B-Man Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) Obama admin recalibrating Benghazi narrative — again — before FP debate? Since it now appears that the first two presidential debates did very much indeed have a resounding effect on the state of the race, Team O can’t afford to take any chances with Monday’s foreign-policy debate. Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s narrative on the president’s foreign-policy record has long been that all of those drone strikes and the death of Osama bin Laden have vastly deteriorated the strength and coordination of terrorism in the Middle East, and the attacks on the consulate in Benghazi and the death of four Americans on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 put something of a damper on that narrative. Now it looks like the White House might be trying to rejigger that narrative yet again align more favorably with President Obama’s self-stated successes, do some damage control on his administration’s incompetent and bungled response to repeated security threats in the region, and may be most particularly looking get any “al Qaeda”-related language out of the Libya story. {snip} as Stephen Hayes summarized at the Weekly Standard this morning, The administration’s new line takes shape in two articles out Saturday, one in the Los Angeles Times and the other by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. The Times piece reports that there is no evidence of an al Qaeda role in the attack. The Ignatius column makes a directly political argument, claiming that “the Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attacks weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior intelligence official.” If this is the best the Obama administration can offer in its defense, they’re in trouble. The Times story is almost certainly wrong and the central part of the Ignatius “scoop” isn’t a scoop at all. As Hayes goes on to point out, this new intelligence claiming that there is no evidence that al Qaeda was involved in the attacks, directly contradicts earlier reports and evidence claiming that al Qaeda and/or affiliates may very well have been involved in the attacks — and either way, none of this gets around the undeniable fact that the Obama administration failed to deal with longstanding security concerns. It’s really quite jarring that Team Obama can accuse Mitt Romney & friends of trying to distort the Benghazi situation for political purposes, when it is abundantly clear that that is what’s going on with the White House here. This is raising some serious questions in the intelligence community and from Congress about the White House’s manipulative handling of the situation, and certain Republicans (rightly) aren’t going to let this go http://hotair.com/ar...fore-fp-debate/ Edited October 20, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you. Even paranoids have enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 So I hear that since Obama referenced mammograms at planned parenthood being taken away by mitt, and, well, pp not actually offering mammograms in the first place that some outlets are pushing women to call and schedule them quick before mitt takes them away. Lucky receptionists that get to answer those calls... I'm sure the women will be charming when they hear they aren't offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 He doesn't have time to make it big. The Mayans have already blasted off from Uranus Yes, and their slogan? "F the Frog, and his brithday!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 So I hear that since Obama referenced mammograms at planned parenthood being taken away by mitt, and, well, pp not actually offering mammograms in the first place that some outlets are pushing women to call and schedule them quick before mitt takes them away. Lucky receptionists that get to answer those calls... I'm sure the women will be charming when they hear they aren't offered. "Damn that Romney; he already took them away!" The question is, how many women will realize they've been duped? I'm betting not many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 "Damn that Romney; he already took them away!" The question is, how many women will realize they've been duped? I'm betting not many. I'm realizing more and more that this narrative only gets picked up by dopey dupes who would get snowed by whatever agenda the left rolls out and media endorses. By and large, it's only the most pathetic women, (the one's with a chip on their vagina who use feminism as a crutch to help them with their negative self-image problems) that really fall for this crap. Most reasonably intelligent women, whether D, R, or I, are smart enough to know when someone's blowing smoke up their ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Another Sunday, another Bills loss. And once again PPP temporarily becomes the sane board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Another Sunday, another Bills loss. And once again PPP temporarily becomes the sane board :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I for one am avoiding TSW and have for the most part for some time. Dem peoples am Krazy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts