By Golly, Benghazi

quote:

---

Critics including Republican Party members accused the Obama White House and State Department of over-emphasizing or fabricating the role of Islamic anger over the anti-Islamic movie Innocence of Muslims and alleged that the administration was reluctant to label the attack as "terrorist".

​

On CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley on September 30, Crowley observed that "Friday we got the administration's sort of definitive statement that this now looks as though it was a pre-planned attack by a terrorist group, some of whom were at least sympathetic to al Qaeda,"

​

"it interferes with the depiction that the administration is trying to convey that al Qaeda is on the wane ... It was either willful ignorance or abysmal intelligence to think that people come to spontaneous demonstrations with heavy weapons, mortars, and the attack goes on for hours."

​

2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia

---

Personally, this 'coverup' is not even close to the many more horrific things critics of Obama can present. Am I missing something?

Uhhh, . . . that was a quote from Wiki, not me. Did you not notice the quote was between quote lines? Uhhh, . . . thanks for your continued support.

It seems the administration is admitting this now. I presume you are perturbed because it took a while before this truth was fully admitted?I think we are in agreement, it was certainly naughty of the Obama administration, but is there something more to this?Can you expand please?

Well, let's be straight here. Obama ALSO used the false excuse of the anti-muslim movie to redirect anger. Big wippeedoo.But, I keep asking, is this all there is to it? Is this is the ONLY thing about this 'coverup' that has Coyote/Republicans annoyed?

I seem to be arguing for both Coyote and Obama at the same time. Roles I am not very comfortable with.I am guessing that republicans would have prefered that the Obama administration not expressed it was the anti-muslim movie until facts were known?Coyote, am I in the ballpark? Can someone from the right throw me a bone?Edited by dronester, : No reason given.

Sayth the man who says I am hate-filled.

whoaaa, calm down cowboy.Yeeehowww!

It's a shame one of the forum's Fox News viewers couldn't step up and clarify it for us.Maybe tomorrow, eh?

Panda is an enigma to me. One second, he'll scorn my hyperbolic-ass to hell. The next second he will cheer one of my posts.

Well, Dr A, I am still wondering how the Republicans choose the things they are outraged about. Why do they pick minor items while letting big whoppers pass:1. Although Obama (a supposed professor of Constitutional Law) has sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, he has continually attacked the Constitution; 4th Amendment against search and seizure (NSA domestic spying); 5th Amendment guaranteeing due process; 8th Amendment barring cruel and unusual punishment (Manning Episode), 6th Amendment, assuring trial by jury (drone assassination program). [sheesh, I thought Bush Jr. was bad]2. The latest Obama secrecy initiative, The Insider Threat Program: it warns employees of non-defense Social Security Amin, Agriculture Dept, etc) that leaks to the media will be treated like espionage.3. The Obama Administration has aggressively gone after more whistle-blowers than all administrations before it. But in actuality, the whistle-blowers ARE American and humanity's heroes, not traitors.If the republicans are really for a smaller, leaner government, less intrusive government, the above items would seem like easy choices to attack the president.Why not?Coyote?Faith?Bueller?Ghost of Buzzsaw?

Hi Xongsmith,I liked and cheered Rhavins brief message in your thread. Message 5: So why don't the Repubs label Obama an enemy of the constitution?Spoiler alert, here's a doozy that may cause you to vomit:

quote:

---

On March 30, 2007, Obama stated, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president [George W. Bush] I actually respect the Constitution."

---

The Repubs (along with the democrats) CAN continue to be for those things and keep getting defeated in future elections when the minority voters become ever bigger.But if they REALLY want to stay in power, it would seem championing for the amendments and attacking Obama on his anti-constitutional playbook would play well to ALL voters. (Not just the gun-nut crowd.)I know I am somehow wrong with this kind of thinking. It seems to make too much sense. Still hoping a republican voter can spell it out for me . . .Coyote?Faith?Bueller?Ghost of Buzzsaw?Bueller?Bueller?

quote:

---

Libertarians advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or no state at all.
Libertarianism - Wikipedia

---

I'm not in the ball park? . . . So you wouldn't be inclined to vote for a political party that strives for a lesser intrusive government? Thus . . . If the republican party attacked Obama because Obama has demonstrated that he hates the constitution and especially the 4th amendment search and seizure laws, then you still wouldn't be more inclined to vote for the Republicans?Please clarify.

C'mon Coyote, stop being so paranoid. I am not trying to trick you via "quote mines." I used that part (Libertarians advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or no state at all) because that was germane to my asking the following question:So you wouldn't be inclined to vote for a political party that strives for a lesser intrusive government? Thus . . . If the republican party attacked Obama because Obama has demonstrated that he hates the constitution and especially the 4th amendment search and seizure laws, then you still wouldn't be more inclined to vote for the Republicans?Can you comment on your answer?

Thanks for responding Rahvin, good job, but my specific query to Coyote remains unanswered.I am unsure why Coyote furiously ran away from it. It is like I was asking for his PIN number to his credit card.