin on the ground. But they didn't seem to be so worried, and (were) confident that no one will dare to come close to the consulate," one guard said.

So instead of hiring an American company the State Department hired a British Company. This administration can't get out of its own way!

How are those two Chevy volts performing in Vienna? At 75K a piece I hope they're driving like STS's?

He's actually a christian who was inspired by a racist pastor who in turn is inspired by Louis Farakan, a leader in the chicago and American Muslim community. Mr. Farakan in turn puts out a weekly newsletter that features whites with devil horns. Though Obama did spend time in Indonesia and has described the call to Islam prayer chant as beautiful. To each is own I guess.

Did you know Michelle did not grow up poor? Was the daughter of a city worker who was a precinct captain, (part of the original Dailey Army) went to Princeton and Harvard law school, got a cooshy six figure medical job from Mayor Dailey II and still wasn't proud of her country till her early 40's?

Nice cartoon, if factual accuracy doesn't matter. Which is why it appeals to it's target audience, I guess :D

It does give actual dates. I thought that was a good thing.

Yes. It gives actual dates. But it doesn't give actual statements made on those dates. It is lying about what Obama said.

Can you post those quotes as the cartoon alleges, from the first five dates given in that sequence, that support the cartoon? Public statements, all, should be easy to find?

Start with Sept 11 - post any quote that the President said on that date, saying the attacks were due to the video. Sept 12 and 13, too.

The cartoon is lying baloney, Joey. Instead of getting your political "truth" from cartoons, or web sites, try watching the actual press conferences and public statements and listening to the president's words yourself.

from factcheck.org, regarding the exchange between obama and romney, and what the admin had to say in the days after the embassy attack:

Terrorist Attack in Libya

There was a sharp exchange between the candidates on the issue of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi and the question of when the president acknowledged it was a terrorist attack. Obama said he called it an “act of terror” the day after the attack. Romney said that “it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

Obama is correct that he referred to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 speech in the Rose Garden. But after that Obama refused to characterize it as a terrorist attack while it was under investigation — even though other administration officials did.

The transcript does show that Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Sept. 12: “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.” That night, he said at a Las Vegas fundraiser: “No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.” Obama employed the “act of terror” phrase a third time a day later at a campaign event in Colorado.

But Romney isn’t entirely wrong. Romney claimed Obama refused for two weeks after the Benghazi attack to call it a terrorist attack and, instead, blamed it on a spontaneous demonstration in response to an anti-Muslim video that earlier that day triggered a violent protest in Egypt.

The president did seem to suggest in his Rose Garden speech that a reason for the Benghazi attack was the video. Obama said: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.”

It is also true that Obama refrained from characterizing the attack as an premeditated act of terrorism. The administration adopted a wait-and-see position, deflecting questions until the investigation into the attack could be completed. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, for example, was asked in a Sept. 17 press briefing if the administration considered the Benghazi attack an act of terror. She said: “Again, I’m not going to put labels on this until we have a complete investigation, okay?”

A day later, Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on “The Late Show with David Letterman.” The president said “here’s what happened” and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said “extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.” He also said, “As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we’ve denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it. That’s never an excuse for violence.”

Matt Olsen, head of the National Counterterrorism Center, testified on Sept. 19 that it was a “terrorist attack.” He also said the administration still lacked “specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.”

A day later, White House press secretary Jay Carney said it is “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” And on Sept. 21 — two days after Olsen’s testimony — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

Yet, when asked on ABC’s “The View” whether it was a terrorist attack, Obama refused to say. That was on Sept. 24. He said, “We’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. We don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it.”

The Romney campaign has accused the administration of misleading the public by claiming the anti-Muslim video was to blame for the attack in Benghazi, rather than admitting it was a failure to detect and prevent an act of terrorism on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. We cannot say if there was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public or whether, as the administration says, the conflicting statements in the weeks after the attack were the result of an evolving investigation. We’ll leave that for readers to decide.

Why listen to what FactCheck says about the President's words, when you can listen or read the President's actual words?

You know, first hand?

Let's start here: Here's the first public statement in the Rose Garden.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us...ef=todayspaper

an excellent piece on the subject. this is an article that romney, and others attacking obama on this particular subject ought to read. it takes days, weeks, or longer to get the whole story.
was obama correct in the second debate when he said 'read the transcript'? no. his mention of acts of terror weren't specific to benghazi. he'd have done much better to say exactly what happened, that until the investigation was completed, no one was going to call it that-since that genie can't be put back in the bottle once it's out.

If Obama knew it was an act of terror when he spoke in the rose garden why was Susan Rice sent out messenger pigeon style to every talk show the following Sunday, to say it was an attack by a mob, inspired by a video ?

His supporters yesterday were telling him to come clean yet if he does he admits he was wrong.

Can't wait for him to expound on the new freedoms Egyptians now enjoy under a theocracy. How accepting the country has become of other religions and how when the Muslim Bro'hood said they would not seek political office they were just joking.

Then he can explain why the murder of one of our border guards with a gun provided by us had nothing to do with him or Holder. It was simply rogue agents.

Then he can wrap up by injecting his economic plan of doubling down on green and instead of 50 bankrupt companies we need bk 100. We need more federal employees because they make 34% more on average than the private sector, thus pay more taxes even though they're paid with tax money.

Maybe if he ends each sentence with I killed Osama?

Though I suppose someone else built the helicopters to get there.:zz:

Do you think this matters (reference to CIA intelligence)?

There is only one reason why the RWNJ ever screamed about "Libya". It's because Mitt Romney has zero foreign policy experience, other than insulting the British.

:tro::tro:

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz2A3USLGEt

Our current President was rolling in foreign policy experience when elected right?

I posted something showing Romney's attack on the President over Libya has fallen apart with revelation of CIA information, and Clip Clop changes the subject completely.

Sure, I'll play, Clip Clop:

Obama as a candidate was an elected US Senator that had spent 4 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He had visited multiple countries.

Romney as a candidate has no foreign policy experience at all, no national experience, zero elected experience above state level.

And now, comparing the two candidates:

Obama now has four years of excellent, proven foreign policy experience as POTUS.

Romney still has zero - except, as a civilian, insulting our allies, putting his foot in his mouth with misspeaking, and causing the current administration grief by opening his mouth and playing politics outside our borders and with the lives of our troops overseas. Amateur, unqualified, ignorant, poor performance.