Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Nutty's Sack
()
Date: May 10, 2013 10:21AM
Lies4ThePeople Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rice lied about the core nature and basis for the
> attack. Obama lied re providing the public with
> "the best information that we have as we have it."
> Paneta lied about nobody ever being told to stand
> down. Clinton lied about, among others, nobody at
> State recommending that the Benghazi consulate be
> closed. Carney lied or significantly
> misrepresented the role of the White House in
> changing the talking points.
>
> Apparently the "right wing echo chamber" now
> includes MSNBC since they talked about it all
> morning on "Morning Joe" as well as Chuck Todd's
> show and not just blowing it off, as well as NPR,
> BBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, etc., etc.
Sec. Rice, Sec. Panetta, Sec. Clinton, Mr. Carney, and the President each said what they believed to be true at the time that they said it.
If you disbelieve, prove otherwise.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rice lied about the core nature and basis for the
> attack. Obama lied re providing the public with
> "the best information that we have as we have it."
> Paneta lied about nobody ever being told to stand
> down. Clinton lied about, among others, nobody at
> State recommending that the Benghazi consulate be
> closed. Carney lied or significantly
> misrepresented the role of the White House in
> changing the talking points.
>
> Apparently the "right wing echo chamber" now
> includes MSNBC since they talked about it all
> morning on "Morning Joe" as well as Chuck Todd's
> show and not just blowing it off, as well as NPR,
> BBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, etc., etc.
Sec. Rice, Sec. Panetta, Sec. Clinton, Mr. Carney, and the President each said what they believed to be true at the time that they said it.
If you disbelieve, prove otherwise.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Sorry, not nothing...
()
Date: May 10, 2013 10:31AM
Nutty's Sack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 3 AM Phone Call Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Those are all your opinions, not facts.
> Someone
> > in the WH took the CIA talking points and
> crossed
> > out all references to terrorism and replaced it
> > with BS about the youtube vid. The National
> > Standard has the originals that were sent to
> the
> > WH, the intermediate first draft and the final
> > talking points out of the WH. Sorry if the
> > facts contradict your opinions, but such
> is
> > life.
>
> Perhaps because the WH person believed that the
> CIA talking points were wrong? You don't know and
> neither do I. Certainly, making a wrong decision
> is not a crime
>
> Until you can prove that the talking points were
> changed in an effort to deliberately deceive,
> you’ve got nothing.
Actually, we do know.
We know because Mills at State sent a memo 12 hours after the attack clarifying that it was an attack on the complex by Ansar al Sharia.
And we know because Victoria Nuland's objections to the original talking points were political, not that they were substantively wrong.
From ABC News:
"State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:
"In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
The paragraph was entirely deleted...
After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.
“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.
In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed."
This meeting, of political appointees, is where the talking points were finally massaged to the satisfaction of the administration. Even then, the video was not cited. That came out as the primary driver sometime during Rice's preparation by the administration for the Sunday talk shows which they scheduled purposely to get their political talking points out re the matter during the campaign.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 3 AM Phone Call Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Those are all your opinions, not facts.
> Someone
> > in the WH took the CIA talking points and
> crossed
> > out all references to terrorism and replaced it
> > with BS about the youtube vid. The National
> > Standard has the originals that were sent to
> the
> > WH, the intermediate first draft and the final
> > talking points out of the WH. Sorry if the
> > facts contradict your opinions, but such
> is
> > life.
>
> Perhaps because the WH person believed that the
> CIA talking points were wrong? You don't know and
> neither do I. Certainly, making a wrong decision
> is not a crime
>
> Until you can prove that the talking points were
> changed in an effort to deliberately deceive,
> you’ve got nothing.
Actually, we do know.
We know because Mills at State sent a memo 12 hours after the attack clarifying that it was an attack on the complex by Ansar al Sharia.
And we know because Victoria Nuland's objections to the original talking points were political, not that they were substantively wrong.
From ABC News:
"State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:
"In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
The paragraph was entirely deleted...
After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.
“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.
In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed."
This meeting, of political appointees, is where the talking points were finally massaged to the satisfaction of the administration. Even then, the video was not cited. That came out as the primary driver sometime during Rice's preparation by the administration for the Sunday talk shows which they scheduled purposely to get their political talking points out re the matter during the campaign.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Wasting Time
()
Date: May 10, 2013 11:01AM
Now that republicans can't find anything wrong with the handling of Benghazi they are now trying to find maybe an email that was sent that might have an error it. *Laugh*
After 8 hearing, including McCain digging into top secret files, not jack squat. Why? Because there isn't jack shit and the American public doesn't care about Benghazi any more.
Just republicans wasting time trying to distract Americans from the fact the economy is recovering and jobs are being created.
After 8 hearing, including McCain digging into top secret files, not jack squat. Why? Because there isn't jack shit and the American public doesn't care about Benghazi any more.
Just republicans wasting time trying to distract Americans from the fact the economy is recovering and jobs are being created.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: May 10, 2013 11:03AM
Wasting Time Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now that republicans can't find anything wrong
> with the handling of Benghazi they are now trying
> to find maybe an email that was sent that might
> have an error it. *Laugh*
>
> After 8 hearing, including McCain digging into top
> secret files, not jack squat. Why? Because there
> isn't jack shit and the American public doesn't
> care about Benghazi any more.
>
> Just republicans wasting time trying to distract
> Americans from the fact the economy is recovering
> and jobs are being created.
It is a political ploy, there's no doubt about that. The economy is recovering in a limited way, and jobs are barely being created. The unemployment rate is around 15% in reality, and the underemployment rate is probably double that.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now that republicans can't find anything wrong
> with the handling of Benghazi they are now trying
> to find maybe an email that was sent that might
> have an error it. *Laugh*
>
> After 8 hearing, including McCain digging into top
> secret files, not jack squat. Why? Because there
> isn't jack shit and the American public doesn't
> care about Benghazi any more.
>
> Just republicans wasting time trying to distract
> Americans from the fact the economy is recovering
> and jobs are being created.
It is a political ploy, there's no doubt about that. The economy is recovering in a limited way, and jobs are barely being created. The unemployment rate is around 15% in reality, and the underemployment rate is probably double that.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Chris Christie
()
Date: May 10, 2013 11:04AM
Maybe next republicans can investigate if the height of Hilary's chair was two inches higher to make her appear stronger during Benghazi hearings. I sense a Benghazi chair conspiracy.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Lies4ThePeople
()
Date: May 10, 2013 11:04AM
Nutty's Sack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sec. Rice, Sec. Panetta, Sec. Clinton, Mr. Carney,
> and the President each said what they believed to
> be true at the time that they said it.
>
> If you disbelieve, prove otherwise.
Demonstrably false based on the email trail and other hard evidence now available as above.
Furthermore, note that this does not even include that they had access to substantial detailed information beyond the talking points. To present it as if they were entirely relying on the talking points, which were assembled only as very light information for general dissemination, is disingenuous in itself.
It's one thing to say, "Hey, there's a lot of information, here's what we think happened, some of the details aren't yet clear" versus intentionally scheduling Rice on all of the media shows in order to get the specific, definitive narrative that they wanted re video out there for political purposes.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sec. Rice, Sec. Panetta, Sec. Clinton, Mr. Carney,
> and the President each said what they believed to
> be true at the time that they said it.
>
> If you disbelieve, prove otherwise.
Demonstrably false based on the email trail and other hard evidence now available as above.
Furthermore, note that this does not even include that they had access to substantial detailed information beyond the talking points. To present it as if they were entirely relying on the talking points, which were assembled only as very light information for general dissemination, is disingenuous in itself.
It's one thing to say, "Hey, there's a lot of information, here's what we think happened, some of the details aren't yet clear" versus intentionally scheduling Rice on all of the media shows in order to get the specific, definitive narrative that they wanted re video out there for political purposes.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Liberal Logic 103
()
Date: May 10, 2013 08:22PM
Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wasting Time Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Now that republicans can't find anything wrong
> > with the handling of Benghazi they are now
> trying
> > to find maybe an email that was sent that might
> > have an error it. *Laugh*
> >
> > After 8 hearing, including McCain digging into
> top
> > secret files, not jack squat. Why? Because
> there
> > isn't jack shit and the American public doesn't
> > care about Benghazi any more.
> >
> > Just republicans wasting time trying to
> distract
> > Americans from the fact the economy is
> recovering
> > and jobs are being created.
>
> It is a political ploy, there's no doubt about
> that. The economy is recovering in a limited way,
> and jobs are barely being created. The
> unemployment rate is around 15% in reality, and
> the underemployment rate is probably double that.
Its not a political ploy, had they been honest from the start and not tried to sweep it under the rug with the election coming up it would be a non issue right now
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wasting Time Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Now that republicans can't find anything wrong
> > with the handling of Benghazi they are now
> trying
> > to find maybe an email that was sent that might
> > have an error it. *Laugh*
> >
> > After 8 hearing, including McCain digging into
> top
> > secret files, not jack squat. Why? Because
> there
> > isn't jack shit and the American public doesn't
> > care about Benghazi any more.
> >
> > Just republicans wasting time trying to
> distract
> > Americans from the fact the economy is
> recovering
> > and jobs are being created.
>
> It is a political ploy, there's no doubt about
> that. The economy is recovering in a limited way,
> and jobs are barely being created. The
> unemployment rate is around 15% in reality, and
> the underemployment rate is probably double that.
Its not a political ploy, had they been honest from the start and not tried to sweep it under the rug with the election coming up it would be a non issue right now
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
abelard
()
Date: May 11, 2013 02:24AM
> Essentially proving beyond a doibt that the administration intentionally lied to
>the American people most probably for political gain.
I get that, wronggg, but even if this proves to be correct, I see no endgame here except an attempt to embarrass the current administration. It's not like there is a policy in place that has allowed this to happen again and again, which nobody is willing to change because it's politically embarrassing. It was a fuck-up and it cost american lives, but it seems to have stopped - how is continuing to fish around gonna keep this from happening again? How many times has this been investigated now?
I must add that to an unallied observer, this seems like an attempt to turn dead americans into political advantage, ironic in that the (as far as I know, largely unsubstantiated) charge is that Obama tried to turn dead americans into political advantage. If it's repugnant when Obama (allegedly) does this, it's repugnant when his critics do it too, possibly moreso since the basic facts of the matter are now public record. I'm no great fan of Obama but many of the attempts to whip up public outrage on this matter (including circulating pictures of the Benghazi dead) seem to me worse than the things folks speculate Obama might have done.
>the American people most probably for political gain.
I get that, wronggg, but even if this proves to be correct, I see no endgame here except an attempt to embarrass the current administration. It's not like there is a policy in place that has allowed this to happen again and again, which nobody is willing to change because it's politically embarrassing. It was a fuck-up and it cost american lives, but it seems to have stopped - how is continuing to fish around gonna keep this from happening again? How many times has this been investigated now?
I must add that to an unallied observer, this seems like an attempt to turn dead americans into political advantage, ironic in that the (as far as I know, largely unsubstantiated) charge is that Obama tried to turn dead americans into political advantage. If it's repugnant when Obama (allegedly) does this, it's repugnant when his critics do it too, possibly moreso since the basic facts of the matter are now public record. I'm no great fan of Obama but many of the attempts to whip up public outrage on this matter (including circulating pictures of the Benghazi dead) seem to me worse than the things folks speculate Obama might have done.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
wronggg
()
Date: May 11, 2013 06:36PM
Perhaps the best reasons are to let this President and future ones know they cannot get away with this kind of thing, the truth comes out. It is also important to clarify the roles played by others in the scheme to help us make future voting decisions.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Barry lied, Stevens died
()
Date: May 11, 2013 06:47PM
Obama and Clinton lied. Clinton's spokesman had the talking points scrubbed of any prior incidents because she didn't want to give Republicans in Congress any reason to beat them up. So they made up the story of the youtube video for cover. And then they put the guy who made that video in jail. It appears he it still there. 5 months out, this poor guy is sitting in jail, all based on a lie that was put out there stictly for political cover to protect Obama before an election. And then Clinton lied about it to Congress. A president who lies to the American people for poltical expediency doesn't deserve our trust. Only morons trust this administration now.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
WingNut
()
Date: May 13, 2013 08:08PM
Alright, no answers...
Why am I so unsurprised?
Obumma flapped gums today about how this is a big nothing and there's "no there there". (unimaginative)
WHY then were there the condemnations of a video that was not the cause?
Did Dingle Barry not condemn this video (which was not the cause) at the United Nations?
Did Susan Rice not go on 5 news shows (at direction of the administration) adamantly blaming the video(which was not the cause)?
12 edits of the talking points.
You still trust this fucking queer, America?
Why am I so unsurprised?
Obumma flapped gums today about how this is a big nothing and there's "no there there". (unimaginative)
WHY then were there the condemnations of a video that was not the cause?
Did Dingle Barry not condemn this video (which was not the cause) at the United Nations?
Did Susan Rice not go on 5 news shows (at direction of the administration) adamantly blaming the video(which was not the cause)?
12 edits of the talking points.
You still trust this fucking queer, America?
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
..<*((((><..<*((((><..<*((((><..
()
Date: May 13, 2013 08:11PM
Barry went to 3 fund raisers yesterday. What a leader huh?
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
abelard
()
Date: May 14, 2013 11:29AM
>WHY then were there the condemnations of a video that was not the cause?
Jesus Wing, you're gonna make me channel Hillary Clinton here - so fucking what? I get your point that presidents should be held accountable for what they do, and publicly, and I'm not saying these questions shouldn't be asked. But Benghazi happened, the administration was caught flat-footed as to an organized response, and they sounded foolish. Again, so what? Do you think Obama's supporters are so blind in their loyalties that having the (fairly minor) incompetence of his people thrust in their faces will shake them to their very core?
Again, not an Obama supporter, but the more I hear about the attempts to drum up outrage on Benghazi (including Fox news shouting 'why aren't more people outraged about Benghazi?), the more I think this is a fairly pathetic attempt to turn dead Americans into GOP capital. For god's sake, people actually died here, and it seems clear who's trying to turn this into a game of tetherball. This isn't making Obama look bad, it's making the republicans look like ineffective ghouls. We (not to mention the dead of Benghazi) deserve better than this.
Jesus Wing, you're gonna make me channel Hillary Clinton here - so fucking what? I get your point that presidents should be held accountable for what they do, and publicly, and I'm not saying these questions shouldn't be asked. But Benghazi happened, the administration was caught flat-footed as to an organized response, and they sounded foolish. Again, so what? Do you think Obama's supporters are so blind in their loyalties that having the (fairly minor) incompetence of his people thrust in their faces will shake them to their very core?
Again, not an Obama supporter, but the more I hear about the attempts to drum up outrage on Benghazi (including Fox news shouting 'why aren't more people outraged about Benghazi?), the more I think this is a fairly pathetic attempt to turn dead Americans into GOP capital. For god's sake, people actually died here, and it seems clear who's trying to turn this into a game of tetherball. This isn't making Obama look bad, it's making the republicans look like ineffective ghouls. We (not to mention the dead of Benghazi) deserve better than this.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
stfumfkers
()
Date: May 14, 2013 11:38AM
Shut your fuckin cunt faces cock suckin motherfuckers. Keep your Fox News Benghazi brain disease to yourselves you fucking infectious zombie fucks. People have had enough of your bullshit you filthy fucking rabid street dogs. Go bark somewhere else.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Ben Gauzey MD
()
Date: May 14, 2013 11:49AM
stfumfkers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shut your fuckin cunt faces cock suckin
> motherfuckers. Keep your Fox News Benghazi brain
> disease to yourselves you fucking infectious
> zombie fucks. People have had enough of your
> bullshit you filthy fucking rabid street dogs. Go
> bark somewhere else.
'k. LOL
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shut your fuckin cunt faces cock suckin
> motherfuckers. Keep your Fox News Benghazi brain
> disease to yourselves you fucking infectious
> zombie fucks. People have had enough of your
> bullshit you filthy fucking rabid street dogs. Go
> bark somewhere else.
'k. LOL
Attachments:
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
abelard
()
Date: May 14, 2013 12:00PM
Truly you are the Oscar Wilde of our times, stfumfkers, but I won't disagree with the sentiment.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Fucking Faux Neuz
()
Date: May 14, 2013 12:03PM
stfumfkers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shut your fuckin cunt faces cock suckin
> motherfuckers. Keep your Fox News Benghazi brain
> disease to yourselves you fucking infectious
> zombie fucks. People have had enough of your
> bullshit you filthy fucking rabid street dogs. Go
> bark somewhere else.
Yeah, fucking Faux Neuz!
Did political spin hide the truth of Benghazi?
By Gloria Borger, CNN Chief Political Analyst
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/opinion/borger-obama-benghazi-truth/index.html
"But in the center ring is something that still begs an explanation, despite the president's dismissiveness: How -- and why-- did the account of what happened at Benghazi (i.e. the infamous talking points) go through a dozen iterations, beginning with a fairly detailed description of the potential involvement of al Qaeda that morphed over the course of a day into a simple, gauzy, bland (and false) theory?"
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shut your fuckin cunt faces cock suckin
> motherfuckers. Keep your Fox News Benghazi brain
> disease to yourselves you fucking infectious
> zombie fucks. People have had enough of your
> bullshit you filthy fucking rabid street dogs. Go
> bark somewhere else.
Yeah, fucking Faux Neuz!
Did political spin hide the truth of Benghazi?
By Gloria Borger, CNN Chief Political Analyst
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/opinion/borger-obama-benghazi-truth/index.html
"But in the center ring is something that still begs an explanation, despite the president's dismissiveness: How -- and why-- did the account of what happened at Benghazi (i.e. the infamous talking points) go through a dozen iterations, beginning with a fairly detailed description of the potential involvement of al Qaeda that morphed over the course of a day into a simple, gauzy, bland (and false) theory?"
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Vexxxed
()
Date: May 14, 2013 12:07PM
stfumfkers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
People have had enough of ...
What people? Why are you covering for these "people"? Have you had these "people" under surveillance or requested inappropriate information from them?
Glad I'm not one of those "people" as I wouldn't want you speaking for me.
-------------------------------------------------------
People have had enough of ...
What people? Why are you covering for these "people"? Have you had these "people" under surveillance or requested inappropriate information from them?
Glad I'm not one of those "people" as I wouldn't want you speaking for me.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
ex-Lester
()
Date: May 14, 2013 12:13PM
There's nothing to gain for the administration. If they called it a terrorist attack instead of a spontaneous revolt, they would have egg on their faces. They can low key it and go after those who were responsible, Ansar Al-Shari, before they melt into the crowd. They can always label it a terrorist attack later. It's isolated to a specific group, but the potential for another attack somewhere keeps increasing as the U.S. uses terrorist groups as proxies for mercenary groups.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
WingNut
()
Date: May 14, 2013 06:45PM
The only excuse I think the Obummites could possibly get away with is that the Youtube video was blamed publicly so investigators would not tip the jihadis they knew who they were and interfere with the investigation.
Very implausible though.
If they did such an act of subterfuge, they stupidly gave the Youtube video much more attention and riled up much more anger in the Muslim world.
Don't forget that Obama apologized to the UN for the video and Susan Rice spoke with certainty on all of those news shows about the cause being the video.
NOTE TO LIBTARDS: I'm not touching the security issues or the tactics of a military response- all I can speak on is the blatant lack of truth we are seeing from Barryland.
If you still believe, you need to check your fucking selves.
Very implausible though.
If they did such an act of subterfuge, they stupidly gave the Youtube video much more attention and riled up much more anger in the Muslim world.
Don't forget that Obama apologized to the UN for the video and Susan Rice spoke with certainty on all of those news shows about the cause being the video.
NOTE TO LIBTARDS: I'm not touching the security issues or the tactics of a military response- all I can speak on is the blatant lack of truth we are seeing from Barryland.
If you still believe, you need to check your fucking selves.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Liberal Logic 103
()
Date: May 18, 2013 08:25PM
WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only excuse I think the Obummites could
> possibly get away with is that the Youtube video
> was blamed publicly so investigators would not tip
> the jihadis they knew who they were and interfere
> with the investigation.
>
> Very implausible though.
>
> If they did such an act of subterfuge, they
> stupidly gave the Youtube video much more
> attention and riled up much more anger in the
> Muslim world.
>
> Don't forget that Obama apologized to the UN for
> the video and Susan Rice spoke with certainty on
> all of those news shows about the cause being the
> video.
>
> NOTE TO LIBTARDS: I'm not touching the security
> issues or the tactics of a military response- all
> I can speak on is the blatant lack of truth we are
> seeing from Barryland.
>
> If you still believe, you need to check your
> fucking selves.
It's amazing how one person can be so full of shit. You liberals are so fucking delusional it's almost funny. Take off the tinfoil hat, Wingnut. Your Obamaphone is in the mail, asshole.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only excuse I think the Obummites could
> possibly get away with is that the Youtube video
> was blamed publicly so investigators would not tip
> the jihadis they knew who they were and interfere
> with the investigation.
>
> Very implausible though.
>
> If they did such an act of subterfuge, they
> stupidly gave the Youtube video much more
> attention and riled up much more anger in the
> Muslim world.
>
> Don't forget that Obama apologized to the UN for
> the video and Susan Rice spoke with certainty on
> all of those news shows about the cause being the
> video.
>
> NOTE TO LIBTARDS: I'm not touching the security
> issues or the tactics of a military response- all
> I can speak on is the blatant lack of truth we are
> seeing from Barryland.
>
> If you still believe, you need to check your
> fucking selves.
It's amazing how one person can be so full of shit. You liberals are so fucking delusional it's almost funny. Take off the tinfoil hat, Wingnut. Your Obamaphone is in the mail, asshole.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Liberal Logic 100
()
Date: May 18, 2013 08:27PM
Liberal Logic 103 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's amazing how one person can be so full of
> shit. You liberals are so fucking delusional it's
> almost funny. Take off the tinfoil hat, Wingnut.
> Your Obamaphone is in the mail, asshole.
Haha gerry strikes again under my name. Its quite humorous how pathetic this is
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's amazing how one person can be so full of
> shit. You liberals are so fucking delusional it's
> almost funny. Take off the tinfoil hat, Wingnut.
> Your Obamaphone is in the mail, asshole.
Haha gerry strikes again under my name. Its quite humorous how pathetic this is
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Lobos
()
Date: May 18, 2013 10:32PM
Good call
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Ben Hillary
()
Date: August 24, 2016 02:09PM
This worked out well for republicans. Now nobody believe a word they say.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Done Hillary
()
Date: August 24, 2016 02:30PM
Ben Hillary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This worked out well for republicans. Now nobody
> believe a word they say.
Kinda like Hillary huh? 11% think the words "honest" and "trustworthy" can be used to describe her (from a poll last week by NBC). What a peach.
-------------------------------------------------------
> This worked out well for republicans. Now nobody
> believe a word they say.
Kinda like Hillary huh? 11% think the words "honest" and "trustworthy" can be used to describe her (from a poll last week by NBC). What a peach.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Grandpa FFU
()
Date: August 24, 2016 02:36PM
I miss liberallogic10x. He was a hoot.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Old News
()
Date: October 28, 2016 02:27PM
Oh hear with go again with beating a dead horse.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Gerrymanderer2
()
Date: August 24, 2018 09:52AM
You're right. These were questions that needed two years of investigations and answers.
Re: Questions About Benghazi
Posted by:
Gerry the FFXU punching bag
()
Date: August 24, 2018 10:57AM
50800 posts