Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest

I dont understand why you or anyone would turn a blind eye to this subject. To simply label it as being "rightie propaganda" as a way of excusing the subject matter baffles me.

I dont see this a s right or left issue. I see it as a serious if not treasonous act in a deliberate plan to mislead the public. Is this the leadership you would defend? I dont care to be lied to..

 

You mean there are politicians that don't lie?

 

How does choosing to obtain my news from credible news sources, rather than those sources which are politically skewed in one direction or another, constitute turning "a blind eye" to a subject or topic? The issue is bipartisan, but the particular report is skewed. If you would you blindly defend a right-wing commentary network, believing everything they throw at you is the pure truth, then it would appear you do, in fact, care to be lied to. As I've said, it's all about credibility of the source. Fox "News" simply lacks the credibility. Period. As I previously stated, MSNBC is of the same ilk, though to the opposite side of the aisle, so don't think for a second I am defending them.

If it is a "serious if not treasonous act in a deliberate plan to mislead the public" by this administration, then yes, I certainly am concerned. I'm also concerned by the previous administration's "serious if not treasonous act in a deliberate plan to mislead the public" in regards to the absence of WMDs which our then president used to justify an invasion of Iraq. How many American servicemen and women lost their lives because of that lie? The coin flips both ways.

 

No, but I think he means we sure as hell should make it so.

 

Perhaps your memory is too short, reach back a tad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjDtwcgbnUo

 

I'm talking about the Bush administration's lie regarding the false evidence of WMDs in Iraq in 2003, not Clinton's remarks in 1998. That is a separate issue entirely. Let's not forget that the Bush administration's lie cost nearly 4,500 american servicemen and women their lives.

But since I'm feeling gracious today, I'll aid you in your comprehension by giving you a couple links:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/colin-powell-wmd-iraq-war_b_2624620.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims

 

What do you consider a 'credible news source?'

 

LOL

You're joking, right?

 

I won't believe it until I read it in The Guardian!

 

Much more credible than Fox "News," though I'm not saying it's the end-all, be all of credible news sources.

The question is, what is credible about Fox "News?"

 

It amazes me that someone can post this and realize how ridiculous it appears.

 

Then again, you probably believe with all your heart that Rush Limbaugh has never lied!

 

I think Rush Limbaugh is a buffoon. I listen to sports radio, anyhow.

I'm not sure what other boards you've been on before, but for this community, your posts come across as lacking in depth, hyper-partisan, and basically just talking points from the DailyKos. I think you're a bit out of your league here, frankly.

BTW, did you answer DennyCrane's question about the FauxNews website yet?

 

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Then again, I seem to remember you saying you were going to ignore my comments. Hmm, guess you failed on that one too.

That's not a political story. Therefore, it does not apply to my original comment.

 

So declassified documents that show that the President wasn't briefed on a video, but rather a "terrorist attack," aren't true because FauxNews reported them? Interesting. No wonder we have such a stupid populace.

 

I really wasn't talking about the website; more the talking heads you mentioned. I also wasn't talking about non-political news articles which you displayed in the link.

As for HuffPost, I already answered that one above.

 

I think you lost yourself there.