So no backlash about the embassy attacks?

[Erroneous]

It is amazing how people (media and on here) are not killing Obama and his admin for the embassy attacks of recent days. You see almost nothing in the news about it except for what Fox is covering. What a fucking shame!

I am using the words
Unprepared
incompetent
inadequate
inept
inefficient

[Vong]

Faux News has always shat on the Obama administration, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear the retards that grace that "news" channel is ranting how inept and indecisive Obama is. Anything that doesn't involve America riding in on a white steed to save the world and defend it's interests is considered horrible foreign policy.

How would you want Obama to respond to the embassy attacks? Utter threats towards the Middle East? What benefit will that give Obama besides sneers from Middle Eastern leaders? They weren't the ones who burned or attacked U.S. embassies. He can't outright attack an entire country (verbally or even militarily) just because a portion of its population are religious fuckwits.

It takes soft diplomacy to win the favour of any country. And the first step, which Obama and Clinton committed to, was to not only denounce the attacks, but also to denounce the videos that sparked all this.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again, free speech has its limits. People can argue against this fact, and that's fine. But as this situation has shown, the power of voicing your opinion has the capability to lead to death and destruction. It's one thing to preach your backwards philosophy and ignorant views to your fellow congregants. It's totally another to use YouTube, essentially an international media platform, to launch an outright attack on another religion...one that has a history of not taking criticism of its faith lightly.

Social media has become a double edged sword for the Middle East. On the one hand, it gave the region a tool to promote a revolution. On the other hand, it also gives them a chance to see what retards in the Western world think about Islam (ala that video). And this event will only open the flood gate of those who would defend free speech and continue harping on the Muslim world, adding only more fuel to the fire.

[Squid Vicious]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

It is amazing how people (media and on here) are not killing Obama and his admin for the embassy attacks of recent days. You see almost nothing in the news about it except for what Fox is covering. What a fucking shame!

I am using the words
Unprepared
incompetent
inadequate
inept
inefficient

Yes, because we all know that what the world needs right now is more fucking U.S. intervention in the Middle East! You're a fucking genius...

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Vong

Faux News has always shat on the Obama administration, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear the retards that grace that "news" channel is ranting how inept and indecisive Obama is. Anything that doesn't involve America riding in on a white steed to save the world and defend it's interests is considered horrible foreign policy.

How would you want Obama to respond to the embassy attacks? Utter threats towards the Middle East? What benefit will that give Obama besides sneers from Middle Eastern leaders? They weren't the ones who burned or attacked U.S. embassies. He can't outright attack an entire country (verbally or even militarily) just because a portion of its population are religious fuckwits.

It takes soft diplomacy to win the favour of any country. And the first step, which Obama and Clinton committed to, was to not only denounce the attacks, but also to denounce the videos that sparked all this.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again, free speech has its limits. People can argue against this fact, and that's fine. But as this situation has shown, the power of voicing your opinion has the capability to lead to death and destruction. It's one thing to preach your backwards philosophy and ignorant views to your fellow congregants. It's totally another to use YouTube, essentially an international media platform, to launch an outright attack on another religion...one that has a history of not taking criticism of its faith lightly.

Social media has become a double edged sword for the Middle East. On the one hand, it gave the region a tool to promote a revolution. On the other hand, it also gives them a chance to see what retards in the Western world think about Islam (ala that video). And this event will only open the flood gate of those who would defend free speech and continue harping on the Muslim world, adding only more fuel to the fire.

We should go to Vegas like Obama, I guess.

How about being on alert for attacks on 911 and be prepared?
Cut off or suspend the billions of dollars in aid?
Send in troops to protect Americans in Egypt
Something is better than the nothing that was done before and after.

I do love your reaction. Typical liberal. Soft diplomacy lol

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Squid Vicious

Yes, because we all know that what the world needs right now is more fucking U.S. intervention in the Middle East! You're a fucking genius...

Nice way to talk to people.

Perhaps, just perhaps the middle east should start to work with us and not against us. We are not a bad people. Maybe they are the problem. The people of the middle east are exactly the same as the gangs in LA fighting and killing over land they don't own. I guess they need to go back to kindergarten and learn to share. We share our country with millions of people from the middle east and we are not trying to kill them and wish them harm they many middle eastern people do to us. Let's not forget, they attacked us. They attacked people just doing their job. Should we go and attack the Egyptian Embassy here? No. Why did they have to attack us? Maybe their problems stem from their own people and not the USA. I think they just like to blame us for everything.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Vong

Faux News has always shat on the Obama administration, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear the retards that grace that "news" channel is ranting how inept and indecisive Obama is.

But he did do nothing. Fox news or not, that truth is he did nothing. Any comment on that?

Call it both ways. MSNBC, NBC, CNN, HNN, CBS and ABC have all sided against Bush for 8 years. One station is doing against Obama. That is fair.


I rarely watch any of the news stations. I listen to the radio for my news. 1010 win NYC. 880 NYC. I also go to MSNBC and Fox for internet news. It is sad how both sites are so left and right on issues. Only I can admit Fox right is. Can you admit MSNBC is left? You don't win a prize for saying Fox is right. There is nothing wrong with them being right. But they are more opinion news just like msnbc.

[magjournal]

Obama is spineless and that's probably the thing that bothers me about him the most. That being said, I'm not expecting him to issue any sort of military action against Libya or Egypt, because those governments aren't responsible for it. He could, at the very least, demand an apology though.

[Squid Vicious]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

Nice way to talk to people.

Perhaps, just perhaps the middle east should start to work with us and not against us. We are not a bad people. Maybe they are the problem. The people of the middle east are exactly the same as the gangs in LA fighting and killing over land they don't own. I guess they need to go back to kindergarten and learn to share. We share our country with millions of people from the middle east and we are not trying to kill them and wish them harm they many middle eastern people do to us. Let's not forget, they attacked us. They attacked people just doing their job. Should we go and attack the Egyptian Embassy here? No. Why did they have to attack us? Maybe their problems stem from their own people and not the USA. I think they just like to blame us for everything.

HEY LOOK GUYS ITS THE MIDDLE EAST

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

Perhaps, just perhaps the middle east should start to work with us and not against us. We are not a bad people. Maybe they are the problem. The people of the middle east are exactly the same as the gangs in LA fighting and killing over land they don't own. I guess they need to go back to kindergarten and learn to share. We share our country with millions of people from the middle east and we are not trying to kill them and wish them harm they many middle eastern people do to us. Let's not forget, they attacked us. They attacked people just doing their job. Should we go and attack the Egyptian Embassy here? No. Why did they have to attack us? Maybe their problems stem from their own people and not the USA. I think they just like to blame us for everything.

The response from a healthy percentage of Libyans thus far has been one of outrage and embarrassment at the attackers. Their new leadership has shown gratitude for our response to the crisis and has clearly shown a willingness to stamp out these extremists. Could it all be smoke and mirrors? Maybe, but what good is it to undermine a country's sovereignty while it's trying to get back on proper footing? We lose the support of vocal moderates and risk putting it back into a cycle of violence that it won't be able to handle.

[Vong]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

I do love your reaction. Typical liberal. Soft diplomacy lol

Nice rebuttal. Rather that refute me, you offer bogus solutions and attack my "liberal" point of view. What you call "liberal", others would just call common sense.

Your solution to faults that lie within your own nation is to breach another country's borders and seek a resolution there. Instead of jumping on that glorious American steed of yours, try to look inward and see where the problem arose.

[Badbird]

Originally Posted by magjournal

Obama is spineless and that's probably the thing that bothers me about him the most. That being said, I'm not expecting him to issue any sort of military action against Libya or Egypt, because those governments aren't responsible for it. He could, at the very least, demand an apology though.

Yes, Obama is spineless. He was a virtual puddle of Jello when he gave the order to shoot Osama Bin Laden in the face. Or when he ordered those snipers to take out the pirates holding that sea captain hostage with three near impossible, simultaneous shots. Or when ordering the countless drone airstrikes on terrorists targets (far more than Bush ever did). You're right. What a pussy.



WTF are we supposed to do? Nuke the entire Middle East over one planned attack and a few typical anti-American protests?

[JoBlo]

Originally Posted by Squid Vicious

Yes, because we all know that what the world needs right now is more fucking U.S. intervention in the Middle East! You're a fucking genius...

This forum is for members who can debate these matters in a MATURE and CONSTRUCTIVE manner, Squid Vicious. One more insult as such and we will have to ban you from here, so please respect others or don't post here anymore.

[hrdude]

So is this true? It always appeared strange that the attacks coincided with 9/11.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...in_652887.html

For nine days, the Obama administration made a case that virtually everyone understood was untrue: that the killing of our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, was a random, spontaneous act of individuals upset about an online video—an unpredictable attack on a well-protected compound that had nothing do to with the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.

These claims were wrong. Every one of them. But the White House pushed them hard.

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, appeared on five Sunday talk shows on September 16. A “hateful video” triggered a “spontaneous protest .  .  . outside of our consulate in Benghazi” that “spun from there into something much, much more violent,” she said on Face the Nation. “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

On This Week, Rice said the consulate was well secured. “The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place,” she said, adding: “We had substantial presence with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function, and indeed there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney not only denied that the attacks had anything to do with the anniversary of 9/11 but scolded reporters who, citing the administration’s own pre-9/11 boasts about its security preparations for the anniversary, made the connection. “I think that you’re conveniently conflating two things,” Carney snapped, “which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Intelligence officials understood immediately that the attacks took place on 9/11 for a reason. The ambassador, in a country that faces a growing al Qaeda threat, had virtually no security. The two contractors killed in the attacks were not part of the ambassador’s security detail, and there were not, in fact, “many other colleagues” working security with them.

The nature of the attack itself, a four-hour battle that took place in two waves, indicated some level of planning. “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Libyan president Mohammad el-Megarif told National Public Radio. When a reporter asked Senator Carl Levin, one of the most partisan Democrats in the upper chamber, if the attack was planned, Levin said it was. “I think there’s evidence of that. There’s been evidence of that,” he responded, adding: “The attack looked like it was planned and premeditated, sure.” Levin made his comments after a briefing from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

Representative Adam Smith, a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, agreed. “This was not just a mob that got out of hand. Mobs don’t come in and attack, guns blazing. I think that there is a growing consensus it was preplanned.” And according to CNN, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy “has said that the attack appeared to be planned because it was so extensive and because of the ‘proliferation’ of small and medium weapons at the scene.” Not only was the attack planned, it appears there was no protest at all. Citing eyewitnesses, CBS News reported late last week: “There was never an anti-American protest outside the consulate.”

So we are left with this: Four Americans were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, and for more than a week the Obama administration misled the country about what happened.

This isn’t just a problem. It’s a scandal.

If this were the first time top Obama officials had tried to sell a bogus narrative after an attack, perhaps they would deserve the benefit of the doubt. It’s not.

On December 28, 2009, three days after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate explosives in his underwear aboard an airliner over Detroit, President Obama told the country that the incident was the work of “an isolated extremist.” It wasn’t. Abdulmutallab was trained, directed, and financed by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a fact he shared with investigators early in his interrogation.

The same thing happened less than six months later, after Faisal Shahzad attempted to blow up his Nissan Pathfinder in Times Square. Two days following the botched attack, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano took to the Sunday shows to dismiss reports of a conspiracy and insisted that the attempted bombing was just a “one-off” by a single attacker. It wasn’t. A week later, after much of the information had leaked, Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged that the United States had “evidence that shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack. We know that they helped facilitate it, we know that they probably helped finance it and that he was working at their direction.”

In each instance, top administration officials quickly downplayed or dismissed the seriousness of the events, only to acknowledge, after the shock had worn off and the media had turned to other news, that their initial stories were incorrect. Whether it was because the attempted attacks were unsuccessful or because the media simply lost interest, the administration largely escaped serious criticism for making claims that turned out to be wrong.

They’ve had mixed success this time. On the one hand, as the final elements of the administration’s story began to unravel in the middle of last week, the New York Times did not find those facts fit to print. On Thursday morning, the same day White House spokesman Jay Carney would finally admit that the Benghazi assault was “a terrorist attack,” the Times did not publish a story about Libya. It wasn’t as though it took serious digging to find the contradictions. One day earlier, Fox News had reported that intelligence officials were investigating the possibility that a former Guantánamo detainee had been involved in the attack. A story by Reuters raised questions about administration descriptions of the protests, noting “new information” that “suggests that the protests at the outset were so small and unthreatening as to attract little notice.” The story reported: “While many questions remain, the latest accounts differ from the initial information provided by the Obama administration, which had suggested that protests in front of the consulate over an anti-Islamic film had played a major role in precipitating the subsequent violent attack.” And CBS, as noted, reported that same day that there simply were no protests.

And what about the film? The Obama administration has sought to explain nearly everything that has happened over the past two weeks as a response to the video. President Obama denounced it during his remarks at the memorial for the four Americans killed in Libya. So did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. White House spokesman Jay Carney has mentioned it almost daily. At the end of last week, the United States spent $70,000 to buy ads in Pakistan to distance the U.S. government from its message.

That’s ironic. In its effort to deflect blame for the unrest, the administration has given more attention to this obscure film than it ever would have gotten if they’d simply ignored it. It’s true that radical Islamists used the film to help populate the 9/11 protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo. But they also told fellow radicals to join in a protest of the continued detention of Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh who was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. And some of the others who gathered were “Ultras”—soccer hooligans looking for trouble.

The American embassy in Cairo first drew attention to the film in its statement. And the administration—after initially distancing itself from that statement—has made it the centerpiece of its public relations campaign ever since, as protests spread to more than 20 countries. The result: Every Muslim with access to media is now aware of a bizarre video that had a few thousand views on YouTube on September 10.

That’s exactly what the radicals wanted, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the reporting on Egypt. The focus on the film was an “information operation” by jihadists designed to generate rage against America. If he’s right, it worked.

Barack Obama came to office promising to repair relations with the Islamic world. What he couldn’t accomplish by the mere fact of his presidency, through his name and his familiarity with Islam, he would achieve through “smart diplomacy.”

Instead, over the last four years, and particularly the last two weeks, the defining characteristics of his foreign policy have been mendacity, incompetence, and, yes, stupidity.

[Badbird]

Robert Gibbs Says White House Did Not Mislead On Libya Crisis



Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs found himself on his heels over the administration's public handling of the recent crisis in Libya, where an attack left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American diplomatic officials dead.

"No one intentionally or unintentionally misled anyone involved in this," Gibbs said, during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday." "We learned more information every single day about what happened. Nobody wants to get to the bottom of this faster than we do."

For several days after the incident the White House sent mixed messages about what it believed had happened during the attacks, which initially were thought to be part of a broader range of protests against an obscure anti-Islam film. But the administration's early insistence that the attacks were not planned was quickly contradicted by voices from Libya, Congress and even the State Department, who described the attacks as likely pre-planned and coordinated.

On last week's show, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told host Chris Wallace that the attacks were likely "a spontaneous incident."

"The best information we have today is that in fact this was not a premeditated attack," Rice said.

Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, also continued to link the incidents to the video, even as a top White House official described them as a terrorist attack in a briefing before Congress.

On Friday, Carney finally acknowledged that it was "self-evident" that the attack was terrorism.

"I think as you heard Ambassador Rice say, the best information that we had at the point at which she gave that answer was answer that she gave," Gibbs said, after watching the clip of Rice. "As we have learned more, and as this investigation continues, I anticipate we will continue to learn more facts about the awful assassination and murder of our great ambassador in Libya."


Link

[ericdraven]

I think the response that Obama has given was better than what most of the conservitives are moaning about. He actually didn't stroke the fires as other presidents, plus if it was Mitt Romney he would issue this paranoia that it's Iran sending in insurgents undercover and use that excuse to bomb it.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Brando @$$ Fat

The response from a healthy percentage of Libyans thus far has been one of outrage and embarrassment at the attackers. Their new leadership has shown gratitude for our response to the crisis and has clearly shown a willingness to stamp out these extremists. Could it all be smoke and mirrors? Maybe, but what good is it to undermine a country's sovereignty while it's trying to get back on proper footing? We lose the support of vocal moderates and risk putting it back into a cycle of violence that it won't be able to handle.

I would like to see these people stamp these extremists before they do shit. I hold all responsible for policing their own people. If I were Muslim (esp if I lived in America) and I was someone who just wanted to live and be happy (like I am now), I would be on the lookout for people starting trouble all the time and turn them in. I would like to see some preemptive work done.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Vong

Nice rebuttal. Rather that refute me, you offer bogus solutions and attack my "liberal" point of view. What you call "liberal", others would just call common sense.

Your solution to faults that lie within your own nation is to breach another country's borders and seek a resolution there. Instead of jumping on that glorious American steed of yours, try to look inward and see where the problem arose.

I guess we agree to disagree. Prob not the last time.

To your second point, you are damn right. I would rather have the USA be hated for fighting tyranny than not.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Badbird

Yes, Obama is spineless. He was a virtual puddle of Jello when he gave the order to shoot Osama Bin Laden in the face. Or when he ordered those snipers to take out the pirates holding that sea captain hostage with three near impossible, simultaneous shots. Or when ordering the countless drone airstrikes on terrorists targets (far more than Bush ever did). You're right. What a pussy.



WTF are we supposed to do? Nuke the entire Middle East over one planned attack and a few typical anti-American protests?

He clearly said what he wanted Obama to do.

LOL Don't act Obama himself planned the simultaneous shots. The mark of a true leader is not to be reactionary. A true leader should be proactive. The pirates in that area had been and still are a problem. At the very least all, US ships should be escorted through that area. Would be nice if we also worked with our allies to guard other ships as well. We can charge for the protection. Or better yet, why not seek out these pirates and take the fight to them?
The drone flights are a development feature. They were not used nearly as much or nearly as advanced as they are now. It is a rather new technology used in war to this extent. The old thinking was to send in thousands of troops after pockets of people hiding underground and in caves. It is not like Obama had anything to do with these developments or usage. And to be fair, there have been many airstrikes where innocent people were killed and the USA had taken much lip because of it. I am not blaming Obama or Bush or anyone, but there is a bad side to these airstrikes and drones too. Not all unicorns and rainbows.

There is lots of intel on troubled areas and all the crazies around the world. Now and forever, there should be extreme heightened alerts for every American whatever overseas during 911 days. As President, where the buck stops there, Obama gets the blame for these attacks. It just seems to me that the media and joblo political forum is taking the deaths and destruction of USA property lightly and doing a piss poor job or reporting. This would not be true if a Republican was in office.

[Badbird]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

He clearly said what he wanted Obama to do.

LOL Don't act Obama himself planned the simultaneous shots. The mark of a true leader is not to be reactionary. A true leader should be proactive. The pirates in that area had been and still are a problem. At the very least all, US ships should be escorted through that area. Would be nice if we also worked with our allies to guard other ships as well. We can charge for the protection. Or better yet, why not seek out these pirates and take the fight to them?

There is lots of intel on troubled areas and all the crazies around the world. Now and forever, there should be extreme heightened alerts for every American whatever overseas during 911 days. As President, where the buck stops there, Obama gets the blame for these attacks. It just seems to me that the media and joblo political forum is taking the deaths and destruction of USA property lightly and doing a piss poor job or reporting. This would not be true if a Republican was in office.

So... basically you want us to be like a real Team America: World Police. Cause that's what it sounds like.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Badbird

So... basically you want us to be like a real Team America: World Police. Cause that's what it sounds like.

Honestly, I wish the rest of the world would just learn to treat people (their own and others) like human beings and stop killing everyone, all the voilence and all the hate. But since that is not going to happen and part of the job of the government is to protect our business interests aboard, yes I would like to see the USA to continue to be the world police. Would be nice if the UN could do it, but they are as useful as an umbrella in a tornado.

I will take your silence on my other comments as you agree with me.

[Badbird]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

I will take your silence on my other comments as you agree with me.

LOL, What? Ha, ha... no. I don't read half of what you write on these boards.

[QUENTIN]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

Honestly, I wish the rest of the world would just learn to treat people (their own and others) like human beings and stop killing everyone

There are no words.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Badbird

LOL, What? Ha, ha... no. I don't read half of what you write on these boards.

You lie. You hang on my every written word. lol

Originally Posted by QUENTIN

There are no words.

Sure there are. You have 4 right there

[Jim Colyer]

Obama lied about the attack on our embassy in Libya, claiming it was "spontaneous" while knowing all along that it was planned.

[Badbird]

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

Obama lied about the attack on our embassy in Libya, claiming it was "spontaneous" while knowing all along that it was planned.

Read my above post. They didn't lie about anything. They didn't know it was a planned attack at first, but now they think it was. The riots, in general, are presumed to be spontaneous, though they are also more than likely a calculated effort by people who know how to drum up outrage.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

Obama lied about the attack on our embassy in Libya, claiming it was "spontaneous" while knowing all along that it was planned.

My guess is that you have more anger towards the president than the people who actually attacked the embassy.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Badbird

Read my above post. They didn't lie about anything. They didn't know it was a planned attack at first, but now they think it was. The riots, in general, are presumed to be spontaneous, though they are also more than likely a calculated effort by people who know how to drum up outrage.

I think you are forgetting something. You are not the end all be all of knowledge. He did not quote you in anyway. He has an opinion and you come off saying you are right about your opinion. You can't prove you are anymore right or wrong than he can. He does not have to read your post for your opinion. He can form his own opinion based on whatever facts or lies he wants too.

My opinion on this one small part is that they did lie. On purpose, they decided to downplay it. That is a lie. They were not waiting for more facts first. They waited for reaction.

Originally Posted by Brando @$$ Fat

My guess is that you have more anger towards the president than the people who actually attacked the embassy.

Bingo.

[Badbird]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

I think you are forgetting something. You are not the end all be all of knowledge.

Which is why I was referring to the news article I posted about the attacks and the administrations response to it, not my opinion.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Badbird

Which is why I was referring to the news article I posted about the attacks and the administrations response to it, not my opinion.

And new articles are always 100% truthful and honest. There is no such thing as a person or organization who would write something to the benefit of the person in question. When you post an article without any of your own words, that is what you are saying and agreeing with.

[Vong]

You live in America...go see what non-partisan media is like in other countries.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Vong

You live in America...go see what non-partisan media is like in other countries.

You live in Canada. Enjoy your maple syrup. There is no such thing as a non partisan media. They are all reflections of the company or country running them.

[Vong]

The internet can be your friend, I suggest you use it.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Vong

The internet can be your friend, I suggest you use it.

likewise

[QUENTIN]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

Honestly, I wish the rest of the world would just learn to treat people (their own and others) like human beings and stop killing everyone, all the voilence and all the hate. But since that is not going to happen and part of the job of the government is to protect our business interests aboard, yes I would like to see the USA to continue to be the world police.

[Jim Colyer]

Obama lied about the embassy attack. He knew from the beginning that it was an act of terror and not the result of a video.

[The Postmaster General]

The worst part was when he gave a speech about the attacks the day after it happened, and denounced acts of terror, but didn't specifically spell out that a bombing on an embassy was an act of terror. I mean, how else are people supposed to think that a bombing on a US embassy is an act of terror, especially when the president is giving a speech about the bombing and denounces acts of terror. It's just so much like him, using the context of plain English to confuse and anger people.

[Jim Colyer]

I notice that Fox News talks about the Benghazi attack constantly while CNN barely mentions it.