The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Obama knew it was terror, lied anyway||Date: 11/18/2012 10:41 AM|
|Author: 99lashes||Number: 1838026 of 2000414|
Look, relaying information that the rest of the world already would conclude on there own due to recent history is not revealing any secrets. A simple reference to a terrorist attack that killed US citizens, with likely ties to AQ would have been honest, yet would have protected any specific information sources. But it would have revealed more problems for the pre-election process of Obama and the solution fed that need more than anything else.
From your article-
Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said Mr. Petraeus’s testimony showed that “clearly the security measures were inadequate despite an overwhelming and growing amount of information that showed the area in Benghazi was dangerous, particularly on the night of Sept. 11.”
This begins to bite at the truth in the story given out.
“The fact is, the reference to Al Qaeda was taken out somewhere along the line by someone outside the intelligence community,” Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican, said after the House hearing. “We need to find out who did it and why.”
After the hearings on Friday, administration officials disputed the notion that politics or other motives caused the changes.
If they knew so much specific information that could not be compromized for security reasons, then why haven't these guys been caught yet? Protecting this information did nothing in getting their apprehension did it? It did however, provide Obama cover through the election.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|