All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Obama loses again.
5/14/2013 11:09 AM
If the OA knew it was a terrorist attack and intentionally denied it, it's a scandal.    Simply because many warning signs were ignored and the timing of the denial.   Just saying "It's not a scandal" doesn't make it so.
5/14/2013 11:37 AM
Damage control lies are told every single day. Wake me up when the IRS hearings start. That's the real scandal. Benghazi is a witch hunt.
5/14/2013 11:39 AM
Benghazi is part of a pattern of behavior. 

The promised "Transparent administration" is complete and utter bullshit. 
5/14/2013 11:40 AM
You're naive if you believed that bullshit.
5/14/2013 11:47 AM
Hope and change, ************, hope and change!!!!!
5/14/2013 11:51 AM
It was a campaign slogan. What are you, twelve?
5/14/2013 11:55 AM
As the most "historic" president in my life, I was sort of hoping it wouldn't be "business as usual" in Washington with him.    He's a smart man.   It seems that he wouldn't want his legacy to be "Just another politician".   
5/14/2013 12:00 PM
He's still a politician. Plenty of people are disappointed with him, including me. The line starts back there.
5/14/2013 12:01 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/14/2013 8:28:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2013 4:37:00 PM (view original):
Because it is a non-story. How does the admission of a lie told after the fact bring any closure?
It may or may not bring closure, but when you are caught in a lie you have two options: A) Come clean and take your lumps, which shows at least some level of conscience, or B)  double down on your deceit and shout stuff like " What difference, at this point, does it make"? (Which is a Hillary quote from the Senate hearings that is eerily similar to your apathetic replies yesterday).

I suppose the IRS story isn't scandalous either, nor the DOJ/AP story?

Please amuse us all and explain how all three stories are "non issues and "right wing smoke"
Way to take a quote out of context. You could make a point but instead choose to be a fool.
5/15/2013 1:26 AM
Out of context?

That quote was of Hillary answering a question about the deception over Benghazi. 
About the story put forward concerning a demonstration that never occurred.  
How much more in context could it be?
5/15/2013 8:10 AM
RIP Swampy.
5/15/2013 8:33 AM
Posted by examinerebb on 5/13/2013 8:18:00 PM (view original):
Let's not play dumb.  The issue is that it happened in the middle of an election.  True or not, failing to thwart a terrorist attack makes a president look soft on defense.  A protest gone wrong is a horrible, unforeseeable accident.  One is more palatable for the electorate, logical or not.  By itself, Benghazi is a borderline non-story to me, outside of the lack of security preparation.  Taken with the recent revelations that, in that same election year, the IRS specifically targeted Republican groups for additional scrutiny AND the Justice Department had wire taps on AP phone lines, it seems like we can believe one of three things:

1) The administration used undue influence in an effort to win an election

2) The administration is inept, in that it has no idea what is going on in its own Cabinet departments

3) The administration suffered a series of unfortunate incidents, compounded by uncommonly bad judgment, at a horribly inopportune time

I could lean towards 3 on the Benghazi "cover-up" alone.  Taken as a whole, I'm finding it hard to lean that way right now.  And it's hard to be happy with choices 1 or 2.
Quote post by bad_luck on 5/13/2013 8:27:00 PM:
Ok, Glenn Beck.


How could it be anything other than 1 or 2?
5/15/2013 9:15 AM
And for all the apologists and funny guys out there:

The difference, at this point (and at that one) that it makes is, there never was a protest. 
So how does this non-event become the story of record that the WH went with a full five days later?

In November Carney claimed (in reference to the numerous changes and revisions made to the "official report" they were going to release)  they made a "single change", "changing the word Consulate to Diplomatic Facility"

This is known to be false, and that they removed any reference to previous warnings about security threats and the fact that they were pretty certain Ansar al-Sharia was responsible. Yet as recently as Friday, Carney doubled down on it, calling it one "stylistic change", which again is already known to be false.

In fact, Victoria Nuland specifically said (concerning the al-Qaeda references) "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?"

In light of the latest two scandals, it appears to show a pattern of dishonesty and at the very least ineptness of the CIC to have any idea what is going on.
5/15/2013 9:20 AM
Hey, man!  THERE WAS AN ELECTION TO BE WON!!!
5/16/2013 7:13 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/15/2013 9:17:00 AM (view original):
And for all the apologists and funny guys out there:

The difference, at this point (and at that one) that it makes is, there never was a protest. 
So how does this non-event become the story of record that the WH went with a full five days later?

In November Carney claimed (in reference to the numerous changes and revisions made to the "official report" they were going to release)  they made a "single change", "changing the word Consulate to Diplomatic Facility"

This is known to be false, and that they removed any reference to previous warnings about security threats and the fact that they were pretty certain Ansar al-Sharia was responsible. Yet as recently as Friday, Carney doubled down on it, calling it one "stylistic change", which again is already known to be false.

In fact, Victoria Nuland specifically said (concerning the al-Qaeda references) "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?"

In light of the latest two scandals, it appears to show a pattern of dishonesty and at the very least ineptness of the CIC to have any idea what is going on.
Here's my point--the lie was inconsequential. They weren't covering up that the attack could have been prevented or covering up the deaths or some sort of CIA operation. They lied for purely political gain, which isn't good but considering the fact that every administration for 200 years has lied for political gain, it isn't a scandal.

Now the AP thing? That's a scandal.
of 12
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Obama loses again.

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.