newgatedenizen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And why have we not heard a thing from the
> 20+ American survivors?
>
> I find it astounding that nearly 8 months later
> there still are no statements in the public arena
> from any of the survivors of the attack. Were
> they ALL CIA?
>
> It's a shame that only Fox News is interested in
> the story as it leads to the inevitable bias
> charges. But no other news outlet seems to have
> any interest.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/29/obama-a
> dministration-officials-have-threatened-whistle-bl
> owers-on-benghazi/


Yeah, that FBI investigation is moving right along too huh?

Funny that nobody has even talked to any of them.

"It is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public.

...Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Daylight Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.

After a briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA director David Petraeus, Democrat Dutch Ruppersburger, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, asked the intelligence community for unclassified guidance on what members of Congress could say in their public comments on the attacks. The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of a response to the congressman, which was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14 (Version 1). This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government “knows that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That draft also noted that press reports “linked the attack to Ansar al Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.” Ansar al Sharia, the CIA draft continued, aims to spread sharia law in Libya and “emphasizes the need for jihad.” The agency draft also raised the prospect that the facilities had been the subject of jihadist surveillance and offered a reminder that in the previous six months there had been “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.”

After the internal distribution, CIA officials amended that draft to include more information about the jihadist threat in both Egypt and Libya. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy,” the agency had added by late afternoon. And: “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda in Benghazi and Libya.” But elsewhere, CIA officials pulled back. The reference to “Islamic extremists” no longer specified “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda,” and the initial reference to “attacks” in Benghazi was changed to “demonstrations.”

The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

There is little information about what happened at that meeting of the Deputies Committee. But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.

What remained—and would be included in the final version of the talking points—was mostly boilerplate about ongoing investigations and working with the Libyan government, together with bland language suggesting that the “violent demonstrations”—no longer “attacks”—were spontaneous responses to protests in Egypt and may have included generic “extremists” (see Version 3).

If the story of what happened in Benghazi was dramatically stripped down from the first draft of the CIA’s talking points to the version that emerged after the Deputies Committee meeting, the narrative would soon be built up again. In ensuing days, administration officials emphasized a “demonstration” in front of the U.S. facility in Benghazi and claimed that the demonstrators were provoked by a YouTube video. The CIA had softened “attack” to “demonstration.” But as soon became clear, there had been no demonstration in Benghazi.

More troubling was the YouTube video. Rice would spend much time on the Sunday talk shows pointing to this video as the trigger of the chaos in Benghazi. “What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.” There is no mention of any “video” in any of the many drafts of the talking points.

Still, top Obama officials would point to the video to explain Benghazi. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even denounced the video in a sort of diplomatic public service announcement in Pakistan. In a speech at the United Nations on September 25, the president mentioned the video several times in connection with Benghazi..."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html?page=1

Outside of the right-wing echo chamber, no one cares.

Too bad for you, nutjobs.

Ah, If Only Any Of This Mattered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Outside of the right-wing echo chamber, no one
> cares.
>
> Too bad for you, nutjobs.
>
>


Sucks when it gets laid out clearly and obviously like that huh?

But you're mostly right... The Obamapoligists media would cover his ass if there was live vid of him snipping baby spines with Kermit Gosnell. (Yeah, I know, you have no clue who that is since MSNBC/NYT/Huffington/etc., don't dare mention it. lmao)

It will catch up with them eventually though.

Appearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be three career State Department officials: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/04/benghazi-names-whistleblower-witnesses-revealed/#ixzz2SMeqPWN1

Timeline in spreadsheet format
Attachments:

Finally... it's go time:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/official-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe7Cn6jlCwaQzTIHAxKGrrA?feature=watch

For those who like the nitty gritty details.

Even the Dems are pointing out that the Administration lied.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-rep-benghazi-talking-points-it-was-scrubbed-it-was-false-information-theres-no-excuse_720805.html

Ah, If Only Any Of This Mattered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Outside of the right-wing echo chamber, no one
> cares.
>
> Too bad for you, nutjobs.


You have to wonder why Democrats don't care about a terrorist attack that killed our Ambassador.

Why is that?

Makes you wonder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have to wonder why Democrats don't care about
> a terrorist attack that killed our Ambassador.
>
> Why is that?

Democrats care about the attack and that Ambassador Stevens died, along with the three others.

What no one cares about is this pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey bullshit blame game being pursued by the rabid right.

Benghazi - Republicans still beating a dead horse.

How embarrassing. Get a clue republicans, the American public doesn't think four Americans killed in Benghazi is a huge issue.
Attachments:

Ah, If Only Any Of This Mattered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Makes you wonder Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You have to wonder why Democrats don't care
> about
> > a terrorist attack that killed our Ambassador.
>
> >
> > Why is that?
>
> Democrats care about the attack and that
> Ambassador Stevens died, along with the three
> others.
>
> What no one cares about is this
> pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey bullshit blame game
> being pursued by the rabid right.

Democrats are using Benghazi to setup republicans with more egg on their face. McCain and Romney have egg on their face for statements made about Benghazi. The democrats are feeding bullshit info to republicans to setup more hearings, bitter republicans are buying it, hook line and sinker.

Droned Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Benghazi - Republicans still beating a dead horse.
>
>
> How embarrassing. Get a clue republicans, the
> American public typical democrat doesn't think four Americans
> killed in Benghazi is a huge issue.

Fixed that for you.

Makes you wonder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah, If Only Any Of This Mattered Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Outside of the right-wing echo chamber, no one
> > cares.
> >
> > Too bad for you, nutjobs.
>
>
> You have to wonder why Democrats don't care about
> a terrorist attack that killed our Ambassador.
>
> Why is that?

Because Obama & Liars Inc. blamed the "spontaneous protest" on an American who posted a video trailer on YouTube, and then apologized to the Muslim world.

The media and most democrats bought the bullshit from the scumbag administration in the white house, because they're naive and easily manipulated. In other words.... they're stupid.

LIARS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Makes you wonder Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ah, If Only Any Of This Mattered Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Outside of the right-wing echo chamber, no
> one
> > > cares.
> > >
> > > Too bad for you, nutjobs.
> >
> >
> > You have to wonder why Democrats don't care
> about
> > a terrorist attack that killed our Ambassador.
>
> >
> > Why is that?
>
> Because Obama & Liars Inc. blamed the "spontaneous
> protest" on an American who posted a video trailer
> on YouTube, and then apologized to the Muslim
> world.
>
> The media and most democrats bought the bullshit
> from the scumbag administration in the white
> house, because they're naive and easily
> manipulated. In other words.... they're stupid.

I don't remember Clinton or anyone in the administration saying the attack was from a video in any of the hearings?

Come on, get better conspiracy theories like "Obama plotted with the Muslim Brotherhood on the Benghazi attack."

Who cares
Attachments:

Coverup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LIARS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Makes you wonder Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Ah, If Only Any Of This Mattered Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Outside of the right-wing echo chamber, no
> > one
> > > > cares.
> > > >
> > > > Too bad for you, nutjobs.
> > >
> > >
> > > You have to wonder why Democrats don't care
> > about
> > > a terrorist attack that killed our Ambassador.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Why is that?
> >
> > Because Obama & Liars Inc. blamed the
> "spontaneous
> > protest" on an American who posted a video
> trailer
> > on YouTube, and then apologized to the Muslim
> > world.
> >
> > The media and most democrats bought the
> bullshit
> > from the scumbag administration in the white
> > house, because they're naive and easily
> > manipulated. In other words.... they're stupid.
>
> I don't remember Clinton or anyone in the
> administration saying the attack was from a video
> in any of the hearings?
>
> Come on, get better conspiracy theories like
> "Obama plotted with the Muslim Brotherhood on the
> Benghazi attack."


Are you seriously trying to pretend now that they didn't try to blame it on the video?

I guess you're forgetting the apology vid they made. lol

"We're so sorry that video made you kill our ambassador! It's that damn 1st Amendment! Our bad!"

"Congressional Democrats on Sunday distanced themselves from the Obama administration’s explanation of the Benghazi, Libya, attacks in the immediate aftermath of the fatal strikes, amid mounting evidence that suggests the information was revised to intentionally mislead Americans"

Two days after the assassination of Ambassador Stevens, Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, blames a YouTube trailer from America, for the murders.

What a fucking liar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll5Wg3D4UA4

The Weekly Standard article is detailed and damning. The initial CIA assessment was scrubbed of any mention of Al Qaeda and what was referred to as an attack was revised to a "demonstration." Susan Rice went rogue and started with her wild hallucinatory blaming of the youtube video. There was never any mention of a video in either the CIA or the DOS report. Further, DOS spokesman, Hillary herself, Susan Rice and the president continued to insist that there was a consensus in the assessment by the intelligence community, which is not true. This is starting to look real bad.

I knew it. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Weekly Standard article is detailed and
> damning. The initial CIA assessment was scrubbed
> of any mention of Al Qaeda and what was referred
> to as an attack was revised to a "demonstration."
> Susan Rice went rogue and started with her wild
> hallucinatory blaming of the youtube video. There
> was never any mention of a video in either the CIA
> or the DOS report. Further, DOS spokesman, Hillary
> herself, Susan Rice and the president continued to
> insist that there was a consensus in the
> assessment by the intelligence community, which is
> not true. This is starting to look real bad.


Rice didn't "go rogue." There is no going rogue when it comes to appearances on the Sunday talk show rounds. All of the talking points are well scripted, approved, and rehearsed in advance. As it was obvious that her's were. And it wasn't just her. That was the story line that someone on the campaign side came up with which was repeated numerous times by Obama, Clinton, and others across the administration.

All it's going to take is for a few Democrats and/or media outlets to break ranks and start reporting on it and then it's no longer a Faux Noose story and the walls will come tumbling down.

Tim Russert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I knew it. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Weekly Standard article is detailed and
> > damning. The initial CIA assessment was
> scrubbed
> > of any mention of Al Qaeda and what was
> referred
> > to as an attack was revised to a
> "demonstration."
> > Susan Rice went rogue and started with her wild
> > hallucinatory blaming of the youtube video.
> There
> > was never any mention of a video in either the
> CIA
> > or the DOS report. Further, DOS spokesman,
> Hillary
> > herself, Susan Rice and the president continued
> to
> > insist that there was a consensus in the
> > assessment by the intelligence community, which
> is
> > not true. This is starting to look real bad.
>
>
> Rice didn't "go rogue." There is no going rogue
> when it comes to appearances on the Sunday talk
> show rounds. All of the talking points are well
> scripted, approved, and rehearsed in advance. As
> it was obvious that her's were. And it wasn't
> just her. That was the story line that someone on
> the campaign side came up with which was repeated
> numerous times by Obama, Clinton, and others
> across the administration.
>
> All it's going to take is for a few Democrats
> and/or media outlets to break ranks and start
> reporting on it and then it's no longer a Faux
> Noose story and the walls will come tumbling down.

Yeah, I stand corrected. All I meant was that there was not an ounce of evidence supporting her assertion (among other in the admin) that supported the assertion that a video had anything to do with the attack. It was a false narrative, probably put out for political purposes.

I guess you havent been paying attention the last five years. Nothing bad sticks to obama, the media and liberals make sure of that. He either didnt know anything about it or he blames Bush.

We're sorry! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Coverup Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > LIARS Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Makes you wonder Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Ah, If Only Any Of This Mattered Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Outside of the right-wing echo chamber,
> no
> > > one
> > > > > cares.
> > > > >
> > > > > Too bad for you, nutjobs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You have to wonder why Democrats don't care
> > > about
> > > > a terrorist attack that killed our
> Ambassador.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Why is that?
> > >
> > > Because Obama & Liars Inc. blamed the
> > "spontaneous
> > > protest" on an American who posted a video
> > trailer
> > > on YouTube, and then apologized to the Muslim
> > > world.
> > >
> > > The media and most democrats bought the
> > bullshit
> > > from the scumbag administration in the white
> > > house, because they're naive and easily
> > > manipulated. In other words.... they're
> stupid.
> >
> > I don't remember Clinton or anyone in the
> > administration saying the attack was from a
> video
> > in any of the hearings?
> >
> > Come on, get better conspiracy theories like
> > "Obama plotted with the Muslim Brotherhood on
> the
> > Benghazi attack."
>
>
> Are you seriously trying to pretend now that they
> didn't try to blame it on the video?
>
> I guess you're forgetting the apology vid they
> made. lol
>
> "We're so sorry that video made you kill our
> ambassador! It's that damn 1st Amendment! Our
> bad!"
>
> src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/21/art
> icle-2206574-15200C04000005DC-570_634x350.jpg">

LOL, yeah run with that. It worked wonders for Romney in the presidential debates. LMAO

teflon barry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess you havent been paying attention the last
> five years. Nothing bad sticks to obama, the media
> and liberals make sure of that. He either didnt
> know anything about it or he blames Bush.

I know the fucking liberal media keeps reporting all the crazy stuff Obama has done like killing Bin Laden, lowering unemployment, the stock market recovering at 15,000, the bank industry stable, airline profits up, auto industry making profits, housing industry improving...

All they report on Bush was the total opposite and bullshit about his failed Katrina and natural disaster responses.

Oh wait, all that shit is TRUE!

We need real leaders!
Attachments:

Mission accomplished!
Attachments:

RomneyCare 4 All Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL, yeah run with that. It worked wonders for
> Romney in the presidential debates. LMAO


The only thing that worked wonders for Obama in the debate was the assist by Crowley.

The sad part is that, although you'd never admit it, even sycophantic amoebas like you know that their story was complete bullshit. But who gives a fuck about some dead guys. Long as we pull it out for Team Obama it's all good.

Coverup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LIARS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Makes you wonder Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Ah, If Only Any Of This Mattered Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Outside of the right-wing echo chamber, no
> > one
> > > > cares.
> > > >
> > > > Too bad for you, nutjobs.
> > >
> > >
> > > You have to wonder why Democrats don't care
> > about
> > > a terrorist attack that killed our Ambassador.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Why is that?
> >
> > Because Obama & Liars Inc. blamed the
> "spontaneous
> > protest" on an American who posted a video
> trailer
> > on YouTube, and then apologized to the Muslim
> > world.
> >
> > The media and most democrats bought the
> bullshit
> > from the scumbag administration in the white
> > house, because they're naive and easily
> > manipulated. In other words.... they're stupid.
>
> I don't remember Clinton or anyone in the
> administration saying the attack was from a video
> in any of the hearings?

Because by the time the hearings occurred, the YouTube excuse had been exposed as a lie.

"This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable."

From the State Department's own transcript.


http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197780.htm


> Come on, get better conspiracy theories like
> "Obama plotted with the Muslim Brotherhood on the
> Benghazi attack."

You don't need a conspiracy when the facts show the truth.

So basically Benghazi has been played out and is old news.

Leave to the republicans to keep trying to make some issue out of nothing.

How did that long form birth certificate search workout? LMAO!

Maybe Donald Trump can start holding hearings on Benghazi.

Trumped Up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So basically Benghazi has been played out and is
> old news.
>
> Leave to the republicans to keep trying to make
> some issue out of nothing.
>
> How did that long form birth certificate search
> workout? LMAO!
>
> Maybe Donald Trump can start holding hearings on
> Benghazi.

+1


Attachments:

LOL
Attachments:

Trumped Up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So basically Benghazi has been played out and is
> old news.

It will be old news when all of the facts come to light. At this point they haven't. The big question is, why don't you want all the facts made available to the American people?

> Leave to the republicans to keep trying to make
> some issue out of nothing.

A coverup of the circumstances that lead to the death of a US Ambassador is "nothing"? Democrats have a warped view of things.

> How did that long form birth certificate search
> workout? LMAO!

Engange in logical fallacies much? I guess that is all you have left.

> Maybe Donald Trump can start holding hearings on
> Benghazi.

Maybe, or maybe the Administration can come clean with those that are constitutionally permitted and required to conduct checks and balances on the executive branch. Why is holding the Administration accountable to the truth so offensive to you?

I suppose this is that part where libs and the blamestream media are going to try and point out it was worse under BUSH!

Fuck! It really was twice as bad under Bush.
Attachments:

Truth4ThePeople Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suppose this is that part where libs and the
> blamestream media are going to try and point out
> it was worse under BUSH!
>
> Fuck! It really was twice as bad under Bush.

If you research the attacks in your little mis-direction blurb the vast majority of those killed were not US citizens. And no one tried to cover-up, or hide the nature of the attacks. They were all taken seriously and not discounted as "nothing."If the Obama administration had been straightforward with the truth it would actually have been as he described it: a bump in the road.

Oh, and if you think Republicans were not outraged by those attacks you are sadly mistaken.

Truth4ThePeople Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suppose this is that part where libs and the
> blamestream media are going to try and point out
> it was worse under BUSH!
>
> Fuck! It really was twice as bad under Bush.


How many of those attacks did the Bush administration blame on a YouTube video that nobody saw until the administration pointed it out?

January 22, Kolkata -

Five policemen were killed and 20 other people injured when, on January 22, 2002, Islamic militants attacked an American cultural centre in Kolkata, India.

- How many Americans? Was it blamed on a YouTube video?

Police arrested at least 50 suspects in the wake of the incident. The government accused its Pakistani counterpart of involvement in the attack.

- 50 arrests. How many have been arrested for Benghazi?

June 14, Karachi -

On the morning of June 14, 2002, a truck with a fertilizer bomb driven by a suicide bomber was detonated outside the United States Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. Twelve people were killed and 51 injured, all Pakistanis.

- How many Americans? Was it blamed on a YouTube video?

A group called al-Qanoon claimed responsibility for the attack. However, the incident is believed to have been connected with al-Qaeda and the US War on Terror although no conclusive links were proven. Several people were arrested in the aftermath of the attack, and were reported to be members of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, a large insurgent organisation. In November 2004, the alleged mastermind of the attack, Naveed-ul Hassan, was arrested in Pakistan.

- Several people arrested. How many have been arrested for Benghazi?

It's only just starting. It's gonna get ugly.

the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to -- and characterize -- the Benghazi attacks.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/clinton-sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-night-benghazi-attack/#ixzz2SWt07Jhl

How many? Name one! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truth4ThePeople Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I suppose this is that part where libs and the
> > blamestream media are going to try and point
> out
> > it was worse under BUSH!
> >
> > Fuck! It really was twice as bad under Bush.
>
>
> How many of those attacks did the Bush
> administration blame on a YouTube video that
> nobody saw until the administration pointed it
> out?

Bush and his administration never even knew "youtube" existed. Christ, they could barely read the daily intelligence memo.

RydellRoad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's only just starting. It's gonna get ugly.
>
> the veteran counterterrorism official concluded
> on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut
> the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as
> they and other Obama administration officials
> weighed how to respond to -- and characterize --
> the Benghazi attacks.
>
> Read more:
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/clinton
> -sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-
> night-benghazi-attack/#ixzz2SWt07Jhl

Oh joy, more crack reporting on Benghazi from FOX News. I'd rather hear Glen Becks version of Benghazi.

FOX News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh joy, more crack reporting on Benghazi from FOX
> News. I'd rather hear Glen Becks version of
> Benghazi.

I'm sure you will be confused that CBS is running with it as well.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/official-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/

But maybe you trust the WP?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/05/benghazi-plot-thickens/

Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many? Name one! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Truth4ThePeople Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I suppose this is that part where libs and
> the
> > > blamestream media are going to try and point
> > out
> > > it was worse under BUSH!
> > >
> > > Fuck! It really was twice as bad under Bush.
> >
> >
> > How many of those attacks did the Bush
> > administration blame on a YouTube video that
> > nobody saw until the administration pointed it
> > out?
>
> Bush and his administration never even knew
> "youtube" existed. Christ, they could barely read
> the daily intelligence memo.


Ah, good to see that the perpetual blame Boooosh line is alive and well. lol

Unfortunately, whatever Bush knew or didn't know how to do doesn't excuse Obama, Clinton, and Rice straight-faced lying.

Nice to see you still get in more trouble lying to liars than arming our terrorists, waging an undeclared war on a government to steal their oil, or setting up a staging area for regional terrorist operations.

Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many? Name one! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Truth4ThePeople Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I suppose this is that part where libs and
> the
> > > blamestream media are going to try and point
> > out
> > > it was worse under BUSH!
> > >
> > > Fuck! It really was twice as bad under Bush.
> >
> >
> > How many of those attacks did the Bush
> > administration blame on a YouTube video that
> > nobody saw until the administration pointed it
> > out?
>
> Bush and his administration never even knew
> "youtube" existed. Christ, they could barely read
> the daily intelligence memo.


LOL. Someone is butthurt. Is it because the one is looking like shit or because Hillary is damaged goods?

pick one Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How many? Name one! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Truth4ThePeople Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > I suppose this is that part where libs and
> > the
> > > > blamestream media are going to try and
> point
> > > out
> > > > it was worse under BUSH!
> > > >
> > > > Fuck! It really was twice as bad under
> Bush.
> > >
> > >
> > > How many of those attacks did the Bush
> > > administration blame on a YouTube video that
> > > nobody saw until the administration pointed
> it
> > > out?
> >
> > Bush and his administration never even knew
> > "youtube" existed. Christ, they could barely
> read
> > the daily intelligence memo.
>
>
> LOL. Someone is butthurt. Is it because the one
> is looking like shit or because Hillary is damaged
> goods?

No concerned at all. If republicans are betting the farm that they'll stop Hillary in 2016 by saying "Benghazi" than have fun with that. In fact I'll encourage republicans to keep wasting their time.

It just makes republicans look like they want to play Washington politics and the rest of country is fed up with that shit.

Rednecked Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No concerned at all. If republicans are betting
> the farm that they'll stop Hillary in 2016 by
> saying "Benghazi" than have fun with that. In
> fact I'll encourage republicans to keep wasting
> their time.

Looking at how and why an Ambassador was killed and the ensuing coverup is a "waste of time." Democrats are so clueless.

> It just makes republicans look like they want to
> play Washington politics and the rest of country
> is fed up with that shit.

Yeah, nothing says "playing Washington politics" like scrubbing talking points and replacing them with complete and total bullshit lies. Oh wait, that was the Democrats.

pick one Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rednecked Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No concerned at all. If republicans are
> betting
> > the farm that they'll stop Hillary in 2016 by
> > saying "Benghazi" than have fun with that. In
> > fact I'll encourage republicans to keep wasting
> > their time.
>
> Looking at how and why an Ambassador was killed
> and the ensuing coverup is a "waste of time."
> Democrats are so clueless.
>

They're not clueless. They know that it's not nothing but that's the party line and the only response that they have so they'll continue to parrot it.

Same old strategy of trying to repeat something enough that it becomes true. Or at least a significant number of the mindless drones among their own supporters will be stupid enough to believe and repeat it.

Rednecked Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It just makes republicans look like they want to
> play Washington politics and the rest of country
> is fed up with that shit.

Maybe. But face it - EVERYTHING republicans do is cast by the media as playing politics. And that's actually what they do in Washington.

But I don't think those pissed off state department employees are just partisan hacks. You have to be a true believer to think this one is a nothingburger.

.
Attachments:

RydellRoad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FOX News Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Oh joy, more crack reporting on Benghazi from
> FOX
> > News. I'd rather hear Glen Becks version of
> > Benghazi.
>
> I'm sure you will be confused that CBS is running
> with it as well.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/offi
> cial-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-
> the-get-go/
>
> But maybe you trust the WP?
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/
> 2013/05/05/benghazi-plot-thickens/


Ouch. Another lib goes down, hoisted by his own petard. LOL funny

Ok, I give up.

Who is responsible for the Benghazi attack?

Is it really the Palestine Liberation Front? IS there proof of that? Have they caught the attackers?

RydellRoad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rednecked Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > It just makes republicans look like they want
> to
> > play Washington politics and the rest of
> country
> > is fed up with that shit.
>
> Maybe. But face it - EVERYTHING republicans do is
> cast by the media as playing politics. And that's
> actually what they do in Washington.
>
> But I don't think those pissed off state
> department employees are just partisan hacks. You
> have to be a true believer to think this one is a
> nothingburger.

Because 95% of what republicans are doing these days is trying to block or discredit the president.

I'm sure if republicans ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING the news will be happy to report it.

FOX News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RydellRoad Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's only just starting. It's gonna get ugly.
> >
> > the veteran counterterrorism official
> concluded
> > on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to
> cut
> > the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as
> > they and other Obama administration officials
> > weighed how to respond to -- and characterize
> --
> > the Benghazi attacks.
> >
> > Read more:
> >
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/clinton
>
> >
> -sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-
>
> > night-benghazi-attack/#ixzz2SWt07Jhl
>
> Oh joy, more crack reporting on Benghazi from FOX
> News. I'd rather hear Glen Becks version of
> Benghazi.


For the record, Rupert Murdoch, who's News Corp. owns Fox News is a big Hillary supporter. He donated big bucks to her in her matchup against Obama in 2007/08 and held a couple of fund raisers for her. Fox News is not against Hillary. An uneducated moron = democrat.

Hillary's left boob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FOX News Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > RydellRoad Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > It's only just starting. It's gonna get
> ugly.
> > >
> > > the veteran counterterrorism official
> > concluded
> > > on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to
> > cut
> > > the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop
> as
> > > they and other Obama administration officials
> > > weighed how to respond to -- and characterize
> > --
> > > the Benghazi attacks.
> > >
> > > Read more:
> > >
> >
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/clinton
>
> >
> > >
> >
> -sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-
>
> >
> > > night-benghazi-attack/#ixzz2SWt07Jhl
> >
> > Oh joy, more crack reporting on Benghazi from
> FOX
> > News. I'd rather hear Glen Becks version of
> > Benghazi.
>
>
> For the record, Rupert Murdoch, who's News Corp.
> owns Fox News is a big Hillary supporter. He
> donated big bucks to her in her matchup against
> Obama in 2007/08 and held a couple of fund raisers
> for her. Fox News is not against Hillary. An
> uneducated moron = democrat.

Nobody ever said that Murdoch didn't like Hilary. We all know he is already backing Hillary in her 2016. It's going to be a slam dunk that she has all the TV networks in her back pocket already.

Hillary2016 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
It's going to be a slam dunk that she has
> all the TV networks in her back pocket already.


Do you find it fair to the voting public that their elections are decided by TV networks?

Obama was so upset he went out and played golf again yesterday. What me worry.

Clinton knew that they'd fucked up and tried to distance herself from it. That's why she did not do the Sunday shows as clearly would have been expected of the Secretary of State following the death of an ambassador. Versus Rice who had no reason to other than being a long-time associate going back to her days working in the Clinton administration.

When insurgents attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, last fall, Col. George Bristol held a key post in the region. As commander of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara, he was in a position to know what options the U.S. had to protect Americans under fire.

U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in the Sept. 11 attacks, sparking national outcry and a congressional investigation examining the lack of protection. Several U.S. officials have testified before Congress since — but not Bristol, a salty Marine whose task force was responsible for special operations in northern and western Africa.

Defense Department officials have told members of Congress that Bristol cannot be forced to testify because he retired after stepping down during a March change of command ceremony, according to several media reports. The Pentagon reinforced that point of view to Marine Corps Times on Tuesday.

“Col. Bristol was not invited by Congress to testify before he retired,” said Air Force Maj. Robert Firman, a spokesman with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. “The DoD has cooperated fully with Congress and the Accountability Review Board since the beginning of this investigation, and we will continue to do so.”

That isn’t the case, however. While Bristol is preparing for retirement, he is on active duty through the end of July, said Maj. Shawn Haney, a Marine spokeswoman, on Wednesday. He will be placed on the inactive list on Aug. 1, she said. That contradicts statements that Pentagon officials have issued to both Congress and the media.


http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130717/NEWS05/307170039/Despite-Pentagon-claims-Marine-colonel-sought-Benghazi-investigation-not-yet-retired

Col. George Bristol was in charge of Special Operations Forces in Northern Africa on the night of the Benghazi, Libya terror attack.

The Dept. of Defense had refused to tell Congress where to find him, claiming that he was retired and entitled to protection under privacy laws.

After pressure from Sen. Lindsey Graham, the Pentagon has changed its mind - now acknowledging that Bristol is not yet retired.

Questions remain about why commandos were not sent to Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, even though a team was standing by to board a plane.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2370621/Pentagon-does-face-key-Benghazi-witness-makes-Marine-colonel-available-talk-Congress.html

How’s this for an idea: in stark contrast to the fabricated "scandals" involving President Obama that have the People out ZERO out-of-pocket dollars, President George W. Bush’s material misrepresentations about the imminent threat a WMD-less Saddam posed cost us over $4 trillion+,to say nothing of the figurative "cost" of purporting to "immunize" market players (see, e.g., "the Halliburton Loophole" in the Bush Energy Bill) engaged in high-risk "fracking" that (literally) poisons the People's fresh water supplies. Feel free to pay lip service to "ideology" as it pleases you. But either a fiscal benefit from policy (see, e.g., Obamacare's competitive pricing component) is there, or it is not there. Crying about the "Socialist Boogeyman" is not persuasive.

Our GOP leaders do nothing but obstruct and cut services. Sorry, but it is a little disingenuous for the GOP to "outsource" our nation's entire industrial/manufacturing base abroad and, what, cry foul when welfare claims rise at home? How is the State supposed to police its own markets and improve our general welfare under a "no new revenue, ever" economic agenda? It can't do anything but go broke. That's the GOP's "solution" to facing the challenges posed from, say, climate change?
"Uh, we could always deny it is real. Say, how about I claim it is 'the biggest hoax in the History of mankind?" - Sen. Inhofe (R)

Sorry, that is recklessness driven by greed. Mere greed.

As a high tax bracket earner, I know that if our State doesn't raise money itself, our dollar's intrinsic value will fall. So, even if "cutting taxes puts more money in my pocket", if the value of it goes down...shall that pass as prudent economic policy?Our Corporations are experiencing record profits. There shouldn't be tax shelters for them if they receive the benefit of the State. The entire GOP economic agenda (tax cuts + deregulation) do not advance the People's interests...it is furtherance of Big Business not wanting to be told what to do. Watch the documentary "Gasland" and see where the GOP "free market" will take us.

Moreover, "austerity" has failed in the EU. What, we shouldn't learn from the lessons of History but, rather, "follow the GOP" that requires its members in Congress to sign an oath of loyalty to a lobbyist (Grover Norquist)? What a joke.

Conspicuously, "Red states" take more federal assistance than "Blue states". The entire partisan charade is just a pretext for the GOP to serve Big Business- not unlike its feigned allegiance to "Libertarianism"- just a playbook for deregulation pronounced no better than a code for thieves.

So why don't you round up an entire posse and come bring it with a substantive debate on policy? Let's match wits, bitch.

"Truth fears no trial." - Thomas Fuller, MD

AFRICOM General: We Knew Benghazi was a Terror Attack
July 23, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield 11 Comments


A bunch of retired or retiring generals are suddenly saying inconvenient things. Inconvenient for Obama Inc.

The former head of U.S. forces in Africa, General Carter Ham, told the Aspen Security Forum that it quickly became clear the assault on the American consulate in Benghazi last year was a terrorist attack and not a spontaneous demonstration.

“It became apparent to all of us quickly that this was not a demonstration, this was a violent attack,” Ham said. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton initially had portrayed the embassy attack as a response to an inflammatory internet video.

Ham said he was in Washington D.C. for a routine meeting on September 11, 2012 with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, when an alert came in from commanders in Stuttgart, Germany that a violent assault was underway on the consulate in Benghazi and Ambassador Chris Stevens was missing.

Asked if it was a terrorist attack, Ham said the intelligence left no doubt that it was.

“I don’t know if that was my first reaction, but pretty quickly as we started to gain understanding within the hours after the initiation of the attack, yes.”

Everyone knew it was a terrorist attack. But that information was censured under pressure from Victoria Nuland, who was rewarded for her chicanery with a promotion. Petraeus was taken down with an inappropriate investigation into his private life. And Hillary, oh what difference does it make?

First there is very little chance you are a high income earner.

The gop hasn't outsourced any jobs. Many of the jobs you refer to as outsourced are in fact an offspring of our absurd corporate tax rates. When companies are encouraged by our tax code to keep their profits overseas, jobs will inevitably follow.

Austerity done properly works just fine. Instead of feeling a responsibility to "try" to fix everything that is wrong in the world, comcentrating on areas with a high degree of success is likely is a fine strategy.

FDR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How’s this for an idea: in stark contrast to the
> fabricated "scandals"

You didn't really expect anyone besides Gerry to read beyond this point did you?
Attachments:

In addition if you really think there is a single faucet that pours water that can be set afire, you are loony. This has been disproven time and again.

With the recent surge in fracking in the last 5 years, where are the stories? Certainly our leftist media would find them and report the hell out of them.

Only a fool would refer to taxes on citizens as "raising money"

Carter Ham Wrote:

>BUTT HURT TALKING POINTS BUTT HURT TALKING POINTS LOL BUTT HURTT

lol lol LULZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Carter Ham Wrote:
>
> >BUTT HURT TALKING POINTS BUTT HURT TALKING POINTS
> LOL BUTT HURTT


Uh, yeah... Sucks when the guy in direct command comes right out makes Obobo look like a complete bullshitter like that huh? lol

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/10/60-minutes-confirms-benghazi-is-a-real-scandal-and-youve-been-lied-to/

60 Minutes had an absolutely devastating report on the Obama administration’s failure to protect Ambassador Chris Stevens and other Americans in Benghazi.

... the heart of the report is that there were clear and unequivocal warnings which were ignored, and the Obama administration lied about these warnings after the attack.

Hillary and Obama blamed a video and stood by the caskets perpetuating that lie.

How bout those skins?

Time revive this thread... strange silence in the national media about this "smoking gun."

Newly-released documents reveal direct White House involvement in steering the public narrative about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, toward that of a spontaneous protest that never happened.


http://www.sharylattkisson.com/new-benghazi-docs-april-29--2014.html#.U2EiwvkLBwV.twitter

Interesting summary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6kK7gAU0-A

newgatedenizen Wrote:


> Newly-released documents reveal direct White House involvement in steering the public narrative

Attachments:

Whether caused by a video or not..at the time, many countries in the mideast were demonstrating against the U.S. The threat to all embassies in the area was real. there very easily could have been Benghazi type deaths and destruction at any of the other embassies in the area. There was no good reason to assume that whatever sparked the other demonstrations wasnt the same reason for the Benghazi attack. The association between the video that was insulting to Islam was a strong influence in all the attacks.

The President did say the very next day that the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack. You all dont like that other things were also said..too bad. It is obvious that various viable scenatios were being discussed. The CIA had not yet eliminated any options.

And regardless of any of that....The White House trying to paint a scenario that was possible and was more favorable to them....just isnt a big deal. We saw instances of that in the GWB Administration that dwarfed Benghazi 100 times over.

That is why no one cares.

UJHUHU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The President did say the very next day that the
> attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

He also won an electoral landslide 2 months later, in the face of all this same criticism.

The GOP is pretty stupid for listening to these crazed redneck conspiracy theories. But I guess that's who they are controlled by now in the 21st century.

4 dead. Who fucking cares? Everyone dies sooner or later. Your chances of dying are greater than having sex. Benghazi was just a bad place on a bad day for four guys. And everyone one of us is gonna have one of those.
Have a nice day. :)

BrainGhazi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> He also won an electoral landslide 2 months later,
> in the face of all this same criticism.
>
.


"Landslide" Lolz

 
Attachments:

BrainGhazi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UJHUHU Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The President did say the very next day that
> the
> > attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
>
> He also won an electoral landslide 2 months later,
> in the face of all this same criticism.
>
> The GOP is pretty stupid for listening to these
> crazed redneck conspiracy theories. But I guess
> that's who they are controlled by now in the 21st
> century.


In the speech you reference, he said “acts of terror.” This was viewed as a more “generic” reference to the violence going on. If he was promoting that it was indeed a terror attack, why did he NOT acknowledge this weeks later when he went on the view or in other public appearances for the next two weeks?
Obama knew quite well how to craft his words so he could claim he called it a terrorist attack. He is trying to have his cake and eat it too. One thing Obama is - strategic. One thing he isn’t - a strong leader. Another thing he isn’t? - Honest.

OK Assholes if you wanna play the ole Benghazi card Over and over and over again lets put it in perspective of America's presidential overseas cluster fucks....




At 6:22 a.m. on Sunday, October 23, 1983, a suicide bomber drove a six-ton truckload of high explosives through a lightly fortified plywood fence, past two marine guards with no bullets in their rifles, and detonated his payload at the Beirut airport. The largest non-nuclear explosion ever recorded toppled the four story U.S. marine barracks from its foundation and killed 241 sleeping soldiers. It was the deadliest day for the Marine Corps since Iwo Jima.

Ignoring protests by Congressional Democrats and his own Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger, President Reagan had sent the marines to protect Beirut's airport during the bloody civil war that followed Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon to expel the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Citing the April 1983 U.S. embassy bombing in Beirut, where 63 people died including 17 Americans, Weinberger and Congressional Democrats had argued that Reagan's plans for deploying additional marines to Beirut would make the American soldiers "sitting ducks." Worse yet, because Reagan had labeled the marines "peacekeepers," he ordered them not to appear "warlike." Their orders forbade them from erecting fortifications or perimeter fences or loading their weapons. Weinberger had entreated Reagan to station the soldiers in a less vulnerable redoubt, instead of the highly exposed and indefensible airport barracks building. Weinberger later lamented.

I was not persuasive enough to persuade the president that the marines were there on an impossible mission. They had no mission but to sit at the airport which is just like sitting in a bull's-eye. I begged the President to put them back on their transports as a more defensible position.

The American press pilloried President Reagan for putting the marines and servicemen in harm's way without ammunition or any clear mission during a violent civil war in a country rife with sophisticated suicide bombers and a history of successful attacks against Americans. CBS Evening News reported,

the marines rely on the inexperienced Lebanese army to check vehicles. Today, all kinds of vehicles were being waved right through without the slightest verification... the question remains what are the marines doing in Beirut? They are here to prop up a government that still controls only a part of Beirut and none of the rest of the country, and are being told to sit at the Beirut airport where they became prime targets.

Reagan's response to press badgering about the absence of ammunition and protective barriers only stirred public anger about the president's lack of concern for troop safety. Reagan's explanation for the blunder seemed flippant, "Anyone who ever had a kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would be."

Reagan began with a story of the Filipino people who supposedly greeted American marines with flowers and flags as they landed on Philippine beaches during World War II. A flummoxed Tip O'Neill considered that story to be apocryphal -- perhaps, a scene from an old movie. Reagan next pledged to the stunned Congressional leaders that he would never allow the terrorists to drive the marines from Beirut and promised that the U.S. would only abandon its watch when peace was assured. He predicted, "I can see the day, not too many weeks from now when the Lebanese people will be standing at the shore, waving and cheering our marines when they depart."

Impatient, O'Neill pounded the table, interrupting Reagan's sentimental flight of fancy.

Four years later, Reagan was caught illegally selling 2,000 missiles to the Iranian terror state in violation of American law and a U.S.-led international arms embargo. Reagan had used the proceeds of that criminal enterprise to illegally fund Nicaraguan terrorists in violation of American laws forbidding the president from financially supporting the Contras. Secretary of State George Shultz and Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger had opposed the Iran/Contra deal from the outset. Shultz warned the president during its planning stages that funding the Contras was "an impeachable offense." The fact that the White House traded some missiles for hostages, set off a brisk bout of new hostage taking across the Mid-East. Looking directly into the television camera Reagan publicly told the American people that he had known nothing about the caper. A week later, the press uncovered documents authorizing the arms for hostages deal -- signed and approved by Reagan in his own handwriting. Reagan was forced to publicly acknowledge his deceit

So we shouldn't care that Oboobah lied to us?

We shouldn't care if the CIA was sending arms to Syrian jihadis either?

OK, thanks for the tip!

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So we shouldn't care that Oboobah lied to us?
>
> We shouldn't care if the CIA was sending arms to
> Syrian jihadis either?
>
> OK, thanks for the tip!

Being against something just because Obama did something, or didnt something, or might do something isnt a very serious discussion.

Governments lie for all sorts of reasons. Like GWB lying to us about WMDs in Iraq. One must of course apply perspective to every issue. Hundred of thousands of innocent people dead vs. four legitimate targets. You apply the logic.

I don't get why the GOP is still wasting it's time on Benghazi. The public doesn't care it's old news.

Benghazi just makes republicans look like losers and reminds voters that the GOP is accomplishing nothing but wasting time in DC.

Derf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't get why the GOP is still wasting it's time
> on Benghazi. The public doesn't care it's old
> news.
>
> Benghazi just makes republicans look like losers
> and reminds voters that the GOP is accomplishing
> nothing but wasting time in DC.


Good. LoLz

 
Attachments:

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So we shouldn't care that FOXNEWS lied to us?
>
> We shouldn't care if the GOP was sending BS to
> its propaganda machine either?
>
> OK, thanks for the tip!

Damn this shit was a dead horse by 2013. They're still beating that motherfucker lol.

Gerry. Drop Dead.