To: RoosterRedux; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; Impy; stephenjohnbanker; NFHale; ...
The other answer is directly political. It would be damaging for Obama’s already weak record to admit that there was a 9/11 attack by al-Qaeda in one of the supposed successes of the Arab Spring. Responding militarily would have made the weaknesses of Obama’s foreign policy all too evident. An American military response would have undercut one of Obama’s main campaign slogans: “GM is alive and Osama is dead.” This one sounds like the real reason, especially just before the election. The other one (above) sounds like rhetoric.
7 posted on
11/02/2012 5:36:54 AM PDT by
sickoflibs
(Romney is still a liberal. Just watch him. (Obama-ney Care ))
To: sickoflibs; RoosterRedux; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; Impy; ...
“The other answer is directly political. It would be damaging for Obama’s already weak record to admit that there was a 9/11 attack by al-Qaeda in one of the supposed successes of the Arab Spring. Responding militarily would have made the weaknesses of Obama’s foreign policy all too evident. An American military response would have undercut one of Obama’s main campaign slogans: “GM is alive and Osama is dead.”
I agree with you on this. Obama didn’t want egg on his face, and this would doubtless have cost him votes. That “video” excuse has to go down in history as the absolute DUMBEST excuse I ever read though. Horrible coverup tactic.
30 posted on
11/02/2012 9:00:20 AM PDT by
stephenjohnbanker
((God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.))
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson