Also, about this press conference, neither the President nor his media pals brought up the bombing currently going on in Israel, our closest ally, at least until the Obama administration, in the middle east.
“At one point he said: “And we’re after an election now. I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I’m happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants.” It was, of course, just as important to find out what happened in Benghazi before the election, but we should be grateful to the president for giving us this inadvertent glimpse into the role politics played in his thinking about Benghazi before he was reelected.
The president, perhaps realizing he had made a revealing slip of the tongue, went on to insist that he’d been providing information all along. But in response to a question about criticism of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice from Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the president slipped again. “For them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation, is outrageous.”
If Susan Rice “had nothing to do with Benghazi,” why then was she sent out to represent the administration in multiple television interviews five days after the attacks?”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/susan-rice-s-talking-points_663527.html
3 comments:
Could you clarify, please, the meaning of the first paragraph of this post?
And because I know you like to have all the facts about political issues, the full transcript of the President's news conference is here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/transcript-obama-press-conference/story?id=17719993#.UKlkFIfhrsZ.
Thanks for the link, but it changes nothing I wrote.
Is that you? You're the only one I know in Lincoln, Nebraska who writes a decent sentence. Beneath you, however.
Post a Comment