The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Obama knew it was terror, lied anyway||Date: 11/18/2012 10:17 AM|
|Author: lowstudent||Number: 1838015 of 1950267|
Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of. Justice Department lawyers expressed concern about jeopardizing the F.B.I.’s criminal inquiry in the attacks. Other officials voiced concern that making the names public, at least right away.
Now I fully accept this.
Had the administration not flat out created and forwarded an absolute lie for weeks, a lie that served their purposes BTW this might seem true.
The WH was lying. All it took if the above were the case, was are looking at what happened and for many reasons we can not discuss the specifics of the tragic loss of life
The Times is lying, in covering for Obama by forwarding this as a narrative. They and the WH are trying to change the focus to someone else being unreasonable
No the focus is the WH lied. The reasons given for not saying what happened in absolutely no way support the WH lying
The WH lied to the American people, and the left loves being lied to for some reason
They are clearly not good people.
And BTW to those of you defending the indefensible, please forward proof of many other foreign agencies(or even 1 in the US) forwarding intelligence that made the President believe for weeks that he was telling the truth, or any threat he may have perceived in being true as a reason for his lying
This and what you try to lie about in Iraq have nothing in common.
The WH is dirty, very very dirty.
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|