Hillary takes the blame for Benghazi

[esmith]

Nixon resigned before he could be impeached. And his office was full of tape recorders. And the funds paid to the burglars were traced to his campaign office. He broke the law. You're really reaching.

Plus, what part of "Obama called the attack an act of terror the very next day" are you not getting? The transcript has been posted. And even if some people did think at first, wrongly, that it was related to the mob violence the video provoked, who cares? Why does it matter at all, let alone matter so much that it's worth a grand conspiracy to conceal the details of who said what, when? You don't realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Well, it matters to me. In my opinion Obama mislead the American Public about the facts of the terrorist attack. In his statement "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation" is it in reference to the specific attack or attacks in general is open for debate. I read this as attacks in general. Again moot point. However, the continuing output from the administration was the attack was spontaneous reaction to a stupid video. Obama reiterated this on many occasions. I take his action as exhibiting poor leadership character. He missed 60% of his National Security meeting, relying on briefs to inform him of situations. What we do not know is...did he have any knowledge of the April and June attacks, the attack against the British Ambassador, the closing of the British Consulate in Benghazi, that the Red Cross closed their offices due to increasing violence. All of this and many more actions leaves a very large question in his leadership and foreign policy.

​

 

[Alceste]

Well, it matters to me. In my opinion Obama mislead the American Public about the facts of the terrorist attack. In his statement "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation" is it in reference to the specific attack or attacks in general is open for debate. I read this as attacks in general. Again moot point. However, the continuing output from the administration was the attack was spontaneous reaction to a stupid video. Obama reiterated this on many occasions. I take his action as exhibiting poor leadership character. He missed 60% of his National Security meeting, relying on briefs to inform him of situations. What we do not know is...did he have any knowledge of the April and June attacks, the attack against the British Ambassador, the closing of the British Consulate in Benghazi, that the Red Cross closed their offices due to increasing violence. All of this and many more actions leaves a very large question in his leadership and foreign policy.

​

I'll bet they do raise questions for you, and I'll bet that if he'd been a Republican president you wouldn't have batted an eye about any of it. You'd be saying "nobody saw this coming", like republicans did after 9-11. It's a silly obsession, and completely partisan, and that is obvious to most voters, apparently, since Obama has been gaining in polls since the debate. I guess voters agree this kind of partisan nonsense is offensive when for Americans are dead.

 

[Falvlun]

So, I've had a hard time understanding what the hullabaloo over the president's handling of the embassy attack is.

From what I've read here, it appears that conservatives believe that Obama knew that it was a terrorist attack and that he purposefully spun it to make it appear like it was a spontaneous violent protest. Is that the gist of it?

Is there nothing demented and slimy that conservatives don't want to slap onto Obama? You know it's a mark that he's actually a relatively good guy if the best dirt they can dig up on him is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

 

[esmith]

I'll bet they do raise questions for you, and I'll bet that if he'd been a Republican president you wouldn't have batted an eye about any of it. You'd be saying "nobody saw this coming", like republicans did after 9-11. It's a silly obsession, and completely partisan, and that is obvious to most voters, apparently, since Obama has been gaining in polls since the debate. I guess voters agree this kind of partisan nonsense is offensive when for Americans are dead.

No, it wouldn't have mattered. I am a equal opportunity critic of anyone that doesn't exhibit the leadership that I expect from the President.
No, Obama is not leading in all polls, from what I understand the Gallup poll among likely voters have Obama 45% Romney 51%

 

[YmirGF]

No, Obama is not leading in all polls, from what I understand the Gallup poll among likely voters have Obama 45% Romney 51%

: hamster :: hamster :: hamster :: hamster :: hamster :: hamster :

 

[Alceste]

No, it wouldn't have mattered. I am a equal opportunity critic of anyone that doesn't exhibit the leadership that I expect from the President.
No, Obama is not leading in all polls, from what I understand the Gallup poll among likely voters have Obama 45% Romney 51%

Gallup is inconsistent with the majority of polls, by about seven percent. , greater than the poll's margin of error. The average of these, which includes the Gallup poll, puts Obama ahead by two points. It's a poor quality poll, thought to have some systemic problem that compromises the accuracy of its results. Obama's odds of winning are over sixty percent.

Gallup vs. the World - NYTimes.com

 

[esmith]

Gallup is inconsistent with the majority of polls, by about seven percent. , greater than the poll's margin of error. The average of these, which includes the Gallup poll, puts Obama ahead by two points. It's a poor quality poll, thought to have some systemic problem that compromises the accuracy of its results. Obama's odds of winning are over sixty percent.

Oh, I see. When the polls favor Obama they are right, but when they favor Romney they are wrong. Gee, an the uber-liberal NY Times doesn't agree, wonder why? Where do you get the data that says Obama has a 60% chance of winning????????

 

[YmirGF]

Oh, I see. When the polls favor Obama they are right, but when they favor Romney they are wrong. Gee, an the uber-liberal NY Times doesn't agree, wonder why? Where do you get the data that says Obama has a 60% chance of winning????????

Any polls showing Obama "leading from behind", as it were, are obviously wrong - on so many levels. You know, there ought to be laws.

On a lighter note:

[youtube]87jO4WlPLnk[/youtube]
Obama Roasts Romney at Alfred E. Smith Dinner - October 18, 2012 - YouTube

[youtube]NIHbe-aO6oI[/youtube]
Mitt Romney Jokes and One Liners at Al Smith dinner with President Barack Obama - YouTube

Though I thought Obama did cut some chuckles, Romney blew the doors off the place.

 

[Alceste]

Oh, I see. When the polls favor Obama they are right, but when they favor Romney they are wrong. Gee, an the uber-liberal NY Times doesn't agree, wonder why? Where do you get the data that says Obama has a 60% chance of winning????????

Does the word "average" confuse you or something? As a general rule, the larger the data set, the more accurate the result. So, a poll of polls, encompassing the results of all polls, including Gallup, is more accurate than any single poll. The five thirty eight, unlike Gallup, has a record of being very accurate in its predictions, so I see no reason not to consider it a reliable source of information.

Sheesh, talk about projection! What is your rationale for believing Gallup is the only accurate poll? Would you still rely exclusively on Gallup if they were seven points out of sync with other polls, but in the other direction, predicting an Obama landslide? Somehow I doubt it.