When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
johngalt
10 years ago
Obama says, at the debate, that he called it an “act of terror” just one day after the attacks.
Biden says, at the vp debate, that the intelligence community fed he and Obama “faulty” intelligence that the attack was due to protests over the film. For a week.
Which one is lying?
I submit that both of them are lying.
Obama, because he didn’t reference the attack, in the Rose Garden speech, as being “an act of terror” specifically, but did specifically reference it as being a “senseless act of violence”, supporting the idea that they were trying to pass it off as a result of protests over the film.
And Biden, because in the VP debate, he stated at one point that our intelligence is “woefully inadequate” and at another point, that our intelligence community will “know” the minute that Iran has the capability to refine nuclear material for a bomb(or missile). Which is it, Biden? This can only lead to one assuming that the VP is attempting to throw the intelligence community “under the bus” for what happened in Libya. In which case, Biden was lying about what they were “led to believe”.
Sooner or later the apologists for Obama will have quite a bit of self-reflecting to do after having participated in voting in the most incompetent and lying person ever elected as President.
Nan G
10 years ago
Revisionist history (changing what you SAY you said before or what happened before) works best when your audience cannot fact-check you and see your lie.
Obama tried to revise history during the debate.
Within the debate he almost pulled it off.
But he had to know his revisionism couldn’t stand up to post-debate scrutiny.
The reason we still call this revisionism ”Marxist revisionist history” is that early communists in the knew Soviet Union had STATE MEDIA who were the people’s only source for ”facts,” and they could control that state media.
Thus the only ”newspaper” the Soviets had could airbrush out the presence of communist party traitors like Trotsky and Nicolai Yezhov.
Obama says, at the debate, that he called it an “act of terror” just one day after the attacks.
Biden says, at the vp debate, that the intelligence community fed he and Obama “faulty” intelligence that the attack was due to protests over the film. For a week.
Which one is lying?
I submit that both of them are lying.
Obama, because he didn’t reference the attack, in the Rose Garden speech, as being “an act of terror” specifically, but did specifically reference it as being a “senseless act of violence”, supporting the idea that they were trying to pass it off as a result of protests over the film.
And Biden, because in the VP debate, he stated at one point that our intelligence is “woefully inadequate” and at another point, that our intelligence community will “know” the minute that Iran has the capability to refine nuclear material for a bomb(or missile). Which is it, Biden? This can only lead to one assuming that the VP is attempting to throw the intelligence community “under the bus” for what happened in Libya. In which case, Biden was lying about what they were “led to believe”.
Sooner or later the apologists for Obama will have quite a bit of self-reflecting to do after having participated in voting in the most incompetent and lying person ever elected as President.
Revisionist history (changing what you SAY you said before or what happened before) works best when your audience cannot fact-check you and see your lie.
Obama tried to revise history during the debate.
Within the debate he almost pulled it off.
But he had to know his revisionism couldn’t stand up to post-debate scrutiny.
The reason we still call this revisionism ”Marxist revisionist history” is that early communists in the knew Soviet Union had STATE MEDIA who were the people’s only source for ”facts,” and they could control that state media.
Thus the only ”newspaper” the Soviets had could airbrush out the presence of communist party traitors like Trotsky and Nicolai Yezhov.