RjThoughts
I'm The Rojodi!
- Joined
- May 7, 2001
- Posts
- 36,569
It would be interesting -- well, mildly -- to know the age, education, vocational experience, and military experience of some of the trolls here.
This is so because they seem so puerile and incapable of rational discourse.
Meanwhile, Obama's reelection campaign was very amply documented. In stump speech after stump speech, he touted his national security credentials from approving the hit on bin Laden.
It worked in the sense that Obama won the election. But there was a price to pay for the absurd argument that a video (described in testimony as a "non-event" in Benghazi) catalyzed the attack.
The Times would have continued to essentially ignore Benghazi but for the need to clear a path for Hillary.
If they had just admitted the failure to secure the outpost, and the failure to help its defenders, the White House would have been spared all the subsequent attempts to explain away the lies about a video.
Oh, so only military experienced people can offer opinions on Benghazi? Even, if you do some research, that it was the military powers in the area that denied requests for help?
Oh now the NYT's article is a "puff piece", one trying to make Hillary look good?
Faced with all the facts, you obfuscate. You've never been in a real debate, have you?
