There is a big huge difference between being told that a group as claimed responsibility and a statement saying that we know for sure that a terrorist group did it. They had an inkling that terrorists were behind it and not the movie, but they were not sure. When they had a dewfinitive answer, they came out with that answer
------------------------------------ Three Ravens Consulting Eric Roberts Owner/Developer ow...@threeravensconsulting.com tel: 630-486-5255 fax: 630-310-8531 http://www.threeravensconsulting.com ------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: LRS Scout [mailto:lrssc...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 2:50 AM To: cf-community Subject: Re: anyone watch last night's debate? Somewhat out of context without the entire speech, but this part: "The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people. Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts." The second paragraph is misleading in the extreme, more than a lie of omission, in it he says (without saying) the justification was the movie. He knew at that point that the actual motivation for the attack was the anniversary of 9/11 and that it was carried out by AQ, even having the names of terrorists involved. A lie by implication is a lie none the less. More over Carney works for him, Rice works for him, Clinton works for him. His responsibility to the American people should have been to stand up that day and say that AQ hit us. To say that my administration failed to provide requested security. That's called personal responsibility. That's without going into the administrations total lack of defense of the first amendment when actually dealing with the movie issue, not to mention their lack of any appropriate response to the attack in Libya itself. Add in the fact that they turned down the requests for additional security from both the RSO and the Ambassador and it's like a perfect storm. His administration allowed the attack to happen, then lied to cover it up afterwards until it became clear that they weren't going to get away with it. This part of the story really only broke tonight, I'm sure we'll find out more as time goes on. Why weren't any SETAF forces sent in? AFRICOM? 2 dead SEALs, a dead foreign service officer, an finally an ambassador; who is sacrosanct, the U.S. personified. No this is and has been a travesty, and I honestly hope it costs him the election. On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Maureen <mamamaur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I see nothing in that speech that was a lie. Jay Carney was the one > talking about the other protests. Not the President. What are you seeing > in that statement that could be called (your words) a blatant lie? > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:27 AM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I qouted his statement from the rose garden on the 12th. > > > > At a minimum, taken in context, that was a lie. > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:356613 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
