In response to:

The Real Reason Behind Benghazigate?

tsimitpo Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 11:09 AM
You're crediting the wrong sources. Lame Cherry was all over this months ago and "repeaters" have been sharing bits and pieces from that source without crediting it. Why did it take so long for Fox News to get the story started? Well, just look at their funding - or I should say that of their owners, News Corp. The richest Arab in the world owns over $3 B worth of them.
Tea Party in Wisconsin formerlyTea Party Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 6:07 PM
We know that and we understand it..but that does NOT equate with the others, the Propaganda Arm of the DNC..why else would dear leader want to silence FOX. True, I think everyone else commenting here (except Trolls and Trolettes..are you one?) would have preferred this Arab NOT be allowed to invest but nevertheless we get more truth from Fox and NONE from the Obama enablers..like Candy Crawley. WE ARE NOT STUCK ON STUPID!
Jerome49 Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 12:02 PM
What are you talking about and who the hell is "lame Cherry"? "Why did it take Fox News so long to get the story started?" Are you talking about the e-mails from the Benghazi consulate that were sent to the W.H. and the State Dept while they were under attack? Or are you talking about Fox News breaking the story that the attacks on our embassy in Egypt and Benghazi were planned, not spontaneous protests that were due to some video. If it were up to the MSM none of this would have been reported.
tsimitpo Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 1:29 PM
You're asking me these questions because the Fox News you're counting on as a source is only giving you what they want to or are permitted to. Their reporters are nothing more than "repeaters". Arab-owned (Prince Alwaleed owns 7% of NewsCorp - and they're voting shares as opposed to investment shares) Fox News IS part of the MSM. It's been widely reported well over a year ago by non-corporate sources (the ones corporate news tells us can't be trusted are the ones who first break ALL these stories) that our government was providing weapons and other assistance to "rebel forces" (Al Qaeda, et al.).
tsimitpo Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 1:33 PM
As for the embassy, it was SUPPOSED to only be a kidnapping so Obama could swoop in to save the day (and secure re-election) with a bold rescue. Too bad his people were outbid by people who didn't want to see Obama benefit from those shenanigans and arranged for the attack to go the way it did so Obama's tail would have a can tied to it that Romney could beat on all the way to the election.

President Obama's once-seemingly-unstoppable march towards reelection hit what he might call "bumps in the road" in Benghazi, Libya late on September 11, 2012. It might be more accurate to describe the effect of the well-planned and -executed, military-style attack on a diplomatic facility there as the political equivalent of a devastating improvised explosive device on the myth of the unassailability of the Obama record as Commander-in-Chief.

Thanks to intrepid investigative reporting - notably by Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge at Fox News, Aaron Klein at WND.com and Claire Lopez at RadicalIslam.org - and information developed by congressional investigators, the...