Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zeta1961 who wrote (124194)	10/17/2012 8:25:15 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 149317

Ari Fleischer is clueless and is still trying to figure out what Biden meant by intelligence telling the WH that in the early hours they were not sure if it was terrorist attack or not. The fact of the matter is that unlike BUsh, Obama has a lot of smarts to figure out things before his intelligence team figures it out. Bush always points to his intelligence team for the botched attack on Iraq. Obama is just the opposite: he knows it. Or else why would he give the go ahead to get Osama when all in his team including the intelligence chief said No. He is cool under fire and fires back when it is time. He showed that yesterday. Fact checked in real time. Halted Romney right in his tracks with that befuddles look after Candy confirmed what Obama said the day after the attack. And for a bully like Romney to just keep quiet after the scolding he took from Obama reminds me of Bush making hasty decisions such as on Iraq. ===================================== Ari Fleischer: Obama should debate Biden instead of Romney At Tuesday night's debate, President Obama said he immediately called the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, terrorism. The problem isn't only about whether the transcript shows he did or did not use those words; it's also about the ongoing, confusing statements made by his administration -- including the conflicting arguments made by the president and vice president at their two debates. Five weeks after the attack, the two most senior people in the government clashed over what took place. If the president was right last night that he immediately called the Benghazi attack a terrorist act, why did vice president Joe Biden state at the Danville, Kentucky, debate just last week that intelligence agencies informed the administration that the attack was the result of protests that were under way? Instead of debating Mitt Romney, Obama and Biden need to debate each other. Recall what Biden said in response to a question from Martha Raddatz: Raddatz: What were you first told about the attack? Why - why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on? Biden: Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment. For context, Biden's statement was a rebuttal to Rep. Paul Ryan's charge that "It took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack." Either the intelligence community told the president one thing and the vice president another (and of course they did not do that), or the president and the vice president still don't have a handle on what happened. This administration has a political imperative to downplay terrorism in an effort to bolster their anti-terror credentials. With Osama bin Laden dead, they want the American people to believe that the administration is tough and terrorism is on the wane. That's why they focused so much of their language on protests and a YouTube video, despite facts to the contrary provided to them by intelligence agencies. This debate isn't over. National security is critically important. If the president's account of what he knew right after the attack is so different than the vice president's account, they have some explaining to do.