Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowlord]

That is not an authoritative source. Honestly... Pasted together clips which are so short that the speakers do not say what they are talking about until you get to the hostile clips halfway through, and the video is framed such that you are intended to believe it to be the attack on the consulate.

You know what else you can do when you paste together clips?
This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE

Are you done now?

[Reelya]

The only comments on that buzzfeed link say, at most, protests caused by the video, there isn't even a single statement saying "embassy attack caused by the video".

And that's from some guys who cherry picked every single utterance available. Massive proof fail.

[Sirus]

That is not an authoritative source. Honestly... Pasted together clips which are so short that the speakers do not say what they are talking about until you get to the hostile clips halfway through, and the video is framed such that you are intended to believe it to be the attack on the consulate.

You know what else you can do when you paste together clips?
This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE

Are you done now?

I've always liked this pasted-together video...

[Zangi]

That is nice and all trying to convince us that Obama is a liarpolitician...  I'm going to opinionate, even if he did lie in that situation... you gonna expect Romney to be any better?
Honestly, the whole Benghazi thing is non-issue to me in the whole political/election scheme.  I still favor Obama over Romney cause of the many other issues out there.

[Montague]

Frankly, it seems absolutely ludicrousness that people would accuse Obama of lying, compared to just about any other president, let alone somebody like Mitt Romney which seems to discover a new truth every other month or so.

Obama has been unusually upfront and honest, even for a dodgy political figure. I really cannot think of too many instances where he has said one thing and done another or failed to uphold a promise, or bluntly lied about something. For what it's worth, this is probably the last character fault you could try to attack Obama with.

[Trollheiming]

Pro-tip: Ansar al-Sharia of Libya isn't al-Qaida.

The attack was planned in advance to avenge the former leader, al-Libi, who was an affiliate member of Al-Qaeda. Branches and affiliates of Al-Qaeda almost universally carry their own names, yet they coordinate in a network called Al-Qaeda. If you go merely to that one wikipedia entry, it might not seem obvious at first, but al-Libi was a major player in Al-Qaeda in Libya, enough to earn himself a drone-bombing last Spring, and his associates avenged him in this assault. In fact, al-Zawahiri called upon them to do so over the Summer, so an organized assault should have been expected.

That is not an authoritative source. Honestly... Pasted together clips which are so short that the speakers do not say what they are talking about until you get to the hostile clips halfway through, and the video is framed such that you are intended to believe it to be the attack on the consulate.

You know what else you can do when you paste together clips?
This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE

The clips are clearly not manipulated like that. Each clip is short but definitely too long to be easily manipulated. You can't fit them into a compilation that most people would watch, if you gave each a minute on its own context.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/21/obama-s-shaky-libya-narrative.html

Here's an article that has a nice long embedded video of Obama spreading the false narrative, plus definitive comments from his spokesman Jay Carney. You're going nowhere with this refusal to accept that this story was the White House's line for weeks. It's documented everywhere, and you're going to wear yourself out claiming every single instance is manipulated.

[Trollheiming]

Obama has been unusually upfront and honest, even for a dodgy political figure. I really cannot think of too many instances where he has said one thing and done another or failed to uphold a promise, or bluntly lied about something. For what it's worth, this is probably the last character fault you could try to attack Obama with.

Yeah, Obama's pretty honest.

Like when he ran for president on closing Guantanamo.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/guantanamo-bay-open-promises/story?id=16698768#.UHvFSu6IDzs
 
Let's not even consider other promises like cutting the deficit, getting rid of corruption and then giving stimulus deals to his backers, railing against the Patriot Act and then strengthening his ability to indefinitely detain American citizens, promising transparency in the government and then using executive privilege to shield Eric Holder from testifying about the Fast and Furious program that gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels without tracking devices.

[Darvi]

I dunno, but doesn't congress or something like that decide what proposals go through and which ones don't?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I could've sworn I watched Obama say terrorists attacked the embassy the very next morning and said "We will get the ones who caused this." While mentioning they did use the protests as a pretense for the attack.. So you're a moron if you think the video did not cause protests. And that Obama claimed the attack was anything other than terrorism. People like Troll have this conception that the situation has to be EITHER OR and in reality it's.. both.. The video caused protests; terrorists attacked the embassy. How hard is that to comprehend? There's been nothing hidden. If this has been a cover up, they've covered up nothing.

Spewing vitriol at the president over every finger lift he does tends to dilute the effects of your rabid screaming, especially since you folks like to bitch and whine anytime he does something because he's a socialist Kenyan/black unamerican bastard out to git our jobs. The fact that your main source for these claims of a coverup are a Karl Rove political ad^tm that actually has nothing of substance only goes to prove how hollow your argument [or lack-thereof] is, and that you'd make it no matter what the situation was or what happened.

Obama has been unusually upfront and honest, even for a dodgy political figure. I really cannot think of too many instances where he has said one thing and done another or failed to uphold a promise, or bluntly lied about something. For what it's worth, this is probably the last character fault you could try to attack Obama with.

Yeah, Obama's pretty honest.

Like when he ran for president on closing Guantanamo.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/guantanamo-bay-open-promises/story?id=16698768#.UHvFSu6IDzs
 
Let's not even consider other promises like cutting the deficit, getting rid of corruption and then giving stimulus deals to his backers, railing against the Patriot Act and then strengthening his ability to indefinitely detain American citizens, promising transparency in the government and then using executive privilege to shield Eric Holder from testifying about the Fast and Furious program that gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels without tracking devices.

#2, you're a fool who spews non truths.  The link you show backs nothing you say up. It actually refutes you claiming he broke his promise:

Obama has run into plenty of opposition in Congress. Lawmakers passed a bill preventing federal money from being used to transfer Guantanamo prisoners to the United States. Obama signed that bill into law, even as he issued a statement that disapproved of it. The provision was part of a bigger military bill that Obama said was too important not to sign.

Republicans, in particular, say that Guantanamo must stay open to keep terrorists there.

Here's something for you to learn about, kiddo:

With the policy shifts, Mr. Obama is acknowledging the difficulty he has faced in trying to close the prison at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba, which he had ordered on his second day in office. He is also responding to a congressional ban of moving detainees to the U.S. for trial or detention, which undercut administration plans for civilian trials for some now held at Guantanamo.

Administration officials say the executive order Mr. Obama issued on Monday adds due-process rights absent under Mr. Bush. It calls for periodic reviews of detainees who the administration has determined should be detained indefinitely. The administration has said there are now 48 such detainees who can't be put on trial because, among other reasons, evidence might be tainted by their treatment during questioning and might be deemed by judges to have been coerced.

...

The administration's efforts to demonstrate that civilian courts should be the preferred venue to handle terrorism trials was called into question last November, when a New York jury rejected more than 200 counts against a Tanzanian man charged in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. The man was convicted on a single count and sentenced to life in prison.

At the same time, Congress has blocked Mr. Obama's ability to bring Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S. for trial or detention. The Obama administration has transferred or resettled nearly 70 detainees, mostly to Europe.

The issue isn't as black and white as you wish to see it, since you're obviously biased against Obama. I won't even go over the rest of your idiocy since it bears no weight and is backed by nothing but party patriotism vitriol that serves no purpose.

[Trollheiming]

I dunno, but doesn't congress or something like that decide what proposals go through and which ones don't?

The congress that Obama heavily controlled for the first two years of his administration?

As for Michlantecuhtli's spewage, same answer. This poor little president had all the time in the world to play around with vast majorities of Democrats in both houses. Convenient that you forget that now! If he had wanted Guantanamo gone, there would have been no reason to wait for two years.

And I note Michlan doesn't want to address the Executive Privilege at all, which a president invokes on his own to protect his personal communications... involving gun-running to Mexican drug-lords.

The link you show backs nothing you say up.

Did you read the part where it says he promised to veto it? Did you realize that he didn't, kiddo?

[Montague]

Obama has been unusually upfront and honest, even for a dodgy political figure. I really cannot think of too many instances where he has said one thing and done another or failed to uphold a promise, or bluntly lied about something. For what it's worth, this is probably the last character fault you could try to attack Obama with.

Yeah, Obama's pretty honest.

Like when he ran for president on closing Guantanamo.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/guantanamo-bay-open-promises/story?id=16698768#.UHvFSu6IDzs
 
Let's not even consider other promises like cutting the deficit, getting rid of corruption and then giving stimulus deals to his backers, railing against the Patriot Act and then strengthening his ability to indefinitely detain American citizens, promising transparency in the government and then using executive privilege to shield Eric Holder from testifying about the Fast and Furious program that gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels without tracking devices.

Haha, yeah he did say that, huh? I could care less about gitmo one way or another but I wonder why more of his followers are not protesting and complaining that it should be shut down already? I assumed he realized the realities of the situation made it harder to shut down then it first seemed.

Still, I'll say he's more honest then most.

[Shadowlord]

I dunno, but doesn't congress or something like that decide what proposals go through and which ones don't?

The congress that Obama heavily controlled for the first two years of his administration?

As for Michlantecuhtli's spewage, same answer. This poor little president had all the time in the world to play around with vast majorities of Democrats in both houses. Convenient that you forget that now! If he had wanted Guantanamo gone, there would have been no reason to wait for two years.

And I note Michlan doesn't want to address the Executive Privilege at all, which a president invokes on his own to protect his personal communications... involving gun-running to Mexican drug-lords.

Vast? He didn't have vast majorities of Democrats in both houses. The Senate could barely get anything done because of Republican filibusters, for one. Oh, now you're going to say they had a supermajority and could have done all kinds of things (during the four months or so in which they had dying or dead Democrats keeping them from doing anything with it).

If you want to see vast majorities of Democrats in both houses, move to Massachusetts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Senate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_House_of_Representatives

Now that's a supermajority.

[Trollheiming]

Vast? He didn't have vast majorities of Democrats in both houses. The Senate could barely get anything done because of Republican filibusters, for one. Oh, now you're going to say they had a supermajority and could have done all kinds of things (during the four months or so in which they had dying or dead Democrats keeping them from doing anything with it).

If you want to see vast majorities of Democrats in both houses, move to Massachusetts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Senate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_House_of_Representatives

Now that's a supermajority.

Let's put it this way: if you can get a complete clusterfuck like ObamaCare passed, which was so convoluted even Nancy Pelosi joked that "we have to pass it to see what's in it" then you can probably find enough votes to close Guantanamo Bay. But he likes Guantanamo Bay.


He also likes indefinitely detaining American citizens. In fact, when Noam Chomsky and the ACLU got a court injunction against the NDAA, he put his lawyers to the task of arguing for lifting the injunction.

"Government lawyers asked late Friday for an immediate stay of Forrest’s ban on the use of the military in domestic policing and on the empowering of the government to strip U.S. citizens of due process."

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/17/obama_fights_for_indefinite_detention/

Noam Chomsky and the ACLU. The most devilish Republicans known to mankind!

[GlyphGryph]

I've got to be honest. I'm not exactly sure what the actual point is of any of your posts.

Do you think we should vote for someone other than Obama? Do you think someone else would be more transparent, more honest?

We all know shits fucked up in the US government, in both parties. We also know which one is worse. (at the moment)

So rather than making piles of ultimately rather weak arguments, why don't you explain what your point is?

Because the whole "lying about the Benghazi attacks thing? What's your point? What were the terrible consequences that erupted from the two weeks of people thinking it was part of the more widespread protests? Preferably consequences that benefit the president? And what choices should this knowledge inform us to make in a certain direction that we didn't before?

Same for... everything else you've listed. There aren't exactly many people here that I would say are enthusiastic about voting for Obama. But seriously - what's your alternative right now?

[Sheb]

Yeah, I think Trollheimig somehow convinced himself than since this is such a liberal outpost, we must all be Obama fans. We know the guy ain't terrible. We know the other one is even worse.