Skip to main content

View Diary: How to end a Fox News interview abruptly: Call Fox 'a wing of the Republican Party' (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The right launches dictionary attack on Benghazi, (4+ / 0-)

    parsing the language used and when and if the administration said "act of terror", "terrorism act", or "Al Qaeda". I still don't get what the real issue is. What is the alleged cover-up? Does it really matter when and if it was called an 'act of terror'?  What is so special about using these words or not in describing the attack?

    •  I generally agree. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mrs Lopsided

      It's an absurd, fabricated issue.  But what I think they're claiming the issue is is that Obama or Rice or someone omitted a reference to terrorism so as to avoid the potential impression that a terrorist attack occurred on an American embassy on Obama's watch, because that would mean he's "weak on terror" -- on the eve of the election.  So, their theory goes, Team Obama spun it as a spontaneous reaction to a video posted by some ignorant dumbass so as to neutralize any possible connection to Obama's failed foreign policy (this is still them talking).

      Obviously, the argument is absurd for about 2,978 reasons, but hey, they don't have much to work with when they're up against the guy who got Bin Laden using the method the other guy said he'd never use, after their last guy ignored warnings of a massive terrorist attack on US soil just before 9/11, failed to get the guy responsible for the attack that did, in fact, happen as he'd been warned it would, and then just gave up on the effort after toppling the government of a random foreign nation out of spite for a petty threat made against his dad, but which had no relation to the attack -- and then proceeded to take a huge shit on the economy while he still had some time left to kill.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site