The Observation Deck

I'm so happy this article explained it all.

This reminds of Obama's explanation on Benghazi...

Stephen Eisel wrote:This reminds of Obama's explanation on Benghazi...

Of course it reminds you of something to change the subject.

Benghazi, president was repeating exactly what he was told.

With acts of violence and protest throught the mid-east over the movie, one might ask
Mitt how he could be so sure in the first couple minutes it was al qaeda? Perhaps one
of his arm dealing friends that would benefit from the $2 trillion into the military insurial
complex assured him it would be?

Just saying.

Stephen, please come out of the closet, I have read your rants for almost 8 years on various
places around town. Way over the top, neo-con stuff, comstiently spewed by an "independent"

.

With acts of violence and protest throught the mid-east over the movie, one might ask Mitt how he could be so sure in the first couple minutes it was al qaeda? Perhaps one
of his arm dealing friends that would benefit from the $2 trillion into the military insurial
complex assured him it would be?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/state-d ... onsibility

On Sept. 11, 2012, just two hours after the State Department first began notifying government agencies back in Washington--including the White House--that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under attack by armed men, State sent out an email that went to at least two people in the White House that said the group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack.

Stephen, please come out of the closet, I have read your rants for almost 8 years on various
places around town. Way over the top, neo-con stuff, comstiently spewed by an "independent

Because I disagree with you that does not make me a neo-con nor does it change the fact that I am an I. This Obama Kool-Aid has a very bitter taste of failure to it. If pointing out the truth leads you to labeling me a "neocon" then what does that say about your argument? Argue the facts Jim...Everything else you say is just a distraction from the truth. Change has not taken place over the last 4 years.. The deficit has increased by $6 trillion in just 4 years. Unemployment has increased. The number of people on Government assistance has increased. Take home pay for the middle class has decreased. Drilling on Gov land has decreased.. You can label me what ever you want Jim but that will not change the facts about the last 4 years.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote:This reminds of Obama's explanation on Benghazi...

Of course it reminds you of something to change the subject.

Benghazi, president was repeating exactly what he was told.

.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails/index.html

Was he now?

A couple of those redacted email accounts, we can see are to "nss.eop.gov" Know what EOP is? Executive Office of the President. The NSS appears to stand for the National Security Council.

I see two options: The President and his subordinates was misled by his National Security Council (and others in the military and the FBI, since many other people are in on that email) for two weeks OR the President and his subordinates chose to mislead the American people for two weeks.

I think it is a bit of a reach to conclude that an organization was responsible because they claimed responsibility on facebook and twitter.

I would prefer a leader who said we are looking into the matter and I'll give you an answer when we have some proof of what happened. But I don't see any politicians with the guts to say that, possibly because the media would pillory them and offer hasty and semi-informed stories of what had happened. We have become a pop-off society, where it is more important to get face time than to find out the facts. Even this forum has some members who post immediately when they would do better to sober up first and check their facts.