2 thoughts on ““We Suspected It Was Al Qaeda Immediately””
A simple follow up question at that laughable presser Obama held would have made little beads of sweat pop out on his forehead.
I think Petraeus just might do the honorable thing and tell the truth and all of it, regardless of the consequences to him.
Why were the talking points altered? Do you even have to ask? Maybe you should read more history. As Sir Winston Churchill once stated – “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
Or do you think the war on terror is over?
BTW I posted this story on the probability on your blog 9/12/2012. It was in a response to complaints on my observation you were rushing to judgment on based on incomplete information to support your election case against President Obama
[[[September 12, 2012, 12:36 pm
Using them as evidence against President Obama’s policies before determining what the story is behind them. In short, instead of closing ranks as in the past when America was attacked you use it to advance partisan political goals.
As aside, there are reports coming out of Europe al Qaeda may be involved. It would fit their pattern IF it turns out to be the case and they have gone against diplomatic targets before with the 1998 African attacks being the most visible.
Al-Qaeda behind Libya US embassy killing – Poland
On September 12, 2012 • In News
4:11 pm
As I said, let’s see who is behind it before charging off and using it to gain political points.]]]
But as usual you were busy charging off to blame the President’s policy to support your campaign against him for the election. And now you are attacking the President because he decided to withhold knowledge of the terrorism link for reasons of national security.
Yep, no matter what the President does it is wrong in your world… How sad.
A simple follow up question at that laughable presser Obama held would have made little beads of sweat pop out on his forehead.
I think Petraeus just might do the honorable thing and tell the truth and all of it, regardless of the consequences to him.
Why were the talking points altered? Do you even have to ask? Maybe you should read more history. As Sir Winston Churchill once stated – “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
Or do you think the war on terror is over?
BTW I posted this story on the probability on your blog 9/12/2012. It was in a response to complaints on my observation you were rushing to judgment on based on incomplete information to support your election case against President Obama
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=44457#comments
[[[September 12, 2012, 12:36 pm
Using them as evidence against President Obama’s policies before determining what the story is behind them. In short, instead of closing ranks as in the past when America was attacked you use it to advance partisan political goals.
As aside, there are reports coming out of Europe al Qaeda may be involved. It would fit their pattern IF it turns out to be the case and they have gone against diplomatic targets before with the 1998 African attacks being the most visible.
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/09/al-qaeda-behind-libya-us-embassy-killing-poland/
Al-Qaeda behind Libya US embassy killing – Poland
On September 12, 2012 • In News
4:11 pm
As I said, let’s see who is behind it before charging off and using it to gain political points.]]]
But as usual you were busy charging off to blame the President’s policy to support your campaign against him for the election. And now you are attacking the President because he decided to withhold knowledge of the terrorism link for reasons of national security.
Yep, no matter what the President does it is wrong in your world… How sad.