Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

[unregistered]

 

[bra_man69]

It's Friday have a laugh

 

[Disgustipated]

Vettebirther's garage project he started this morning must be on hold considering the tubby bitch has made over 60 posts today and has been posting non-stop since 9am.

 

[phrodeau]

You can look it up if you really want to know.

Or you can keep posting in ignorance and go on pretending that the President doesn't care about Americans.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

Poor Hillary.

 

[phrodeau]

Fox News is now being called "the All-Benghazi Channel".

 

[Wrong Element]

Is it your belief that among everything else presidents do in the course of their day, they are intimately involved in how to staff individual U.S. consulates?


It's always Blame America First with you guys.

 

[Squibbs]

Vettebirther's garage project he started this morning must be on hold considering the tubby bitch has made over 60 posts today and has been posting non-stop since 9am.

He will be on derp overload for the next week.

 

[Squibbs]

Also.

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus





Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus

Oh my.

 

[HAL_9000]

Is it your belief that among everything else presidents do in the course of their day, they are intimately involved in how to staff individual U.S. consulates?


It's always Blame America First with you guys.

Obama should've nuked Tripoli.

That would scare all terrorists from future attacks.

 

[zipman]

Obama is a lying slug:

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus
6:05 PM, OCT 26, 2012 • BY WILLIAM KRISTOL


Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/petraeus-throws-obama-under-bus_657896.html

LOL, more pasta thrown against the wall to see what will stick.

 

[Cade Is Here]

Mcrystal didn't like obama either.

 

[cjh]

Old white men are a dying breed.

That's not a bad thing.

 

[doubleover]

Old white men are a dying breed.

That's not a bad thing.

Except when you depend on them to carry the load.

 

[Disgustipated]

Except when you depend on them to carry the load.

That hasn't happened in decades.

 

[cjh]

Except when you depend on them to carry the load.

I don't.

Huge segments of the world do not.

Do you?

 

[LillyO]

Vette is becoming the LT of the right. His Headlines rarely have anything to do with the story that follows.

 

[cjh]

Vette is becoming the LT of the right. His Headlines rarely have anything to do with the story that follows.

For what it is or is not worth, I always read your posts when you surface. You remind me of the GB that I like.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Obama is a lying slug:

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus
6:05 PM, OCT 26, 2012 • BY WILLIAM KRISTOL


Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/petraeus-throws-obama-under-bus_657896.html

*yawn*

 

[Ishmael]

Obama is quickly finding out, at the worst possible time, that he's unable to sacrifice whomever he feels like so as to further his own political agenda. FDR was SO much better at that game, he had his ducks lined up before he had to shoot them.

The whole Benghazi episode is unraveling as Obama tries to shoot the moving targets. I wonder if he ever considered that had he just stepped up and told the public exactly what was going on that he'd have been much better off? Sure, the republicans would have stamped their feet and screamed and criticized, but the public would have been much more forgiving haven been told the truth. As a matter of fact the republicans could have, and by their own actions would have, been painted into a mob of nattering nabobs of negativity. *snicker*

There is no way this could have been covered up, let alone setting up serial martyrs. It's almost too Nixonian for words. One is left to consider that Obama is completely incompetent or actually sees the world in his own terms rather than how it really is. And as far as I'm concerned I'm far more comfortable with incompetent than out of touch with reality. At least the incompetent can be guided by those that are competent, out of touch with reality is terminal.

Ishmael

 

[bra_man69]

Obama is quickly finding out, at the worst possible time, that he's unable to sacrifice whomever he feels like so as to further his own political agenda. FDR was SO much better at that game, he had his ducks lined up before he had to shoot them.

The whole Benghazi episode is unraveling as Obama tries to shoot the moving targets. I wonder if he ever considered that had he just stepped up and told the public exactly what was going on that he'd have been much better off? Sure, the republicans would have stamped their feet and screamed and criticized, but the public would have been much more forgiving haven been told the truth. As a matter of fact the republicans could have, and by their own actions would have, been painted into a mob of nattering nabobs of negativity. *snicker*

There is no way this could have been covered up, let alone setting up serial martyrs. It's almost too Nixonian for words. One is left to consider that Obama is completely incompetent or actually sees the world in his own terms rather than how it really is. And as far as I'm concerned I'm far more comfortable with incompetent than out of touch with reality. At least the incompetent can be guided by those that are competent, out of touch with reality is terminal.

Ishmael

He was thinking he got away with fast and furious and he could this but the media didn't go along to close to the election. The media slowly turning on him to save there self.

 

[cjh]

He was thinking he got away with fast and furious and he could this but the media didn't go along to close to the election. The media slowly turning on him to save there self.

Does not matter but for the wonks.

Just like Bush's lies about WMD and Iraq.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Truth woulda destroyed his election prospects, if whats coming out is accurate. I imagine Obama hoped to dodge the ball till after the election. And now he seems a coward and stupid.

 

[bra_man69]

Does not matter but for the wonks.

Just like Bush's lies about WMD and Iraq.

Bush didn't lie

Baghdad - Britain will help the Iraqi government dispose of what's left of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons, still stored in two bunkers in the north of Baghdad, the British embassy in Baghdad announced on Monday. The British Defence Ministry will start training Iraqi technical and medical workers this year, an embassy statement said. The teams will work to safely destroy remnants of munitions and chemical warfare agents left over from Saddam's regime. He was overthrown in 2003 following an American-led invasion. Saddam stored the chemical weapons near population centres so that he could access them quickly, despite the danger to his civilian population. Most of Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed by military forces in 1991 during the first Gulf War or by UN inspectors after the fighting. The inspections halted just before the invasion. Iraq is a party to the UN Chemical Weapons Convention and must get rid of the remaining material, according to terms of the pact. The head of the Iraqi National Authority, Mohammed Al Sharaa, said the remnants "represent a great challenge to the Iraqi experts to safely dispose". He called the agreement with British authorities "a good opportunity for Iraqi experts to benefit from the well-known expertise of UK experts". British Ambassador to Iraq Simon Collis said Britain is glad to assist in what he called "this difficult and dangerous task".

AP

Now go fuck your self.