Posted on 10/15/2012 8:32:40 AM PDT by tellw
51% Think Ambassador’s Murder Will Hurt Obama At the Polls
45% Say U.S. and Allies are Winning War on Terror Voters Trust Romney 50% to 43% Over Obama on Economy
45% Think U.S.-Muslim Relations Worse Than Four Years Ago Only 23% Say U.S. Spends Too Much on National Security Sign up for free daily updates
Voters are now more critical of how the Obama administration has handled the situation in Libya, including the murder of the U.S. ambassador there, and most think it will hurt President Obama’s chances for reelection. However, they are slightly more confident in the president than Mitt Romney to handle events in the Middle East.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 35% of Likely U.S. Voters now rate the way the administration has responded to the situation in Libya as good or excellent. That’s down nine points from 44% in mid-September just after the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Forty percent (40%) view the administration’s Libya response as poor, up from 34% a month ago.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters nationwide was conducted on October 13-14, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
I don’t know...pretty much it was all over the news - even the lefty stations couldn’t ignore it.
And don’t forget - folks like us make damn sure other folks find out about it.
He should be on letterman in that bottom picture.
I think people most care about their wallet, and a job. That should be enough.
14% un/under-employment
4.00 gas.
That should do it. : )
51% think this will harm the President’s re-elect. That is huge considering much of the media has covered this up generally.
...”Is 35% of our population on the side of the terrorists?”...
Could be. Or it might be they are just ignorant of what all that is and what it means.
The “Obama got Bin Laden” crowd still trumpets that talking point when pundits talk foreign policy differences.
Didn’t the Left always say “killing terrorists just creates more terrorists”? I guess that’s not the case when Obama kills them?
Not that I’m against the killing of Bin Laden - just pointing out how illogical the Left really is.
1. Disarm Amb. Stevens' entourage
2. Terrorists kidnap Stevens, as arranged by Obama's minions
3. Nobody fights back, nobody gets killed
4. Just before the election, Obama works a diplomatic "miracle", arranging an exchange of the Blind Shiekh for Stevens
5. Obama re-elected in a landslide as Dear Leader, National Hero.
Instead, the SEALs fought back, a general firefight ensued, they and Stevens were killed, and Obama lost his October Surprise and now has to cover it up.
This is the ONLY WAY this thing makes sense.
...and 49% wouldn’t have any questions if Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were standing over four bodies with two smoking guns.
Col. Hunt says the attack in Benghazi went on for at least six hours -- all the while U.S. personnel under attack were in contact with personnel at all White House, State, CIA, DoD . . . agencies -- and nothing was done.
Did someone in Washington want Ambassador Stevens dead? It would not be the first time.
In years past John Christopher Stevens, known as Chris, was described as "a 20-year Arabic-speaking veteran of the State Department who has been a senior diplomat in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, and had postings in Damascus, Cairo and other Middle Eastern locales . . . [he has] a broad knowledge of the Arab world . . . [and] has a good deal of cross-cultural comfort . . . [professionally he] has an unflappable, but not nerdy personality. . . He listens to people. He’s the quintessential diplomat."
Seems to me that Stevens surely knew a lot given his contacts and savvy. Did he know too much? Was he threatening to tell all about how radical Islam's successes were greater than one would expect in an "Arab Spring" -- more like an Arab Sprint by the Muslim Brotherhood and encouraged by Washington? Appears to be a lot of Islamists infiltrating there, including the Oval Office (IMO). . . .
CNN found a seven-page handwritten journal.. that's all?
Stevens was reportedly recruiting Al Queda fighters for Syria. The two SEALs were in country tracking down thousands of MANPADs that have fallen into the hands of Al Queda. (Obama knowingly lied in a statement where he implied the SEALs were there as part of security detail. They were working with the CIA and put themselves in harm’s way during the attack instead of bugging out.) Stevens may have been lured to Benghazi for a meeting that was an AQ trap. I wouldn’t say that he was targeted by the WH—but they sure didn’t anything to help him. Aircraft could’ve been dispatched from bases in Sicily and Djibouti but they were left on the ground.
Remember TWA Flight 800? Clinton covered up what was most likely a terrorist firing a shoulder-launched missile at an airliner. Imagine thousands of those weapons in the hands of AQ. People will be molested by TSA, only to be shot out of the sky. That whole “leading from behind” war in Libya won’t look so honorable then.
Stevens was reportedly recruiting Al Queda fighters for Syria. The two SEALs were in country tracking down thousands of MANPADs that have fallen into the hands of Al Queda. (Obama knowingly lied in a statement where he implied the SEALs were there as part of security detail. They were working with the CIA and put themselves in harm’s way during the attack instead of bugging out.) Stevens may have been lured to Benghazi for a meeting that was an AQ trap. I wouldn’t say that he was targeted by the WH—but they sure didn’t anything to help him. Aircraft could’ve been dispatched from bases in Sicily and Djibouti but they were left on the ground.
Remember TWA Flight 800? Clinton covered up what was most likely a terrorist firing a shoulder-launched missile at an airliner. Imagine thousands of those weapons in the hands of AQ. People will be molested by TSA, only to be shot out of the sky. That whole “leading from behind” war in Libya won’t look so honorable then.
Stevens was reportedly recruiting Al Queda fighters for Syria. The two SEALs were in country tracking down thousands of MANPADs that have fallen into the hands of Al Queda. (Obama knowingly lied in a statement where he implied the SEALs were there as part of security detail. They were working with the CIA and put themselves in harm’s way during the attack instead of bugging out.) Stevens may have been lured to Benghazi for a meeting that was an AQ trap. I wouldn’t say that he was targeted by the WH—but they sure didn’t anything to help him. Aircraft could’ve been dispatched from bases in Sicily and Djibouti but they were left on the ground.
Remember TWA Flight 800? Clinton covered up what was most likely a terrorist firing a shoulder-launched missile at an airliner. Imagine thousands of those weapons in the hands of AQ. People will be molested by TSA, only to be shot out of the sky. That whole “leading from behind” war in Libya won’t look so honorable then.
How many of the other 49% are unaware that the U.S. ambassador to Libya was killed on Sept. 11? It isn’t like the mainstream media has been paying a lot of attention to the story.
Why would the people who go out of their way to take homosexual campaign money want to have a homosexual Ambassador killed? Why would they run the risk of kidnapping him?
This is about the missing anti-aircraft missiles in Libya. Obama and Hillary are culpable in the loss of those missiles. Gadaffi was no saint, but at least he kept the missiles locked up. Obama and Hillary unlocked those doors and let those missiles get away.
They are scared to death that all their “We are the world!” Democrat stupidity is going to come back and bite them in the behind. One terrorist act traced back to their actions, and it’s the end of the Democrat party. They’re trying to coverup their stupidity in this matter.
RE: Mother of all gun walking
Never thought of that, but seems plausible...
That 51 percent would naturally exclude roughly 20 percent self describe liberals. Therefore, 51/80 or 64 percent of people with a conscience, including undecided voters, thing Benghazi-gate will hurt Obama.
Not good for Obama. But, it does display a majority, excluding liberals of coarse, do have a conscience.
Good news all around.
Yes I remember TWA800 and suggested that the White House would have the FBI in country say the consulate was destroyed by an explosion in the central heating fuel tank. :)
Another FReeper suggested what happened to the Ambassador and others is like what happened to Ron Brown.
Every topic Ras polls puts another nail in The Disaster’s coffin. No way could he win with people hating everything he stands for or believes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.