So republicans have been trying to make some big conspiracy and cover up out of Benghazi and still nothing. Just embarrassed republicans blowing a lot of hot air and looking like idiots.

Can we please get back to giving rich people tax breaks. Because isn't tax cuts for the rich really what the republican party is about in the first place.

So, Obama's death count on his watch includes a US Ambassador and a US Border Patrol Agent. Yup, nothing to see here. Sounds about right from the braindead left.

body count Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, Obama's death count on his watch includes a US
> Ambassador and a US Border Patrol Agent. Yup,
> nothing to see here. Sounds about right from the
> braindead left.

That's actually a hell of lot better than some of the terrorist attacks that occurred under republican presidents.

Let's just take Bush for example. In the 9/11 terrorist attack nearly 3,000 people died in the attacks, including all 227 civilians and 19 hijackers aboard the four planes.

How long did take for Bush to announce there was a terrorist attacks?

Econ 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How long did take for Bush to announce there was a
> terrorist attacks?


The same day:

"Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts."

Why did it take Obama many days to announce it? Oh, that's right, the attack was the result of an "insensitive" youtube video.

Obama announced the next day after intelligence confirmed. Unlike Romney who was fluttering in the wind.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/benghazi-libya-rose-garden-speech-2012-10#ixzz2DRRfk7ZE

Econ 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama announced the next day after intelligence
> confirmed. Unlike Romney who was fluttering in
> the wind.
>
> No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve
> of this great nation, alter that character, or
> eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.
> Today we mourn four more Americans who represent
> the very best of the United States of America.
> We will not waver in our commitment to see that
> justice is done for this terrible act. And make
> no mistake, justice will be done.
>
> Read more:
> http://www.businessinsider.com/benghazi-libya-rose
> -garden-speech-2012-10#ixzz2DRRfk7ZE


Read the whole transcript. The "acts of terror" referred to the original 9/11 attacks in 2001, NOT the Benghazi attacks.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/262421-obama-rebuts-romney-on-libya-with-help-from-the-debate-moderator

In an interview after the debate on CNN, Crowley said Romney's broader point that the Obama administration didn’t initially call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack was correct.

"He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word," Crowley said.

A timeline compiled by The Hill shows that National Counterterrorism Center director Matthew Olsen was the first member of the Obama administration to call the Libya assault a terrorist attack, and did so during congressional testimony on Sept. 19.

-----------------------------------

Yeah, this is you getting busted up again with the facts. EIGHT days later.

I'd rather that it wasn't immediately called a terrorist attack. All that does is glorify the attacking group.

Obama was smart not rush to judgement. The important part is to track down those responsible rather than spin in circles talking all this "he said she said crap."

This Benghazi business, while tragic for the families, is the cost of doing business today in the Middle East.

Shit happens. It's time to move on.

Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This Benghazi business, while tragic for the
> families, is the cost of doing business today in
> the Middle East.
>
> Shit happens. It's time to move on.

Amen, Nobody cares about this republican witch hunt.

Rush 4 Prez in 2016 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This Benghazi business, while tragic for the
> > families, is the cost of doing business today
> in
> > the Middle East.
> >
> > Shit happens. It's time to move on.
>
> Amen, Nobody cares about this republican witch
> hunt.


I get the sense that Benghazi has taken on a life of its own among republican viewers. I think the programmers and editorial board is trying to unwind people's minds from it, but they won't let go.

It's like the birth certificate story. It got thrown out there for a political bump, and it took on a life of its own.

Let the subpoenas fly. Rice still fucks up Benghazi story. Senate still
on the case.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/27/ambassador-susan-rice-biography-benghazi/1728985/

We have a fiscal disaster to deal with and republicans are asking who said what when and something that happened months ago. Is really going to make a difference when Obama called it a terrorist attack? NOPE

Out of curiosity, what are the republicans going for here? That Obama was lax and didn't know we were under attack? That he did know and didn't say anything as a way to 'cover it up'? To what end? I can usually spot the game plan in political BS campaigns, this one is eluding me.

For my money, the worst thing Obama might have done is try to use the deaths of Americans for political gain. Which is ... what the republicans seem to be doing. This is why good people hate you guys. Please go back to doing the job, not trying to get the job.

Elect Me I'll Cut Taxes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We have a fiscal disaster to deal with and
> republicans are asking who said what when and
> something that happened months ago. Is really
> going to make a difference when Obama called it a
> terrorist attack? NOPE


Sure it does.

If he did, then he lied when they sent out Rice with a bullshit story.

IF he didn't, then he was lying because they clearly knew at that point.

But you are right in one sense - either way he's a liar.

It is over dudes. Let it go and move on to bigger problems. So what if the story was unclear at the time. You can bitch all you want but nothing will change, it will just take away from where attention should be paid.

BigK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is over dudes. Let it go and move on to bigger
> problems. So what if the story was unclear at the
> time. You can bitch all you want but nothing will
> change, it will just take away from where
> attention should be paid.


It is just a massive smokescreen.

Lies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Elect Me I'll Cut Taxes Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We have a fiscal disaster to deal with and
> > republicans are asking who said what when and
> > something that happened months ago. Is really
> > going to make a difference when Obama called it
> a
> > terrorist attack? NOPE
>
>
> Sure it does.
>
> If he did, then he lied when they sent out Rice
> with a bullshit story.
>
> IF he didn't, then he was lying because they
> clearly knew at that point.
>
> But you are right in one sense - either way he's a
> liar.


Shocking. You mean to tell me a politician can lie?

Elect Me I'll Cut Taxes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We have a fiscal disaster to deal with and
> republicans are asking who said what when and
> something that happened months ago. Is really
> going to make a difference when Obama called it a
> terrorist attack? NOPE


The event itself isn't the issue.

The handling of the event is.

Remove all the labels and think this through...

Four people and an ambassador are killed in a far away place known to be unfriendly.

The president and his administration goes to great efforts to spin the event as being caused by something as idiotic and benign as a video on youtube. Efforts that include addressing the UN and going on Sunday morning talk shows.

The media in general immediately goes for the BS story and begins their own cover-up through non-coverage of the event.

Everyone involved shows a great deal of disrespect for the president of that far away land by ignoring his comment that it was in fact a terrorist attack.

Now put any president we've elected in the last one hundred years in that scenario and you've got a gallows being built on the White House lawn.

But Barrack Obama?

What makes him so special that we should trust him?

In all actuality, we should have never have know nearly as much as this event as we do. If it was CIA anything involved, it was above all of our pay grades. But this administration couldn't just tell us part of the truth and move on.

They hid behind "we didn't know". Why the hell didn't they know? Who is running this country and why should we trust them?

That's all that is important.

That and what about what happens tomorrow........think you'll get the truth then?

SoylentGreen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The event itself isn't the issue.
>
> The handling of the event is.
>
> Remove all the labels and think this through...
>
> Four people and an ambassador are killed in a far
> away place known to be unfriendly.
>
> The president and his administration goes to great
> efforts to spin the event as being caused by
> something as idiotic and benign as a video on
> youtube. Efforts that include addressing the UN
> and going on Sunday morning talk shows.
>
> The media in general immediately goes for the BS
> story and begins their own cover-up through
> non-coverage of the event.
>
> Everyone involved shows a great deal of disrespect
> for the president of that far away land by
> ignoring his comment that it was in fact a
> terrorist attack.
>
> Now put any president we've elected in the last
> one hundred years in that scenario and you've got
> a gallows being built on the White House lawn.
>
> But Barrack Obama?
>
> What makes him so special that we should trust
> him?
>
> In all actuality, we should have never have know
> nearly as much as this event as we do. If it was
> CIA anything involved, it was above all of our pay
> grades. But this administration couldn't just
> tell us part of the truth and move on.
>
> They hid behind "we didn't know". Why the hell
> didn't they know? Who is running this country and
> why should we trust them?
>
> That's all that is important.
>
> That and what about what happens
> tomorrow........think you'll get the truth then?


That's all well and good, except that when it comes to a republican president, you'll believe everything.

This is purely political. Standing on the moral high ground of being honest and full of integrity requires that you hold both parties to the same standard.

For all the money republicans are spending looking to turn over some rock and hope to embarrass the CIA its a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.

Christ! You'd think we invaded some country with thousands of troops only to find out we had the invasion all wrong. Like there we're no WMD's.

Oh wait, that was Bush who invaded IRAQ by accident.

You guys arguing about Benghazi is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still fucking retarded.

RomneyCare! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For all the money republicans are spending looking
> to turn over some rock and hope to embarrass the
> CIA its a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.
>
> Christ! You'd think we invaded some country with
> thousands of troops only to find out we had the
> invasion all wrong. Like there we're no WMD's.
>
> Oh wait, that was Bush who invaded IRAQ by
> accident.


Yes! Blame Booooooosh.

The universal excuse. lmao

Booooosh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RomneyCare! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For all the money republicans are spending
> looking
> > to turn over some rock and hope to embarrass
> the
> > CIA its a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.
> >
> > Christ! You'd think we invaded some country
> with
> > thousands of troops only to find out we had the
> > invasion all wrong. Like there we're no WMD's.
> >
> > Oh wait, that was Bush who invaded IRAQ by
> > accident.
>
>
> Yes! Blame Booooooosh.
>
> The universal excuse. lmao

Well at least it's accurate and factual.

Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Booooosh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > RomneyCare! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > For all the money republicans are spending
> > looking
> > > to turn over some rock and hope to embarrass
> > the
> > > CIA its a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.
> > >
> > > Christ! You'd think we invaded some country
> > with
> > > thousands of troops only to find out we had
> the
> > > invasion all wrong. Like there we're no
> WMD's.
> > >
> > > Oh wait, that was Bush who invaded IRAQ by
> > > accident.
> >
> >
> > Yes! Blame Booooooosh.
> >
> > The universal excuse. lmao
>
> Well at least it's accurate and factual.



"In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi," Rice said.

Econ 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> body count Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So, Obama's death count on his watch includes a
> US
> > Ambassador and a US Border Patrol Agent. Yup,
> > nothing to see here. Sounds about right from
> the
> > braindead left.
>
> That's actually a hell of lot better than some of
> the terrorist attacks that occurred under
> republican presidents.
>
> Let's just take Bush for example. In the 9/11
> terrorist attack nearly 3,000 people died in the
> attacks, including all 227 civilians and 19
> hijackers aboard the four planes.

So that was planned and executed entirely under Bush?

> How long did take for Bush to announce there was a
> terrorist attacks?

Hours. It was called a terrorist attack from his first speech but dont let facts get in the way

Liberal Logic 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Econ 101 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > body count Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So, Obama's death count on his watch includes
> a
> > US
> > > Ambassador and a US Border Patrol Agent.
> Yup,
> > > nothing to see here. Sounds about right from
> > the
> > > braindead left.
> >
> > That's actually a hell of lot better than some
> of
> > the terrorist attacks that occurred under
> > republican presidents.
> >
> > Let's just take Bush for example. In the 9/11
> > terrorist attack nearly 3,000 people died in
> the
> > attacks, including all 227 civilians and 19
> > hijackers aboard the four planes.
>
> So that was planned and executed entirely under
> Bush?
>
> > How long did take for Bush to announce there was
> a
> > terrorist attacks?
>
> Hours. It was called a terrorist attack from his
> first speech but dont let facts get in the way

Of course Bush knew it was a terrorist attack. Bush was probably shitting his pants thinking how bad he fucked up the CIA intelligence warnings.

Errf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 101 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Econ 101 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > body count Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > So, Obama's death count on his watch
> includes
> > a
> > > US
> > > > Ambassador and a US Border Patrol Agent.
> > Yup,
> > > > nothing to see here. Sounds about right
> from
> > > the
> > > > braindead left.
> > >
> > > That's actually a hell of lot better than
> some
> > of
> > > the terrorist attacks that occurred under
> > > republican presidents.
> > >
> > > Let's just take Bush for example. In the 9/11
> > > terrorist attack nearly 3,000 people died in
> > the
> > > attacks, including all 227 civilians and 19
> > > hijackers aboard the four planes.
> >
> > So that was planned and executed entirely under
> > Bush?
> >
> > > How long did take for Bush to announce there
> was
> > a
> > > terrorist attacks?
> >
> > Hours. It was called a terrorist attack from
> his
> > first speech but dont let facts get in the way
>
> Of course Bush knew it was a terrorist attack.
> Bush was probably shitting his pants thinking how
> bad he fucked up the CIA intelligence warnings.


Booooooosh. More Boooooosh.

lmao

Errf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Of course Bush knew it was a terrorist attack.
> Bush was probably shitting his pants thinking how
> bad he fucked up the CIA intelligence warnings.


We know Dick Cheney was counting his shares of stock, because he knew how much they were going to go up in value for ignoring the warnings and allowing the terrorists to attack us.

"the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

Or counting his chickens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Errf Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Of course Bush knew it was a terrorist attack.
> > Bush was probably shitting his pants thinking
> how
> > bad he fucked up the CIA intelligence warnings.
>
>
> We know Dick Cheney was counting his shares of
> stock, because he knew how much they were going to
> go up in value for ignoring the warnings and
> allowing the terrorists to attack us.
>
> "the process of transformation, even if it brings
> revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one,
> absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
> event––like a new Pearl Harbor"


Right it was Bush who ignored the warnings. Not the clinton open boarder polices that allowed them to over stay their visas. The vast majority of that years long planning was done under clinton. But again why let facts get in the way

Or counting his chickens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Errf Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Of course Bush knew it was a terrorist attack.
> > Bush was probably shitting his pants thinking
> how
> > bad he fucked up the CIA intelligence warnings.
>
>
> We know Dick Cheney was counting his shares of
> stock, because he knew how much they were going to
> go up in value for ignoring the warnings and
> allowing the terrorists to attack us.
>
> "the process of transformation, even if it brings
> revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one,
> absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
> event––like a new Pearl Harbor"


Cheneyyyy. More Ch Ch Ch Chenyyyy.

And some Halibutron!!!

All well and good Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's all well and good, except that when it
> comes to a republican president, you'll believe
> everything.
>
> This is purely political. Standing on the moral
> high ground of being honest and full of integrity
> requires that you hold both parties to the same
> standard.


Personally, I haven't "believed everything" said by any president as long as I've been voting. Jumping straight to you point, Bush was the king of bait and switch.

But how does accepting that everyone does it change things for the future?

I'm not accusing anyone of believing anything based on party affiliation. I'm saying the current president hasn't proven he is worthy of our trust.

Sure it's political. What else is there to politics?

And if both sides didn't play these games, why did the president visit a toy factory today and tell the workers that Christmas will be canceled this year (meaning sales were fall and everyone will go broke) because the GOP wont sign off on his plans to tax everything and everyone without cutting a dime from the budget?

Let's get a couple of more committees going on Benghazi. Now who said what when? What was said on Meet the Press?

Elect Me I'll Cut Taxes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's get a couple of more committees going on
> Benghazi. Now who said what when? What was said
> on Meet the Press?


Slept through that whole 9/11 commission thing, didn't have any questions then.

But god damn it, I want to know why the administration claimed the attacks were because of some video by a guy from California! The American People should NEVER be lied to!

Lt. Fag Obvious and Econ 101 are spooning together right now