# Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi



## rightwinger (Dec 28, 2013)

So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 28, 2013)

_. In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.  _


----------



## Sherry (Dec 28, 2013)

Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 28, 2013)

_.  Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens&#8217;s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.
One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama&#8217;s national security adviser.
The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda&#8217;s role to avoid undermining the president&#8217;s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.
_


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 28, 2013)

Sherry said:


> Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.



The NYT interviewed hundreds of Libyans with an understanding of the situation

Who did Republicans talk to?


----------



## Sherry (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.
> ...



Did the NYT interview any of the survivors that the Justice and State Departments blocked access to...I'd be interested in hearing from them.


----------



## Rozman (Dec 28, 2013)

I thought it went without saying....
Obama is always right.
About everything.

But didn't they say it was done by some people pissed off about a video?


----------



## OriginalShroom (Dec 28, 2013)

The New York Times has spoken...

The rest of us need to know only that.



Yeah .... Right.


----------



## deltex1 (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



Did they turn up evidence it was in reaction to a half assed video about Mo??  That was the lie, Gertrude...all the rest is BS.


----------



## TooTall (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



What does it really matter?


----------



## OODA_Loop (Dec 28, 2013)

Standing down first responders and rescue teams was all I needed to know.


----------



## whitehall (Dec 28, 2013)

First of all an "investigation" by the NY Times does not constitute a real investigation. No doubt it took the Times a year to track down friendly witnesses while they ignored evidence that tended to be critical of the Hussein regime. Read the last paragraph. "Ambassador Stevens AND HIS BOSSES IN WASHINGTON ....were mistaken. That's hardly a vindication of Hillary. It's a polite way of saying criminal negligence.


----------



## Sherry (Dec 28, 2013)

The left should just accept that Benghazi will continue to plague Hillary...they're free to ignore and/or cherry pick whatever facts they choose.


----------



## Rozman (Dec 28, 2013)

We can all move on now the NY Times has spoken....


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> _. In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.  _



*Ahmed Abu Khattala*

*Ahmed Abu Khattala heads the Benghazi-based Ansar al-Sharia group*

Read more: Islamist group leader Ahmed Abu Khattala named as mastermind behind U.S. consulate massacre in Benghazi | Mail Online
Ahmed-Abu-Khattala-named-mastermind-U-S-consulate-massacre-Benghazi.html#ixzz2ooJWG17P 
[/COLOR][/B]

*Ansar al-Sharia has also been suspected in the violent attacks in the Mount Chaambi area near the Algerian border, including the killing of eight soldiers last month.

Laradeyh blamed the Salafist movement for liaising with Al-Qaeda's North African affiliate and announced the group as a terrorist group.

Ansar al-Sharia is considered one of the most radical groups that emerged after the secular autocrat Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was toppled in 2011. 

The Ansar leader Saifallah Benahssine, also known as Abu Iyadh, is a former al-Qaeda fighter in Afghanistan sought by police for allegedly inciting an attack on the US embassy in Tunis in September 2012.*

Ansar al-Sharia blamed for Tunisia killings - Africa - Al Jazeera English

See how easy that was nutjob?

He is a Terrorist leader with ties to Al Qaeda.

Dumbfuck.


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Dec 28, 2013)

You can interview all the fucking Libyans you want. I watched the congressional hearings. The number 2 AMERICAN on the ground laid the blame at the administrations feet. The 9/11 anniversary was coming up. Additional security was requested and denied. It would not have bankrupted the treasury to send a platoon of Marines that would have stopped the terrorists in their tracks. Hilary and Obozo are guilty of accessory to murder.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 28, 2013)

_    &#8220;INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS&#8221; PURPORTED TO BE AN ONLINE TRAILER for a film about the mistreatment of Christians in contemporary Egypt. But it included bawdy historical flashbacks that derided the Prophet Muhammad. Someone dubbed it into Arabic around the beginning of September 2012, and a Cairo newspaper embellished the news by reporting that a Florida pastor infamous for burning the Quran was planning to debut the film on the 11th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Then, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy.
No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya. But Islamists in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. &#8220;It is Friday morning viewing,&#8221; popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.
By Sept. 9, a popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film. On the morning of Sept. 11, even some secular political activists were posting calls online for a protest that Friday, three days away.  _


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 28, 2013)

_.  But the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaeda&#8217;s international terrorist network. The only intelligence connecting Al Qaeda to the attack was an intercepted phone call that night from a participant in the first wave of the attack to a friend in another African country who had ties to members of Al Qaeda, according to several officials briefed on the call. But when the friend heard the attacker&#8217;s boasts, he sounded astonished, the officials said, suggesting he had no prior knowledge of the assault.  _


----------



## Sherry (Dec 28, 2013)

RW, did you ever doubt Obama...is this article all it took to restore your confidence??


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> _.  But the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaedas international terrorist network. The only intelligence connecting Al Qaeda to the attack was an intercepted phone call that night from a participant in the first wave of the attack to a friend in another African country who had ties to members of Al Qaeda, according to several officials briefed on the call. But when the friend heard the attackers boasts, he sounded astonished, the officials said, suggesting he had no prior knowledge of the assault.  _



Poor rw, I've poste Al Jazeera that connect them to Al Qaeda.

You lose kid.


----------



## J.E.D (Dec 28, 2013)

Sherry said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



Like the guy who lied about even being there?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 28, 2013)

Antares said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > _.  But the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaedas international terrorist network. The only intelligence connecting Al Qaeda to the attack was an intercepted phone call that night from a participant in the first wave of the attack to a friend in another African country who had ties to members of Al Qaeda, according to several officials briefed on the call. But when the friend heard the attackers boasts, he sounded astonished, the officials said, suggesting he had no prior knowledge of the assault.  _
> ...



I read it

Wasnt relevant but it was a noble attempt


----------



## Sherry (Dec 28, 2013)

J.E.D said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You'd seriously use him in an attempt to taint the real survivors?? Wow.


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



(smile) Not relevant?

It proved your very first point to b an outright lie....making the rest of the article a complete falsehood, sorry.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

Sherry said:


> RW, did you ever doubt Obama...is this article all it took to restore your confidence??



Do you have anything to add other than "blah, blah, blah ... NYT ... blah .. blah .. ."?


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 28, 2013)

Did anybody read the article? Or just start slinging insults about where it was printed.



> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO&#8217;s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
> 
> A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syria&#8217;s civil conflict.
> 
> The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.


----------



## Sherry (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > RW, did you ever doubt Obama...is this article all it took to restore your confidence??
> ...



Are you speaking on behalf of RW??


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

These threads are pointless - no one wants the truth, RW ... they prove it with every moronic post. 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> These threads are pointless - no one wants the truth, RW ... they prove it with every moronic post.
> 
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ



LOL, you can't read can you?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

Antares said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > _.  But the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaedas international terrorist network. The only intelligence connecting Al Qaeda to the attack was an intercepted phone call that night from a participant in the first wave of the attack to a friend in another African country who had ties to members of Al Qaeda, according to several officials briefed on the call. But when the friend heard the attackers boasts, he sounded astonished, the officials said, suggesting he had no prior knowledge of the assault.  _
> ...



Nice work. Did you and your _crack team_ of off-duty deputies ever solve that birth cirtificate mess?


----------



## MACAULAY (Dec 28, 2013)

The New York Times has simply started the process of cleansing Bengazi in preparation for Hillary's Clinton's presidential campaign.

It is the Pravda of the Democratic Party.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

Antares said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > These threads are pointless - no one wants the truth, RW ... they prove it with every moronic post.
> ...



If you have a god damn point, please make it.


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



*Quote: Originally Posted by rightwinger View Post 
. In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation. 
Ahmed Abu Khattala

Ahmed Abu Khattala heads the Benghazi-based Ansar al-Sharia group

Read more: Islamist group leader Ahmed Abu Khattala named as mastermind behind U.S. consulate massacre in Benghazi | Mail Online
Ahmed-Abu-Khattala-named-mastermind-U-S-consulate-massacre-Benghazi.html#ixzz2ooJWG17P 
[/COLOR]*

Ansar al-Sharia has also been suspected in the violent attacks in the Mount Chaambi area near the Algerian border, including the killing of eight soldiers last month.

Laradeyh blamed the Salafist movement for liaising with Al-Qaeda's North African affiliate and announced the group as a terrorist group.

Ansar al-Sharia is considered one of the most radical groups that emerged after the secular autocrat Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was toppled in 2011. 

The Ansar leader Saifallah Benahssine, also known as Abu Iyadh, is a former al-Qaeda fighter in Afghanistan sought by police for allegedly inciting an attack on the US embassy in Tunis in September 2012.

Ansar al-Sharia blamed for Tunisia killings - Africa - Al Jazeera English

See how easy that was nutjob?

He is a Terrorist leader with ties to Al Qaeda.[/B]

His very first point is proven false in no more than 5 minutes with non partisan sources.

The premise of the article is bullshit as is your defense of the moron.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

MACAULAY said:


> The New York Times has simply started the process of cleansing Bengazi in preparation for Hillary's Clinton's presidential campaign.
> 
> It is the Pravda of the Democratic Party.



No, its not like that at all; Benghazi was never anything but a smear campaign. 

It's so full of garbage that no one is really even interested in debunking it anymore.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 28, 2013)

Did they say it was the video?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

Antares said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Sorry man - I don't speak cut and paste. 

Really not even sure what you are trying to relate in that mess of a post you claim as "victory."


----------



## Yurt (Dec 28, 2013)

what an embarrassing thread for rightwinger


----------



## deltex1 (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



Was this report cross checked with the Accountability Review Board...or at this point what difference does it make???


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



You don't really read period, it wouldn't suit or support your silly position.

The central point of his first post was that the guy was a lone wolf with no ties to terror.

I shot that to shit but you in your coveted selective illiteracy refuse to open your eyes.

You like that Bammy Jizz do ya?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

Yurt said:


> what an embarrassing thread for rightwinger



What's embarrassing are the yahoo's that think any thing happened in Benghazi that can be directly traced to Hillary Clinton.

This shit is getting old.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

Antares said:


> You don't really read period, it wouldn't suit or support your silly position.
> 
> The central point of his first post was that the guy was a lone wolf with no ties to terror.
> 
> ...



You posted a bunch of garbage that didn't even make any sense. then you sprinkled it with insults.

Do you want a medal?

My silly position????

Please remove your head from your ass. My position is that -

1 There was no cover up

2 No troops were ever told to "stand down"

3 No one really knows exactly what forces were at play here.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

> Ansar al-Sharia has also been suspected in the violent attacks in the Mount Chaambi area near the Algerian border, including the killing of eight soldiers last month.
> 
> Laradeyh blamed the Salafist movement for liaising with Al-Qaeda's North African affiliate and announced the group as a terrorist group.
> 
> ...




??????


WTF does any of this mean?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 28, 2013)

So we have Obama first laying blame on a video through Mrs Rice, then telling an audience during the Presidential debate hosted by Candy Crowley how it was IN FACT a terrorist attack, before the New York Times set the record straight that it really wasn't. Based on all the intelligence sources available to the president, do we even know what this Commander-in-Chief was actually doing at the time of the attacks, or is this more proof of just how incompetent this man really is?


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 28, 2013)

Sherry said:


> RW, did you ever doubt Obama...is this article all it took to restore your confidence??



Did you ever question your perceptions of the situation?


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 28, 2013)

You can keep your Doctor/Healthcare plan, period!

The NSA did nothing illegal, Obama told us that....

Obama will balance the budget...

Obama will close Guantanamo...

Obama will fix the economy....

Obama will end wars.....



Nope, Obama never lies!


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> So we have Obama first laying blame on a video through Mrs Rice, then telling an audience during the Presidential debate hosted by Candy Crowley how it was IN FACT a terrorist attack, before the New York Times set the record straight that it really wasn't. Based on all the intelligence sources available to the president, do we even know what this Commander-in-Chief was actually doing at the time of the attacks, or is this more proof of just how incompetent this man really is?



What do you mean what Obama was doing during the attacks?

A little more than an hour after the fighting broke out, Obama was being briefed.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> You can keep your Doctor/Healthcare plan, period!
> 
> The NSA did nothing illegal, Obama told us that....
> 
> ...



^^^^ Be sure and avoid the subject completely by bringing up every other paranoid scandal you can think of.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



It is not relevant to the Benghazi attacks

Just another RW attempt at obfuscation


----------



## DoItMyself (Dec 28, 2013)

Obama owns and runs the NYT, everyone knows that, and of course all those Muslims in Libya would agree with him, they like him hes a Muslim, duh.


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 28, 2013)

So the gist of the Times article is it was neither a well planned terrorist attack or a spontaneous protest gone bad or in other words they really don't know anything for sure and are just guessing and speculating. Depending on one's perspective this either vindication for the Obama administration or the Times trying to help repair Hillary's image in case she runs in 2016.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

#2: Despite Being Told It Was A Terrorist Attack, Clinton Blamed The Attack On An Unrelated YouTube Video

    SPIN: In The Benghazi Hoax, Brock Argues That It Made Sense For Officials In Washington To Assume The Attack In Benghazi Was The Result Of A Protest Stemming From The Offensive Video. "News of the Cairo statement began to circulate through the media not long before the first news flashes out of Benghazi, where the shots that information officer Smith had first reported were devolving into a noisy attack as a large, growing fire illuminated the sky. The implication seemed clear at the time: The protests over the YouTube video had deteriorated and spread, the to embassy wall that had been breached in Egypt to an all-out attack in the neighboring Libya." (David Brock and Ari-Rabin Havt, The Benghazi Hoax, 10/21/13)

    FACT: On The Night Of The Attack, Former Deputy Chief Of Mission In Libya Gregory Hicks Told Leaders In Washington That The Consulate Was Under A Terrorist Attack, Saying "I Did Use The Word Attack. That There Were At Least 20 Armed Intruders In The Compound." ABC'S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "Months earlier the State Department had forged an agreement that in the event of an attack on the vulnerable Benghazi Mission, Security personnel would response from a nearby facility called The Annex, run by the CIA. I know that you can't say so, but we know it was a CIA facility, and we know that the CIA facility was getting protection and more security than the diplomatic facility." FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION IN LIBYA GREGORY HICKS: "The numbers are clear about twice as many in terms of trained security providers." STEPHANOPOULOS: "What did you tell Washington?" HICKS: "I called Washington right after I talked to the Annex Chief and I told them that the consulate was under attack. That the..." STEPHANOPOULOS: "You used the word attack?" HICKS: "I did use the word attack. That there were at least 20 armed intruders in the compound and that help was on the way from the Annex." (ABC's "This Week," 9/9/13)

        Hicks Dismissed An Anti-Islamic Film And Related Protest That The Administration Initially Blamed For The Attack As A "Non-Event" Adding "We Had Heard Nothing About Protests." STEPHANOPOULOS: "Had you heard anything earlier in the day about any kind of protest or were you worried at all because of these reports of this video?" HICKS: No it was a non-event, the video, in Libya. And we had heard nothing about protests. The building had been set on fire by the attackers and our Diplomatic Security Agents there were heavily outnumbered." (ABC's "This Week," 9/9/13)
        Hicks Testified That He Spoke Directly With Clinton That Night. HICKS: "During the night, I am in touch with Washington keeping them posted of what's happening in Tripoli and to the best of my knowledge what I am being told in Benghazi. I think at about 2 p.m. the - 2 a.m., sorry, the Secretary of State Clinton called me along with her senior staff were all on the phone, and she asked me what was going on. And, I briefed her on developments." (Gregory Hicks, Hearing, U.S. House of Representatives, Government Oversight And Reform Committee, 5/8/13)

    Yet Days Later, At A Ceremony Bringing Home The Remains Of The Americans Who Were Killed In The Attack And In Accordance With The Obama Administration's Misleading Spin, Clinton Blamed The "Awful Internet Video" For The Attack. CLINTON: "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." (Secretary Hillary Clinton, Remarks At The Transfer of Remains Ceremony to Honor Those Lost In Attacks In Benghazi, Libya Andrews Air Force Base, MD, 9/14/12)

REALITY: It Was Reasonable To Believe The Terrorist Attack Came In Response To The Video

The Benghazi Smear Machine Fights Back | Research | Media Matters for America


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 28, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Did anybody read the article? Or just start slinging insults about where it was printed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That would be the latter.


----------



## Sherry (Dec 28, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > RW, did you ever doubt Obama...is this article all it took to restore your confidence??
> ...



Yeah, but I'm asking RW about his perceptions...I'm open to him surprising me.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

DoItMyself said:


> Obama owns and runs the NYT, everyone knows that, and of course all those Muslims in Libya would agree with him, they like him hes a Muslim, duh.



Get out of here and take your fail post with you.

He was a Muslim, eh? 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

Sherry said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



So you aren't really here to discuss the OP?

Awesome - maybe you could post a few holiday cooking tips?


----------



## Sherry (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Awww your panties sure are in a bunch.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> It is not relevant to the Benghazi attacks
> 
> Just another RW attempt at obfuscation



Right, but what about his insults? They WERE pretty darn clever!!!


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

Sherry said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



Not at all ... I actually TOOK my Midol. Do YOU need a couple?


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 28, 2013)

Harsh.



> *9:42P.M.
> *
> Attackers storm through the main gate and set barracks and cars on fire. Mr. Stevens, Mr. Smith and a security officer in the main villa lock themselves in a safe room. Attackers set the main villas living room on fire. They bang at the safe rooms door, but do not enter.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sherry (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



Maybe you need a couple more.


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 28, 2013)

DoItMyself said:


> Obama owns and runs the NYT, everyone knows that, and of course all those Muslims in Libya would agree with him, they like him hes a Muslim, duh.





> The New York Times Company is an American media company which publishes its namesake, The New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., has served as Chairman of the Board since 1997.



Hmm. I don't think so, home skillet.


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 28, 2013)

Sherry said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



Okay. Well,  on another note then; have you read the article? Because I am finding it fascinating, mostly because I never followed the Benghazi story. I just knew the administration was saying something, the Republicans were saying something else, and the truth was likely somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> > Ansar al-Sharia has also been suspected in the violent attacks in the Mount Chaambi area near the Algerian border, including the killing of eight soldiers last month.
> >
> > Laradeyh blamed the Salafist movement for liaising with Al-Qaeda's North African affiliate and announced the group as a terrorist group.
> >
> ...



It seems to be beyond your ability focus , its ok kid.


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



 [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]

Is it relevant to your article?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

Antares said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > > Ansar al-Sharia has also been suspected in the violent attacks in the Mount Chaambi area near the Algerian border, including the killing of eight soldiers last month.
> ...



WRONG! It means that you posted a bunch of unrelated crap that was both confusing to read AND laughably irrelevant.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 28, 2013)

Sherry said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



OK

My perceptions are that the conservative witch hunt against the Benghazi attacks have been ilfounded and politically motivated

The NYT investigation affirms that

Surprised?  I'm not


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 28, 2013)

so how many MILLIONS of American tax-payer dollars $$$ did Firebug (Issa (R) ) waste for that witch hunt?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 28, 2013)

Antares said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



Did you bother to read what you posted or just cut and paste the first thing Google came up with?


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



rw if the very first point you tried to make with the article is wrong why would you believe any of it?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

Antares said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



Having a bit of trouble letting this go, eh?


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> _. In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.  _



*Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. *

rw...dude, these are you first two posts...I've shown you that they are categorically false using non partisan sources.....why would ANY of the rest of the article e believable?

It wouldn't unless you NEEDED it to be believable.


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




I know kid....the old synapses don't quite fire correctly when you are high....it's ok....


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > You can keep your Doctor/Healthcare plan, period!
> ...



The issue is when someone as partisan as RW claims "Obama was correct" I like most Americans today simply don't believe much of anything Obama says... due to his track record as being the most secretive and dishonest admin in US history. What really sucks is the claim I just made is accurate, not saying there are other Presidents not close to Obama 's league of bullshit... but that Obama in fact has been the most opposite of what he claimed President that anyone could possible name.

So no, I honestly don't give a fuck about the opinion of the NYT.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 28, 2013)

Antares said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > _. In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.  _
> ...



Actually you haven't

But like most conservatives, you think repeated claims will make it so


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I'm on page four of the report. It has been a long time since I have read anything I would call "award-winning journalism" - I sincerely wish more such articles were written.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



OK, so why not SHOW US why they are wrong? Why dismiss them out of hand without even making an attempt to discredit the article by proving it to be a lie?


----------



## Sherry (Dec 28, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I skimmed over Chapter 1...rolled my eyes that they're still pushing the video angle. I'm not surprised that they want to soften it up by stating that they found no evidence that any terrorists groups were involved, but I don't see their "investigation" having any significant impact.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 28, 2013)

Looks like the "report" is actually a six chapter excerpt from a book and not a report at all.


----------



## Sherry (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



The NYT investigation affirms that they're politically motivated.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

Antares said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Correct; I'm high as a kite. Good call.


----------



## TooTall (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



Obama sent his spokepersons out to say it was because of a video, so he did NOTget it right.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Looks like the "report" is actually a six chapter excerpt from a book and not a report at all.



So, no one actually want's to address the facts, only the source?

Guess we will never find out the truth then?


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 28, 2013)

I have now read the entire article. I would like to discuss it with people who have also done so.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

TooTall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



The video had NOTHING to do with it? Was the video that relevant at all? Obama is on record as saying this was an act of terror. What am I missing here?


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Actually I have , but you know full well the rest of it is shit because of it so you simply cry "nuh-uh".


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like the "report" is actually a six chapter excerpt from a book and not a report at all.
> ...



A report is supposed to be just facts, good, bad indifferent.   A book has a slant, it tells a narrative that the author wants to promote.  Peter King says it's a pack of hogwash with very little facts.   It's a book.  It's written like every other book.


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



Because I don't care... Just like RW and many others don't care about the small list I gave all being true. Obama is 98% of everything these people claim to hate about politicians, yet they mindlessly support Obama. 

Obama kills children with drones, But I should give a fuck about him possibly being right about Benghazi?

Obama expands the patriot, NSA spying on us and allies, erodes the economy, has less people working than 1-5 years ago... But I should really suck it up and give a fuck that Obama MIGHT be right about something meaningless according to the NYT.... 


Even if Obama is right I just don't care... why? Because when Obama is wrong (the vast majority of the time) people like the OP fight day and night with no intention of ever admitting Obama could possibly be wrong. Again, if Obama were a Republican people like RW would NEVER start a thread like this, he would hate Obama more than any president before him seeing as near all his policies are nothing more than an extension or expansion of the Bush era policies.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times



From the link:


> The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATOs extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress,* it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.*


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 28, 2013)

What is "obvious" is that there was no reasonable attempt at meaningful security and no attempt to help when there was an attack. Negligent manslaughter by the politicians and should be treated as such.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 28, 2013)

Sherry said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



After ten Congressional investigations by Issa that found nothing.......Conservatives attack the New York Times for finding the same

I'm not surprised


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 28, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



Always care about truth - it will do wonders for your credibility as a poster and as a human ~


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 28, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> What is "obvious" is that there was no reasonable attempt at meaningful security and no attempt to help when there was an attack. Negligent manslaughter by the politicians and should be treated as such.



You didn't read the article, did you.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 28, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> What is "obvious" is that there was no reasonable attempt at meaningful security and no attempt to help when there was an attack. Negligent manslaughter by the politicians and should be treated as such.



You didn't read it either did you?


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Poor Issa. What's he up to these days?



> The sun has risen in the East, so there must be a news report somewhere quoting a partial transcript leaked by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) purporting to show the shortcomings of Obamacare.
> 
> Bingo! We have not one but two "investigative" news reports, from CBS and ABC, based on the same partial transcript. And both, consequently, have the same level of credibility: none. CBS News even offers a dividend -- a thoroughly dishonest and discreditable interview with Issa himself. We'll get to that in a moment.
> 
> The topic of the latest leak is the purported security flaws in healthcare.gov, the federal health enrollment website. The raw meat is a partial transcript of an interview conducted by the staff of Issa's House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with Teresa Fryer, chief information security officer at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is handling the healthcare.gov rollout.




Another day, another leak from Issa, another credulous news report - latimes.com


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > What is "obvious" is that there was no reasonable attempt at meaningful security and no attempt to help when there was an attack. Negligent manslaughter by the politicians and should be treated as such.
> ...





Sir? If we're going to say the same thing at the same time, one of us is NOT necessary.

And I'm cuter.


----------



## Billy000 (Dec 28, 2013)

Antares said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > _. In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.  _
> ...



Um no he has FORMER ties to Al Qaeda.


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



LOL um....ok.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > What is "obvious" is that there was no reasonable attempt at meaningful security and no attempt to help when there was an attack. Negligent manslaughter by the politicians and should be treated as such.
> ...



No. I happened to pay attention to what we know happened. The NYT is probably more slanted than Pravda.


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 28, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



Yeah. I refuse to discuss this with you while you are in a place of willful ignorance. You wanna talk slant? Yeah - you refusing to admit there is any reality but the one you've provided:  That's slant.


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



I do care about truth, and the truth is Obama is a horrible human being even if he is right about Benghazi... It's like making an issue about people not liking Hitler because he could have been right about Benghazi... Obama is a bad man, I don't care if his useless opinion is  correct about something as truly meaningless as Benghazi. RW cares, because there is very little to make Obama look "right" outside of the NYT's opinion piece based on Obama's opinion. 

It's like a clone of a clone, it's just less important than the real issues out there.


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 28, 2013)

Lets put it like this, real information could come out that Obama's opinion was indeed wrong, and RW would disappear into the night.... He's not here to get to the bottom of anything, he's here to attack republicans and blow Obama in the process.


----------



## Billy000 (Dec 28, 2013)

Antares said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Meaning he didn't represent the terrorist group any longer therefore he wouldn't have come on the radar. It doesn't get simpler than that.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 28, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> Lets put it like this, real information could come out that Obama's opinion was indeed wrong, and RW would disappear into the night.... He's not here to get to the bottom of anything, he's here to attack republicans and blow Obama in the process.



I care only about truth, justice and the American way


----------



## KGB (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



not so much a lie as a misrepresentation of what Al Qaeda is.  We have gone after the leadership & practically decapitated the top, yet these affiliates still run loose.  In other words, there are no party cards, no pledges to bin Laden, etc., that are required.  These subsidiaries probably received training & funding from the parent organization, but operate rather independently.  In certain respects, they operate like the mafia.  Families break off & form their own syndicates.  The NYT is looking for direct links, but probably won't find them.  Incidentally, Ansar al-Sharia is headed up by a former Al-Qaeda fighter (Saifallah Benahssine), so I find it very hard to believe there aren't back room channels.  I find it rather specious of them to deny the possibility especially given the body of evidence we have regarding how Al-Qaeda operates.  Even if they didn't receive direct orders, the action still furthers international terrorist goals, so it falls in line.  All of these groups share a pretty similar ideology and view of the world (to establish the Caliphate).  If the NYT wishes to engage in pedantic legal exercises, they are free to do so, but I do not accept their conclusions with that kind of methodology....

The Decline of Al-Qaeda Central; The Rise of Al-Qaeda Affiliates; The Arab Spring; and Implications for US Security - Security Center


----------



## chesswarsnow (Dec 28, 2013)

Sorry bout that,


1. NYT's ? lol!!!!!
2. That bitch has a serious case of *affluenza*!
3. Her words, *What difference does it make now anyhow?*
4. *They are dead and buried and she is saying grass has grown over their graves by now so why blame me byatches!*

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## KGB (Dec 28, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



what exactly does that mean?  Did he publicly denounce bin Laden, throw down his AK-47 & proclaim his love for the West?.....don't be naive.  As long as he shares Al-Qaeda's goals, he isn't really a former associate....


----------



## Billy000 (Dec 28, 2013)

KGB said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



But if he wasn't actually Al Qeuda, what Obama said was genuine.


----------



## MACAULAY (Dec 28, 2013)

It seems clear enough to me.

The New York Times is a shill for the Democratic Party. (Everybody knows this, even the Democrats, who only deny it because they don't want to admit its their shill.)

The Democratic Party sees Bengazi as a problem for Hillary Clinton, so there must be a beclouding of the facts, starting early....and soon this article will be cited by sycophants as God's Truth of the fact that the bogus video started everything. 

One of the threats to this great country is the belief that what happens in places like Russia, China, Banana Republics, Looney-bin Muslims Satraps, etc....cannot happen here.....but the New York Times is evidence that it can.


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



Priceless.

The ORIGINAL two posts by rw are shattered and yet in the Left's utter desperation to defend their Liar in Chief they  are willing to suspend the fact that the primary suspect INDEED led a terrorist group and INDEED had ties to a MAJOR terror group both documented, and then go on to defend the rest of the article as gospel.

You just cannot make this shit up.


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



This is the second of rw's assertions......

* In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation*

Patently untrue as I have shown.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > So we have Obama first laying blame on a video through Mrs Rice, then telling an audience during the Presidential debate hosted by Candy Crowley how it was IN FACT a terrorist attack, before the New York Times set the record straight that it really wasn't. Based on all the intelligence sources available to the president, do we even know what this Commander-in-Chief was actually doing at the time of the attacks, or is this more proof of just how incompetent this man really is?
> ...



Based on the insistence of this President to have his administration remain consistent in its information to the public, I'm sure his complete attention was on the "briefing" of those events as they unfolded and not the Presidential fundraiser in Las Vegas. Of course we know how much more important it was to remain available to the latest intelligence gathered on the attack when it occurs, as it concerns those lives at the American embassy, over the need to keep a scheduled fundraiser event.


----------



## Billy000 (Dec 28, 2013)

Antares said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



No one is denying he USED TO have ties, but he doesn't anymore. He does not fly that official banner therefore calling the attack an Al Queda attack is completely untrue. Obama never said there weren't still terrorists in general in the area.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 28, 2013)

Antares said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > KGB said:
> ...



Double down on fail for your part

But self proclaimed victories can be so shallow


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 28, 2013)

So say the 25 per cent who only believe Rush, Beck, ISSA, AND THE BS PUB PROPAGANDA MACHINE, THE REDNECK/FUNDIE/BRAINWASHED chumps of the greedy rich...truth is now liberal...

Yes, the muslim Rush of Cairo DID call for protests against American embassies because of that video, and Libya followed others. There are so many militias with RPGs and mortars, ''terrorists'' as a term becomes absurd there...


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 28, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Right. Ignorance of what? The NYT *opinion*? What matters is the facts; not opinion.
It is fact that our government failed to provide reasonable security for our embassy, ignored requests for additional, and failed to provide any help when they were attacked. 

Who attacked us and why is relatively unimportant compared to the central facts.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Was Obama politically motivated when he changed his story from the video to calling it a terrorist attack at the debates, a version backed through the support of CNN moderator Candy Crowley?


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



S'ok kid 

Swallow that bammy jizz


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Dec 28, 2013)

The bottom line is that the state department admitted they turned down requests for extra security. For Christ's sake the anniversary for 9/11 was coming up. They knew trouble was brewing. Common sense would tell you to beef up security. Even a squad of Marines would have been sufficient to have stopped that attack. The fucking buck stops at the top. 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._J6jQyD2ngmjd8ZEg&sig2=JVIzG4QEhbvqz67ycoLi6A


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



Who after the fact admitted Romney was right.

*Candy Crowley regarding the actual Obama quote  and she NOW says (after correcting Mitt Romney during the actual debate) that Romney was actually RIGHT  Barack Obama did NOT specifically call the Benghazi Massacre a terrorist attack during his words in the Rose Garden the day after as Obama tried to spin it during the debate tonight.  And then for WEEKS after Obama refused to acknowledge Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were slain at the hands of Islamic terrorists*

Debate Moderator Crowley Admits Romney Right On Obama?s False Reference To Benghazi Terrorism - The Ulsterman Report


----------



## KGB (Dec 28, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



there is no such thing as retired Al Qaeda members....once Al Qaeda, always Al Qaeda....


----------



## KGB (Dec 28, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



you seriously can not be this naive....


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 28, 2013)

KGB said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > KGB said:
> ...



That's the Marines, moron.


----------



## KGB (Dec 28, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



oh I'm sorry, did you have something intelligent to add to the discussion....clearly not....you can piss off now....


----------



## Clementine (Dec 28, 2013)

NYT Investigation?    What a giant pile of shit.

Why didn't the media seek out the people who were there instead of looking the other way when the survivors were carted off to places unknown and forced to sign agreements to keep quiet?     The media still doesn't give a damn what they and others have to say about the attacks.    Instead the leftist rag opts to take the word of Libyans.   Typical, yet sad.


----------



## Desperado (Dec 28, 2013)

So it really was the YouTube movie "Mohammed Innocence of Muslims" that cause the embassy attack just as Obama said.  Who would have guessed. Thank you New York Times for clearing that up for us.


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 28, 2013)

KGB said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > KGB said:
> ...



Well, if THAT'S the criteria, what the hell are you doing here?!


----------



## GWV5903 (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



Benghazi was a disaster for Obama, end of story...

Doesn't matter how you spin it...

But you keep focusing on that and if we end up with Hillary as POTUS the end is near...


----------



## Kosh (Dec 28, 2013)

The far left NYtimes and Obama news outlet defends Obama, no surprise there.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 28, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



Leave to the far left to equate the US military as extremists Muslim terrorists.


----------



## Clementine (Dec 28, 2013)

Desperado said:


> So it really was the YouTube movie "Mohammed Innocence of Muslims" that cause the embassy attack just as Obama said.  Who would have guessed. Thank you New York Times for clearing that up for us.



Yup, the NYT would love it if people actually believed that.

No film caused any violence.   Funny that the film exposed the violent nature of the radical Muslims and their actions proved it correct.  

There is no excuse for what they did to the ambassador and his people.    It is 100% caused by the killers.   

I still don't know why the filmmaker was condemned by the administration.   I know Obama went to the enemy and lamented about the freedom of speech thing.   It still pisses me off how they bashed the filmmaker over and over and were so careful not to offend the murderous assholes who killed and raped the ambassador.   I don't care what the reasons are, they aren't sufficient and the act was inexcusable.   

I will not trust Obama until he blames the right people instead of pretending that some guy and some obscure video got them killed.    

It was not spontaneous.   They had a huge crowd gathered to watch as they paraded the dead body of Stevens.    They had flags to burn.   They had a lot of weapons.   Those cost money.   This appeared to be well orchestrated and funded.    

I would never expect the NYT to get to the bottom of this mess.   They continue to carry the water for the Obama regime and they can only reach out to the woefully ignorant.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 28, 2013)

Desperado said:


> So it really was the YouTube movie "Mohammed Innocence of Muslims" that cause the embassy attack just as Obama said.  Who would have guessed. Thank you New York Times for clearing that up for us.



Everyone in the WORLD knew that, beside the brainwashed chumps of the GOP DUH...YOUR ''news'' is a joke...including the ''MSM''- CBS, NBC, ABC cowards...


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > So it really was the YouTube movie "Mohammed Innocence of Muslims" that cause the embassy attack just as Obama said.  Who would have guessed. Thank you New York Times for clearing that up for us.
> ...



I am starting to believe you and Jake are twins.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 28, 2013)

Only the dupes don't know...dingbat.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 28, 2013)

Go back to Fox, Rush, Beck, Issa etc etc, you'll be fine...


----------



## Jroc (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



So it was the video? So security wasn't inadequate after all? you're a joke


----------



## KGB (Dec 28, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Discussing the item in question in an intelligent manner.  A fact that escapes your grasp.  Run along now child....


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 28, 2013)

Clementine said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > So it really was the YouTube movie "Mohammed Innocence of Muslims" that cause the embassy attack just as Obama said.  Who would have guessed. Thank you New York Times for clearing that up for us.
> ...



When the attack follows the death of Osama Bin Laden, as well as the boasting of how Al Qaeda is on the run and *decimated*, I'm sure there are still efforts by some (like the New York Times) to try and help this administration save face.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> MACAULAY said:
> 
> 
> > The New York Times has simply started the process of cleansing Bengazi in preparation for Hillary's Clinton's presidential campaign.
> ...



And even though he posts something to the contrary that supports his point of view, we are expected to take your analysis (minus anything to support it) and believe that ?

Please.  Don't piss at others about making a point and then turn around and look so stupid.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 28, 2013)

135- Probably. Bengazi was a dumb move for an ambassador. And no...


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 28, 2013)

KGB said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > KGB said:
> ...



You first, infant.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 28, 2013)

Jroc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



Probably. Bengazi was a dumb move for an ambassador. And no...


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

KGB said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > KGB said:
> ...



You'll never get that from the likes of Poop.  She never puts forth anything in the way of argument.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 28, 2013)

TooTall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



It matters only to the partisan right, desperate to get rid of Obama.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 28, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Obviously those comments went right over the head of the far left Obama drones.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> _.  Fifteen months after Mr. Stevenss death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.
> One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obamas national security adviser.
> The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaedas role to avoid undermining the presidents claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
> The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.
> _



So did Susan Rice quit talking out her fat ass about videos ?


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 28, 2013)

Alright let me see if I have this straight in the Presidential debate hosted by Candy Crowley President Obama stated that in his September 12th speech in the Rose garden the day after the attack he said he called Benghazi a terrorist attack yet the following Sunday Susan Rice went on all the morning talk shows and said it was the result of outrage over video. Now the New York Times is basically saying it was neither so we have the President claiming it was one thing Rice another and the Times saying it's none of the above that about it?


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> > Ansar al-Sharia has also been suspected in the violent attacks in the Mount Chaambi area near the Algerian border, including the killing of eight soldiers last month.
> >
> > Laradeyh blamed the Salafist movement for liaising with Al-Qaeda's North African affiliate and announced the group as a terrorist group.
> >
> ...



You are really starting to scare me.  Do you live alone ?  If so, how ????


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 28, 2013)

Never underestimate the ability of a conservative to remain willfully ignorant.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Never underestimate the ability of a conservative to remain willfully ignorant.



Unfortunately, you've become pretty sloppy as of late.

Did you want to ascribe that to a particular post or was this to be a general "drool" on your part ?


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 28, 2013)

It was an eccentric militia, probably reacting to earlier embassy protests in the ME, that were obeying calls from the ME's favorite fundy TV personality, to attack US EMBASSIES.

 BY DEFINITION IT WAS A TERROR ATTACK, AS OBAMA SAID THE NEXT DAY. SORRY YOUR IGNORANT BRAINS ARE FULL of RW bs- that's why Fox/Rush/Beck etc etc zombies get more ignorant the more they listen. DUMBASS hater dupes...


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> It was an eccentric militia, probably reacting to earlier embassy protests in the ME, that were obeying calls from the ME's favorite fundy TV personality, to attack US EMBASSIES.
> 
> BY DEFINITION IT WAS A TERROR ATTACK, AS OBAMA SAID THE NEXT DAY. SORRY YOUR IGNORANT BRAINS ARE FULL of RW bs- that's why Fox/Rush/Beck etc etc zombies get more ignorant the more they listen. DUMBASS hater dupes...



So our Affirmative Action Failure Susan Rice was flapping her buttcheeks when she said it was all due to videos...five times the following Sunday.


----------



## KNB (Dec 28, 2013)

The Iraq war was a terrorist attack.  Remember the false pretenses that led to the invasion?  The Bush administration lied to the UN and the American people to invade a country that was not involved with 9/11.  There weren't any WMD to pose an "imminent threat".

Keep it in perspective, Republicans.  Your war was illegal from the start and has cost the American people trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, and cost the Iraqi people so much more.

Remember that, Republicans.  Remember your lies that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 28, 2013)

Listening said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > It was an eccentric militia, *probably reacting to earlier embassy protests in the ME, that were obeying calls from the ME's favorite fundy TV personality, to attack US EMBASSIES.*
> ...


 Can you READ...


----------



## OKTexas (Dec 28, 2013)

blackhawk said:


> so the gist of the times article is it was neither a well planned terrorist attack or a spontaneous protest gone bad or in other words they really don't know anything for sure and are just guessing and speculating. Depending on one's perspective this either vindication for the obama administration or the times trying to help repair hillary's image in case she runs in 2016.



bingo!!!


----------



## rdean (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.
> ...



Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz.


----------



## OKTexas (Dec 28, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> DoItMyself said:
> 
> 
> > Obama owns and runs the NYT, everyone knows that, and of course all those Muslims in Libya would agree with him, they like him hes a Muslim, duh.
> ...



He's on your side idiot, is your sarcasm detector broke?


----------



## rdean (Dec 28, 2013)

KNB said:


> The Iraq war was a terrorist attack.  Remember the false pretenses that led to the invasion?  The Bush administration lied to the UN and the American people to invade a country that was not involved with 9/11.  There weren't any WMD to pose an "imminent threat".
> 
> Keep it in perspective, Republicans.  Your war was illegal from the start and has cost the American people trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, and cost the Iraqi people so much more.
> 
> Remember that, Republicans.  Remember your lies that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.



Republicans have cover for that.  It's the Democrats fault for going along with that debacle.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 28, 2013)

oops- The ME'S favorite fundie TV personality was reacting to the VIDEO- calling for attacks...


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 28, 2013)

Same thing I've been saying all along. A CRAZY LIBYAN MILITIA REACTING TO ALL THE OTHER ATTACKS/PROTESTS EARLIER THAT DAY, IN RESPONSE TO THE ME'S FAVORITE FUNDIE TV PERSONALITY YELLING ABOUT THAT STUPID RW VIDEO....


----------



## rdean (Dec 28, 2013)

To Republicans, every Muslim is a member of al Qaeda, except the America hating Saudi Prince that along with Rupert Murdoch, owns Fox News.
Remember when John McCain was saying that Iran and al Qaeda were working together and he had to be corrected on camera? After the Iraq fiasco, the Arab world hates this country. Every GOP policy for the last 20 years has been a terrible disaster for this country. From Trickle Down to Tax Cuts for the rich, to let him die, to you are with us or with the terrorists. They offer nothing but division and dumb. But if America keeps voting these people into office, we deserve what they give us.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



The New York Times outright contradicting Obama is proof he was right, gotta love it.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 28, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Never underestimate the ability of a conservative to remain willfully ignorant.



Never underestimate the ability of C_Clayton_Jones to make a completely pointless comment.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Same thing I've been saying all along. A CRAZY LIBYAN MILITIA REACTING TO ALL THE OTHER ATTACKS/PROTESTS EARLIER THAT DAY, IN RESPONSE TO THE ME'S FAVORITE FUNDIE TV PERSONALITY YELLING ABOUT THAT STUPID RW VIDEO....



Bullcrap...already shown he was linked to terrorists.

Move to Cuba.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 28, 2013)

Sherry said:


> The left should just accept that Benghazi will continue to plague Hillary...they're free to ignore and/or cherry pick whatever facts they choose.



and it wont because the general public dont give a shit.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 28, 2013)

Sherry said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



didnt stop the right


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 28, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Never underestimate the ability of a conservative to remain willfully ignorant.
> ...



ACTUALLY, the WHOLE point of the last 20 years...just stay on the Pub propaganda machine, and blindered...


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 28, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Lets put it like this, real information could come out that Obama's opinion was indeed wrong, and RW would disappear into the night.... He's not here to get to the bottom of anything, he's here to attack republicans and blow Obama in the process.
> ...



lol, ok ok... Le's do a test.

RW, who ended the Iraq war? Bush by stetting the timetable that the war actually ended on or Obama who set many timetables and missed them every single time until the war ended on Bush's timetable.

Go ahead, answer the question RW.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 28, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...


link to missed timetable


----------



## KNB (Dec 28, 2013)

Is someone actually arguing that Bush stopped the Iraq war?  Let's conduct a poll:  who started the Iraq war?  Who lied about WMD to the UN and every single American voter in order to justify the invasion of Iraq?

Does Bush really get credit for ending an illegal war that he lied to start?


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 28, 2013)

Bush never did a thing he said he would...a catastrophe...


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 28, 2013)

KNB said:


> Is someone actually arguing that Bush stopped the Iraq war?  Let's conduct a poll:  who started the Iraq war?  Who lied about WMD to the UN and every single American voter in order to justify the invasion of Iraq?
> 
> Does Bush really get credit for ending an illegal war that he lied to start?



yes because it was ended on his timetable he set up before he left.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 28, 2013)

ANOTHER Pub dupe canard, for dupes only...


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 28, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VlXfs1K04g]Obama's PROMISE To End The Iraq War - Oct. 27, 2007 - "You Can Take That To The Bank" - YouTube[/ame]

I wonder, are you like RW, in search of the truth? Because I feel like you might argue that Obama's claim of ending the Iraq war as "the FIRST thing he will do" if elected President is not equal to a timetable.... Maybe you believe it was in the top 10 things he did first? Either war I'm pretty sure that makes him a liar, me right and RW supporting a liar "just because."


----------



## rdean (Dec 28, 2013)

I hope Republicans do use Benghazi against Mrs. Clinton if she runs.  Can you imagine their reaction when she says, "I told you what could happen if you cut embassy security budgets.  At least you listened to my advice when you increased it by 2 billion.  But if it wasn't needed before Benghazi and you cut it, why did you increase it after Benghazi?  Did you finally admit I was right?"


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 28, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



i cant watch this right now. Watching the Pacific ATM. does he state a date where he will end it?


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 28, 2013)

KNB said:


> Is someone actually arguing that Bush stopped the Iraq war?  Let's conduct a poll:  who started the Iraq war?  Who lied about WMD to the UN and every single American voter in order to justify the invasion of Iraq?
> 
> Does Bush really get credit for ending an illegal war that he lied to start?



YES YOU DUMB IGNORANT FUCK, Bush ended the fucking war, it's pretty hard to not find that answer with BASIC levels of investigation. 

But hey, you're point is to make me out to be a Bush fluffer because well if you don't do that you ain't got nothin. 

Me = right

You = guy trying to call me a Bush bot

Me = never voted GOP

You = prolly guy that voted for one of America's biggest war Presidents, Obama... and you're butt hurt over it.


----------



## Jroc (Dec 29, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Obama has never taken responsibility for anything. He left those Americans to die. If not for the heroic efforts of Doherty and Woods more Americans would be dead. Obama went to sleep, and couldn't give shit less about those people. All you stupid, Obama lovers care about is defending that piece of shit.... You're an embarrassment and so is your boy Obama


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 29, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


Yes, He said it will be the first thing he does... I assume that means the day he takes office. Somehow I doubt that's good enough for you, because lets face it, when Obama said "first thing I will do" you thought, If it takes him 2 + years that's prolly the same thing as "first thing I will do."

Let me put another way, in a responsible applicable way. Lets say you run a business, and you tell your employee to sweep a floor and they say "The first thing I will do tomorrow is sweet that floor." Then years later, they sweet that floor. Would you be correct in mentioning that when they said "Tomorrow" the date that "tomorrow" fell on would count as a "timetable"? 

Lets see if you have the ability to hold Obama accountable for a lie, just so we know where you stand on the issue of Benghazi. Basically, would you defend Obama no matter what the NYT said, or are you actually looking for truth.



Seem's pretty basic to me. 

Obama takes office January 20, 2009

Obama's first action as "President 9 Signed a proclamation declaring 20 January 2009 a national day of renewal and reconciliation." Obama - the first 100 hours | World news | The Guardian

War ends 12/15/11

Obama's "first thing I'll do" was over 2 years late.... Hmm...


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 29, 2013)

well besides it taking time to wind things down, i really dont blame him. I dont blame Bush for not either. they both ended it as far as i see it and i dont need to make partisan quips about it.


----------



## Jroc (Dec 29, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



Obama's a piece of shit. He doesn't care about people he only cares about himself...Agree or disagree with Bush, at least he has a heart. Obama? narcissist ,scum.


----------



## Jroc (Dec 29, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



That was Bush's timeline anyway Obama didn't do shit but screw up and fail in his own negotiations as a result there was no final agreement with the Iraqi government



> The U.S.&#8211;Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") *was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011*.[1] The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat.[1] U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty
> 
> *The agreement expired at midnight on December 31, 2011, even though the United States completed its final withdrawal of troops from Iraq on December 16, 2011. The symbolic ceremony in Baghdad officially "cased" (retired) the flag of U.S. forces in Iraq, according to army tradition*


U.S.?Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 29, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> well besides it taking time to wind things down, i really dont blame him. I dont blame Bush for not either. they both ended it as far as i see it and i dont need to make partisan quips about it.



What did I tell you. You people don't care if he lies to your face at all, you care about this opinion piece for one reason, it's all you "kinda" got going for you. 

Obama can bomb children, it's cool because the NYT opinion about Obama's opinion is *positive*! 

And that's all I'm getting at with this, you guys don't really care, you just need something to attack "the other side" with. I base this on the fact that you hold Obama accountable for nothing... well I take that back, some of you numb nuts blame him for "working with Republicans" lolz.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 29, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > well besides it taking time to wind things down, i really dont blame him. I dont blame Bush for not either. they both ended it as far as i see it and i dont need to make partisan quips about it.
> ...


no all im saying is im not going to be partisan on this issue. I understand things take time. If you cant respect that then you have issues


----------



## auditor0007 (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



What bothers me most about the entire Benghazi attack is that certain Americans felt a need to try to make it a political issue by blaming Americans rather than the people who actually attacked us.  We have gotten to a point that it is politics at all cost.  We have to be certain to make the other side look bad because we have been convinced by a few idiots on the fringes that it is in our best interest to hate everyone who does not think exactly as we do.  The few have led us down this path and they are helping tear us apart at the seams.


----------



## Jroc (Dec 29, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



No we blame because Obama lied and made into what it is. Everything is politics with this guy. the problem is people like you who don't see it, and don't want to see it. It's all about defending Obama at all cost, defend Obama it's pathetic. Never in history has a president been sheltered like this guy


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 29, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



Fine, I respect it, but in the future remember we had this conversation. Don't be a RW/Rtard/FranhasHPV/CHris/TM.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 29, 2013)

Listening said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Unlike you and your Nobel prize winning posts.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 29, 2013)

Listening said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > > Ansar al-Sharia has also been suspected in the violent attacks in the Mount Chaambi area near the Algerian border, including the killing of eight soldiers last month.
> ...



Talk about the subject much? 

Like I said that garbage was unrelated to the OP and didn't make any sense. 


Maybe instead of crying about my response, you could have tried to explain it, but of course you aren't really here for the discussion ... .


----------



## theHawk (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



"Obama was right"....so it was a You Tube video!

Thanks NYT!


Gawd, you liberals are so delusional.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 29, 2013)

theHawk said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



What's REALLY delusional is the fact that republicans ... in complete absence of any reliable information about this matter ... steadfastly refuse to let it go.

Meanwhile, the age-old dream of reducing spending, small government, and an armed populous, ready to protect itself continues to take a beating come election time. Why? Because crap issues like this are always front and center and aside from the wing-nutz NO ONE really cares.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



I read the article on-line yesterday while at Cheesecake Factory.  I recall stating at the time of the attack that it didn't sound like a simple 3rd party video could engender such a response but it looks like it did.  The article was incredibly thorough.


----------



## TooTall (Dec 29, 2013)

KNB said:


> The Iraq war was a terrorist attack.  Remember the false pretenses that led to the invasion?  The Bush administration lied to the UN and the American people to invade a country that was not involved with 9/11.  There weren't any WMD to pose an "imminent threat".
> 
> Keep it in perspective, Republicans.  Your war was illegal from the start and has cost the American people trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, and cost the Iraqi people so much more.
> 
> Remember that, Republicans.  Remember your lies that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.



Saddam Hussien was a wonderful person and a caring, loving man. It is a shame that he was never awarded a Nobel peace prize. That awful Bush, the United Nations and all of the free world intellegence agencies were completely wrong about him.  

He was a great humanitarian and he really didn't poison gas his own people. He didn't really invade Kuwait.  The world would be a better place if he were still alive building more palaces while his people did without a few things, like food.

I am certain we can agree on all of these things.  After all, we Democrats have to stick together.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.




You are an absolute moron. You're a parrot of the left and, more importantly, you've never served a day in combat or you would understand how stupid this "book" and it's "assertions" are. 40mm Mortars dropped with absolutely precision done by a "mob". Yeah, right.

Crawl back under your rock, little man.

This is nothing more than the NY Times getting ready to make excuses for Hillary "The Murderer" Clinton.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.
> ...



People who thought that they would never have a gloria gaynor movement


----------



## deltex1 (Dec 29, 2013)

​Hillarehabilitation..


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 29, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> It was an eccentric militia, probably reacting to earlier embassy protests in the ME, that were obeying calls from the ME's favorite fundy TV personality, to attack US EMBASSIES.
> 
> BY DEFINITION IT WAS A TERROR ATTACK, AS OBAMA SAID THE NEXT DAY. SORRY YOUR IGNORANT BRAINS ARE FULL of RW bs- that's why Fox/Rush/Beck etc etc zombies get more ignorant the more they listen. DUMBASS hater dupes...




So taking the cue from President Bill Clinton,  the left needs to come to a consensus and first decide what the definition of the word "is" really is. I have never seen so much squirming when it comes to detailing the facts as it unfolded on the time of the attack in Benghazi. An "old school" cop interrogation belief states that if an individual has to consistently change their story, it generally means they are trying desperately to hide something.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 29, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



Exactly......there were times when we rallied around the flag at times like this. We backed our president and supported his efforts to retaliate

Within hours of the attack it became an issue of........can we impeach over this?


----------



## TooTall (Dec 29, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The House committee interviewed the second in command at the Embassy and several American contractors that were there during the attack for their information, and it directly contradicts what is in the NYT article.  The NYT reporter interviewed Libyan terrorists for his information.  You have chosen who you want to believe and I will do the same.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 29, 2013)

TooTall said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Great point - and what were the findings of the House committee? What was their determination with regards to this case? 

Any way you slice it, Benghazi is nothing but fodder for the pundits.


----------



## deltex1 (Dec 29, 2013)

Hillarehabilitation...


Time to send the NYT to Iran to find out that they want peace sooooooo bad.


----------



## theHawk (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



What retaliation? He immediately LIED and blamed it on a YouTube video, and had the creator of it imprisoned.  Hilary nor the Hussein did anything to address the security requests from the Embassy prior to the attack, and they did nothing during the attack to help those people.  And what did the Hussein do to "retaliate" hours after the attack? Attend a campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas.

Sept 11th, 10pm response by Clinton:
_"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as *a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet*. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."_

All they did in the days and weeks following was cover up their tracks, knowing full well that the media and his sheep (like YOU) will gloss over it and defend the Hussein no matter what.

No one blames Hilary or the Hussein for Muslims gone wild.  There will be more attacks and it should be expected.  But it would be nice if Dems actually acknowledged the real threat these savages present, instead of ignoring it and making every effort to appease them(see her "religious tolerance" comments above).


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 29, 2013)

And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved. 


A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times

_*Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATOs extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.*_


----------



## deltex1 (Dec 29, 2013)

The dude on meet the press is essentially saying it all depends on what the meaning of Al Qaeda is....


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Oh I'm sure liberals haven't tried to place blame on President George W Bush for the 9-11 attacks in an attempt to turn it into a political issue. Rather it would be quite inconceivable for the left to go to such measures shortly after that attack, then inform the right on Presidential etiquette for this administration. You can't be serious rightwinger.


----------



## Warrior102 (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



Another cheerleader for Al Queda


----------



## OODA_Loop (Dec 29, 2013)

I don't believe the NYT.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 29, 2013)

They are drawing a distinction between Ansar Al Sharia and Al Quaeda without admitting that Ansar As Sharia really IS Al Quaeda.

It would be like saying the United States military didn't attack that village, it was the 4th Brigade.

The video wasn't mentioned at all in the book excerpt.


----------



## deltex1 (Dec 29, 2013)

Hillarehabilitation


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 29, 2013)

theHawk said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Retaliation?  Sometimes it takes a decade to retaliate. How long did it take Bush to retaliate against OBL?  Oh yea......he didnt


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 29, 2013)

OODA_Loop said:


> I don't believe the NYT.



Did you need someone to help you with the big words?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 29, 2013)

Warrior102 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



Al Qaida wasn't there........RW boogeyman


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 29, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> They are drawing a distinction between Ansar Al Sharia and Al Quaeda without admitting that Ansar As Sharia really IS Al Quaeda.
> 
> It would be like saying the United States military didn't attack that village, it was the 4th Brigade.
> 
> The video wasn't mentioned at all in the book excerpt.



Actually, it was discussed quite a bit on the fourth page of the article.


----------



## Warrior102 (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Retaliation?  Sometimes it takes a decade to retaliate. How long did it take Bush to retaliate against OBL?  Oh yea......he didnt



Speaking from experience? 
Of course not. 
Why don't you grow some balls and enlist?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

deltex1 said:


> Hillarehabilitation



Well basically, Benghazi, the rally call of the right and crime boss Issa, turned into something that conservatives couldn't handle..complicated.

Issa's "investigations" became a witch hunt and basically nothing that has come out of it gained any traction. Except in the nutter circles.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2013)

DOJ and State still blocking access to the survivors, Has the FBI gotten to the crime scene yet? But Obama's media has the final say

Um, yeah


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 29, 2013)

One lying sack of shit swearing that the other lying sack of shit is telling the truth.

And another lying sack of shit swearing it's all true.

How fucking convenient.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > Hillarehabilitation
> ...



Wake up, this is nothing but an attempt by the left wing press to excuse Hillary's terrible job as SecState.   Those 4 americans died because "what difference does it make" was her attitude as to protecting americans overseas.

Sorry, libs, but it won't work.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 29, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> One lying sack of shit swearing that the other lying sack of shit is telling the truth.
> 
> And another lying sack of shit swearing it's all true.
> 
> How fucking convenient.



You got serious anger issues, dude.  

YOu really need to see someone about that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 29, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > deltex1 said:
> ...



No, four diplomats died because the middle east is a dangerous place. 

That your side kept trying to use the coffins of brave Americans as soap-boxes and got slapped down repeatedly for trying it shows you just don't learn.


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 29, 2013)

Isn't this the same New Yawk Slimes that refuses to say that the Stuttering Clusterfuck LIED about keeping your own Health Insurance?

Yup.  Sure is.  

The Slimes is the most out of touch, the most dishonest, the most propaganda-filled piece of the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM.

Always has been, always will be.


----------



## Listening (Dec 29, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



That is unsupportable in every way.

Here for the conversation.


----------



## asaratis (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.


A pseudo-intellectual work of fiction by a died-in-the-wool supporter of the "progressive" agenda...a vain attempt to polish two turds at one time.  Obama lied...Hillary lied...a respected American diplomat and three other Americans DIED!



rightwinger said:


> _    INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS PURPORTED TO BE AN ONLINE TRAILER for a film about the mistreatment of Christians in contemporary Egypt. But it included bawdy historical flashbacks that derided the Prophet Muhammad. Someone dubbed it into Arabic around the beginning of September 2012, and a Cairo newspaper embellished the news by reporting that a Florida pastor infamous for burning the Quran was planning to debut the film on the 11th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks.
> Then, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy.
> No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya. But Islamists in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. It is Friday morning viewing, popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.
> By Sept. 9, a popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film. On the morning of Sept. 11, even some secular political activists were posting calls online for a protest that Friday, three days away.  _





rightwinger said:


> _.  But the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaedas international terrorist network. The only intelligence connecting Al Qaeda to the attack was an intercepted phone call that night from a participant in the first wave of the attack to a friend in another African country who had ties to members of Al Qaeda, according to several officials briefed on the call. But when the friend heard the attackers boasts, he sounded astonished, the officials said, suggesting he had no prior knowledge of the assault.  _



You can re-quote that fictional, rosy account of what a liberal wishes had happened all you want.  That is after all, the liberal modus operandi...repeat a lie until it seems true.

You get ZERO points here, Bubba!


----------



## Redfish (Dec 29, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Sure its a dangerous place, thats why they should have been provided with adequate protection--------protection that they requested and Hillary denied.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 29, 2013)

This report might be some kind of action to rehabilitate Hillary in advance of the disaster now brewing in Egypt.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 29, 2013)

Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the dynamics of the Libyan civil war.

Would know that Al Qaeda really didn't have a dog in the fight.

And that Benghazi was a spontaneous event by a local group of radicals and not a well organized and planned operation.     ....


----------



## deltex1 (Dec 29, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the dynamics of the Libyan civil war.
> 
> Would know that Al Qaeda really didn't have a dog in the fight.
> 
> And that Benghazi was a spontaneous event by a local group of radicals and not a well organized and planned operation.     ....



Oh.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



Meaning you have serious comprehension issues, the phrase "nun-uh" is about as deep as you can get without being confused.


----------



## asaratis (Dec 29, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.
> 
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> ...


Another dupe of the NYT and the Obama-ass kissers that call themselves journalists.   Fictional short story authors fits them better. This thread should be merged with *rightwinger*'s and then sent to the Rubber Room.


----------



## TooTall (Dec 29, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



The way I slice it is based on the testimony of the people that were there, not on a self serving reporter looking for a favor from the Administration or a Pulitzer for his stories.

Here is what the second in command said as well as excerpts from the Washington Post on various testimony.

[quote*]Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya at the time of the attack, testified that it was clear from his perspective that this was a terrorist attack*. The last words he heard from J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador who was killed in the attack, were: Greg, were under attack.[/quote]

But the attack occurred shortly after violent protests outside *the U.S. Embassy in Cairo*, which muddied the news reporting and may have shaped official perceptions.

This was the account in The Washington Post on Sept. 12, the day after the attack:



> At least an hour before the assault began, a stream of cars was seen moving toward the U.S. Consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. By late Tuesday evening,* as many as 50 heavily armed militants had gathered outside its high walls*. They joined protesters outside the consulate who were demonstrating against an American movie that they believed denigrated the prophet Muhammad.* But according to one witness, the new arrivals neither chanted slogans nor carried banners*. Even as evidence was being assembled,* the early indications were that the assault had been planned and the attackers had cannily taken advantage of the protest at the consulate.*


 
On Sept. 15, in a page one story titled Muslim Fury at U.S. Spreads, the Post reported: From Tunis to Cairo to Jakarta, Indonesia, the Muslim world erupted in protests aimed at the United States on Friday as anger over a video that mocks the prophet Muhammad boiled over into assaults on embassies or demonstrations in nearly two dozen countries.

*But it turns out there were no demonstrations in Benghazi; it was a terrorist attack, pure and simple. *This has been well established in various official documents, including the Accountability Review Board, which declared:* The Board concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.*

The Senate report also revealed that internally, many officials early on were certain this was a terrorist attack.



> The report cited* two emails from the State Department Diplomatic Security Operations Center on the day of the attack, September 11, and the day after, September 12, 2012, characterized the attack as an initial terrorism incident and as a terrorist event. *Moreover, as early as Sept. 15, the team that had been in Benghazi reported there has been no protest;* the FBI also conducted face-to-face interviews with people who were in the compound during the attack and they reported there was no protest.*
> *So it is not new that there was no protest. Thats been officially well established. It is also not new that many officials knew it was a terrorist attack*.



What is new is that Hicks has put a human face on previous reporting. He also disclosed he spoke directly to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton the night of the attack, presumably relaying his conclusions.

The hearings also revealed an e-mail written by* Elizabeth Jones, the acting assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs*, in which she recounted a conversation with the Libyan ambassador on Sept. 12:* When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks Ansar Al Sharia is affiliated with Islamic extremists.*

The Benghazi hearings: what?s new and what?s not - The Washington Post


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 29, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> This report might be some kind of action to rehabilitate Hillary in advance of the disaster now brewing in Egypt.



Yeah.....

Funny how that DNC fund-raising letter went out at almost exactly the same time.

The question really should be, "Will the lie by the New Yawk Slimes stand the test of time?"

I don't think it will.  I think it gets taken apart and the Slimes gets another black eye.

Online NewsHour | Credibility in Question | Jayson Blair: A Case Study of What Went Wrong at The New York Times

It isn't that the Slimes didn't know Blair was a lying sack of shit.  The entire upper echelon at the Slimes is just that.

It's just that, frankly, they didn't care.

Most everything they do at the Slimes is a lie.  SOme of it is good work, but most of the headline-grabbing, "Holy Shit!" political stuff is totally made up.

And they don't care.  It's what they do.

Will this stand the test of time?  I doubt it.

The other question is, "Will the Slimes be able to keep the lid on the lie long enough to not have it blow up in their faces?"

I'd say the odds of the Slimes keeping a lid on it are around 80%.  The odds of the article having a short-term effect will be 70%....  Retarded people like our resident dimocraps will point and snicker....  The odds of the lie....  er, er, the article having a long term effect (more than 6 months) are about 1%.

It's just another lie by the Slimes, people.

Deal with it.  It's what they do.  It's why I DESPISE the LSM.

And you should, too.  They deserve it


----------



## TooTall (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



I wonder where the Libyans that were supposedly protesting a video got gallons of fuel oil to set the buildings on fire, the AK-47's to shoot the place up, and the military training to fire the heavy mortors they just found in the woods?

That had to be a spontaneous demonstration if I ever saw one since it is obvious there was no previously planned attack.  

It is obvious to a fool or a Democrat, but that is redundant.


----------



## Jroc (Dec 29, 2013)

theHawk said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



He's a pathetic joke 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogk2dgSQETA]Infamous Obama Admin - State Dept - Pakistani TV Ad Apologizing For Mohammed Video - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Spoonman (Dec 29, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



Why are the ambassadors there in the first place?  Politics.  This is political and if we are going to put individuals in harms way in the name of politics our  government owes it to these unarmed American citizens to provide them protection.  our current administration was instrumental and lended support to the rebels who toppled a stable government and left a country in turmoil.   They should have been more aware of the risk and either provided greater protection or pulled the US citizens out of there.   sure, fanatics were responsible fro the attack, but the attack was made possible by poor decisions of this administration


----------



## candycorn (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



Looks like there was no "there" there.


----------



## Jroc (Dec 29, 2013)

candycorn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



And you're a moron


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.
> 
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> ...



^ Low Information Voter meets Obama's Media


----------



## TooTall (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Obama can't be impeached.  It is a race thing.


----------



## deltex1 (Dec 29, 2013)

I am hearing that the IRS actions against t party groups were spontaneous also...a couple of bad actors in Cleveland....


----------



## candycorn (Dec 29, 2013)

Jroc said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Poor baby, nobody likes you.


----------



## TooTall (Dec 29, 2013)

candycorn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



You accept the words of Islamist terrorists, I will accept the words of the Americans that were attacked.

That says a lot about you!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2013)

Oh, it was the video. So that's why DOJ and State have threatened the survivors about coming forward.

They don't want them talking about the video


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Dec 29, 2013)

Bloodrock44 said:


> You can interview all the fucking Libyans you want. I watched the congressional hearings. The number 2 AMERICAN on the ground laid the blame at the administrations feet. The 9/11 anniversary was coming up. Additional security was requested and denied. It would not have bankrupted the treasury to send a platoon of Marines that would have stopped the terrorists in their tracks. Hilary and Obozo are guilty of accessory to murder.



It's a well established fact that there was no time to send Marines.

Republicans are the ones who wouldn't fund extra security.


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 29, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Oh, it was the video. So that'y why DOJ and State have threatened the survivors about coming forward.
> 
> They don't want them talking about the video


----------



## Jroc (Dec 29, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



you're a brain-dead clone. you couldn't think for yourself if your life depend on it


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 29, 2013)

Ohhh I hope it's a Clinton/Warren ticket.   Please let it be so.

Better would be a Clinton/DeBlasio ticket!


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 29, 2013)

Repub- voters will have to move on to the next Firebug led investigation. Did I mention that he uses taxpayer $$$ for these dog & pony shows that invariably lead nowhere?

I'd be interested in the final tab to the taxpayers of this great nation for all of Firebug's dead-end investigations.


----------



## Jroc (Dec 29, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.
> 
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> ...



Do you bother to search before you post? 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...as-correct-about-benghazi-13.html#post8369173


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 29, 2013)

So the Times says it was not a terrorist attack or about a video the President however claims in his Rose Garden speech the day after the attack he called it terrorism then the following Sunday Susan Rice went on all the Sunday morning talk shows and said it was about the video now it's neither uh huh. Are they trying to sell a bridge with this story as well?


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 29, 2013)

asaratis said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.
> ...



That's why this is a book, instead of a verified report.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2013)

Yeah, it was the video


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2013)

"that darn video!!"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2013)

Checking the Consulate for any extra copies of the video


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 29, 2013)

Democrats need that right now.  Of course they're going to find someone to promote their fiction.  Now it might be more to protect Hillary to deflect from what Egypt is doing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2013)

We don't even own a VCR, but that darn video really upsets us!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2013)

Obama refused to send help...because of the video


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 29, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.
> 
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> ...



In Conservatopia, your posting of this thread would get you burned as a witch.

Literally.  Burned.  As a witch.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You act as if the attack on the trade towers by Osama Bin Laden began during the Bush administration. Wait, that's right the left didn't like to associate the "incident" with the words attack or terrorism, did they?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 29, 2013)

TooTall said:


> What is new is that Hicks has put a human face on previous reporting. He also disclosed he spoke directly to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton the night of the attack, presumably relaying his conclusions.
> 
> The hearings also revealed an e-mail written by* Elizabeth Jones, the acting assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs*, in which she recounted a conversation with the Libyan ambassador on Sept. 12:* When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks Ansar Al Sharia is affiliated with Islamic extremists.*
> 
> The Benghazi hearings: what?s new and what?s not - The Washington Post



*Hicks should quit lying about what happened and quit changing his story as well. His friends died and he does them disservice by using this tragedy for political brownie points.
*

 During the September 8 edition of This Week, Former Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya Gregory Hicks described his experience and the aftermath of the Benghazi attack with host George Stephanopoulos. Hicks used the interview to accuse the State Department of retaliating against him for his testimony during a House Oversight Committee hearing on May 8. After Stephanopoulos asked Hicks whether he felt he was being punished for his testimony, he responded, "Yes, I feel that I have been punished. ... I don't know why I was punished" and "shunted aside."

But Hicks was not punished for speaking out. Stephanopoulos read from a State Department letter which explained that "The State Department has not punished Mr. Hicks in any way" and his departure from Libya "was entirely unrelated to any statements" he made about Benghazi.

*In fact, Hicks' claim about being punished contradicts his previous testimony about not returning to his assignment in Libya. During his testimony at a May 8 House Oversight Committee hearing, Hicks explained that "my family really didn't want me to go back. ... So I voluntarily curtailed" returning to Libya. From Hicks' sworn testimony (emphasis added):*

REP. SCOTT DESJARLAIS (R-TN): So when you came back to the United States, were you planning on going back to Libya?

MR. HICKS: I was. I fully intended to do so.

REP. DESJARLAIS: And what do you think happened?

MR. HICKS: Based on the criticism that I received, I felt that if I went back, I would never be comfortable working there. And in addition, my family really didn't want me to go back. We'd endured a year of separation when I was in Afghanistan 2006 and 2007. That was the overriding factor. So I voluntarily curtailed -- I accepted an offer of what's called a no-fault curtailment. That means that there's -- there would be no criticism of my departure of post, no negative repercussions. And in fact Ambassador Pope, when he made the offer to everyone in Tripoli when he arrived -- I mean Charge Pope -- when he arrived, he indicated that people could expect that they would get a good onward assignment out of that.

Hicks Claims He Doesn't Know Why Military Assistance Didn't Arrive In Time

Hicks also used the interview to strongly suggest that military resources could have been made available to respond to the attack in time to possibly save lives. While Stephanopoulos made clear that Pentagon officials reported that no assets could have responded in time, Hicks lamented, "I still don't quite understand why they couldn't fly aircraft over," adding "I just thought that they would come." 

*But military officials have explained that no forces from outside Libya could have deployed to Benghazi in time to affect the outcome of the attacks. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explained that a timely military response to the attacks "would have been very difficult if not impossible"* 

and that an expectation that military forces would be sent into an unknown situation shows a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces." Gates also explained that due to the number of missing anti-aircraft weapons in Libya, he "would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi." The Department of Defense also testified that fighter aircraft would not have been able to respond to the attack in time to save lives. Hicks' suggestion is further undermined by the fact that resources were needed to defend the embassy in Tripoli.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 29, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.
> ...



nope, just a liar and a partisan dupe.  we pity idiots, not burn them


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 29, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama refused to send help...because of the video



At this point you are merely attempting to hijack this thread - so I am calling BULLSHIT right here and telling you point-blank why this proclamation is without merit.

 Obama does not "send help" when none is available.



> ... military officials have explained that no forces from outside Libya could have deployed to Benghazi in time to affect the outcome of the attacks. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explained that a timely military response to the attacks "would have been very difficult if not impossible" and that an expectation that military forces would be sent into an unknown situation shows a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces." Gates also explained that due to the number of missing anti-aircraft weapons in Libya, he "would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi." The Department of Defense also testified that fighter aircraft would not have been able to respond to the attack in time to save lives. Hicks' suggestion is further undermined by the fact that resources were needed to defend the embassy in Tripoli.




Care to admit your error right now or are you just going to post another stupid pic with yet another snarky retort?


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 29, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Obama refused to send help...because of the video
> ...



Our armed forces now enlist those that can see into the future?

Please explain how anyone, without inside information, could possibly tell how long the attack would last while the attack was happening?

These folks have supernatural talents?


----------



## 1776 (Dec 29, 2013)

So when did the NYTimes get a Top Secret SCI clearance???

So since AQ and AQ franchises participated in the attack that makes the "protest" lie and the "terrorism is waning" lie legit? 

Uh, just mentioning there are other terrorist groups under names not claiming to be "AQ" shows Obama was full of shit claiming terrorists were losing and on the run.

You scumbags will try anything to cover up your bullshit.

Next you will claim 4 Americans never died....



rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.


----------



## 1776 (Dec 29, 2013)

The knuckle dragging liberals here have no clue about the various AQ franchises in Africa, the middle east and Asia. 

"oh look, oh look ANSL, AQI, AQAP, blah, blah, blah aren't the AQ we want to fight."


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 29, 2013)

Emerging stories:
New York Times: Yes, If You Like Your Plan, You CAN Keep Your Plan.

Washington Post: IRS Targeting: It Was All A Mistake

Boston Globe: Fast & Furious Prevented Major Terrorist Attacks

San Francisco Chronicle: Regard For U.S. At All-Time High In Rest of World

Los Angeles Times: Afghan War Surge Achieves All Objectives

The mainstream media is in full spin mode.


----------



## packerbacker (Dec 29, 2013)

Pop23, you are 100% correct.  What if the battle was still going on today, would it still be too late to send help?  Oh wait, I forgot, the puppet general is afraid to put anything in the air because there are missing missles that could shoot them down.  Those missles could be in Oklahoma by now so I guess our aircraft are of no use anymore. The puppet general also doesn't want to send our troops into an unknown situation. Isn't that what our military does....constantly?  A film caused this?  Are you kidding me?  You don't think the date of 9-11 had anything to do with this? Pleeeeeeeease! And who in the heck starts a "protest" at night? Protests take part during the daytime. On top of that, Benghazi is third world so do you really think their social media is so organized that all of those morons saw the movie and got pissed at the same time?? The NYT is just selling their rag, that's all.  If they can't find news, they make some up.


----------



## 1776 (Dec 29, 2013)

Kook....you're using some wannabe 20 year old Clinton hag for your Nazi-esque political sign....typical. 

Try the bloated 70 something hag instead.

Hmmmm, looks like a Nazi....









candycorn said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

The NY Times story is complete and utter bullshit.  I just saw Mike Rogers on CNN.  He is the head of the House Intelligence Committee.  He said none of the "facts" in the NY Times piece are accurate.  Democrats on the Committee said the same thing.  

_*This story by the Times is a fluff piece that is designed to help Hillary for her 2016 run.  Total bullshit.  Disregard.  *_


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

The NY Times story is complete and utter bullshit. I just saw Mike Rogers on CNN. He is the head of the House Intelligence Committee. He said none of the "facts" in the NY Times piece are accurate. Democrats on the Committee said the same thing.

This story by the Times is a fluff piece that is designed to help Hillary for her 2016 run. Total bullshit. Disregard.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

House lawmakers on Sunday disputed a new report that concludes Al Qaeda played no role in the fatal 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

The report, published Saturday in The New York Times, found no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had a role in the assault that killed four Americans on Sept. 11, 2012, and that it appeared that the attack was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made anti-Islamic video, as the Obama administration first claimed.

&#8220;I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,&#8221; Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told &#8220;Fox News Sunday.&#8221;  

He also repeatedly said the story was &#8220;not accurate.&#8221;

Rogers was joined on the show by California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, &#8220;intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.&#8221;

The findings in the New York Times story also conflict with testimony from Greg Hicks, the deputy of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the attack. Hicks described the video as "a non-event in Libya" at that time, and consequently not a significant trigger for the attack

Sean Smith, a foreign service officer, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were also killed in the 2012 attack.

The responses by Rogers and Schiff Sunday follow New York Rep. Peter King, member and former chairman of the House&#8217;s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, telling Fox News on Saturday the argument in the Times story that the militia group Ansar al-Shariah -- not Al Qaeda -- led the Benghazi attack is an academic argument over semantics.

&#8220;It&#8217;s misleading,&#8221; said King, considering Ansar al-Shariah is widely believed to be an affiliate terror group of Al Qaeda. &#8220;It&#8217;s a distinction without a difference.&#8221;

Schiff, a House Intelligence Committee member, said the story doesn&#8217;t conclude the attack was a flash mob attack or a &#8220;pre-planned, core Al Qaeda operation.&#8221;

Rogers declined to say whether he thought the recent Benghazi-related stories on TV and in print were politically motivated -- particularly to try to exonerate then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is eyeing a 2016 presidential bid.

 But he took issue with Ambassador Susan Rice talking about the incident when Congress &#8220;still has an ongoing investigation.&#8221;

Schiff said the newspaper report &#8220;was not designed to exonerate State Department lapses.&#8221;



&#8221;Congress, in bipartisan tone, disputes report Al Qaeda not involved in deadly Benghazi attack | Fox News


----------



## 1776 (Dec 29, 2013)

The big question is who in the White House leaked bits and pieces of classified information to the NYTimes for them to "create" this lie.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

It is all designed to help Hillary in 2016.  Complete bullshit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2013)

Clinton/Warren: What difference does it make?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 29, 2013)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Ummm...yes they did begin during the Bush administration. Sept 11 2001..... Bush allowed the worst attack in US history


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> The NY Times story is complete and utter bullshit. I just saw Mike Rogers on CNN. He is the head of the House Intelligence Committee. He said none of the "facts" in the NY Times piece are accurate. Democrats on the Committee said the same thing.
> 
> This story by the Times is a fluff piece that is designed to help Hillary for her 2016 run. Total bullshit. Disregard.



Republicans put their heads in the sand

Why am I not surprised?

Time for an investigation of Issa


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

*Dupes.  The NY Times story is a complete lie according to both Democrats and Republicans.  More made up MSM bullshit designed to make Hillary look good for 2016.  Here is a link to the real story.  

*
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...new-york-times-benghazi-story-is-a-fraud.html


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

bump for the truth.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> It is all designed to help Hillary in 2016.  Complete bullshit.



yep, totally ignoring all the warnings that had come from our security personnel over there as well as the warnings from Libya itself.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

It is amazing how corrupt the MSM can be.  Of course the libtards on this message board fell for it hook, line, and sinker.


----------



## rdean (Dec 29, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



I suspect his first action was "hugging his wife".


----------



## depotoo (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> It is amazing how corrupt the MSM can be.  Of course the libtards on this message board fell for it hook, line, and sinker.



OF course they do, it is what has gotten us into this mess to begin with - the left wing media outlets are their god and tell no lies, according to them.  They call journalists reporters, etc.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

I guess the blatant attempt to rehabilitate Hillary is an epic failure.  Benghazi will hang around her neck for the rest of her political life.  No amount of lies or spin by the NY Times are other corrupt rags will change that.  Might as well deal with it Libs.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 29, 2013)

only in dreams...


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 29, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Ohhh I hope it's a Clinton/Warren ticket.   Please let it be so.
> 
> Better would be a Clinton/DeBlasio ticket!



Seriously? I'd be a little more concerned about who you people run  The 1st person you people kicked out of your primaries last time was the one guy who could get the crossover vote  Keep up the good work.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 29, 2013)

let's see, hmmm, local militia, Ansar al-Shariah--

Ansar al-Shariah is the militant al-Qaida inspired group


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 29, 2013)

When will Issa apologize to the American people for tying up Congress for ten hearings?


----------



## depotoo (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> When will Issa apologize to the American people for tying up Congress for ten hearings?



He didn't lie.  The lies are coming from the NYTand those spreading their lies.


----------



## whitehall (Dec 29, 2013)

The NY Times alleged "report" on Benghazi might have unintended consequences. The stodgy old Times still thinks that they can fool "all of the people all of the time" with unnamed sources but their incredible conclusions raise new awareness over the Obama administration's negligence. Almost nobody in what we used to call "the free world" believes that an obscure you-tube video sparked the armed assault on the American embassy.


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Dec 29, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> > You can interview all the fucking Libyans you want. I watched the congressional hearings. The number 2 AMERICAN on the ground laid the blame at the administrations feet. The 9/11 anniversary was coming up. Additional security was requested and denied. It would not have bankrupted the treasury to send a platoon of Marines that would have stopped the terrorists in their tracks. Hilary and Obozo are guilty of accessory to murder.
> ...



It's a well established fact that the requests came weeks before the attack and that the state department turned down the requests. A squad of marines would have bankrupted the treasury? And thanks for the neg. If you want to keep trading, I'm game.


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 29, 2013)

depotoo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > When will Issa apologize to the American people for tying up Congress for ten hearings?
> ...



Who needs a President, a Congress or SCOTUS when we have the NYT?

What boneheads we have been for 200+ years!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2013)

Why are low information voters so easily swayed?


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

truth bump


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 29, 2013)

too lazy to supply a link? Let me guess- you vote Republican?


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger still throwing it out there even though he knows the story is a fraud.  Just like his beloved messiah.  Keep repeating the lie and hope people will be stupid enough to believe it.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

Link.  I'll be waiting for your reply.  



http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...new-york-times-benghazi-story-is-a-fraud.html


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 29, 2013)

Hilarious. The left actually think this is about protecting Obama. They are insulating their true hero, Hillary. Especially anything with New York in the title. 

All I do know is Hillary said this in regards to that......


So, are democrats (moron liberals) taking BOTH SIDES of this issue, like they take on both sides of every issue in order to then claim they were right?

Yeah, safe to say that, since indeed that is what they do best (other than making brown people feel like victims on behalf of whitey righty). 


Question:

Do you liberals really truly want a debate on the Benghazi debacle? Let me know. I am game.


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 29, 2013)

Bloodrock44 said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodrock44 said:
> ...



I love the comment "It was well established......"

Omitted is that it was established AFTER THE FACT

Unless these poor examples of leadership had supernatural powers, they would have had ZERO idea of how long the attacks would last WHILE it was going on. 

Brilliant response by our leaders!


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

Funny...libtards are all over the two lying threads on Benghazi, but when they have actual quotes from Republicans and Dems debunking the NY Times garbage they're no where to be found.  Wonder why?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> rightwinger still throwing it out there even though he knows the story is a fraud.  Just like his beloved messiah.  Keep repeating the lie and hope people will be stupid enough to believe it.



Republicans are only right if you believe AlQaed means.......Muslim bad guys
If you talk about an international terror organization.....they weren't involved


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> rightwinger still throwing it out there even though he knows the story is a fraud.  Just like his beloved messiah.  Keep repeating the lie and hope people will be stupid enough to believe it.



It works for every one of their issues. 

Question:

Has anyone ever seen a liberal be on the correct side of any issue? If so, which one?


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

Thread is bogus.  Just saying.


----------



## TooTall (Dec 29, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> > You can interview all the fucking Libyans you want. I watched the congressional hearings. The number 2 AMERICAN on the ground laid the blame at the administrations feet. The 9/11 anniversary was coming up. Additional security was requested and denied. It would not have bankrupted the treasury to send a platoon of Marines that would have stopped the terrorists in their tracks. Hilary and Obozo are guilty of accessory to murder.
> ...



There was plenty of time to send a quick reaction force into Benghazi.  And, the Marines budget comes out of the Defense Department.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

I'm gonna keep bumping until one of my liberal friends acknowledges this thread.


----------



## Sherry (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> Funny...libtards are all over the two lying threads on Benghazi, but when they have actual quotes from Republicans and Dems debunking the NY Times garbage they're no where to be found.  Wonder why?



They can't handle the truth.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

Obviously.  All over the lying threads but not a peep here.  Kinda cowardly, but not unexpected.


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> I guess the blatant attempt to rehabilitate Hillary is an epic failure.  Benghazi will hang around her neck for the rest of her political life.  No amount of lies or spin by the NY Times are other corrupt rags will change that.  Might as well deal with it Libs.



The only thing is I do not think you should underestimate is the level of stupidity the left has sunk to in this country. 

Consider this. 

They were stupid enough to vote for Obama who no qualifications to run a hot dog stand to run the country, all based on the color of skin (how ironic) and that is the truth. 

After the commie in chief took over and had the super majority with the democrats, the country took a big fat smelly shit, and the moronic liberal voters blamed it all on Bush. (even though the democrats had majority power since 2007, and the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent the last time the republicans had majority power.)

I mean there is a classification of stupidity for those that voted for him the first time. Nimrods. 

However, there is no classification that has a name that can accurately describe the stupidity of those that voted for him again, even after the benghazi debacle (which they avoided for obvious political expediency in an election year), the fake unemployment numbers, the illegal targeting of conservative groups with the IRS, the Fast and Furious situation, etc etc etc. (Notice I did not even bring up his trojan horse healthcare scam) Ooops, I just did. 


So, when you say it is an epic failure, that is true. However, it will not dent the hard heads that at this level of pure unadulterated stupidity.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 29, 2013)

TooTall said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodrock44 said:
> ...



Seven hours away is quick?


----------



## Erand7899 (Dec 29, 2013)

Propaganda, like the NYT Benghasi BS, is not designed for people who pay attention.  It is designed for the low information voters who skip the news and watch the reality shows.  And, this is only the first volley, intended to confuse and contort reality before the next presidential election.  

The left wingers will repeat this story, and swear it is true, until those low information voters do not want to hear anymore about Benghasi.  That is how they take it off the political table.


----------



## Desperado (Dec 29, 2013)

Did anyone ever check the view count on that Youtube post?
It never went viral so I suspect it did not have enough view to make people go crazy in the Mid East.
Besides Obama has never been right about anything.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

Erand7899 said:


> Propaganda, like the NYT Benghasi BS, is not designed for people who pay attention.  It is designed for the low information voters who skip the news and watch the reality shows.  And, this is only the first volley, intended to confuse and contort reality before the next presidential election.
> 
> The left wingers will repeat this story, and swear it is true, until those low information voters do not want to hear anymore about Benghasi.  That is how they take it off the political table.




Well said...I'm sure we'll hear the same story repeated about a million times on this message board between now and 2016.  Lie. Rinse. Repeat.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 29, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



shrug...


----------



## Care4all (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> House lawmakers on Sunday disputed a new report that concludes Al Qaeda played no role in the fatal 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
> 
> The report, published Saturday in The New York Times, found no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had a role in the assault that killed four Americans on Sept. 11, 2012, and that it appeared that the attack was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made anti-Islamic video, as the Obama administration first claimed.
> 
> ...


that's simply a LIE by Fox news and others.....

the nytimes did NOT say there was NO terrorist groups involved....they said Al Qaeda, as in the Al Qaeda of Osama Bin Laden was NOT involved....

WHY OH WHY does FOX news need to LIE like they do?   Please tell me why?  And please tell me WHY you all believe them as if GOD is speaking to you without checking for yourself what the nytimes investigation reported?

EVEN Daryll Issa this morning on meet the Press said the the NYTimes did a thorough investigation....?


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Dec 29, 2013)

They are dodging and deflecting by focusing on who did it and what caused it and blaming republicans for cutting security funds. It doesn't matter who did it or why. Extra security was requested weeks before and denied by the State Department. A squad of Marines would have thwarted any attack. A president or Secretary of State with any common sense should have thought with the anniversary of 9/11 coming and shit already happening and warnings from the embassy staff and Libyans, they would have thought ahead and automatically beefed up security ahead of time. Libs are acting as if sending in a squad would have bankrupted the treasury. Like I said. Dodging and deflecting.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 29, 2013)

The far left will believe anything that the far left prints without question or hesitation.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 29, 2013)

It all depends on your definition of AlQaeda

If you think AlQaeda means Muslim Bad Guys.....you are right
If you think an international terror group was involved in the attacks.....you are wrong


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

This was nothing but a desperate attempt by the NYT to help Obama save face after one of the worst post reelection years of any president since Richard Nixon.  Essentially, the NYT called all the men who testified on the stand before congress liars. Do they realize what implications that has? They have essentially contradicted sworn testimony. Are they crazy?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> It all depends on your definition of AlQaeda
> 
> If you think AlQaeda means Muslim Bad Guys.....you are right
> If you think an international terror group was involved in the attacks.....you are wrong



Our resident revisionist historian at work.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 29, 2013)

I just bazooka barfed. 

Holy toledo. I have no words. You know its bad when I have take gravol pills to log in.


----------



## Vox (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> > Propaganda, like the NYT Benghasi BS, is not designed for people who pay attention.  It is designed for the low information voters who skip the news and watch the reality shows.  And, this is only the first volley, intended to confuse and contort reality before the next presidential election.
> ...



goebbels is leftard's god


----------



## Vox (Dec 29, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> This was nothing but a desperate attempt by the NYT to help Obama save face after one of the worst post reelection years of any president since Richard Nixon.  Essentially, the NYT called all the men who testified on the stand before congress liars. Do they realize what implications that has? They have essentially contradicted sworn testimony. Are they crazy?



they are not crazy. they are desperate plus they are bold - they think nobody will sue them for defamation. 
Those whose testimony under oath this crap smears as a lie SHOULD SUE


----------



## paperview (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> It all depends on your definition of AlQaeda
> 
> If you think AlQaeda means Muslim Bad Guys.....you are right
> If you think an international terror group was involved in the attacks.....you are wrong


Yup.

"Kirpatrick said the only way one could claim al Qaida involvement was,  "If you're using the term al Qaida to describe even a local group of  Islamist militants who dislike democracy or have a grudge against the  United States. If you're going to call anybody like that 'al Qaeda,'  then, okay.

Darrell Issa, David Kirkpatrick debate New York Times Benghazi report on Meet the Press


----------



## whitehall (Dec 29, 2013)

The NY Times is beginning to look like a pathetic media arm of the Hillary dominated democrat party. Did they really think they could defend the administration with unnamed sources and a ridiculous story about a you-tube video that has already been debunked and no longer supported by the administration? Years ago they could get away with flagrant political propaganda but the stodgy old Times is way behind the times and doesn't realize that Americans are smarter and better informed than they were when Cronkite was king. The fact that the administration is unresponsive to the Times' "investigation" is indicative of the lame story that nobody except desperate lefties believe.


----------



## OKTexas (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger still throwing it out there even though he knows the story is a fraud.  Just like his beloved messiah.  Keep repeating the lie and hope people will be stupid enough to believe it.
> ...



Must have been Ali and the guys at the local bakers union just decided to bring their AK's, RPG's and mortars to a protest, right?


----------



## Vox (Dec 29, 2013)

paperview said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > It all depends on your definition of AlQaeda
> ...



And Darrel Issa says exactly the opposite - that the Benghazi attack is directly linked to al quaeda.

I trust Issa much more than the leftard's lying machine NYT


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

paperview said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > It all depends on your definition of AlQaeda
> ...



Nope.



> Several Yemeni men belonging to al Qaeda took part in the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi last September, according to several sources who have spoken with CNN.
> 
> One senior U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that "three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," or AQAP, took part in the attack.
> 
> Another source briefed on the Benghazi investigation said Western intelligence services suspect the men may have been sent by the group specifically to carry out the attack. But it's not been ruled out that they were already in the city and participated as the opportunity arose.



Sources: 3 al Qaeda operatives took part in Benghazi attack - CNN.com


----------



## Vox (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> When will Issa apologize to the American people for tying up Congress for ten hearings?



when will obama resign over his lies and lies and lies for 5 years ?


----------



## Care4all (Dec 29, 2013)

the Times Never said terrorism was not involved, NEVER and you all are just regurgitating a LIE....

be proud of yourselves!  Make Christ proud of you at least during this Christmas season, stop your lies, all of you on the right and the left....if you're lying, just STOP IT!  If you are ignorant on a topic, then don't lie for the sake of lying....inform yourself, before speaking and passing along another lie you've read...

HOW HARD IS THIS TO DO?

Having another circle jerk makes you look dumb, honestly...it does....

I just don't get you sheeple......?


----------



## TooTall (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> When will Issa apologize to the American people for tying up Congress for ten hearings?



One of the primary functions of Congress is oversight.  If the sleazeball in the Administration would tell the truth, it wouldn't take as many hearings to get to the truth.


----------



## Vox (Dec 29, 2013)

the Times LIED. as they often do.

there is a direct terrorism involvement in the Benghazi attack which was confirmed by ALL witnesses who testified on the Benghazi hearings.

NYT is desperate to defend their failure in the WH and even more desperate to push failure of SecofState Hillary.

but the leftard sheeple will swallow any lie they are being fed


----------



## TooTall (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger still throwing it out there even though he knows the story is a fraud.  Just like his beloved messiah.  Keep repeating the lie and hope people will be stupid enough to believe it.
> ...



Al Queda is an international terror organization with branches all over the world. And, they are all Muslim bad guys.  

What do you Democrats think they are?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

Kirkpatrick is a liar. He knows that Al-Qaeda participated in that attack, namely the Yemeni branch of Ansar al Sharia. On October 4, 2012, the state sponsor of terrorism list was amended by the US State Department to include the name "Ansar al Sharia" as an alias for "Al Qaeda." 

BS all the way paperview.


----------



## Nyvin (Dec 29, 2013)

opinion


----------



## Vox (Dec 29, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> *Kirkpatrick is a liar*. He knows that Al-Qaeda participated in that attack, namely the Yemeni branch of Ansar al Sharia. On October 4, 2012, the state sponsor of terrorism list was amended by the US State Department to include the name "Ansar al Sharia" as an alias for "Al Qaeda."
> 
> BS all the way paperview.



sure he is. he is a NYT reporter. which instantaneously labels him to be a leftard liar.


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...



Did the administration know how long the attacks would last when first advised?

If you know that the attacks will last less than Seven hours then you might have a point, even though they should have been deployed regardless, but if you do not know the length of the attack ( information only the attackers could have known) then you have ZERO point. 

This just illustrates what happens when children are allowed to govern.


----------



## Vox (Dec 29, 2013)

Nyvin said:


> opinion



Kirkpatrick's? yes, it is his opinion.
 and it is wrong.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

Nyvin said:


> opinion



Fact.

Problem?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

Care4all said:


> the Times Never said terrorism was not involved, NEVER and you all are just regurgitating a LIE....
> 
> be proud of yourselves!  Make Christ proud of you at least during this Christmas season, stop your lies, all of you on the right and the left....if you're lying, just STOP IT!  If you are ignorant on a topic, then don't lie for the sake of lying....inform yourself, before speaking and passing along another lie you've read...
> 
> ...



How hard is it for you not to spin something?

They flat out denied terrorism was involved (i.e Al Qaeda), rehashing that old line  "it was a 'spontaneous protest' all the result of the video." You are essentially doing the same.


----------



## paperview (Dec 29, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Kirkpatrick is a liar. He knows that Al-Qaeda participated in that attack, namely the Yemeni branch of Ansar al Sharia. On October 4, 2012, the state sponsor of terrorism list was amended by the US State Department to include the name "Ansar al Sharia" as an alias for "Al Qaeda."
> 
> BS all the way paperview.


al-Sharia as an Alias for Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula *Terrorist Designations of Ansar al-Sharia as an Alias for Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula*



Media NoteOffice of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

October 4, 2012

Share on facebookShare on twitter 




The  Department of State amended the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and  E.O. 13224 designations of al-Qa&#8217;ida in the Arabian Peninsula to  include the new alias, Ansar al-Shari&#8217;a (AAS). The Department of State  previously designated AQAP as an FTO and under E.O. 13224 on January 19,  2010.
 AAS &#8211; *which is based in Yemen and is a separate entity from Ansar  al-Shari&#8217;a in Libya *&#8211; was established to attract potential followers to  shari&#8217;a rule in areas under the control of AQAP. However, AAS is simply  AQAP&#8217;s effort to rebrand itself, with the aim of manipulating people to  join AQAP&#8217;s terrorist cause. 



AAS has publicly stated that the particular  brand of shari&#8217;a they hope to implement is the same as that espoused by  the Afghan Taliban and the Islamic State of Iraq, a militant umbrella  group and designated Foreign Terrorist Organization that includes  al-Qa&#8217;ida in Iraq.
Terrorist Designations of Ansar al-Sharia as an Alias for Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> When will Issa apologize to the American people for tying up Congress for ten hearings?



This is obviously rhetorical, given the arrogance of most conservatives, and the contempt most partisan republicans have for the American people, the hearings being evidence of that, where the right pursued a McCarthyesque witch-hunt in lieu of addressing jobs and the economy.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Kirkpatrick is a liar. He knows that Al-Qaeda participated in that attack, namely the Yemeni branch of Ansar al Sharia. On October 4, 2012, the state sponsor of terrorism list was amended by the US State Department to include the name "Ansar al Sharia" as an alias for "Al Qaeda."
> ...



And? That still doesn't change the fact that Al-Qaeda did participate in the attack, paperview. Move along.


----------



## FJO (Dec 29, 2013)

TooTall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > WelfareQueen said:
> ...



Al Queda has become a term for Muslim terrorists in everyday usage, much the same way as 'xerox' and 'kleenex' became to represent copier and tissue, respectively.


----------



## TooTall (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I heard that Bush invaded Afghanistan to look for and punish OBL.  He did cross theT's and dot the I's with Congress before doing so, unlike the present dictator.


----------



## Clementine (Dec 29, 2013)

1776 said:


> The big question is who in the White House leaked bits and pieces of classified information to the NYTimes for them to "create" this lie.



And the info they gave them was as contradictory as their original rhetoric.   Obama and Hillary kept changing the story as details emerged.   Now this story contradicts everything they initially said.

When you lie, it's hard to keep the story straight and this just proves it.    

The NYT is really bad at investigative reporting, probably because they are out of practice since they've been mouthpieces for the last 5 years.   They are running with a story that they were probably consigned to do.   It's not investigative reporting, it's just more carrying the water for their masters.


----------



## TooTall (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



*Bush took office on Jan 20, 2001.*



> The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda, and 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. Others were from Egypt, Lebanon, and the UAE. The hijackers were organized into four teams, each led by a pilot-trained hijacker with four "muscle hijackers" who were trained to help subdue the pilots, passengers, and crew.
> 
> *The first hijackers to arrive in the United States were Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, who settled in the San Diego area in January 2000.* *They were followed by three hijacker-pilots,Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Ziad Jarrah early in the summer of 2000* to undertake flight training in south Florida. The fourth hijacker-pilot, Hani Hanjour, arrived in San Diego in December 2000. The rest of the "muscle hijackers" arrived in the spring and early summer of 2001.
> 
> As for the pilots who would go on to participate in the attacks, three of them were original members of the Hamburg cell* (Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah)*. Following their training at Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, they were chosen by Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda's military wing due to their extensive knowledge of western culture and language skills, increasing the mission's operational security and its chances for success.


----------



## paperview (Dec 29, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


They were not "an al Quida group."

They were pro-al queda.  That does not make them one and the same.  Again, as what rightwinger said:
"It all depends on your definition of AlQaeda

If you think AlQaeda means Muslim Bad Guys.....you are right
If you think an international terror group was involved in the attacks.....you are wrong"

And it was reported on early on that group AAS in Libya were there.  We knew they were there from the start. That a video contributed to it some is not insane considering the whole freaking Muslim world was going nuts about the video, embassies all that week were besieged.  Remember?  The he embassy in Cairo sparked that madness *before* the Ghazi mess.

*Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack*

    By *Nic Robertson*, *Paul Cruickshank* and *Tim Lister*, CNN
*September 13, 2012 *--<-----

Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack - CNN.com


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



You do realize this contradicts sworn testimony right? You do realize that this article called all the men who were there on the night of that attack a bunch of liars, don't you? If this is true, then they should all be thrown in jail for perjury, correct? 

But no, this is the problem with investigative journalism influenced by political bias, it doesn't serve as a substitute to professional intelligence gathering. Investigative journalism by the New York times wouldn't equal the CIA at it's worst. Besides, Al Qaeda did play a role in the attack. Mr. Kirkpatrick is lying through his teeth.

Sources: 3 al Qaeda operatives took part in Benghazi attack - CNN.com


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 29, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why are low information voters so easily swayed?



feel free to explain why you are


----------



## Vox (Dec 29, 2013)

> They were pro-al queda.



which means they are support al Qaeda and are active militant terrorist group.

an offspring of al Qaeda.

which is the same.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Sorry, once again you're wrong.

8 months later:

*



			Several Yemeni men belonging to al Qaeda took part in the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi last September, according to several sources who have spoken with CNN.

One senior U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that "three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," or AQAP, took part in the attack.
		
Click to expand...

*
*Sources: 3 al Qaeda operatives took part in Benghazi attack*

Sources: 3 al Qaeda operatives took part in Benghazi attack - CNN.com

By *Paul Cruickshank. Tim Lister. Nic Robertson and Fran Townsend,* CNN
updated 9:23 AM EDT, *Sat May 4, 2013*<---------


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 29, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Why are low information voters so easily swayed?
> ...



Funny, now run along and play


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

Have a seat, paperview.


----------



## B. Kidd (Dec 29, 2013)

Looks like Hildebeast is gonna run.......as the NYT is providing early cover for her.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

Vox said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > When will Issa apologize to the American people for tying up Congress for ten hearings?
> ...



What lies?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



Yeah..maybe they should.

Along with this guy.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wof1mY6NYW8]Did witness lie about Benghazi attacks? - YouTube[/ame]

And the CIA are paid to lie.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



"If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period."

-Barack Obama, stated in 36 different instances over the past 5 years.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 29, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



How about this one?

Obama wants to keep 3,000-5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq into 2012 - The Washington Post


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Face it, we now know what Hilary would do if the phone rings at 3 a.m., she'd say "let them die what difference does it make?


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 29, 2013)

Pop23 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



i am...


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

TooTall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



And it was only 8 short months later that the attack occurred.

Somehow these guys, only armed with box cutters were able to steal 4 US commercial airliners, fly them around for over an hour in US air space and ram them into some pretty expensive real estate killing close to 3,000 Americans.

That's with the most expensive and advanced military in the world.

Musta been Clinton's fault, right?

Along with the first world trade center bombing that took place weeks after he assumed office.

Why anyone lets conservatives be in charge of anything important is beyond me..


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 29, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Bush never did a thing he said he would...a catastrophe...



Good thing, if he had done that education thing he was talking about we would have national testing standards that treat every kid like a cog in a machine. What was it that he called that, wasn't it something stupid like No Child Left Behind?


----------



## paperview (Dec 29, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


So who were they?

Issa did all that 'vestigating.

Who were these Yemeni dudes?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Face what?

This guy was a fucking liar.

And catch up.

Bush's body count is huge.

And none of you guys ever gave a fuck.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And the far left once again posts using far left talking points and propaganda.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Not a lie.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 29, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



*Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has expressed a desire to keep some U.S. trainers in the country in 2012, past the deadline negotiated by the George W. Bush administration to remove all U.S. troops from the country.*
*U.S. officials said it is still not clear exactly what kinds of training the Americans would provide and how many trainers would be needed to accomplish the mission. The estimate of 3,000 to 5,000 troops reflects a general consensus on what is politically feasible in Iraq and the United States*.

fail, try reading your own links. this isnt even about ending the war. seriously you are fucking stupid.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



More far left propaganda based on their programming.

The far left caused more deaths than Bush with their so called "freedom of Speech" from 2003 to 2006. How does it feel to have contributed to those deaths being a loyal far left programed drone?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 29, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



Right after he closes Guantanamo.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 29, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


The thread is about Benghazi. 

Stop trying to deflect. 

If you want to whine about the ACA start your own thread.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

Care4all said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > House lawmakers on Sunday disputed a new report that concludes Al Qaeda played no role in the fatal 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
> ...





Fox News = Bad.  Did you read the quote from the Democrat Congressmen who basically said the NY Times story was bullshit?  

Guess not because it's all about Fox News.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 29, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Really, I thought it was about the New York Times trying to cover for Clinton.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Really?

So either that man is lying or the Obama admin is lying:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi Talking Points Timeline.pdf

You do remember the CIA scrubbing talking points about the attack 12 different times don't you?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



Which wasn't a lie either.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Hillary isn't fit to be President, it is just that simple.

She is a shrill, conniving vindictive bitch who craves power.

 The epitome of the word "shrew".


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 29, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



That's obvious


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> Thread is bogus.  Just saying.



The left is reduced to outright lying, hoping they wont get called on it.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



He did say "What lies?" didn't he? Or can you not read?


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



I have to ask and trust me I would riot Jerry and Abby  et al again on that fabulous day of rage why are none of you marching and torching and going crazy over your President just being a hit man?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Tell that to the 6 million people who lost their insurance, buddy.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Don't vote for her..it's as simple as that.

I will.


----------



## B. Kidd (Dec 29, 2013)

The Democrap propaganda machine is rolling early for 2016.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Still not a lie, buddy.


----------



## paperview (Dec 29, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


You find out who these Yemmy men are yet Templar?

Still searching furiously?


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 29, 2013)

Democrats are only cool when it's a D war


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

This thread is sad.  Just like Obama...it is built on nothing but lies.  Too bad.  I guess the zero credibility lame stream media strikes again.


----------



## NoNukes (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.
> ...



When the NYT says something bad about Obama, these sheep on the right sure listen.


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



In the primary, she likely won't make it to the general


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

Doesn't change the fact the NY Times story is complete and utter bullshit.


----------



## paperview (Dec 29, 2013)

As to the video...

...Sept 13, 2012:



> The protest in Egypt was a riot, planned by  extremist Egyptians   known as Salafists, anti-Western clerics and  political representatives   who used the video ridiculing Mohammed to gain  supporters, said Eric   Trager, an analyst at the Washington Institute  for Near East Policy.
> 
> He said the protest  outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was announced   Aug. 30 by Jamaa  Islamiya, a group the State Department has designated   as a terrorist  organization. The demonstration was to protest the   ongoing imprisonment  of its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman,   who is serving a life  sentence in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade   Center.
> 
> ...





> "These crowds are using the movie as an excuse to wreak violence on  Americans in Libya and Egypt," Jasser says. "
> 
> *Uneducated populations will  viscerally react.   There is no quicker way to get a mob enraged than by  using religious   intonations."*


After attacks in Egypt and Libya, USA asks: Why? ? USATODAY.com

Strange how events can happen together, and people can be known to rile   up extremists, especially as it relates to their religion and their  God.   
Weird, I know.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Prove it.


----------



## NoNukes (Dec 29, 2013)

Sherry said:


> The left should just accept that Benghazi will continue to plague Hillary...they're free to ignore and/or cherry pick whatever facts they choose.



The people who believe this nonsense would not vote for Hillary, if will not hurt her at all.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 29, 2013)

Only a complete moron would believe that the attack was the result if a video.


----------



## asaratis (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Just how silly and stupid can you get?  There is no comparison between 9-11-2001 and Benghazi.  Obama knew the target...he knew that the target was not adequately defended...he knew of the significant anniversary date...he allowed the target to be attacked...he allowed the killing of four American citizens.

...and even after the LEADER OF LYBIA came out and said that radical Muslims did the attacking, Obama LIED and blamed it on demonstrations caused by a video that offended Muslims.  He did that to keep from interrupting his plans to be re-elected.

You hardheaded, lying fuckstick!  Where are your goddamned ethics?





rightwinger said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger still throwing it out there even though he knows the story is a fraud.  Just like his beloved messiah.  Keep repeating the lie and hope people will be stupid enough to believe it.
> ...


Right...that's why the President of Libya was so pissed that Obama claimed the video caused it even after he (the President of Libya) stated otherwise.  That's why we were delayed in being permitted to visit the site...at our own embassy.  

Obama is a diplomatic FOOL!  Hillary was a useful follower!  YOU are equally, pitifully attached to the boy-king!


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Oh do tell. 

I have the Highways of Heroes

That's what I was working on.

Oh and a by the way Why didn't you vote for her in 2008?

You could have saved the planet a whole batch of shit going down.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

NoNukes said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > The left should just accept that Benghazi will continue to plague Hillary...they're free to ignore and/or cherry pick whatever facts they choose.
> ...



My question to you is:

How can you prove it's nonsense? There's a lot of denial going on in this thread.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




Of course you will, you love being lied to by your kings and queens.


----------



## paperview (Dec 29, 2013)

Vox said:


> > They were pro-al queda.
> 
> 
> which means they are support al Qaeda and are active militant terrorist group.
> ...


No.  They are no Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda likes to brag of their actions   to  gain support from extremists. Have you noticed?

Why didn't they list the attacks in Benghazi?  Why?  It was by all measures a successful attack against Americans. 

Why? Because they weren't  involved. 
​


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Try February 26, 1993 under President Clinton, followed by the Khobar Towers bombing at Saudi Arabia in 1996, the U.S. Embassy bombings Kenya/Tanzania in 1998, then the successful attack on the USS Cole Bombing at Yemen in 2000. The weakest administration to protect US interests from the likes of Osama Bin Laden.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Unlike say George W. Bush?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdTG3DU28BU]2003 State of the Union - Bush prepares to invade Iraq pt 1 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

Or Ronald Reagan?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow]Telling Lies - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## depotoo (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Pants On Fire: PolitiFact Tries To Hide That It Rated 'True' in 2008 Obamacare's 'Keep Your Health Plan' Promise - Forbes


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

Or Poppa Bush?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZtaZTEO3jA]Convention flashback: 'Read my lips ...' - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Terrorists, operatives from Al Qaeda. What else would they be?

Yep, you lose. I obliterated your premise. What of this, then?

Consulate Attack Preplanned, Libya's President Says : NPR


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

depotoo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Yeah, and?



> liedly·ing
> Definition of LIE
> 
> intransitive verb
> ...



That's not what happened.

There was no intention to deceive anyone.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Or Ronald Reagan?
> 
> Telling Lies - YouTube


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kg9m1F8B2_c&desktop_uri=/watch?v=kg9m1F8B2_c  here you go


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



If HRC were to announce shes becoming a republican, youd vote for her in a heartbeat.


----------



## paperview (Dec 29, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...




Now it's just laughable.

You can't name them, and post an article from 9/16/12???

Seriously? 

There were a ton 'O 'vestigating by Issa's publicans.  Who? Who? Who?

You can't name them, Kenya?  You just repeat the Foxy angle, with nothing to show for it, after alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll this time.

  Comedy, at its finest.


----------



## paperview (Dec 29, 2013)

There's no doubt they were terrorists.  That's not the issue, it's the Al Qaeda link you guys can't make.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Or Ronald Reagan?
> 
> Telling Lies - YouTube


    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg9m1F8B2_c]65 Outrageous Lies by President Obama - YouTube[/ame]        here you go


----------



## Londoner (Dec 29, 2013)

Theowl32 said:


> After the commie in chief took over and had the super majority with the democrats, the country took a big fat smelly shit, and the moronic liberal voters blamed it all on Bush. (even though the democrats had majority power since 2007, and the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent the last time the republicans had majority power.)



*The Democrats controlled the House for the entire Reagan presidency*, and the Senate for 2 years when there was massive economic growth. They are never given credit. On the other hand, you give the GOP controlled House all the credit for the economic growth during the Clinton presidency. You sound like partisan hack who only gives credit to your own party. If in every post you talk about how perfect and incredible the GOP is, and how evil and incompetent the Left is, than nobody is going to take you seriously. 

Bush 43 was in office when this nation had its most destructive financial collapse since the Great Depression. The man lost both the housing and financial markets on his watch, but nobody is allowed to blame him for anything, including things that happened on his watch.

Read Greenspan's "Age of Turbulence" where he reports how Bush pressured him to leave rates at 50 years lows so they could manufacture a temporary prosperity bubble to get past Kerry and keep the war going. Your Leader fucking dumped kerosene on the housing bubble, the destruction of which did long term damage to the American economy. 

*This is to say nothing of the "Wild West" deregulatory orgy inside the mortgage and securities markets where our glorious financial innovators removed all lending standards and leverage regulations in order to profit wildly off the most criminally inflated asset bubble in American history.*

If you don't believe me about Bush's central role in the housing bubble, than listen carefully to his own words  - below. (We know you won't do this because all your posts reveal you to be merely a cheerleader for the GOP). *Please tell me why Bush, in this speech below, sketches his plan for removing all lending and financial barriers to minority home owners and unqualified borrowers?* And please tell me why your party has yet to acknowledge the housing policies that were enacted when your party held the Presidency, Senate and House. [We know the Democrats like to expand housing because they started doing it under Carter without any bad negative effects on financial markets. But your party is different because they think the government shouldn't play a role in expanding home ownership. So why does Bush get a pass for the words he speaks in the video below, where he sketches the most aggressive expansion of home ownership to unqualified borrowers in this nation's history? Please, dear cheerleader, answer a direction question with a direct answer. Stop cheerleading and address what Bush says below).

*Your party manufactured a housing bubble in order to stimulate an economy that had been destroyed by their policies.* They destroyed the country. If you want to talk about Obama - fine. He proved to be a rookie who could not play hard ball against your party. He proved weak. But why do you give Bush a pass on doing long term damage to the American economy by playing a major role in growing the most destructive asset bubble in anyone's life time.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8]Home Ownership and President Bush - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Or Ronald Reagan?
> 
> Telling Lies - YouTube



Here is where you fail kid, people on your side think EVERYONE is as partisan as you are, we aren't but let's back up here first...you do know that Reagan is admitting he was wrong here?

Never mind,  Daddy Bush was an idiot, Baby Bush was worse, but I'd ask you.....is your point he lied about WMD?

*"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002*

*"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998*

*"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
 Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
*

*"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002*

*"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002*


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

*
 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002*

*"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
*


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 29, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



You can't prove ANYTHING to people who don't believe anyone but Pub demagogues, like yourself. Luckily, that's only 20-25 per cent of the country...and nobody else in the world.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Clayton you prove my point, you think everyone is as stupid as you...I did not vote for McCain.

Next.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

depotoo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Or Ronald Reagan?
> ...



You gotta love it.

Some of those "lies" have to get repeated to get the number to 65.

Aren't you embarrassed about that?


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

This is my favorite.


*"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002*


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> This is my favorite.
> 
> 
> *"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002*



I'm sorry.

Where did that intelligence come from?


----------



## ItsOnlyMe (Dec 29, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> The New York Times has spoken...
> 
> The rest of us need to know only that.
> 
> ...



If the 4 killed in Benghazi had been black, and the killers white, why my God, we'd hear a different story from Obummer and his cronies.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > This is my favorite.
> ...



snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

Snopes says its true


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > This is my favorite.
> ...



*"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998*

1998?


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

*"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998*

1998?


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

*"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998*

1998?


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

*"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999*

1999?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



You... are having a  meltdown, Sallow. You have nothing but your own assertions. They were tacit, complicit, the works. Obama is a liar, deal with it.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Just thank me.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

ItsOnlyMe said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > The New York Times has spoken...
> ...



That is a bit far fetched. Sorry.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Just thank me.



I already did.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


    it was either a lie or incompetence.  Take your pick


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 29, 2013)

paperview said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > > They were pro-al queda.
> ...



Okey dokey here. Your assassination Prez  death by drone  AQ #2

Is anyone else getting that if you whacked off #2 the libyan dude shits going to hit the fan.


----------



## TooTall (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The first two terrorist pilots arrive in the US in Jan, 2000  Sept, 2001 is 21 months later.  They came here on Clinton's watch and he was in office until Jan 2001.  

The military does not screen passengers getting on civilian airliners.

The first WTC attack was in late Feb 1993 shortly after Clinton took office.  Feel free to blame it on him if that is what makes your cookie crumble.

The failure of the CIA and FBI to prevent either of these attacks has nothing to do with conservative or liberal ideology.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 29, 2013)

Why do you guys lie so much.? Late June or early July your government was doing an old figure that I can only give up to Tripple H


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> I guess the blatant attempt to rehabilitate Hillary is an epic failure.  Benghazi will hang around her neck for the rest of her political life.  No amount of lies or spin by the NY Times are other corrupt rags will change that.  Might as well deal with it Libs.




I see the scurrying around to try and make this new finding to be false......what a blow to the conservative conspiracy theorists who were so adamant that "it wasn't about the video"...all I can say is, another epic fail for conservatives......


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> House lawmakers on Sunday disputed a new report that concludes Al Qaeda played no role in the fatal 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
> 
> The report, published Saturday in The New York Times, found no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had a role in the assault that killed four Americans on Sept. 11, 2012, and that it appeared that the attack was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made anti-Islamic video, as the Obama administration first claimed.
> 
> ...


Why would anyone in their right mind believe the NY Times anyway?


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

paperview said:


> There's no doubt they were terrorists.  That's not the issue, it's the *Al Qaeda link you guys can't make*.




Oh, they'll try and make one up.....that was their only defense going against Hillary and now it's falling apart....

Their only hope "Christie" also has a mess to try and clean up....they just can't win...


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

AmericanFirst said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > House lawmakers on Sunday disputed a new report that concludes Al Qaeda played no role in the fatal 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
> ...



Because it is certainly more credible than Faux News?


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> Funny...libtards are all over the two lying threads on Benghazi, but when they have actual quotes from Republicans and Dems debunking the NY Times garbage they're no where to be found.  Wonder why?


Because libtards hate the truth because the truth shows them for what they are, LIARS!!!!


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 29, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.



Yo Joe please explain , if you can, some contradictions:



The NY Times article claims that "a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, *Ahmed Abu Khattala,"*



But the NY Times had previously reported that Mr Khattala had stated:

*"Although Mr. Abu Khattala said he was not a member of Al Qaeda, he declared he would be proud to be associated with Al Qaedas puritanical zeal for Islamic law"*


Joe, are the requirements to join AQ strict ones?



.

Furthermore, the NY Times had previously reported in the same article that :



*Contradicting the accounts of many witnesses* and the most recent account of the Obama administration,* he contended that the attack had grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the United States that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam.*


So  what happened to the previous witnesses, how come they are no longer believable?

.


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> Doesn't change the fact the NY Times story is complete and utter bullshit.




Well, come up with the links to Al Qaeda and you may be credible....but so far.....all that vitriol about Benghazi not being about the video seems to be coming up to be just "hot air" - what it was the whole time!


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.


No, he wasn't. Anyone who would believe the NY Times has lost a few million brain cells. Obamaturd and his army of idiots on the left would love for Benghazi to go away because obamaturd knows he got caught in one more lie, as he usually does.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Dec 29, 2013)

Sherry said:


> Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.


*
Oh right.....Now if it had been Breitbart or Fox it would have cred.  Did you click on the article?  I have the actual paper here.  But for you idiots who need flash cards because you can't make it past a headline, go to the link and at least check out the graphics.*


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 29, 2013)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.
> ...



Deflection again


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



 please explain , if you can, some contradictions:



The NY Times article claims that "a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, *Ahmed Abu Khattala,"*



But the NY Times had previously reported that Mr Khattala had stated:

"Although Mr. Abu Khattala said he was not a member of Al Qaeda, he declared he would be proud to be associated with Al Qaedas puritanical zeal for Islamic law"

*
Are the requirements to join AQ strict ones?*



.

Furthermore, the NY Times had previously reported in the same article that :



*Contradicting the accounts of many witnesses *and the most recent account of the Obama administration,* he contended that the attack had grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the United States that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam.*
*
So what happened to the previous witnesses, how come they are no longer believable?*

.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Obama refused to send help...because of the video
> ...



The attack took place over 8 hours.

Val Jarrett refused to send help

End of story


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



Unlike his famous, multifaceted, and often repeated, lies, "If you like your _____ you can keep your _____."


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

Kosh said:


> The far left will believe anything that the far left prints without question or hesitation.



Er, hmmm, like you don't believe everything Faux News tells you?  Without hesitation?

Pot meet kettle.....


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 29, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > When will Issa apologize to the American people for tying up Congress for ten hearings?
> ...




Well I'm sure the death of an American Ambassador Stevens doesn't mean much to the Democrats, which is why they'd rather bury the issue, forget about it, and move on.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

Mertex said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't change the fact the NY Times story is complete and utter bullshit.
> ...




Did you read the article?  Just curious.  To be nice, I'll highlight the relevant passage to help you out.  Reading comprehension must not be your strength.  Either that, or you're an idiot.  



_*The responses by Rogers and Schiff Sunday follow New York Rep. Peter King, member and former chairman of the House&#8217;s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, telling Fox News on Saturday the argument in the Times story that the militia group Ansar al-Shariah -- not Al Qaeda -- led the Benghazi attack is an academic argument over semantics.

&#8220;It&#8217;s misleading,&#8221; said King, considering Ansar al-Shariah is widely believed to be an affiliate terror group of Al Qaeda. &#8220;It&#8217;s a distinction without a difference.&#8221;*_


Btw...your avi is a porn star.  Nice touch.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

"At this point what difference does it make?"

HC


----------



## Darkwind (Dec 29, 2013)

Care4all said:


> the Times Never said terrorism was not involved, NEVER and you all are just regurgitating a LIE....
> 
> be proud of yourselves!  Make Christ proud of you at least during this Christmas season, stop your lies, all of you on the right and the left....if you're lying, just STOP IT!  If you are ignorant on a topic, then don't lie for the sake of lying....inform yourself, before speaking and passing along another lie you've read...
> 
> ...


The only lie here is the NYT's article.  Shill some more.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

I am so glad I was able to use this thread to expose the lies of the NY Times and the mainstream media.  But be vigilant folks...it's three years to the next Presidential election.  This is the first of about 7 million stories/lies they will publish to further their agenda.  Don't let the bullshit fly this time.  Never again.


----------



## Darkwind (Dec 29, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


9/16/12......5 days after the attack......Naming them?  They have been named.  Long before the lies told by the NYT's...

If Obama shat in your mouth, would you say it was Issa and not Obama....that is the depths of your blindness.....

Say goodbye.  I have no use for people who are contrary just to be contrary and ignore facts and the truth.


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



Yup.

now let's hang Issa from a liberty tree.


----------



## TooTall (Dec 29, 2013)

Care4all said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > House lawmakers on Sunday disputed a new report that concludes Al Qaeda played no role in the fatal 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
> ...



Here is the latest breakdown of Al Qaeda.  

Al-Qaeda has the following direct affiliates:
	Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
	Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
	Al-Shabaab (Mujahideen Youth Movement) in Somalia
	Egyptian Islamic Jihad

Al-Qaeda has the following indirect affiliates:
	East Turkestan Islamic Movement
	Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
	Taliban
	Caucasus Emirate
	Fatah al-Islam
	Lashkar-e-Taiba
	Jaish-e-Mohammed

Al-Nusra Front
	Jemaah Islamiyah
	Abu Sayyaf
	Rajah Sulaiman movement
	Islamic Jihad Union
	Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa
	Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group
	Al-Qaeda Kurdish Battalions

Do you suppose any of those affiliates were involved.


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



Because the NYT says so!


----------



## 1776 (Dec 29, 2013)

First liberals claimed there was no terrorist attack, it was an angry mob that just showed up and a "few Americans died."

Then when caught they are now changing their lie to "well it wasn't AQ since the group that did the attack doesn't go by 'AQ'."

They are that pathetic and scummy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 29, 2013)

Conservative efforts to contrive a controversy where none exists is both pathetic and telling.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 29, 2013)

It was terrorist  activity.  It wasn't about the film.  The Obama administration lied.  The media ran interference for them.  And now the media is running interference for Hillary.

Have I missed anything?


----------



## 1776 (Dec 29, 2013)

Soooooo it's no big deal that the DoS and DoD weren't ready to protect Americans doing official duties in a terrorist wild west of Libya on some date....called 11 Sep? 

11 Sep...is an irrelevant date in your inferior pig brain.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservative efforts to contrive a controversy where none exists is both pathetic and telling.


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > WelfareQueen said:
> ...


Of course I read the article, and of course Peter King is a Republican, just like Mike Rogers and just like you, so you all sing the same song....what's new about that?  I guess  logic is not your strength, or you're the idiot, or both.




> Btw...your avi is a porn star.  Nice touch.


And you would know that....of course....


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservative efforts to contrive a controversy where none exists is both pathetic and telling.



Your attempts to contrive a controversy of a controversy where one does in fact exist is quite pathetic and telling.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 29, 2013)

Without going through the mess in this thread ... just looking at the title and wondering what Obama was supposedly correct about.  

He wasn't correct about the cause of the attack in Benghazi.  He was a shameless liar about that.  Was he actually correct about something?


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> I am so glad I was able to use this thread to expose the lies of the NY Times and the mainstream media.  But be vigilant folks...it's three years to the next Presidential election.  This is the first of about 7 million stories/lies they will publish to further their agenda.  Don't let the bullshit fly this time.  Never again.




You just wanted to jump ahead of a Lib picking up the story so you could push your spin, as usual....the only thing you had going against Hillary is disintegrating right before your eyes...how sad for you....


----------



## Darkwind (Dec 29, 2013)

IT is amusing that the left are reduced to trying to say that the terrorists who attacked Benghazi were not al-queada...just ordinary terrorists.  This after they claim it was about a movie made by an American.  How sad and pathetic.....


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Without going through the mess in this thread ... just looking at the title and wondering what Obama was supposedly correct about.
> 
> He wasn't correct about the cause of the attack in Benghazi.  He was a shameless liar about that.  Was he actually correct about something?



rw is back on the video kick.


----------



## 1776 (Dec 29, 2013)

Obama was caught with his pants down when this massacre happened in Libya.

He was going around tooting his horn over "personally killing UBL and destroying AQ terrorists worldwide" just in time for his re-election.

He couldn't have TERRORISTS killing a possible "gay" Ambassador and 3 CIA operatives/contractors doing something fishy with Islamic militants in Libya.....thus the criminal cover up with the bullshit video riot angle and endless lies thereafter.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

1776 said:


> Soooooo it's no big deal that the DoS and DoD weren't ready to protect Americans doing official duties in a terrorist wild west of Libya on some date....called 11 Sep?
> 
> 11 Sep...is an irrelevant date in your inferior pig brain.
> 
> ...



Yeah, and what of this?

Valerie Jarrett Gave Order To Stand Down In Benghazi Terrorist Attack - Investors.com


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 29, 2013)

Time for you rw's to manufacture a new phony scandal.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



There is a lot more evidence to consider, including those within the Obama Administration itself.



> A top State Department appointee told Libya's ambassador to the United States one day after the military-style assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that the terror group Ansar al-Shariah was responsible.
> 
> Secret email reveals top official told Libya's U.S. Abmassador that terrorists were behind Benghazi attack - four days BEFORE U.S. Ambassador to UN said it was a spontaneous attack | Mail Online






> Terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions, and they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions under way in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi. Hillary Clinton
> 
> Libyan president says attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was planned terrorism ? not reaction to anti-Islam film - NY Daily News






> According to an interview investigators conducted with Greg Hicks, a foreign service diplomat of 22 years, "everybody in the mission" in Benghazi believed the events of Sept 11, 2012, constituted a terrorist attack and we're not the result of spontaneous demonstrations as the administration portrayed the situation in the aftermath of the attack.
> 
> Benghazi Attack Appeared 'A Terrorist Attack From The Get-Go,' Says U.S. Official






> Libya's president says he believes al-Qaida is behind a deadly attack in eastern Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other U.S. staffers.
> 
> In an exclusive interview with NPR in Benghazi, President Mohammed el-Megarif says foreigners infiltrated Libya over the past few months, planned the attack and used Libyans to carry it out.
> 
> Consulate Attack Preplanned, Libya's President Says : NPR







> President Obama did not call his Libyan counterpart the night of the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler told lawmakers.
> 
> Instead, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called President Mohammed Magariaf on Obama's behalf that night to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya and access to Libyan territory, Ruemmler wrote in a letter dated Thursday. The president then called Magariaf the next evening.
> 
> Official: Obama didn't call Libya's president on night of attack | TheHill


----------



## 1776 (Dec 29, 2013)

To really illustrate how pathetic this story is and their running with this story is that the terrorist group which is not so-called AQ means Obama lied that he is personally shutting down terrorism worldwide when there are terrorist groups growing like weeds in Africa. 



Darkwind said:


> IT is amusing that the left are reduced to trying to say that the terrorists who attacked Benghazi were not al-queada...just ordinary terrorists.  This after they claim it was about a movie made by and American.  How sad and pathetic.....


----------



## Amelia (Dec 29, 2013)

Darkwind said:


> IT is amusing that the left are reduced to trying to say that the terrorists who attacked Benghazi were not al-queada...just ordinary terrorists.  This after they claim it was about a movie made by and American.  How sad and pathetic.....



^^that





*well, not an American, but a U.S. resident


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

Pop23 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



go ahead attack the source without referring to any of the info contained...

what a loser you show yourself to be


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

1776 said:


> To really illustrate how pathetic this story is and their running with this story is that the terrorist group which is not so-called AQ means Obama lied that he is personally shutting down terrorism worldwide when there are terrorist groups growing like weeds in Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Is that your new scandal?.......


----------



## 1776 (Dec 29, 2013)

Asswipe....how does your smoke and mirrors help counter an Islamic terrorist group killed 4 Americans on 11 Sep???

I bet you have some stupid gif for it.



Luddly Neddite said:


> Time for you rw's to manufacture a new phony scandal.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



The incident in Mogadishu...


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

1776 said:


> First liberals claimed there was no terrorist attack, it was an angry mob that just showed up and a "few Americans died."
> 
> Then when caught they are now changing their lie to "well it wasn't AQ since the group that did the attack doesn't go by 'AQ'."
> 
> They are that pathetic and scummy.



what in the whacky world of rightwing imbecility are you yapping on about?


liberals this and liberals that....jesus


----------



## plant (Dec 29, 2013)

Looks like the big O punks the Faux drool crew once again !! Issa is obamas BITCH lmao


----------



## 1776 (Dec 29, 2013)

Dumbfuck....pointing out your current lie/angle really shows how Obama is a lying sack of shit regarding "terrorism dying" is not some scandal. It just proves how pathetic and stupid you scum are....



Mertex said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > To really illustrate how pathetic this story is and their running with this story is that the terrorist group which is not so-called AQ means Obama lied that he is personally shutting down terrorism worldwide when there are terrorist groups growing like weeds in Africa.
> ...


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

1776 said:


> Asswipe....how does your smoke and mirrors help counter an Islamic terrorist group killed 4 Americans on 11 Sep???
> 
> I bet you have some stupid gif for it.
> 
> ...


Maybe we should attack Spain?  Like Bush went and attacked Iraq?  Brilliant....


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



You are projecting kid....the article's BS has been dealt with ad nauseam.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



The info says the video caused it. Which is bullshit. That was clearly debunked in the hearings and by the President of Libya himself!


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

plant said:


> Looks like the big O punks the Faux drool crew once again !! Issa is obamas BITCH lmao



How juvenile.


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Without going through the mess in this thread ... just looking at the title and wondering what Obama was supposedly correct about.
> 
> He wasn't correct about the cause of the attack in Benghazi.  He was a shameless liar about that.  Was he actually correct about something?



where did he lie  



> The White House
> 
> Office of the Press Secretary
> For Immediate Release
> ...


----------



## Amelia (Dec 29, 2013)

1776 said:


> Obama was caught with his pants down when this massacre happened in Libya.
> 
> He was going around tooting his horn over "personally killing UBL and destroying AQ terrorists worldwide" just in time for his re-election.
> 
> He couldn't have TERRORISTS killing a possible "gay" Ambassador and 3 CIA operatives/contractors doing something fishy with Islamic militants in Libya.....thus the criminal cover up with the bullshit video riot angle and endless lies thereafter.




^^nailed it!


----------



## 1776 (Dec 29, 2013)

Spain? Your pig brain is really misfiring.

Are you male or female.....



Mertex said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Asswipe....how does your smoke and mirrors help counter an Islamic terrorist group killed 4 Americans on 11 Sep???
> ...


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Dec 29, 2013)

The NYT says Hillary is in the clear so let it go damnit. We can't white wash a terrible record of supporting & defending Americans overseas if we keep poking around.


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I smell a witch hunt for partisan bs purposes.


----------



## 1776 (Dec 29, 2013)

Yes shitstain...you are too slow to follow along.

go play in highway traffic, for the sake of humanity. 



Dante said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > First liberals claimed there was no terrorist attack, it was an angry mob that just showed up and a "few Americans died."
> ...


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Dec 29, 2013)

Psst.... we must make Hillary look good at any cost prior to the upcoming election.

Pass it on


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



step out of the rightwing echo chamber

attempting a refuting of facts by reviving old talking points that have been discredited?


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 29, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the dynamics of the Libyan civil war.
> 
> Would know that Al Qaeda really didn't have a dog in the fight.
> 
> And that Benghazi was a spontaneous event by a local group of radicals and not a well organized and planned operation.     ....



I beg to differ sir.

AQ#1 had put out a hit. You have to remember the drone killer in chief  AKA the President on #2.

Big whoopsies.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Without going through the mess in this thread ... just looking at the title and wondering what Obama was supposedly correct about.
> ...



Ummmm, you do know the Times says the video caused it....


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

plant said:


> Looks like the big O punks the Faux drool crew once again !! Issa is obamas BITCH lmao


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Because Dante say so!

Now that's funny

Hey Dante, answer this question will ya?

No military aide was sent to the ambassador. The reason appears to be that the closest aide available was seven hours away. 

How could the administration know that the attacks would last less than seven hours?


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




you are obviously a L-I-A-R



> framed by two contradictory story lines.
> 
> One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obamas national security adviser.
> 
> ...


----------



## 1776 (Dec 29, 2013)

Dumbfuck....we need to understand your pig brain so here are some questions....

Did an attack happen?

Did 4 Americans die?

Who killed them? 

Are the killers Islamic terrorists? 

Was there really a mob behind the attacks?

What was the CIA doing at that DoS outpost?



Dante said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



The Times:

_framed by two contradictory story lines.

One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obamas national security adviser.

The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaedas role to avoid undermining the presidents claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

*The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests.* Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs._

the poster [MENTION=40954]Antares[/MENTION]  like TempleSeizure
yet another L-I-A-R


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



No no, it's a bitch hunt.

Hillary screwed it up royally.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.




^^^Pathetic Revisionist History from an Ex News Organization^^^


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

Pop23 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



what in the world are you talking about? you sound a a 911 truther or worse...a Kenyan Birther


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

1776 said:


> Dumbfuck....we need to understand your pig brain so here are some questions....
> 
> Did an attack happen?
> 
> ...



another one...reading from some script...


sounding like a 911 truther and a Kenyan Birther


----------



## Dirk the Daring (Dec 29, 2013)

How does this prove Obama right?  Oh, that's right, he blamed BOTH a youtube video AND terrorists!  I guess it's not hard to be 'right' when you revise your answers to fit the ever-changing narrative.


----------



## Political Junky (Dec 29, 2013)

Good to get this cleared up. Now the Right can move on to new "scandals".


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> The NY Times story is complete and utter bullshit.  I just saw Mike Rogers on CNN.  He is the head of the House Intelligence Committee.  He said none of the "facts" in the NY Times piece are accurate.  Democrats on the Committee said the same thing.
> 
> _*This story by the Times is a fluff piece that is designed to help Hillary for her 2016 run.  Total bullshit.  Disregard.  *_



While men, women and children were dying in the  Ukraine, my people were dying. Starved to death by Stalin.

What hell is this that they think they can do this again?


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



And you look like another making excuses for the child in charge.


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

1776 said:


> Spain? Your pig brain is really misfiring.


I guess that was too hard for your little pea brain to break down?



> Are you male or female.....



What difference does it make?  Are you trying to hit on me?  I'm not interested....


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 29, 2013)

I don't understand how anyone can believe them?


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante needs to read further 


*The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.*


----------



## nitroz (Dec 29, 2013)

Sherry said:


> Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.



fox news should have done it.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

^^^^NY times lied and morons keep going.  This has been a good day.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

*&#8220;Innocence of Muslims&#8221; purported to be an online trailer for a film about the mistreatment of Christians in contemporary Egypt. But it included bawdy historical flashbacks that derided the Prophet Muhammad. Someone dubbed it into Arabic around the beginning of September 2012, and a Cairo newspaper embellished the news by reporting that a Florida pastor infamous for burning the Quran was planning to debut the film on the 11th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Then, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy.
*


----------



## Dirk the Daring (Dec 29, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> Good to get this cleared up. Now the Right can move on to new "scandals".



In other words, 'Glad to see the media wing of the democrat party absolve the democrat party of any wrong-doing so I can firmly place my head in the sand again.'


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

It's fun to see all these NY Times Benghazi threads die.  The truth will set you free.


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> House lawmakers on Sunday disputed a new report that concludes Al Qaeda played no role in the fatal 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
> 
> The report, published Saturday in The New York Times, found no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had a role in the assault that killed four Americans on Sept. 11, 2012, and that it appeared that the attack was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made anti-Islamic video, as the Obama administration first claimed.
> 
> ...



jesus .... how funny.


al qaeda nyt quote:

The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

---


the wingnuts turn it into something else. where does the Times say groups were not influenced by al qaeda?

sounding more and more like 911 truthers and Kenyan Birthers.   poor rightwingers,,,,,gone over the edge of reality


----------



## boedicca (Dec 29, 2013)

The NYT tells then what they (and Hillary) so desperately want to hear.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante is a moron.

*Reports of the video were just beginning to spread on Sept. 9 when Mr. McFarland, then the officer normally in charge of politics and economics at the United States Embassy in Tripoli, had his meeting with the Benghazi militia leaders. Among them were some of the same men who had greeted Mr. Stevens when he arrived in Benghazi at the start of the revolt, including Mr. Gharabi, 39, a heavyset former Abu Salim inmate who ran a local sandwich truck before becoming the leader of the Rafallah al-Sehati. Another was Wissam bin Hamid, also 39, a slim and slightly hunched mechanic known for his skill with American cars who by then had become the leader of Libya Shield, considered one of the strongest militias in Libya.*


----------



## 1776 (Dec 29, 2013)

If you're female then you're a 300 lbs hag hiding behind your avatar...if you're a male then you're a limp dick that can't a date but get off on your avatar "woman."

That is all...



Mertex said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Spain? Your pig brain is really misfiring.
> ...


----------



## plant (Dec 29, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> plant said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like the big O punks the Faux drool crew once again !! Issa is obamas BITCH lmao
> ...



About a juvenile as the GOP making up fairy tails . Issa is Obama's bitch ! No way around that .


----------



## Darkwind (Dec 29, 2013)

Mertex said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > To really illustrate how pathetic this story is and their running with this story is that the terrorist group which is not so-called AQ means Obama lied that he is personally shutting down terrorism worldwide when there are terrorist groups growing like weeds in Africa.
> ...


Scandal?  That happened when the President (yet again) lied to the American people about the incident at Benghazi.  The fact that the NYT's and the left are trying to parse the difference between al-queada and an affiliated terror cell as meaning that there was no lie and no terrorist affiliation, is simply amusing.

It shows the depths that the progressives will go to in order to defend their POS President.


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

Dirk the Daring said:


> How does this prove Obama right?  Oh, that's right, he blamed BOTH a youtube video AND terrorists!  I guess it's not hard to be 'right' when you revise your answers to fit the ever-changing narrative.



The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 12, 2012
Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya

Rose Garden

10:43 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation.  Often, they are away from their families.  Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.  I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.  And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya.  Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.  Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevenss body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.  I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi. 

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

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.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you.  May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

END
10:48 A.M. EDT


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dante needs to read further
> 
> 
> *The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.*



"Anger at the video motivated the initial attack."

just like arguing with 911 truthers....

"initial attack"


more than one attack happened.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



If you are attempting to include Hillary Clinton's view quoted as partisan.



> "Terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions, and they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions under way in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi.&#8221; Hillary Clinton
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...ti-islam-film-article-1.1168658#ixzz2ou2hHbcx


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 29, 2013)

I'd just like an honest answer on anything


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

I don't know why, but the attempts to defend the Benghazi bullshit and the NY Times is amusing the hell out of me.  Please folks...by all means...please continue.  

So, it really was all about a video?  Idiots.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Was it the video as the Article says?
As Obama's flaks all said the day after or what?

Which is it Dante?


----------



## Trajan (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



 uh yea,  ok then......



thats why obama has given/shared everything he has on it inc. permission for full disclosure on fbi files, cia fils and  has allowed any and all witnesses called by congress for testimony to appear........hey wait..


----------



## paperview (Dec 29, 2013)

Mertex said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't change the fact the NY Times story is complete and utter bullshit.
> ...


It wasn't *all* about the video....but I'd like to see them deny this:



> Innocence of Muslims purported to be an online trailer   for a film about the mistreatment of Christians in contemporary Egypt.  But it included bawdy historical flashbacks that derided the Prophet  Muhammad.
> 
> Someone dubbed it into Arabic around the beginning of  September 2012, and a Cairo newspaper embellished the news by reporting  that a Florida pastor infamous for burning the Quran was planning to  debut the film on the 11th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks.
> 
> ...



The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> ^^^^NY times lied and morons keep going.  This has been a good day.




Ha,ha, just because you or Faux News say it's a lie doesn't make it a lie......funny how that KoolAid works.

Really got you worked up, didn't it?


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dante needs to read further
> ...



Do tell, source?


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

boedicca said:


> The NYT tells then what they (and Hillary) so desperately want to hear.



I'm sure you meant what the right doesn't wan't to hear?  The truth?


----------



## rdean (Dec 29, 2013)

Funny how congress has intelligence the president doesn't.  What is the name of their "organization"?

I know it's not FBI or CIA.  Could it be ISA?


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

1776 said:


> If you're female then you're a 300 lbs hag hiding behind your avatar...if you're a male then you're a limp dick that can't a date but get off on your avatar "woman."
> 
> That is all...


So, what grade did you say you were in?  8th?  I figured as much.....


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

Fox News = Bad.   

Sweetie, you do understand both Democrats and Republicans were quoted and on television saying the NY Times piece was crap.  You do understand the quotes in the story are what folks on the Intelligence Committee actually said...and it's all on T.V.  

Tough to spin out of this one.  But please...keep trying.    Oh...and I know Fox News = Bad.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 29, 2013)

rdean said:


> Funny how congress has intelligence the president doesn't.  What is the name of their "organization"?
> 
> I know it's not FBI or CIA.  Could it be ISA?





It would be odd with any other president.  But with Obama it's not.  He never knows anything about anything which has gone wrong.  The only time he knows what's happening is if he can figure out how to take credit for something by knowing it.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Allow me to caution Dante, "initial" means beginning, throughout the article it speaks of the "attack" in a singular form...jus sayin kid....you are really looking stupid here.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Much like Sallow who had the good sense to slink away.


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

Darkwind said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > 1776 said:
> ...


The President didn't lie....he stated that it was a terrorist act, even though the right tried so hard to say he didn't.    And, he didn't rush to make a claim, because he's not like the "right" who makes a claim and then has to swallow it.....because it turns out to be wrong.



> It shows the depths that the progressives will go to in order to defend their POS President.


I think this thread just shows the depths the conservatives will go to try and hold on to their imaginary theories.......will have to come up with a new one, now that this one has been dissected....


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> Fox News = Bad.
> 
> Sweetie, you do understand both Democrats and Republicans were quoted and on television saying the NY Times piece was crap.  You do understand the quotes in the story are what folks on the Intelligence Committee actually said...and it's all on T.V.
> 
> Tough to spin out of this one.  But please...keep trying.    Oh...and I know Fox News = Bad.



Why would they do this? Please remember you are talking to someone on the mightyQ

But why would they do this?


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

Amelia said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how congress has intelligence the president doesn't.  What is the name of their "organization"?
> ...




And the few things he does actually know about...like millions getting their insurance killed...he lies about.  I would say he's basically 70/30.  

70% clueless....and the 30% he knows about he lies.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...





That's about right.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

The NY Times story is meant to do damage control for Hillary.  She lied multiple times about Benghazi.  Here is one example.  You think we'll all be seeing this in a few political ads over the coming few years.  Poor Hillary.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BQGMzmzcd0]Hillary Clinton Blames Youtube Video for Benghazi Terrorist Attack - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Allow me to caution Dante, "initial" means beginning, throughout the article it speaks of the "attack" in a singular form...jus sayin kid....you are really looking stupid here.



the 'attack' refers to a series of attacks over something like an 8 hour long incident.

'initial' get it yet?


----------



## Dirk the Daring (Dec 29, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Obama called it an 'act of terror,' which is different than calling it a 'terrorist act.'  I realize that being a liberal makes distinctions difficult, but please try to keep up.  This was even brought up during the debates... oh wait, you probably didn't watch those either.  Just support the God-King thru every endeavor!


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times



> on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy.
> 
> No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya. But Islamists in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. &#8220;It is Friday morning viewing,&#8221; popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.
> 
> By Sept. 9, a popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film. On the morning of Sept. 11, even some secular political activists were posting calls online for a protest that Friday, three days away.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 29, 2013)

Dirk the Daring said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...




Obama didn't even call it an act of terror.  He made a vague reference to acts of terror in connection with 9/11/2001, after earlier talking about the video in connection with Benghazi.  

He was fudging like the dishonest pro that he is.  He is an expert at saying a little bit of everything and then pretending afterward that what he said covered the facts of the situation.  

That's an interesting skill to have -- but it's not a virtuous one.  Obama is dishonest to his core but he has made it work for him in a phenomenal way.


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

Rightwingers forget or refuse to acknowledge facts like these:



> Mr. Stevens, who spent the day in the compound for security reasons because of the Sept. 11 anniversary, learned about the breach in a phone call from the American Embassy in Tripoli. Then a diplomatic security officer at the Benghazi mission called to tell the C.I.A. team. But as late as 6:40 p.m., Mr. Stevens appeared cheerful when he welcomed the Turkish consul, Ali Akin, for a visit.
> 
> There was even less security at the compound than usual, Mr. Akin said. No armed American guards met him at the gate, only a few unarmed Libyans. No security men, no diplomats, nobody, he said. There was no deterrence.


 A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 29, 2013)

Just my opinion but it seems this is the first of what will be many we love Hillary moments from the MSM leading up to 2016.


----------



## paperview (Dec 29, 2013)

So when is Issa gonna make this mess into the Gahzi crash y'alls hopes gonna happen?


----------



## paperview (Dec 29, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Dirk the Daring said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


Please proceed Governor....


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Dirk the Daring said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



"_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."

"But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand_ in stark contrast to those of their attackers._  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity."  Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya | The White House


acts of terror


jesus you people are pathetic with your hate and blindness

move away from wingnutworld talking points and the CONTEXT is about an act of terror


----------



## Howey (Dec 29, 2013)

deltex1 said:


> Did they turn up evidence it was in reaction to a half assed video about Mo??  That was the lie, Gertrude...all the rest is BS.



Yes.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Allow me to caution Dante, "initial" means beginning, throughout the article it speaks of the "attack" in a singular form...jus sayin kid....you are really looking stupid here.
> ...



I see so the article use the singular case to describe "multiple" attacks.

I can no longer help you, you are officially stupid.

But then we all knew that.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

Thanks for the quote.  Point out specifically where Obama called Benghazi a terrorist attack.  Thanks.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

NTG said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > Did they turn up evidence it was in reaction to a half assed video about Mo??  That was the lie, Gertrude...all the rest is BS.
> ...



Ummmm, no.

It is however telling that you people choose to believe the Lybian's over the American's....sucks to have to protect a stupid fuck like Obama at the cost of whatever integrity you may have had.


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> Thanks for the quote.  Point out specifically where Obama called Benghazi a terrorist attack.  Thanks.




The context was in speaking of the attacks in BEnghazi


grow up


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



jesus, you're dumb on this one.

The attack on Pearl Harbor...multiple launches of ...  oh forget it.  

wingnuts stuck on stupid are the twin separated at birth of the 911 truthers


----------



## Amelia (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Dirk the Daring said:
> ...




Is there some reason you took that out of context?  Are you afraid to quote what Obama said before that?  He said "no acts of terror"  after he spoke about 9/11/2001.  Just as I said.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the quote.  Point out specifically where Obama called Benghazi a terrorist attack.  Thanks.
> ...



Act of terror does not equate to terrorism unless it is John Kerry saying US troops terrorize locals in the middle of the night


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> NTG said:
> 
> 
> > deltex1 said:
> ...



Seeking to tell the truth and counter wingnut world spin is 'defending' Obama?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Much like Sallow who had the good sense to slink away.



Trolling?

Issa's investigation compromised a CIA investigation since he started leaking documents to the press almost immediately and without redaction.

He also got Petreaus, who arguably performed a major service for this nation in Iraq, into deep shit and ruined his career.

Issa also skipped right over the run up and handling of the Iraq war. There was plenty of wrong doing in that fiasco.

This was a bullshit partisan effort to sink the President. That's evidenced by Mitt Romney, who for the first time in US history criticized an American President about a foreign attack while it was on going.

This is not going to be remembered favorably by historians. And hopefully in 2014 and 2016, Republicans are punished for their treachery.


----------



## BluesMistress (Dec 29, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> > You can interview all the fucking Libyans you want. I watched the congressional hearings. The number 2 AMERICAN on the ground laid the blame at the administrations feet. The 9/11 anniversary was coming up. Additional security was requested and denied. It would not have bankrupted the treasury to send a platoon of Marines that would have stopped the terrorists in their tracks. Hilary and Obozo are guilty of accessory to murder.
> ...



It's a well established fact that there was no way to know when the attack would end. How can anyone possibly say there was NO Time when there was no known time limit. 
There were over 30 people that were left in Benghazi with no way to know how many were dead or alive. There was never ANYTHING done to save Anyone in Benghazi.
Many times the CIA and State both denied extra additional security. 

It never made it to the republicians to deny anyone anything...

Most telling is that Obama Never called or contacted anyone about an attack on 9-11 after his planned meeting at 5pm. Where was Obama?? Packing for his Las Vegas fundraiser with Jay Z & Beyoncé???  He started his day on 9-12 doing an interview with The Pimp with a Limp....Obama shows where his Priorities lie...


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



I don't give a damn what a partisan newspaper publication said. I've posted proof that the exact opposite is true. Al Qaeda did play part in this attack, not even you or the NYT can say otherwise.  The Libyan President knew a full four days before the CIA did that this attack involved Al Qaeda, random Libyans in the area of the attack also stated this was "pre-planned."

Spare me your garbage.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Not as dumb as only being capable of using one source as a means to contradict several others, but then the New York Times is anything but partisan right? That's like the right only using FOX News as their authority on the subject. Show me a source that doesn't have a self interest in seeing Hillary run for president.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...




Poor Dante "attack" is used in its "singular" throughout the article you just aren't very bright.

Why is this half white liar so important to you people?


----------



## BobPlumb (Dec 29, 2013)

Looks like the NY Times is carrying water for Obama, HC, and the democrats.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Much like Sallow who had the good sense to slink away.
> ...



Trolling?

No, apparently I was giving you too much credit.

You've been bitch slapped up one side and down the other here


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > WelfareQueen said:
> ...




Sorry I killed your NY Times Benghazi story.  It wasn't your fault.  Just more mainstream media bullshit to which we've all grown painfully familiar.  I still don't think it'll help Hillary in 2016...but they'll keep trying, and keep lying.  It is all they know at this point.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



So were they lying when they said it was a video that caused it, or are you trying to parse words to appear correct?

The latest excuse the administration is floating is that they went by the information they had, which is a bold-faced lie. They knew within 24 hrs it was an attack, not a protest over some stupid video. Also, they used this stupid excuse for a couple of weeks until they couldn't get away with it anymore. Obama even used it at the UN 2 weeks after the attack still blaming it on a video.


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



D'Oh!  The attack happened on the anniversary so of course it got mentioned. and your ref is two paragraphs before the quoted paragraph


the context is the attack on the consulate. it's obvious to any rational and fair-minded individual without hatred in their heart for the President


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Eyeah..

Basically that's what your imaginary friend tells you at the tea party you are having.

Boo boo bear.

What is Raggedy Ann saying now? "You da man"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyt6nVf_CA4]A Doll's Teaparty - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...





seriously, your hatred is showing


----------



## BluesMistress (Dec 29, 2013)

1776 said:


> The big question is who in the White House leaked bits and pieces of classified information to the NYTimes for them to "create" this lie.



The same idiot that recommended people donate to Obama instead of receiving wedding and birthday gifts


----------



## Amelia (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...




Oh bullshit.  It wasn't even obvious to Candy Crowley.  After her shameful performance in that debate she backtracked.


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



What in the world are you talking about....a debate?   Veer away all you want.  

The phrase 'terrorist attack' in the context of the President's address to the nation was clear except to partisan haters


----------



## Dirk the Daring (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Dirk the Daring said:
> ...



The Obama administration made the distinction between 'an act of terror' and a 'terrorist attack.'  Why am I 'blind' and full of 'hate' to do the same?  Why do you not?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

paperview said:


> So when is Issa gonna make this mess into the Gahzi crash y'alls hopes gonna happen?



When will you ever stop obsessing over Issa? Hillary's gonna be upset that you've found a new friend to play with.


----------



## Dirk the Daring (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



This debate;

CNN's Crowley Admits Obama Didn't Call Benghazi a Terror Attack

The one you probably didn't watch, because... why should any one question the God-King Obama...??


----------



## TooTall (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Much like Sallow who had the good sense to slink away.
> ...



The Democrats, including former Presidents Clinton and Carte, criticized Bush hundreds of times during the ongoing battles is Iraq and Afghanistan.  Don't come up with that crap about the "for the first time in US history" someone criticized a President.

And, I would need a timeline on Romney criticizing Obama during the attack since I do not believe it.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



LOL, poor Sallow.


----------



## bitterlyclingin (Dec 29, 2013)

[The gals in my wife's office once decided to ask this special male colleauge how he voted.
"I'm gay! Of course I vote Democratic!" was his reply.
It was also as clear an admission as ever heard that some people really do their thinking with their d!ck.

Betcha it was a hot time at 'Pinch's' place in the Hamptons last night in anticipation of this story's imminent release with the all male conga line really hoppin'. They probably even had to send out for another 55 gallon drum of KY jelly due to all the revelers frolic. 
"We're saved! Its gonna be Hillary all the way in 2016. Was there ever any doubt?"
Just the NYT rewriting history. Sorta like their polling. The usual make up of an NYT polling sample runs like this: 50 per cent Democrats, 15 per cent Republicans and 35 per cent independents who voted for Barack Obama. The Times will typically commission a poll with a sample this skewed, then write a front page story about the results.
This is likely the Times last gasp as the so called newspaper of record. The National Enquirer will have a better standing after this. Mebbe if 'Pinch' sells the digs in the Hamptons he might be able to get by just selling his rag to the 82% of New Yorkers who voted for Barack Obama] 

"But Kirkpatrick says he found no evidence of involvement in the attack by al Qaeda or other international terrorist group. The good faith of that claim depends on his diligence in searching for such evidence. As Tom Joscelyn has shown, Kirkpatrick appears willfully to have ignored key players who likely were involved in the Benghazi attack and who have documented ties with al Qaeda. Kirkpatricks cherry picking suggests bad faith.

Similarly, Kirkpatricks claim that the Benghazi attack was fueled in large part by anger at the video about Islam seems to rest primarily on what Libyans told him after the fact. These sources cant entirely be discounted, of course. However, it is surely self-serving for Libyans, almost regardless of their persuasion, to blame the attack on external events, and especially anti-Islamism, rather than on the bloodthirsty extremism of the Libyan attackers themselves.

Kirkpatricks heavy reliance on self-serving comments by Libyans that also serve the purposes of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, etc, suggests that he had a story he wanted to write and was looking for confirmation of that story. 

This suspicion was confirmed to me by one of the people Kirkpatrick interviewed. This person, probably as well informed about the Benghazi attack as any American, tells me that during the interview with Kirkpatrick (which occurred many months ago), it quickly became clear that he had his conclusions and simply wanted me to confirm them, not refute them. It also became clear, my source adds, that Kirkpatrick was off the rails.

Off the rails is bad enough. But off the rails for an ulterior motive is worse. Unfortunately, this may well be what were witnessing in the Times revisionist account of Benghazi."

The New York Times ? off the rails for an ulterior motive | Power Line

"Left out of the Timess account are the many leads tying the attackers to al Qaedas international network. 

For instance, there is no mention of Muhammad Jamal al Kashef, an Egyptian. This is odd, for many reasons. 

On October 29, 2012 three other New York Times journalists reported that Jamals network, in addition to a known al Qaeda branch (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), was directly involved in the assault. The Times reported (emphasis added): Three Congressional investigations and a State Department inquiry are now examining the attack, which American officials said included participants from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt. 

Jamal was trained by al Qaeda in the late 1980s, and has been loyal to Ayman al Zawahiri since at least the 1990s. He served as a commander in the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), a terrorist group headed by Zawahiri that merged with bin Ladens enterprise. Jamal left prison in 2011 and quickly got back to work. 

The Egyptian press has published some of Jamals letters to Zawahiri. In the letters, which were written in 2011 and 2012, Jamal is extremely deferential to Zawahiri. Jamal heaps praise on Zawahiri, seeking the al Qaeda masters guidance and additional support. Jamal even mentions that he attempted to visit Zawahiri in person, but failed to do so because of restrictions on his travel. So, Jamal writes, he sent an emissary instead"

How the New York Times tried to airbrush al Qaeda out of Benghazi | Power Line


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

Dirk the Daring said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



people making teh distinction were political operatives looking to make Benghazi an election issue to be used against the President


you people have no shame using a tragedy like you do...from Terri Schiavo to Benghazi


----------



## The T (Dec 29, 2013)

NYT backing Obama for the Hidebeast...NO doubt about it.

 Just remember:4 DEAD AMERICANS and LIES from Obama and Hillary...


 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrEz3_zVEgg]"With All Due Respect! We Have FOUR Dead Americans! What Difference Does It Make!" Hillary Clinton - YouTube[/ame]


 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdpJXO_AyOg]Eric Nordstrom answers Hilary Clinton's "What Difference Does It Make?" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

Dirk the Daring said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



that debate has nothing to do with the attack and the President's address at the time to the nation

grow up


----------



## Dante (Dec 29, 2013)

And the rightwingers wonder why most Americans think they're nuts?


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 29, 2013)

Obama in the Presidential debate it was a terrorist attack.
Susan Rice on the Sunday morning talks shows it was over a video.
The New York Times it was neither.


----------



## Billy000 (Dec 29, 2013)

Okay you republicans, give this Fox News propaganda mess a rest.


----------



## The T (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> And the rightwingers wonder why most Americans think they're nuts?


NO they're questioning the likes of YOU Dantoid.

 They know they've been lied to...and YOU perpetuate the lies.

 Learn it, Live it, KNOW IT.

 YOU are a liar as is this administration AND the NYT .

 LIARS, the lot of you.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

You kids go ahead and run Piglary....it'll be fun.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> Okay you republicans, give this Fox News propaganda mess a rest.



Give your talking points a rest, liberal.


----------



## Billy000 (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> House lawmakers on Sunday disputed a new report that concludes Al Qaeda played no role in the fatal 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
> 
> The report, published Saturday in The New York Times, found no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had a role in the assault that killed four Americans on Sept. 11, 2012, and that it appeared that the attack was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made anti-Islamic video, as the Obama administration first claimed.
> 
> ...



Why should anyone give a shit about a Fox News article that is summarizing what republicans are saying about Benghazi?


----------



## Listening (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> And the rightwingers wonder why most Americans think they're nuts?



Can you provide some definitions and then the polls that support your claim ?

It would be really nice to know that you are not talking out your backside.


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 29, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > House lawmakers on Sunday disputed a new report that concludes Al Qaeda played no role in the fatal 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
> ...


For one because there was a Democrat on the show saying the same thing.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 29, 2013)

Listening said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > And the rightwingers wonder why most Americans think they're nuts?
> ...



People lie all the time.  Like remember that time you lied about leaving the board if Romney lost?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Some out of work loser in Georgia knows more than the NYT...what you don't believe him?


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Some slut in Cali thinks she knows better than the CIA


----------



## Billy000 (Dec 29, 2013)

blackhawk said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > WelfareQueen said:
> ...



That somehow makes this a scandal? One democrat?


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 29, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



No the facts make it scandal. Such as security concerns in Benghazi were not addressed by the administration or that on September 12th the president in his rose garden speech did not call Benghazi a terrorist attack but made a general statement about terrorism and the following Sunday Susan Rice went on all the Sunday morning shows and claimed the attack was over video a claim the President repeated in several speeches after that including one at the U.N. and of course the aforementioned Presidential debate where Obama claimed he did call Benghazi a terrorist attack in his rose garden speech which in fact he didn't. These and other facts are what make this a scandal deny them if you wish it does not change them.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> Dirk the Daring said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Grow up?

You're funny. Maybe you should try it sometime.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



You seem to have the same mindset about Republicans. Why the hypocrisy, Billy? Facts are what make it a scandal, as blackhawk has already pointed out.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 29, 2013)

Contumacious said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.
> ...


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 29, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Darlin, anyone who thinks the New York Times is a stand alone reliable source that can look at an event like Benghazi "objectively" has got issues.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 29, 2013)

Contumacious said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.
> ...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 29, 2013)

Contumacious said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Not sure if they are believable or not.  

I would go so far as to say, we really don't understand that part of the world, and we rely way to much on the Zionists to form policy.  

That said, the premise of the right is that Al Qaeda planned this brilliant attack and Obama Covered it up and made up a lie about a video. 

But the reality, people across the region were damned upset about that video.


----------



## Billy000 (Dec 29, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



The facts say this guy had no organized terror ties therefore calling it an Al Queda attack is completely inaccurate. The facts don't get simpler than that.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Dec 29, 2013)

Outta be writing more books, making more cartoons, and making more movies insulting to Islam if every time one comes out they riot and go nuts. Maybe they'll kill themselves off and save us the trouble. And if we're supposed to be especially sensitive in the US to Islam, let's see if Muslims in the US are really ready for US ways of doing things like having your religion pooped and spat all over. If you can't take it, you shouldn't be in the US. 

When people emmigrate into think one of the northern European countries they get shown people sunbathing nude in public parks. If they object they're strongly discouraged for becomming citizens. Should do something similar here in the US. If Muslims wanna come here fine, but we're not going to treat your reliigon any different than anyone else's, and if you can't handle seeing it disrepsected, don't come here.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 29, 2013)

Pop23 said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Well, I guess if anyone would know, Robert Gates would. Although "some guy on the internet" would be a close second.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Dec 29, 2013)

Fools are fed by the media and never question it.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 29, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



What part of the official word from the US military are you having trouble wrapping your brain around?

Is the military lying as well? 


10 p.m.: Attackers breach the mission walls and make for the ambassador's residence. Stevens and information officer Sean Smith run to a safe room with one security agent.

An alert is sent to the CIA security team at an annex about a mile away, the State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. Stevens calls deputy mission chief Gregory Hicks at the embassy and tells him, "Greg, we're under attack."


10:30 p.m.: Stevens and Smith have taken refuge behind a fortified door with heavy metal bars that keeps the attackers from breaking in, but they set fire to the villa with diesel fuel. Within minutes, Stevens and Smith are overwhelmed by smoke.

*At about the same time, six U.S. security agents leave the CIA annex for the main building. They and 16 Libyan security guards regain control over the compound and start searching for Stevens and Smith.*

Shortly after 11 p.m.: A U.S. surveillance drone arrives over Benghazi. Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey meet with *President Barack Obama*.



Eight hours with no help, eh?


----------



## depotoo (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> "At this point what difference does it make?"
> 
> HC


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka0_nz53CcM]Hillary Clinton at Benghazi Hearing: 'What Difference, Does It Make?' - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 29, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.
> 
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> ...



You just believe anything, don't you? 

Tell me something, did you read the part of the story where it says that no one in Libya even mentioned the video until the day after the attack? Did they use a time machine to express their outrage?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 29, 2013)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Fools are fed by the media and never question it.



I disagree - the true fool allows *himself* to be made a fool.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 29, 2013)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



The real issue is the fact that rightwingers notoriously question all sources that disagree with what they_ are told_ is acceptable, then go turn on the AM radio in order to_ hug it out._


----------



## Spoonman (Dec 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.


yea American citizens are dead.  put in harms way by the Obama administration. The secretary of state failed to either realize the severity of the situation or failed press for adequate protection.  but liberal spin doctors will try to convince us their deaths don't matter because they weren't caused by al Qaeda.


----------



## deltex1 (Dec 29, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...





Mad_Cabbie said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Oh.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Dec 29, 2013)

Sorry, not buying this at all.

Ahmed Abu Khattala has always been a chief suspect, and a known terrorist. I guess if someone denies they were involved The NYT believes it.

Blaming a video for an attack that occurred on 9/11 is pure stupidity.

This was a terrorist attack because of a soft target created by poor planning by the Obama administration.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 29, 2013)

oversight.house.gov/wp-content/.../04/Libya-Progress-Report-Final-1.pdf


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Dec 29, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Clinton/Warren 2016 ? 

Wow, really Candy ? I do expect to see Hillary win the White House, but not with Warren as her running mate.

I would say not a chance in hell, but after this country elected Obama twice nothing would surprise me.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 29, 2013)

The NYT is going for the early Hillary cover.


----------



## KNB (Dec 29, 2013)

Let's pretend that Benghazi is a real scandal.  4 Americans died.  Compare that to Colin Powell's lies at the UN in 2003 which resulted in over 4,000 Americans dead (and at least tens of thousands of Iraqis).

Which scandal is bigger?  4 Americans dead because of Obama's lies, or 4,000 Americans dead because of Bush's lies?

Take your time to think about it, Republicans.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 29, 2013)

Ah the new York Times isn't creditable unless they make the left look bad...

Moving on.


----------



## oreo (Dec 29, 2013)

1776 said:


> The big question is who in the White House leaked bits and pieces of classified information to the NYTimes for them to "create" this lie.



Ha.Ha.--so the NYT is going completely against sworn testimony from security and others who worked there?  Figures.  *I imagine this tactic is nothing more than to smoke screen and get the topic off of Obamacare for a couple of days.*  The MEDIA in this country will go to any links to protect Barack Obama.

_No surprise here--and it's hard to believe that anyone at this point in time would believe it anyway._


----------



## LilOlLady (Dec 29, 2013)

Four American are dead. What difference does it make who did it. There was no evidence of a pending attack.All was quiet. Steven had gone to bed when the attack occured. How the hell could any one get there to help. Daryle Issa is a Head Hunter and Obama is preferable the target. How many American died int Iraq and in Afghanistan????


----------



## oreo (Dec 29, 2013)

KNB said:


> Let's pretend that Benghazi is a real scandal.  4 Americans died.  Compare that to Colin Powell's lies at the UN in 2003 which resulted in over 4,000 Americans dead (and at least tens of thousands of Iraqis).
> 
> Which scandal is bigger?  4 Americans dead because of Obama's lies, or 4,000 Americans dead because of Bush's lies?
> 
> Take your time to think about it, Republicans.



You do know that John Kerry was head of the Senate Intelligence Committee at that time.  You know the guy that voted for it, before he voted against it--who just happens to be the Secretary of State currently.

_So that must have been one HELL OF LIE for him to believe it._--


----------



## KNB (Dec 29, 2013)

Who are "the Media"?  Please list the largest media corporations and their CEOs, and explain how these Fortune 500 giants are "liberal".

Do you even know who controls our media in the US?  It isn't Progressives.  There isn't any "liberal media conspiracy" because there aren't any "liberal media".  Is this really so difficult to understand?


----------



## Spoonman (Dec 29, 2013)

LilOlLady said:


> Four American are dead. What difference does it make who did it. There was no evidence of a pending attack.All was quiet. Steven had gone to bed when the attack occured. How the hell could any one get there to help. Daryle Issa is a Head Hunter and Obama is preferable the target. How many American died int Iraq and in Afghanistan????



yea a destabilized government with rebels running the streets killing at will.  who would have ever thought there might have been trouble?


----------



## LilOlLady (Dec 29, 2013)

*Benghazi attack caused by anti-Muslim film, Al-Qaeda not involved *- report
Published time: *December 29, 2013* 03:49 Get short URL

There is no evidence suggesting that Al-Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization took part in the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, a new report suggests.

The investigation by The New York Times has revealed that it was actually the US-made movie &#8216;Innocence of Muslims&#8217; that fueled the attack, adding that the assault on the consulate did not appear to be &#8220;meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.&#8221; 

The report is based on interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack and its context. 

Months of investigation &#8220;turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault,&#8221; The Times said. 
http://rt.com/usa/benghazi-consulate-al-qaeda-929/


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 29, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > Thread is bogus.  Just saying.
> ...



"Reduced" to lying?

Their political philosophies are based on lies. They've never overcome it, so therefore there's no reduction involved. 

Just sayin.

I'm more concerned about their perplexing refusal to question anything that promotes their agenda in spite of evidence that destroys the credibility of the source. It's terrifying how they will attack the agenda of people who present facts, rather than deal with the facts, because they're so devoted to their cult of personality for the moonbat messiah.

Imagine if we never got involved in WW2. Let say the russians made it into Poland and managed to broadcast to the world the horrors of Auschwitz, or Sobibor. 

The same sort of sniveling, bed wetting, mindless, servile parasites that are devoted to obozo, would insist it was a hit piece of propaganda designed to hurt the integrity of the fuhrer, and that it was ...

RACIST.

We are dealing with some dangerous delusionally insane people here. The sort of morons who follow cult leaders into Guyana and end up committing mass suicide.

Jonestown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If only we could get more of them to do so again in the near future, just 10,000 fold...


It would be a mess but think of the savings in welfare checks.


----------



## BluesMistress (Dec 29, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > House lawmakers on Sunday disputed a new report that concludes Al Qaeda played no role in the fatal 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
> ...


And why should anyone give a shit about a NYTimes article that is full of falsehoods and protects Obama & Clinton from the truth as to what Really happened 9/11 in Benghazi??


----------



## Spoonman (Dec 29, 2013)

Bloodrock44 said:


> They are dodging and deflecting by focusing on who did it and what caused it and blaming republicans for cutting security funds. It doesn't matter who did it or why. Extra security was requested weeks before and denied by the State Department. A squad of Marines would have thwarted any attack. A president or Secretary of State with any common sense should have thought with the anniversary of 9/11 coming and shit already happening and warnings from the embassy staff and Libyans, they would have thought ahead and automatically beefed up security ahead of time. Libs are acting as if sending in a squad would have bankrupted the treasury. Like I said. Dodging and deflecting.



it was a destabilized nation with rebels running wildly in the streets.  what could have possible gone wrong?


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 29, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



Yeah, the military NEVER lies, unless there is a republicrat president who can be blamed.

I'm sure there are all sorts of people in the military chomping at the bit to end their careers in order to defy the CINC.


----------



## LilOlLady (Dec 29, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > Four American are dead. What difference does it make who did it. There was no evidence of a pending attack.All was quiet. Steven had gone to bed when the attack occured. How the hell could any one get there to help. Daryle Issa is a Head Hunter and Obama is preferable the target. How many American died int Iraq and in Afghanistan????
> ...


 

It was quiet enough for Amb. Stevens to go to bed. He was awaken by the attack. He diied of smoke inhalation and not because some one got to him. There was help and many were saved and ONLY four died. The glass was hafl full.





> Around 9:00 p.m. (3:00 p.m. ET): In the walled Benghazi compound, U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens says good night to the Turkish Ambassador Ali Kemal Aydin and *retires to his room* in Building C, a large residence with numerous bedrooms and a* safe haven.*
> 
> 9:40 p.m. (3:40 p.m. ET): Gunfire and an explosion are heard. A TOC agent sees dozens of armed people over security camera flowing through a pedestrian gate at the compound's main entrance. It is not clear how the gate was opened.
> 
> ...


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Dec 29, 2013)

Well looks like Obama was wrong after all:

*Congress, in bipartisan tone, disputes report Al Qaeda not involved in deadly Benghazi attack*



> House lawmakers on Sunday disputed a new report that concludes Al Qaeda played no role in the fatal 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Congress, in bipartisan tone, disputes report Al Qaeda not involved in deadly Benghazi attack | Fox News


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Dec 29, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.
> 
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> ...



Hey Joe, psssssssssssst. I've got this beach house in Nebraska you might be interested in.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Dec 29, 2013)

*Congress, in bipartisan tone, disputes report Al Qaeda not involved in deadly Benghazi attack*



> House lawmakers on Sunday disputed a new report that concludes Al Qaeda played no role in the fatal 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Congress, in bipartisan tone, disputes report Al Qaeda not involved in deadly Benghazi attack | Fox News


----------



## Amelia (Dec 29, 2013)

> And what about that previous major investigative piece in the New York Times, the one that reported the involvement of a key al Qaeda affiliate and international terrorist groups? Was it wrong? Should we expect a correction?



Times Ignores Evidence of Al Qaeda Link to Benghazi | The Weekly Standard


----------



## Vox (Dec 29, 2013)

Amelia said:


> > And what about that previous major investigative piece in the New York Times, the one that reported the involvement of a key al Qaeda affiliate and international terrorist groups? Was it wrong? Should we expect a correction?
> 
> 
> 
> Times Ignores Evidence of Al Qaeda Link to Benghazi | The Weekly Standard



Times is spinning the facts in the early preparation for the hillary's nomination.

their story is irrelevant and useless.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 29, 2013)

Amelia said:


> > And what about that previous major investigative piece in the New York Times, the one that reported the involvement of a key al Qaeda affiliate and international terrorist groups? Was it wrong? Should we expect a correction?
> 
> 
> 
> Times Ignores Evidence of Al Qaeda Link to Benghazi | The Weekly Standard





Interesting article.  One of the main points is that the NY Times itself reported the Benghazi attack was linked to Al-Qaeda back in 2012.  Now....suddenly....they decided to change their story.  Hmmmm.....wonder why?


I guess the NY Times was for it being a terrorist attack before they were against it.


----------



## Vox (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > > And what about that previous major investigative piece in the New York Times, the one that reported the involvement of a key al Qaeda affiliate and international terrorist groups? Was it wrong? Should we expect a correction?
> ...



 it is an OPINION basically of one man. It is not an editorial.


----------



## BluesMistress (Dec 29, 2013)

paperview said:


> So when is Issa gonna make this mess into the Gahzi crash y'alls hopes gonna happen?



When all the survivors that were left for dead finally get the chance to tell what actually happened instead of being threatened for speaking about 9/11 in Benghazi.
A day that Everyone especially the president should have been on High Alert instead of just High


----------



## depotoo (Dec 29, 2013)

LilOlLady said:


> *Benghazi attack caused by anti-Muslim film, Al-Qaeda not involved *- report
> Published time: *December 29, 2013* 03:49 Get short URL
> 
> There is no evidence suggesting that Al-Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization took part in the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, a new report suggests.
> ...


 U.S. Consulate Attack in Benghazi, Libya, Part 1 - C-SPAN Video Library   you must enlighten yourself. That hearing might help if you are willing to open your ears and eyes


----------



## Sherry (Dec 29, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.
> 
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> ...



You reek of desperation.


----------



## deltex1 (Dec 29, 2013)

Does anyone know if an armed drone was overhead as the attack formed at the Benghazi consulate?

Would it have made a difference ?


----------



## Spoonman (Dec 29, 2013)

oh this such good news.  it wasn't al Qaeda who killed the us citizens.  I wonder if the Obama administration will be sending notes to the families of those killed   -  Good News!  your Sons, Husbands, Fathers  were not killed by al Qaeda.    I'm sure they will find this news very consoling 

I have to tell you, liberal apologists have sunken to new lows trying to defend this disastrous administration


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 29, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



That wasn't the only source dismissing the video spin.



> According to an interview investigators conducted with Greg Hicks, a foreign service diplomat of 22 years, "everybody in the mission" in Benghazi believed the events of Sept 11, 2012, constituted a terrorist attack and we're not the result of spontaneous demonstrations as the administration portrayed the situation in the aftermath of the attack.
> 
> Benghazi Attack Appeared 'A Terrorist Attack From The Get-Go,' Says U.S. Official


----------



## Amelia (Dec 29, 2013)

It was workplace violence.


----------



## freedombecki (Dec 29, 2013)

Dante said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


You are a little confused, Mr. Dante. Michelle Obama is the Kenyan birther.
[ame="http://youtu.be/pO_1wpSis14"]Michelle Obama confirms that her husband was born in Kenya, Africa. - YouTube[/ame]

And Hillary Clinton is the premier 911 truther:

[ame="http://youtu.be/IqYEP1Ys5Ug"]Hillary Clinton & Chris Dodd Question What Bush Knew About 9/11 - 5/16/2002 - YouTube[/ame]

She did not express anything about whether she knew that her chief critic, Barbara Olson, died on one of the planes hijacked by Al Qaeda.







​


----------



## S.J. (Dec 29, 2013)

The story changes depending on who and when they need to not look incompetent.  When a terrorist attack made Obama look incompetent, it was a "spontaneous response to a video".  When DENYING it was a terrorist attack made Obama look incompetent (debate with Romney), it was a "terrorist attack".  Now that the election is over and Hillary needs to not look incompetent, It's a "spontaneous response to a video" again.  Only idiot liberals (like the ones on this site) believe whatever the "official excuse" is at any given time from the left.


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 29, 2013)

depotoo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Or Ronald Reagan?
> ...



Really? Just a twelve-minute video? Mittens had a forty-week count of lies he told on a weekly basis. 



> A joke made the rounds this week, which resonated with me. It goes like this: a man dies, goes to heaven, stands before St. Peter, and see a huge wall of clocks. The man asks what all the clocks are for and St. Peter explains, &#8220;These are lie clocks. Everyone on earth has a lie clock. Every time a person lies, the clock hands move.&#8221;
> 
> Pointing to one, the man says, &#8220;Whose clock is that?&#8221;
> 
> ...



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/chronicling-mitts-mendacity-vol-xl?lite=


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 29, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Without going through the mess in this thread ... just looking at the title and wondering what Obama was supposedly correct about.
> 
> He wasn't correct about the cause of the attack in Benghazi.  He was a shameless liar about that.  Was he actually correct about something?



Did you read the article in the OP?


----------



## Amelia (Dec 29, 2013)

Yes.


----------



## Listening (Dec 29, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Without going through the mess in this thread ... just looking at the title and wondering what Obama was supposedly correct about.
> ...



Yes, it is a NYT article that does nothing to dispute the fact that our Affirmative Action Failure II, Susan Rice lied her ass off the following Sunday.


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 29, 2013)

nitroz said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.
> ...



That would be amazing. If they actually did in-depth journalistic reporting? I think I'd go into shock. But I would be much happier about them being a news agency than entertainment (what they went to court to be, so they couldn't be held to a standard of truth.)


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 29, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



AHA!! But s/h/it didn't say they wouldn't come back!!!


----------



## Sherry (Dec 29, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> nitroz said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



I'm sorry you missed it...sure it's online somewhere if you're really interested.

Benghazi Special: Friday, June 28th at 10pmET | Special Report | Bret Baier | Fox News Channel


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 29, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Yes.



Okay, so skipping the craziness of the thread, what did you take away from reading the article.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 29, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.
> ...







As one Democrat, Adam Schiff, said, the article has interesting details but it is incomplete.   It is the reporting of one man who did not have access to all the players or all the intelligence.  

The article contradicts past NYT reporting.  

I do not understand how anyone can take it to mean "Obama was correct", unless they are looking for any cover no matter how flimsy for response to accusations regarding Obama's fudging of facts.


----------



## Spoonman (Dec 29, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.
> ...



Americans are dead.  They were warned it was dangerous and told to get out.  We knew the country was unstable. We knew people were being murdered in the streets by both  sides.  We know they asked for help and protection prior to the attack and were not provided it.   They were political representatives of America put in harms way by their government and not provided adequate protection.  and now they are dead.  who did it, what the circumstances were leading up to their deaths are really not the issue.  the issue is, s that it was allowed to happen.


----------



## Listening (Dec 29, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Awww.....

What's the matter Poop.

Pissed that once again, you've been shown to be a non-debater ?


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 29, 2013)

Amelia said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Bad choice of titles then.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 29, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


Not as bad as I can bump it tomorrow


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

Dirk the Daring said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...




Ha,ha, that's rich......"an act of terror" *is not* "a terrorist act".......wow.....now that's a backward notion.....you'd only get that from Faux News...............


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> The story changes depending on who and when they need to not look incompetent.  When a terrorist attack made Obama look incompetent, it was a "spontaneous response to a video".  When DENYING it was a terrorist attack made Obama look incompetent (debate with Romney), it was a "terrorist attack".  Now that the election is over and Hillary needs to not look incompetent, It's a "spontaneous response to a video" again.  Only idiot liberals (like the ones on this site) believe whatever the "official excuse" is at any given time from the left.




Yeah sure, that's why those on the right had to falsify the e-mails......to make sure they said what the "right" lied about what the CIA said....


----------



## Amelia (Dec 29, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Dirk the Daring said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...




From the Obama administration we learn that acts of terror fall into many categories, not all to be called terrorist acts.

The victims of the Fort Hood shooter have been denied benefits because the Fort Hood shooting has been deemed workplace violence, not terrorism.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 29, 2013)

A terror attack he said, of course....

Just ANOTHER PHONY CRISIS, FOR HATER DUPES ONLY....

Probably WAS the video- all the earlier attacks that day were...


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

BluesMistress said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > WelfareQueen said:
> ...



Because it makes the Issa's and Benghazi scandal theorists look loonier than they looked when they started making a mountain out of a molehill?  Because it  won't work against Hillary like you all hoped it would?  I can think of many reasons why the rw is giving a shit about it and going crazy over it............


----------



## RandallFlagg (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> It is all designed to help Hillary in 2016.  Complete bullshit.




You are 100% correct. This isn't about "truth" - hell, the left wouldn't know the damned truth if it bit them on the ass. No, it's about setting that bitch up for her run for president. She personally guaranteed that those men would die and then exclaimed - "What difference does it make?"

I don't know - ask Vince Foster...


----------



## S.J. (Dec 29, 2013)

Mertex said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > The story changes depending on who and when they need to not look incompetent.  When a terrorist attack made Obama look incompetent, it was a "spontaneous response to a video".  When DENYING it was a terrorist attack made Obama look incompetent (debate with Romney), it was a "terrorist attack".  Now that the election is over and Hillary needs to not look incompetent, It's a "spontaneous response to a video" again.  Only idiot liberals (like the ones on this site) believe whatever the "official excuse" is at any given time from the left.
> ...


Link?


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 29, 2013)

Looks like Firebug is going to have to move on from "Ben gotcha" to the next controversy. Here's an novel idea- why don't Repubs legislate


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 29, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> House lawmakers on Sunday disputed a new report that concludes Al Qaeda played no role in the fatal 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
> 
> The report, published Saturday in The New York Times, found no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had a role in the assault that killed four Americans on Sept. 11, 2012, and that it appeared that the attack was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made anti-Islamic video, as the Obama administration first claimed.
> 
> ...


The NYT is a mouthpiece for the Obama admin. 
The Paper has a vested interest in Obama's legacy and the preservation of a democrat majority in at least one House of congress and of course the White House.
This so called report contradicts several sources, video tapes, communications, cables, written accounts, emails, etc.
So which source is to be trusted? The people on the ground before and during the attack? Or the "Because we said so" NYT?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 29, 2013)

1776 said:


> The big question is who in the White House leaked bits and pieces of classified information to the NYTimes for them to "create" this lie.



Ya think?
For all we know what appears in the Times is a White House plant story..
The timing of the story is also suspect. 
The Times released the report on the weekend. That does two things. One, it permits the story to go unchallenged until Monday's talk shows air. It allows the story to have time to become accepted by the general public. Two, it was released during the Holidays when most of the talk show hosts and other hard news investigative reporters are on vacation.
This thing is going to be taken apart piece by piece and vetted for validity.


----------



## Sherry (Dec 29, 2013)

It will be interesting to see if stirring up the bee's nest does compel others to come forward...

Growing outrage over NY Times Benghazi report | Fox News Video


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 29, 2013)

Care4all said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > House lawmakers on Sunday disputed a new report that concludes Al Qaeda played no role in the fatal 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
> ...



Just shut up..
The point of this report is to lay cover fire for Hillary Clinton.
She said "what difference does it make?"....Susan Rice said it was a video. 
The report says, "It was a terrorist attack, but it wasn't Al Qaida"...
Yeah? And?....Who gives a fuck..The fact is the Sec'y of State who has the duty of providing and ensuring our diplomatic installations are secure, did nothing. The President slept as this attack was being watched in the White House situ-room in real time.
Four Americans were brutalized and killed while this administration sat on its hands. Ordered OUR people to stand down and not go into defend our sovereign territory and our people.
You support this shit? You should be ashamed to call yourself an American.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 29, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> This was nothing but a desperate attempt by the NYT to help Obama save face after one of the worst post reelection years of any president since Richard Nixon.  Essentially, the NYT called all the men who testified on the stand before congress liars. Do they realize what implications that has? They have essentially contradicted sworn testimony. Are they crazy?



The editorial staff at the NYT cares only about the President saving face and shoring up the base for the democrats up for reelection. 
I think this may very well be a White House plant story.


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Are you serious?  That was thoroughly discussed on the thousand Benghazi threads started by the right....

Oh, that's right, Faux News wouldn't have covered it.....

Funny how the rw always seems to miss all the stories outing their deceitfulness.....

One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that *Republicans released a set with altered text.*
Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims

White House: GOP fabricated leaked Benghazi email | TheHill


----------



## Mertex (Dec 29, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > The big question is who in the White House leaked bits and pieces of classified information to the NYTimes for them to "create" this lie.
> ...




Oh sure.....the boogey man is out to get the GOP.....the victims.....


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 29, 2013)

If this was the NYT's and The Administration's idea of how to put this to bed once and for all, they are mistaken. 
All this did was to awaken people to the fact that this administration will go to great lengths to protect itself FROM the American voting public.
Those with a healthy consciousness for skepticism are lashing back at this already.


----------



## Political Junky (Dec 29, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Looks like Firebug is going to have to move on from "Ben gotcha" to the next controversy. Here's an novel idea- why don't Repubs legislate


What an awesome thought.


----------



## S.J. (Dec 29, 2013)

Mertex said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


"White House alleges".  That's all we need to hear.  A proven liar (who got "lie of the year") accuses his enemies of lying?  I think that requires proof, don't you?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 29, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



LOL.

Lack of a rebuttal at it's finest.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 29, 2013)

Now we have them on every board.

Patience is a virtue. Every body capture them. We got them all in one night.



You're no daisy! You're no daisy at all!


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 29, 2013)

Any one else find it funny that AQ 2 gets smacked AQ numero uno demands  vengeance because AQ #2 was Libyan

But there is no shit going down?


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



It's not Bush (liar) we're talking about.....

It's a fact that the e-mails were altered....deny, deny, deny, that's all the rw knows to do...


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



But she did and you did nothing...typical.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 30, 2013)

After hearing about and reading the investigative report by the New York Times blaming a video for the attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012; which killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens, sources and eyewitnesses on the ground that night slammed the report as 'completely false.' 

Doesn't pay to contradict people who were actually there as it happened, now does it. I gather the NYT and the Obama Administration should be ashamed of themselves for turning this into a farce. Those four men who died that night deserve better than this. 



> Fifteen months after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the narrative of the attack continues to be shaped, and reshaped, by politicians and the press.
> 
> But a New York Times report published over the weekend has angered sources who were on the ground that night. Those sources, who continue to face threats of losing their jobs, sharply challenged the Times&#8217; findings that there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.
> 
> ...



'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report | Fox News


----------



## Kosh (Dec 30, 2013)

Yes the NY times is a known far left propaganda organization for the DNC. All this proves that they are a mouth piece for the current administration.


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

Redfish said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Tell that to your Republican leaders who refused to fund more security......the rw is all about not taking responsibility for their ineptness.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

deltex1 said:


> Does anyone know if an armed drone was overhead as the attack formed at the Benghazi consulate?
> 
> Would it have made a difference ?



This is the stupidest piece of shit I have ever witnessed. I'm no einstein but I'm smart.


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Repub- voters will have to move on to the next Firebug led investigation. Did I mention that he uses taxpayer $$$ for these dog & pony shows that invariably lead nowhere?
> 
> I'd be interested in the final tab to the taxpayers of this great nation for all of Firebug's dead-end investigations.



This from the party that wants to cut spending and less government......rich...


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



I had forgotten about that.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Whoa and we will do battle up and coming.

What dumb fuck couldnt figure out that Ottawa didn't need an extra guy?

What dumb mother freaking idiot decided to hire Libyan rebels as security guards?


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Fuck you. You can't figure out how to move security around?

But that's not the worst of it. You *hired libyan rebels*

What could possibly go wrong??????????????????

You spent the money.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

Let's get down and dirty here.

You bought and paid for a Libyan protection team. You actually did this.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 30, 2013)

I wonder, what are the supporters of the video theory going to say about this? All the sources and eyewitnesses are contradicting the NYT!


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Did you miss something?

You can't cut spending on security and then bitch about why security wasn't increased.....logic...use logic....


*Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said today that he voted to cut funding for U.S. embassy security amid political attacks from Republicans that the Obama administration did not do enough to secure the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya that was attacked last month.
But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, Absolutely:
GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security | ThinkProgress


*


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Repub- voters will have to move on to the next Firebug led investigation. Did I mention that he uses taxpayer $$$ for these dog & pony shows that invariably lead nowhere?
> ...



You best be ready.


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




Yeah, you cut the funding and then bitch about not increasing security....typical conservative reasoning.....it takes money to move them around too, or did you think they paid for their own moves?   Geez......no wonder your party is losing elections.....


----------



## Kosh (Dec 30, 2013)

Benghazi deniers are the same as 9/11 truthers.


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Looks like they (rw) conveniently forgot that, too.....


----------



## Kosh (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



I see the far left will believe anything that Obama tells them to believe.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Well this will freak you out.I'm a huge Hillory fan. She's my guy. I don't know how to explain this. And boy oh boy it doesn't look good when you print it out.


----------



## oreo (Dec 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.




Yeah--we saw them burning all those "video's"--LOL.  

This was a planned orchestrated attack on our U.S. Consulate in Bengazi.  It definitely was a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11--and it was the 3rd attack on this consulate prior to any video showing up.

*The NYT's is just putting out a smoke screen to get the news off of Obamacare for a couple of days--that no one believes anyway. * Sworn congressional testimony by those in security and others at this compound says much different.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

We have a thread on this already.  What did you need people to pay attention to you?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 30, 2013)

Kosh said:


> Benghazi deniers are the same as 9/11 truthers.



Sounds that way, doesn't it? It's a shame really, you have people twisting, mangling, and politicizing the deaths of four brave Americans instead of telling the truth.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 30, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> We have a thread on this already.  What did you need people to pay attention to you?



No we don't. Perhaps you need to learn how to read. There are no threads about the NYT report being challenged by actual sources on the ground. 

Go be liberal somewhere else please.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...




You were paying the rebels.

What part of you were schilling out the dough BIG TIME to rebels?


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > We have a thread on this already.  What did you need people to pay attention to you?
> ...



Welfare queens thread covers this issue....


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 30, 2013)

Umm no. That thread deals with reactions by members of congress. This one deals with reactions of the sources themselves. Negged for attempting to derail my thread, Plasmabrain.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

OK does every one get that there was money?  But what they did was in an Obama world they gave money to rebels to protect a good man called fill in the blank

Don't you guys get this?


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

Ok...they still can be merged into the same thread


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 30, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> Ok...they still can be merged into the same thread



No, they deal with two completely different aspects of this issue altogether. The difference is clear.


----------



## BluesMistress (Dec 30, 2013)

My hope is the NYTimes False story starts the unraveling of the truth about Benghazi. 
I Will NEVER Forget Benghazi where Americans were left to die & the POS POTUS went to Vegas.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Ok...they still can be merged into the same thread
> ...



Nope


----------



## NoNukes (Dec 30, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> After hearing about and reading the investigative report by the New York Times blaming a video for the attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012; which killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens, sources and eyewitnesses on the ground that night slammed the report as 'completely false.'
> 
> Doesn't pay to contradict people who were actually there as it happened, now does it. I gather the NYT and the Obama Administration should be ashamed of themselves for turning this into a farce. Those four men who died that night deserve better than this.
> 
> ...



Who are these sources on the ground"?


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 30, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



Rightwinger had the first one.


----------



## Geaux4it (Dec 30, 2013)

May the wheels continue to come off the wagon. The liberal media can only hold on so long

-Geaux


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 30, 2013)

NoNukes said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > After hearing about and reading the investigative report by the New York Times blaming a video for the attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012; which killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens, sources and eyewitnesses on the ground that night slammed the report as 'completely false.'
> ...



The guy from the 60 Minutes interview.


----------



## BluesMistress (Dec 30, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


This is a completely different article. This is an article about those that were actually there are now pissed after reading the NYTIMES propaganda piece.  
Welfare Queen has a thread about Bi Partisan agreement that NYTIMES is a Fraud. That on Fox News Sunday R & D both agreed that the article was a fraud. Not a single word about a single survivor in any such way as them speaking out about the NYTimes article. This is completely different unless it concerns a Dem and Rep agreeing on Anything much less Benghazi.
I've read Both and they are Different ~ 
This one is actually much more important as the survivors are speaking out...Let's hope they continue!!!


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 30, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Better than citing Kilpatrick isn't it? Please.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 30, 2013)

NoNukes said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > After hearing about and reading the investigative report by the New York Times blaming a video for the attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012; which killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens, sources and eyewitnesses on the ground that night slammed the report as 'completely false.'
> ...



That's "sources" not "forces", milady. And those sources would dare not reveal their identities for fear of retaliation by their own government.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

BluesMistress said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Except if you read that thread this is brought up. This would only back up those opinions. It's more like someone was getting their butts handed to them so they ran off to make a new thread so people would help.


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


Seems it's a part of the story publicans would like to hope people forget too.

Report: Republicans were source of bogus Benghazi quotes | The Raw Story

and 

*It's Official: Those Bogus Email Leaks Came From Republicans*

It's not as if we didn't know this already, *but today Major Garrett  made it official:* last week's leaks that misquoted the Benghazi emails  came directly from Republicans. Here's the report on the CBS Evening News:

On Friday, *Republicans leaked* what they said was a  quote from  Rhodes: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect  all agency  equities, including those of the State Department, and we  don't want to  undermine the FBI investigation. But it turns out that in  the actual  email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department.

....*Republicans also provided* what they said was a  quote from an  email written by State Department spokesman Victoria  Nuland. The  Republican version quotes Nuland discussing, "The  penultimate point is a  paragraph talking about all the previous warnings  provided by the  Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities  of al-Qaeda." The  actual email from Nuland says: "The penultimate point  could be abused  by members to beat the State Department for not paying  attention to  Agency warnings."

The CIA agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and   revised the talking points to make them less specific than the CIA's   original version, eliminating references to al Qaeda and affiliates and   earlier security warnings. There is no evidence that the White House   orchestrated the changes.​*So here's what happened.  Republicans in Congress saw copies of these  emails two months ago and  did nothing with them. 

It was obvious that  they showed little more than  routine interagency haggling. Then, riding  high after last week's  Benghazi hearings, someone got the bright idea of  leaking two isolated  tidbits and mischaracterizing them in an  effort to make the  State Department look bad. Apparently they figured it  was a twofer:  they could stick a shiv into the belly of the White House  and they could then badger them to release the entire email chain, knowing they never would.
*
But it was typical GOP overreach. To their surprise, the White House   took Republicans up on their demand to make the entire email chain   public, thus making it clear to the press that they had been burned. And   now reporters are letting us all know who was behind it.

This has always been the Republican Party's biggest risk with this   stuff: that they don't know when to quit. On Benghazi, when it became   obvious that they didn't have a smoking gun, they got desperate and   tried to invent one. ...


\\\Yee haw///


----------



## rdean (Dec 30, 2013)

The president has the FBI and the CIA.

The Republicans have ISA.


----------



## rdean (Dec 30, 2013)

This is the GOP "source" incognito in Libya.  He looks this way to blend in and keep from being identified.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 30, 2013)

Uh-huh, as if anyone would trust what the White House says.

The CIA altered the talking points before they were sent out by Rice on that Sunday morning. Someone in the White House ordered them to. Are we forgetting something here? Do the folks at the CIA belong to a political party? Surely not, unless your CinC is President Barack Obama. Obama's White House changed the talking points, paperview. 



> (Reuters) - When U.S. intelligence officials testified behind closed doors two weeks ago, they were asked point blank whether they had altered the talking points on which U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice based her comments about the Benghazi attacks that have turned into a political firestorm.
> 
> Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, acting CIA Director Michael Morell and National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen each said no, according to two congressional sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.
> 
> ...



Shifting account of CIA's Libya talking points fuels Rice controversy | Reuters


Really? How naive. You'll have to do better than a liberally biased news source, too. Raw Story? Are you kidding me?

Just to be certain:



> The Democratic National Committee claimed to its supporters that "Republicans actually doctored emails between administration officials about Benghazi. Then, they released them to the press, trying to pass them off as real."
> 
> But when we asked, Democrats didn&#8217;t provide evidence that discrepancies resulted from anything more than sloppy note-taking, or that journalists had been snookered into believing they had seen the original messages.
> 
> ...



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ats-say-republicans-doctored-emails-about-be/

You Democrats, sheep the lot of ya.


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 30, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> Ok...they still can be merged into the same thread



Because we had a discussion in the thread started by then progressive fluffer known here as Rightwinger... I believe I was told and asked to comment on the topic at hand, now I'm wondering if all the people that put stock in the NYT story will do as they asked of me... 

I didn't read the NYT story and I don't give a fuck about this story. What I'm wondering is now that the NYT story is being challenged, will the fluffers disappear into the night, or will they pretend to be objective and looking for truth, you know, get to the bottom of this and hold Obama accountable.

So what will it be plaz, fluffer or realizing Obama has been a total waste of your time to get behind?


----------



## Kosh (Dec 30, 2013)

And the far left continue show how intolerant of facts they have truly become.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 30, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> After hearing about and reading the investigative report by the New York Times blaming a video for the attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012; which killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens, sources and eyewitnesses on the ground that night slammed the report as 'completely false.'
> 
> Doesn't pay to contradict people who were actually there as it happened, now does it. I gather the NYT and the Obama Administration should be ashamed of themselves for turning this into a farce. Those four men who died that night deserve better than this.
> 
> ...



leftist propagandists nothing more nothing less


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 30, 2013)

Kosh said:


> And the far left continue show how intolerant of facts they have truly become.



would you expect any less


----------



## BluesMistress (Dec 30, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> BluesMistress said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


Being Brought up completely different than a Topic ~~
Seems you're Worried about your Butt?? Simply pulling your head out will help


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

Maybe you can get Issa to do an investigation.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> Maybe you can get Issa to do an investigation.



Buh bye! That's the second time I've slapped you down. You'll need Candy Crowley to handicap the next debate. You lose.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 30, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


IOW, FOX/RNC made them up out of thin air and has to feed gullible SUCKERS a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory morons would easily believe.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 30, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Why does everything have to be about Fox? Why can't you debate the OP?



> Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), also a member of the intelligence committee, said on "Fox News Sunday" said the New York Times report added value, but that the newspaper did not have the level of information the intelligence committee had.
> 
> "I don't think the New York Times report is designed to exonerate the security lapses within the State Department that left our people vulnerable," Schiff said. "I do think it adds some valuable insights. I agree with Mike [Rogers] that, however, the intelligence indicates that al-Qaeda was involved. But there are also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that were involved."
> 
> "I think the intelligence paints a portrait that some people came to murder, some came to destroy property, some merely came to loot, and some came in part motivated by those videos," Schiff continued. "So it is a complex picture."



Mike Rogers: New York Times Benghazi Report 'Just Not Accurate' (UPDATE)

Satisfied?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 30, 2013)

I know BD is flitting around this thread like some fairy. I know she has zilch to contribute to this thread whatsoever, though.


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

You didn't slap down shit.

You still can't even back up your first assertion.

Who be the Yemeni dudes?  You find that out yet?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 30, 2013)




----------



## BDBoop (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> You didn't slap down shit.
> 
> You still can't even back up your first assertion.
> 
> Who be the Yemeni dudes?  You find that out yet?



Oh, my gracious. Every time I turn around, he's claiming pwnage.


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

Didn't think so.

Sit down Templar.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 30, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't slap down shit.
> ...



I thought as much. And what have you done to contribute to this thread? Hey, didn't you have me on ignore?


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't slap down shit.
> ...


I know. 

He's at least entertaining.  In a Monty Python no arms/no legs kind of way.


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Ok...they still can be merged into the same thread
> ...


I don't care about this story. It's fake outrage is just that. Fake.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't slap down shit.
> ...


He is becoming rabbi lite


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 30, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I hadn't noticed the resemblance - but you are correct.


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


Benghazi has become their Vince Foster, and now they just can't handle what fools they've made themselves out to be.

Quick! Someone give Issa a watermelon to shoot.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

It's fake because this happened 50+ times with only 3 to 4 going to congress for hearings. The right said jack fucking shit then. Yet in typically whining can't fashion they needed to take something and push it to the extreme because they lost. 

Had this been Romney or McCain, like bush they would have remained silent as the left pushed this issue. The OP doesn't really give a shit, the American people certainly don't give a shit. 

This won't affect Hillary should she run for office. This didn't even put a dent in Obama 2012 run. These people are living in a bubble where the air is slowly starting to be used up. 

But they are literally to fucking stupid to understand this because their hatred ( not I didn't say racist,because it's not), hatred of loosing to the other team. 

It's as big a joke as the Foxfire thread on intolerance. They are literally too fucking stupid to get it.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Ah remember that thread where he wanted to reach across the Isle because of mendalas words?

Yeah so do I....it should have been in satire because it was a good joke.


----------



## NoNukes (Dec 30, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Sorry about the mistake, and I do not know where miladay comes from. In other words though, none of these sources are identified. I could say people who were there said, and follow it with anything that I wanted.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 30, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



Being a far left Obama drone you should know about fake outrage.


----------



## bayoubill (Dec 30, 2013)

sorry, guys...

this issue has been ignored, buried and forgotten just much as Bush's Iraq fuck-up and Clinton's blowjobs...


----------



## S.J. (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


Read your own quote, stupid.



> One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced *alleging* that Republicans released a set with altered text.


The key word here is *ALLEGED.*  Obama "alleges" a lot of things, but being a proven liar, nothing he says means shit unless it's verified.  So, until you provide some proof you've got nothing but accusations from a known liar.  Saying it's fact doesn't make it fact.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

Kosh said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...


Thank you for adding nothing to this already fake story.


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 30, 2013)

NoNukes said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Reminds me of the Fox news "Some people say," - you know. Like there's any kind of legitimacy there.


----------



## Claudette (Dec 30, 2013)

Nothing fake about four dead men. 

Nothing fake about all those warning they got. 

Nothing fake about the Brits and the Red Cross pulling out because of those warning. 

Nothing fake about Barry jetting off to his Vegas fundraiser. 

Nothing fake about Hillary's State Department fucking the pooch on Benghazi. 

Nothing fake about no one getting fired for their abject incompetence.

The only fake thing I see is that bs story in the NYSlimes. 

Oh wait. I forgot. The NYT is the mouthpiece for the DNC. Never mind.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 30, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.
> ...



You really need to start taking your meds.  

There was rioting all across the middle east for days before the attack, over this video.  

Which they discussed in length on Page 4 of the article


----------



## candycorn (Dec 30, 2013)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Okay stack up the qualifications.  Who has been to Lybia?  The out of work loser in GA or the NYT.  I win.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 30, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Nothing fake about four dead men.
> 
> Nothing fake about all those warning they got.
> 
> ...



Did you mean "screwing the pooch?" 

Obama flew off to Nevada the next day - *on the 12th of September. *

The warning??? What warning? Someone KNEW that there was going to be an attack, or are you talking about a general warning?


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 30, 2013)

.

Anyone who reaches a conclusion after one story from one source is either terribly naïve or hyper-partisan.

Predictably, most of the networks have jumped on this, "the New York times says it, so case closed", but no doubt there's more to come.

.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 30, 2013)

DigitalDrifter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



It's a long shot.  A really long shot.  But if you think about it from the viewpoints of what it takes to be POTUS:

Money-Hillary-Check
Name Recognition-Hillary-Check
Heavy Weight Credentials-Hillary-Check
Good in all time zones-Hillary-Check
Wants the Job-Hillary-Check

Now add in what you want from the VPOUTS candidate:

Energize the base-Warren-Check+++
No significant baggage-Warren-Check
Geographically balance the ticket-Warren-wiff

Then you get into the "like to haves" such as ethnicity (no bump from Warren), "rockstar" credentials (moderate bump), and ready to take over just in case (no bump from Warren but there is likely no great bump from any other DEM out there so it's a wash).  

The pieces fit.  Again, it's a long shot but there is some "there" there.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



You just derailed "your" thread. 

By the way....there is no such thing as "your thread". You are weird to think there is. Nobody cares who starts a thread. Really. Nobody cares.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 30, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Got me there...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 30, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> I guess the blatant attempt to rehabilitate Hillary is an epic failure.  Benghazi will hang around her neck for the rest of her political life.  No amount of lies or spin by the NY Times are other corrupt rags will change that.  Might as well deal with it Libs.



Again, you've been trying for over a year to get traction on Benghazi, and other than your crazy birther bubble, you really haven't made any gains.  

Can you point to one person who has said, "Man, I voted for Obama in 2012, but I'm going to totally vote for whatever Teabagger the GOP Puts up because I'm so angry that they said it was a video!"  

Didn't think so.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2013)

NoNukes said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



"Mi lady" comes from deep down in TK's subconscious where he believes himself to be a night in shining armor. It is how he escapes the reality that is his life.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 30, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> After hearing about and reading the investigative report by the New York Times blaming a video for the attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012; which killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens, sources and eyewitnesses on the ground that night slammed the report as 'completely false.'
> 
> Doesn't pay to contradict people who were actually there as it happened, now does it. I gather the NYT and the Obama Administration should be ashamed of themselves for turning this into a farce. Those four men who died that night deserve better than this.
> 
> ...



BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!
Rice was right... after all it was about the videos ... where the Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with it .... now you repub-lie-tards are tap dancing all over the place for not doing your job as well, "SO-called reporters" ...see what happens when you use a investigating reporter you get the truth and you can't stand that fact .... I'm loving it .... MORE CROW ON repub-lie-tards faces CAW!!! CAW !!! CAW !!! CAW !!!
BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2013)

Nutters,

Please stop trying to use the death of those four people for political gain. 

Thanks.


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 30, 2013)

candycorn said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Are you reasonably sure about "wants the job?"


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 30, 2013)

Kosh said:


> Yes the NY times is a known far left propaganda organization for the DNC. All this proves that they are a mouth piece for the current administration.



BWA HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!

hate the truth do ya???? 

BWA HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2013)

If you have a chance to catch Steve Doocey's take on this subject on this morning's FOX and Freinds, please do. Classic stuff.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 30, 2013)

Guys, why can't we just debate the facts here and stop with the childish insults?


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 30, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> I wonder, what are the supporters of the video theory going to say about this? All the sources and eyewitnesses are contradicting the NYT!


can't stand it can ya ... you have a factual source for your anger here do ya??? I thought so ....one big empty bucket .... just say it... you can put on your big boy pants and say it ... "AH fuck it" we republ-iie-tards were wrong again....


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 30, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Guys, why can't we just debate the facts here and stop with the childish insults?




Yeah, it usually depends on who's doing the posting.

It can definitely get pretty childish.

.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 30, 2013)

BluesMistress said:


> My hope is the NYTimes False story starts the unraveling of the truth about Benghazi.
> I Will NEVER Forget Benghazi where Americans were left to die & the POS POTUS went to Vegas.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 30, 2013)

Kosh said:


> Benghazi deniers are the same as 9/11 truthers.



you mean, why did Bush ignore the warnings, those truthers ???? or where we said it was about a video those truthers ??? or where we said they outed a CIA agent those trutheres  ??? which truthers are you wanting us to tell you about ... I realize you republicans love to be lie to all the time ...  so yeah... you guys are always right ... really !! I wouldn't jive ya ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 30, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> We have a thread on this already.  What did you need people to pay attention to you?


 especially templar he just can't stand the fact that once again he was wrong about his Precious republican tea bagger leaders ...


----------



## candycorn (Dec 30, 2013)

I found this nifty chart at a right wing site:








The conducting of the survey was in February of 2013 and Ben-gotcha wasn't drawing 50% then.  Around September 2016 (If Ms. Clinton is on the ticket), it should be somewhere in the 20's perhaps.  If I read it right, they asked 2,184 Republicans and didn't get 50%...

Best to drop the issue from a political standpoint.  But I don't see that happening.


New Poll: Clinton, Benghazi and Conservatives | Conservative Intelligence Briefing


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 30, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> Nutters,
> 
> Please stop trying to use the death of those four people for political gain.
> 
> Thanks.



its not political gain we are establishing here ... its the fact that we on the left were attack by the right, in the media,  by these people here on the boards without any reason for it other  then political gain at the death of these people .... so now we have shown to them it wasn't the Al-Qaeda, as the right claim or Darrol Issa insisted on ... and tried to insist he was right on meet the press again ... the place that was attack was a CIA out post and the people there knew it ... that is a fact... when some clowns over in the states did what he was told not to do... it would cause the people over there to seek out the Americans and kill them ... we all knew that too ...so when push came to shove they were killed because of a video ... just like we were told the first time .... except the first time they weren't a 100% sure ... becasue nobody had totally investagated the casue.... now that they have we know... now these idiots here want to be the deniers again ....just because of one and only one reason LoneLaugher Political gain ... period !!!


----------



## candycorn (Dec 30, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DigitalDrifter said:
> ...



Yes.
-Doing nothing to quell suspicion of her running.
-Can legitimately say that Obama was a fluke that derailed her in 2012.
-Aside from being 8 years older, what has changed from 2012?


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



First off, there were no cuts.
Second, which party is constantly calling for cutting defense spending?  Yeah, it isn't the GOP.
Third, the issue was not funding but giving a shit.  Something the Democrats don't do.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 30, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Guys, why can't we just debate the facts here and stop with the childish insults?



oK... we told them that we believed it was because of the video... we were called liars
we told them we didn't have the total information in what happen ... we were told we were trying to cover up information... 
we told them that there wasn't any evidence that the Al-Qaeda was involved ... we were called liars ... 
now that a investigative reported on the ground talked to the people who were there, the people involved ....what are the republicans saying to us now ???? we're liars ... the republicans here don't want the truth .... they want to do what they do best ... name call ... sooooooooooo pay backs are a bitch!!!


----------



## depotoo (Dec 30, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Guys, why can't we just debate the facts here and stop with the childish insults?
> ...



Sure - 
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Libya-Progress-Report-Final-1.pdf


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 30, 2013)

meh


Nobody cares what the NY Times reports anymore.


----------



## The T (Dec 30, 2013)

candycorn said:


> BluesMistress said:
> 
> 
> > My hope is the NYTimes False story starts the unraveling of the truth about Benghazi.
> > I Will NEVER Forget Benghazi where Americans were left to die & the POS POTUS went to Vegas.


Just can't get over Boooosh! Get up to date...But MOM! They did it too...!


----------



## depotoo (Dec 30, 2013)

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Libya-Progress-Report-Final-1.pdf
Red Cross building in Libya attacked with rockets and grenades | World news | theguardian.com
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/britain-closes-embassy-libya
Wrong


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 30, 2013)

candycorn said:


> BluesMistress said:
> 
> 
> > My hope is the NYTimes False story starts the unraveling of the truth about Benghazi.
> > I Will NEVER Forget Benghazi where Americans were left to die & the POS POTUS went to Vegas.



pretty much says it all doesn't it ... as long as it puts democrat in harms way in office, then nail them to the wall the republicans say....  then tell them how concern they are when in reality Lonelaugher, its political gain the republicans here seek .... I guess Ive been soooooo tired of their attacks on dems/liberals that i too have become Cynical when I see a republican post here ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 30, 2013)

depotoo said:


> http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Libya-Progress-Report-Final-1.pdf
> Red Cross building in Libya attacked with rockets and grenades | World news | theguardian.com
> http://www.nowpublic.com/world/britain-closes-embassy-libya
> Wrong



your article is a year old ....so whats your point here ???


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 30, 2013)

The T said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > BluesMistress said:
> ...



we realize you don't get it... cause that would actually take some sort of actual thought on your part... in no way was this poster was trying to say see bush did it too... what they posters intent was to show you what Hypocrites you republicans are ... when it happens on the republicans watch no big deal ... no outrage from the right ... shit happens !!!! as they say ... when it happens to the dems, on their watch, its the biggest crime of the century... where you republicans go on until you puke to prove that you're the concerned guys ... where in reality you could care less on how many Americans die on your watch .. say it like it is


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 30, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > BluesMistress said:
> ...



Benghazi is the Republican response to 9-11

"We may have given up 9-11, but Obama had BENGHAZI"


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 30, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...





gay


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 30, 2013)

candycorn said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Well, the eight years older is kind of a doozy. I remember in 2008, she was talking about how much sleep she lost per day to hair and makeup; stuff that let the guys get more much-needed rest.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 30, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



don't ya just love it when they don't do their research ...

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has scheduled a fairly high-profile hearing today on security lapses at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. There&#8217;s one nagging problem, however, that might cause Republicans some trouble.

For example, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a member of Issa&#8217;s committee, told Soledad O&#8217;Brien this morning that he expects to hear testimony about security that &#8220;didn&#8217;t meet the basic, minimum standards required for a facility such as the one we had in Benghazi.&#8221; Chaffetz added that policymakers have to &#8220;make sure it doesn&#8217;t happen in other places around the world.&#8221;

*Asked if he&#8217;d voted to cut federal funding for security at U.S. embassies and consulates, Chaffetz responded, &#8220;Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country&#8230;. When you&#8217;re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.&#8221;*

*Hmm. Those &#8220;priorities&#8221; apparently don&#8217;t include security at U.S. diplomatic outposts abroad.*

*Dana Milbank picked up on the same problem: inadequate diplomatic security is the direct result of Republican budget cuts.*

*For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department&#8217;s Worldwide Security Protection program &#8211; well below the $2.15&#8201;billion requested by the Obama administration.* House Republicans cut the administration&#8217;s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration&#8217;s request.) *Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans&#8217; proposed cuts to her department would be &#8220;detrimental to America&#8217;s national security&#8221; &#8211; a charge Republicans rejected.*

*Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations*, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan&#8217;s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

source
The GOP's embassy security problem | MSNBC


*don't ya just love them concerned republicans about diplomatic security for our diplomats *


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 30, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 30, 2013)

looks like skookerasbil is looking for some one he can blow ... sorry hun.. I'm strait... so head for San Francisco ... I hear they might have a lover for ya... well at least some one to wrap your lips around.... puff !!! puff !!! skookerasbil ...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 30, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> looks like skookerasbil is looking for some one he can blow ... sorry hun.. I strait... so head for San Francisco ... I hear they might have a lover for ya... well at least some one to wrap your lips around.... puff !!! puff !!! skookerasbil ...



Skooberbill is best ignored. 

I mean, I give other conservatives credit, they add something to a thread, even the weakest of them. 

Skoobie just reposts the same images and thinks he's relevent, and then wonders why even conservatives don't respond to him.


----------



## Claudette (Dec 30, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing fake about four dead men.
> ...



Nope. I meant they fucked the pooch. 

And yes. They got warnings. Months of warnings. They asked for more security and were denied. They got the same warnings the Brits and the Red Cross got. Those folks were smart enough to pull out of Libya. 

Our State Department under Hilbat did nothing. They didn't beef up security or close the embassy so four very good men died. 

And yes Barry jetted off to his fund raiser the next day  even though his ambassador and four Americans were killed in Libya. Sure showed where his priorities were. I'm sure he thought no more of those dead men that Hilbat did. 

After all, "What difference does it make."


----------



## NoNukes (Dec 30, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



He should use it on women then.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 30, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > looks like skookerasbil is looking for some one he can blow ... sorry hun.. I strait... so head for San Francisco ... I hear they might have a lover for ya... well at least some one to wrap your lips around.... puff !!! puff !!! skookerasbil ...
> ...



well, I was just helping him out to find a same sex lover for him ... he seems desperate ...  that's what we liberals do when we see a desperate  person look for same sex love we reaching out for them so then can get some action ... we help...


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

I am wondering, which of these are liberals supporting in this thread of left wing bullshit?





Let me clarify, so that you can all understand the creepy, double talking, hypocritical, mind of the left.  

They are taking BOTH SIDES of the issue. Both sides yet again. 

This is what they do, on every issue.


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

Theowl32 said:


> I am wondering, which of these are liberals supporting in this thread of left wing bullshit?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can't accept things can happen concurrently when angry ****ed up groups assemble, it appears.

Does denying there was ANY video fan-flaming make you feel more huggy to daddy Fox, who insisted it had nothing to do with it?

It was two-fold, as we know now, the CIA op made it  necessary to blow  some smoke and make the video a part of it, or I  should say, stronger  than it was and, and perhaps because the  conflicting intel was telling  them it played a part?

*There were people scaling the walls of our Embassy in Cairo, burning  our flag --    just a few hours earlier because of that video*  - and demonstrations erupted at our Embassies and elsewhere *ALL OVER  THE WORLD, in some 54 incidents in twenty Countries*   for gawds sake. This  was going on for days and days after. That  stupid  video did ignite a good part of the Muslim world.  We know it  did.

And this, my post from _October of 2012_ :::: *There were  people  there in Benghazi who claimed the video  was why they  were  angry. That  was from initial eye-witness accounts. *Now we read *the  Al-Sharia group was gathering restless Muslims from nearby neighborhoods  to chant against the film*.

"The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints     around the compound at about 8 p.m. The State Department&#8217;s timeline says     the attack itself began at around 9:40 p.m.

*Khaled al-Haddar, a lawyer who passed by the scene as he headed   to  his nearby home, said he saw the fighters gathering a few youths   from  among passers-by and urged them to chant against the film."*

Libyan witnesses recount organized Benghazi attack - Washington Times

To repeat: *There were people there in Benghazi who claimed the video  was why they were angry *-    join that up with the Ansar al-Sharia (who first claimed, then denied    responsibility) crowd -  who no doubt were mightily pissed and ready  to   do us harm to begin  with, and add the gasoline of that video to  their   whacked out religious sensibilities, and you get KA-BOOM!  

It's not like the "reasons" can't happen concurrently, and the Intel was, as officials tell us, still fluid.

But no, you go with...the video had *nothing* to do with it. 

Maybe it will help you guys win the next election.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 30, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...


*none I guess now does it*


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > I am wondering, which of these are liberals supporting in this thread of left wing bullshit?
> ...



*denying is all they got*


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Asswipe....how does your smoke and mirrors help counter an Islamic terrorist group killed 4 Americans on 11 Sep???
> ...



Well Obama already gave his "Mission Accomplished" political football spike when he took credit for killing Osama Bin Laden. I guess the fight against terrorism didn't leave them so decimated as he led the media to believe, otherwise he would have heightened security on all his American Embassies prior on to the anniversary of 9-11. What president actually RELAXES security measures for embassies in volatile parts of the world anyways? One that is too confident in himself to think clearly, evidently.


----------



## Jroc (Dec 30, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.
> ...





in moronatopia you be the king


----------



## blastoff (Dec 30, 2013)

So on Fox yesterday Chris Wallace had House Intel Committee chairman Mike Rogers, Republican, and committee member Adam Schiff, a Dem from California.

Rogers disputed the allegation that Al Qaeda had no involvement, based on the mountain of intelligence he, fellow committee members, and others in the government are privy to.  And Democrat Schiff agreed with him about it.  

Among other things, Rogers pointed out the huge difference between a NYT writer interviewing people on the street and whatnot long after the incident took place and the intelligence collected before and after from people who had no idea they were being listened to when they talked about Al Qaeda involvement in the attack.  

So, it was bipartisan agreement by two intelligence committee members that the Times piece was complete bullshit with regards to AQ.  The lefty rag made that up because it fits their agenda, and there's no telling what else they invented for the benefit of the low information idiots in this country.

The NYT is bent on becoming the MSNBC of the print media, and doing a damn good job of it IMO.


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > What is new is that Hicks has put a human face on previous reporting. He also disclosed he spoke directly to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton the night of the attack, presumably relaying his conclusions.
> ...


*ouch*


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 30, 2013)

Gregory had firebug on MTP ystrdy & crucified him


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

So, what exactly was he right about? 

That is was a spontaneous attack like he said for the first 4 weeks after the attack, or was it an organized terror attack that he claimed it was after the 4 weeks of bullshit were questioned?

Are liberals in this thread claiming Susan Rice was correct now?

Are they saying it was indeed created by a video and it was spontaneous, even though Obama denied he said that, and then the Clinton News Network fat ass affirmed Obama said it was an "act of terror" during the presidential debates?


Someone please tell me what the liberals are attempting to say. Please, someone decipher their double talk for me. I cannot do it.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



Don't expect the rw lies to stop though. 

Lies are all they've got.


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

blastoff said:


> So on Fox yesterday Chris Wallace had House Intel Committee chairman Mike Rogers, Republican, and committee member Adam Schiff, a Dem from California.
> 
> Rogers disputed the allegation that Al Qaeda had no involvement, based on the mountain of intelligence he, fellow committee members, and others in the government are privy to.  And Democrat Schiff agreed with him about it.
> 
> ...



Complete bullshit, eh?  what, that a few people in the crowd _were_ connected to Al Qaeda, making it an Al Qaeda attack?  Is that the way it works now?

That Issa and Company are now saying there were some links, and not al Qaeda directly?

That the video inflamed the Muslim world the day of the attack, and it was shown on TV's and reported widely around the world -- but some how or another, the people in Benghazi didn't catch wind of it?

Is that it? 

Even Schiff said:

"I agree with Mike that, however, the intelligence indicates that  al-Qaeda was involved. But there were also plenty of people and militias  that were unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that were involved," said Rep.  Adam Schiff, D-Calif., also appearing on _Fox News Sunday_.

Schiff said the _New York Times_ account "adds some insights" but doesn't tell a complete story.


*"I  think the intelligence paints a portrait that some came to murder, some  people came to destroy property, some merely came to loot, and some  came in part motivated by those videos.* So it is a complex picture," he  said.


And this: 


> Rep. *Darrell Issa* was equally stubborn during his appearance on NBC's _Meet the Press_, where he insisted his past comments about Al Qaeda's alleged involvement in the attack were accurate.  There  is a group that was involved that claims an affiliation with Al Qaeda,  Issa said. Host David Gregory had first crack at one of the most  impassioned drivers of Benghazi conspiracies in Washington, and for the  most part he duffed it. We  have seen no evidence that the video was widely seen in Benghazi, Issa  said Sunday morning, and Gregory failed to challenge him on those  remarks. What we know, David, is the initial reports did not name this  video as the prime cause, he added.
> 
> Most initial reports said the video was part of the anger in the attack, somehow. The _Times_  report yesterday was dripping with evidence from people who were  present at the attack who said the video was involved.
> *
> But at least Issa  did compliment the Times for some very good work."*


Darrell Issa and Mike Rogers Still Think Al Qaeda Was Involved in Benghazi - The Wire


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.
> ...



It's not like the Libyans have a reason to lie.

You ask any group that's suspected of committing a crime and they'll all claim innocence. 

I think I'll stick with what our intelligence people have said on the subject.


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

So, what exactly was he right about? 

That it was a spontaneous attack like he said for the first 4 weeks after the attack, or was it an organized terror attack that he claimed it was after the 4 weeks of bullshit were questioned?

Are liberals in this thread claiming Susan Rice was correct now?

Are they saying it was indeed created by a video and it was spontaneous, even though Obama denied he said that, and then the Clinton News Network fat ass affirmed Obama said it was an "act of terror" during the presidential debates?


Someone please tell me what the liberals are attempting to say. Please, someone decipher their double talk for me. I cannot do it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 30, 2013)

Theowl32 said:


> So, what exactly was he right about?
> 
> That it was a spontaneous attack like he said for the first 4 weeks after the attack, or was it an organized terror attack that he claimed it was after the 4 weeks of bullshit were questioned?
> 
> ...


"At this point what difference does it make?"


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 30, 2013)

Thats where Firebug screwed-up. An "affiliation"  He spent MILLIONS OF TXPAYER $$$ just to say there was prolly an affiliation?  Firebug is a rw hack on a witch hunt. Repubs 



paperview said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > So on Fox yesterday Chris Wallace had House Intel Committee chairman Mike Rogers, Republican, and committee member Adam Schiff, a Dem from California.
> ...


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

"Obama's former national security spokesman, Tommy Vietor, however,  was quick to pounce on Republicans after reading the Times' report. He  unleashed a series of tweets, including these, condemning Republicans: 

&#8211; "If Rs spent 1/50th as much time as @ddknyt learning what really  happened in #Benhazi, we could have avoided months of disgusting  demagoguery."


&#8211; "Republicans inflated the role of al Qaeda in #Bengazi to attack  Obama's CT record. They were wrong, and handed our enemy a propaganda  win."


&#8211; "Credit to @ddknyt but also disconcerting that his #Benghazi  article offered more insight into what happened than all Congressional  hearings."


Rogers on Benghazi: This should not be a ?partisan issue? ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs


Heh.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 30, 2013)

Theowl32 said:


> So, what exactly was he right about?
> 
> That it was a spontaneous attack like he said for the first 4 weeks after the attack, or was it an organized terror attack that he claimed it was after the 4 weeks of bullshit were questioned?
> 
> ...



What he was right about

There was no international AlQaida planning or support
It was a loacalized and mostly spontaneous event that was exploited by local militant groups
The video did have an impact on the protest just like it did at several US Embassies


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > So on Fox yesterday Chris Wallace had House Intel Committee chairman Mike Rogers, Republican, and committee member Adam Schiff, a Dem from California.
> ...



The CIA complex was also attacked, by mortars nonetheless, and if you know anything about military tactics you would know that such an attack needed planning. Which flies in the face of a spontaneous attack.

And let's not overlook these facts.

There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack. 

Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16, five days after the attack, that it was a planned terrorist attack.

Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. This, too, was on Sept. 16.

Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it a terrorist attack during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 21.


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > I am wondering, which of these are liberals supporting in this thread of left wing bullshit?
> ...



I did not read all of your bullshit double talk. 

Are you agreeing with the Obama that said it was ALL BECAUSE OF A VIDEO, or are you agreeing with the Obama that said it was AN ACT OF TERROR?

Are you denying that there were repeated requests for more security in Benghazi? 

Are you acknowledging there were requests?

Which is the lie from the administration you believe, and which is the one you support?

Crowley, the big fat Clinton News Network blob said Obama said the attacks on the Benghazi embassy was an act of terror. Oh, when I say act of terror, it means it was NOT SPONTANEOUS. Where, Obama asked her to repeat what she said in order to emphasize that Obama claimed it was an ACT OF TERROR and not some spontaneous reaction to a video that they claimed for weeks after the attack. 


So, what the fuck are you liberals saying here? Are you claiming it was all a spontaneous attack as a result of a video, like Obama claimed for weeks, or are you saying Obama lied when he claimed it was an organized act of terror?


I cannot fucking tell. Pick one. Double talking pieces of shit.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 30, 2013)

^ First rw melt down of the day  

As to the OP, yeah- Firebug should be ashamed of himself and resign after spending MILLIONS of taxpayer $$$ on a rw dog & pony show. And they claim to be "deficit hawks"


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > So, what exactly was he right about?
> ...




Yeah, but Obama denied that it was all spontaneous. 

So you support the initial lie, and reject the lie he was telling after more and more intelligence came out that the attack in Benghazi was organized?

Well, you would need to be supporting one of the lies. Which one?

Fucking liberals. 

They are now claiming that it was all spontaneous cause of a video.


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> First rw melt down of the day



Why, which lie are you supporting?


----------



## Claudette (Dec 30, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



Bullshit there Billyopp. 

That was debunked long ago. Money was never an issue you idiot. 

Of course being an Obamabot you sure as shit wouldn't want Barry and Hilbat presented in a bad light. 

Benghazi was a result of the total ineptitude of Barry's State Department run by Hilbat. They had loads of warnings. They did nothing. 

Of course it makes no difference to an idiot like you. Of course if you'd lost a loved one at Benghazi you'd be singing a different tune. Or mayby not. Your an Obama lover after all.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 30, 2013)

Obama could blame the attack on Global Warming and the Left would believe it


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 30, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama could blame the attack on Global Warming and the Left would believe it



I don't know why they didn't just blame Bush. The leftist idiots would surely buy that lie.


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

Which of these are liberals supporting here?


The attack just so happened to happen on 911. Probably not planned. Yes, folks. The moron liberals are still claiming this. It was a coincidence. 

Just so happened to be on 911. They have spent 50 pages going back to the claim that it was spontaneous. 

Yes, they are folks.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 30, 2013)

Theowl32 said:


> So, what exactly was he right about?
> 
> That it was a spontaneous attack like he said for the first 4 weeks after the attack, or was it an organized terror attack that he claimed it was after the 4 weeks of bullshit were questioned?
> 
> ...




The left would like to see Hillary Clinton run for President in 2016, since she was Secretary of State during the time of the attack on Benghazi, they need to find a way to re-examine the Benghazi attack that supports her (as there is little doubt a left leaning newspaper like the New York Times, would in fact fully endorse her candidacy). You have to look to the much bigger picture, to see the political motive involved and to be gained here.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 30, 2013)

My question is: Should firebug offer to pay the taxpayer $$$, wasted on this particular partisan witch hunt, back to the American people through Boehner & Cantor's Leadership (slush fund) PACS?


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> My question is: Should firebug offer to pay the taxpayer $$$, wasted on this particular partisan witch hunt, back to the American people through Boehner & Cantor's Leadership (slush fund) PACS?



So, again. Which lie do you believe?

The one where Obama claimed it was a spontaneous attack even though it happened on 911 (yeah probably a coincidence) or the one where he claimed it was an organized terror attack?

You can ignore my question.

You avoiding the question is all I need to know. You liberals cannot commit to one side. You need to hold on to both sides, in order to claim you were right about something. 

Which makes you and everyone that thinks like you totally invalid. 

You can bitch, moan, brag that your incompetent liar in chief won the election. Does not matter. The fact that you parrot bullshit is all I need to know about your ability to think for yourself. 


*******Duuuuuuuh, I am a liberal, which means I believe all things NY Times tells me.  Duuuuuhhhh*************


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 30, 2013)

Theowl32 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



It is what is known as the fog of war

When things initially happen it is difficult to quickly determine the cause and exactly what occured
Because similar protests were occurring throughout the Muslim world because of the video, initial analysis was that this was the same as the others.
It turns out that Obama was right. Protesters were out there because of the video. Local militants took advantage of the situation and attacked the embassy.

Obama was also correct in that it was not a well planned international AlQaida attack on the anniversary of 9-11.  It was carried out by local militants


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

Theowl32 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


You're not interested in even learning the raw details, you insult me from beginning to end, and you expect a civil and informed reply?

Right.

Which is it you ask?  Your purpose is not to find out - it's to throw a fit, hold your hands over your ears and eyes, spit out invective laced in repetitious GOP bumper stickers  and talking points all the while saying ....

_na na na ...I can't heeeaaarrr you._


----------



## rdean (Dec 30, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Hilarious!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 30, 2013)

And to think there were rightwing inmates here on USMB able to say with a straight face that Obama should be impeached over Benghazi.


----------



## whitehall (Dec 30, 2013)

Real journalists are laughing at the cheap attempt by the NY Times to cover Hillary's ass. A few decades ago they might have gotten away with the propaganda but Americans are better informed than the stodgy old Times realizes. Didn't anyone tell the Times that the you-tube video was dismissed by everyone as the cause of the riot including Hillary?


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Real journalists are laughing at the cheap attempt by the NY Times to cover Hillary's ass. A few decades ago they might have gotten away with the propaganda but Americans are better informed than the stodgy old Times realizes. Didn't anyone tell the Times that the you-tube video was dismissed by everyone as the cause of the riot including Hillary?


That's not true.

It played a part in it.

Have you been paying any attention at all?


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Yeah, you still have not decided to let us know which lies of his you believe. 

He said it was all spontaneous due to a video (which of course you still believe and still actually think it was a coincidence that it was on 911) and then he said it was an ORGANIZED ACT of terror. 

Insulting you? I have not even begun. 

You are nothing but a miserable left wing hack, who believes any and all things from a left wing rag, hell bent to promote Hillary. 

You go ahead and cry how this was a spontaneous. I also hope you continue parroting that bullshit. 

You really do not think there is more than enough evidence that many requests were ignored by this administration?

You don't think they chose to sell the spontaneous bullshit for political expediency?

Why were the witnesses not allowed to testify before congress?

Six months later, where are the Benghazi survivors? - CBS News

^^^^^^^^^
Even CBS News reported that:

*Today marks six months since the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Some watchdog groups, members of the media and Republican members of Congress are asking: Where are the more than two dozen U.S. personnel who survived the attack but haven't been seen nor heard from in public since? There were also an undisclosed number of witnesses at the U.S. compounds in Tripoli but they also have not spoken publicly.

In a recent press report, Secretary of State John Kerry said he visited one survivor at "Bethesda hospital," and referred to him a "remarkably courageous person who is doing very, very well." Kerry added, "I've called his wife and talked to her." But the identities, condition and testimony of the survivors and witnesses have been closely held from the public.*




Keep on repairing that image of Hillary, who is now launching her campaign for the 2016 presidency. This will be the first and most important hurdle. Her news sources will now go back to the notion that it was spontaneous, after they use their stupid left wing constituency to share these bullshit reports. 


It is unreal how easily they seduce these morons on the left. Then again, I am not shocked. 

They are still saying an attack on 911 was not organized, even after Obama said it was,  after he said for weeks it was spontaneous.


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 30, 2013)

'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report | Fox News





> &#8220;It was a coordinated attack. It is completely false to say anything else. &#8230; *It is completely a lie,&#8221;* one witness to the attack told Fox News.
> 
> Sean Smith, a foreign service officer, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were also killed in the 2012 assault.
> 
> ...



Yeah, protesters learn "Fire and Maneuver".  Right.

Just another lie by the most disgusting, the most evil, the most anti-American FILTH the world has ever know......  dimocrap scum hiding behind the protective curtain of the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM.

And anybody that believes it, is just as disgusting and just as guilty.

People, I told you only hours after it happened, before anybody else had a clue, that it was a coordinated attack by trained Military Professionals.

Protesters don't just use "Fire and Maneuver" tactics.  Protesters just don't fire 5 Mortar Rounds and make three direct hits from 3 to 4 miles away.

To you people who still care about truth, honor, the United States and what we stand for, this is just another lie by the left.

To the left.....  Fucking die, scumbags.

Soon.

If I were a reporter with an agenda, I could find people who would swear that Pol Pot was innocent, too.

Who did this scumbag interview?  The motherfucker interviewed terrorists, that's who.

You gotta be special kind of scumbag to believe the shit from the Slimes.

They're digging their own graves


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

From the NYT   accountThen, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening  a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel  El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington  about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their  embassy. No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya. 

But *Islamists  in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and  El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. &#8220;It is Friday morning  viewing,&#8221; popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist  who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the  condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.* By Sept. 9, a  popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film. On the  morning of Sept. 11, even some secular political activists were posting  calls online for a protest that Friday, three days away. Hussein Abu  Hamida, the acting chief of Benghazi&#8217;s informal police force, saw the  growing furor and feared new violence against Western interests.​The whole fucking world was watching on the day of September 11th -- and that video was part of what caused some to get involved in the attack.

This isn't difficult people. 

It's like some _can't imagine _concurrent things can happen, that *both *things can happen -- that it was a planned attack, and that some militants and militia groups were brought in by the intensity of learning an American film was made that spit a crusty loogy in the eye of their Prophet.

Naw, not to cons who are fixed on the Fox narrative.  Has to be one or the other.


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> From the NYT new account
> 
> Naw, not to cons who are fixed on the *Fox narrative.*  Has to be one or the other.​




The Fox Narrative?


You fucking hack. 

Love it. Happened on 911, and was not organized.​


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> From the NYT   accountThen, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening  a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel  El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington  about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their  embassy. No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya.
> 
> But *Islamists  in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and  El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. It is Friday morning  viewing, popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist  who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the  condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.* By Sept. 9, a  popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film. On the  morning of Sept. 11, even some secular political activists were posting  calls online for a protest that Friday, three days away. Hussein Abu  Hamida, the acting chief of Benghazis informal police force, saw the  growing furor and feared new violence against Western interests.​The whole fucking world was watching on the day of September 11th -- and that video was part of what caused some to get involved in the attack.
> 
> ...



Republicans claim it was a preplanned attack by the international AlQaida for the anniversary of 9-11
They also claim the video had nothing to do with it and blocked Susan Rices appointment to the UN because she had the nerve to say such a thing


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

Connies are now embracing their own "Please proceed Governor" moments.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



So it wasn't terrorist attack. That leaves it to "violence at work place", I guess.


----------



## TooTall (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> From the NYT   accountThen, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening  a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel  El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington  about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their  embassy. No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya.
> 
> But *Islamists  in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and  El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. &#8220;It is Friday morning  viewing,&#8221; popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist  who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the  condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.* By Sept. 9, a  popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film. On the  morning of Sept. 11, even some secular political activists were posting  calls online for a protest that Friday, three days away. Hussein Abu  Hamida, the acting chief of Benghazi&#8217;s informal police force, saw the  growing furor and feared new violence against Western interests.​The whole fucking world was watching on the day of September 11th -- and that video was part of what caused some to get involved in the attack.
> 
> ...



Everybody brings AK-47's, mortors and gallons of fuel oil to SPONTANEOUS demonstrations.  Woudn't you?  

The key word the Obama administration used, 'spontaneous' was meant to downplay the fact that it was Islamist terrorists that planned and carried out this attack on US citizens.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > From the NYT   accountThen, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening  a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel  El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington  about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their  embassy. No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya.
> ...



And the evidence shows the Republicans to be correct.

In an exclusive interview with NPR in Benghazi, President Mohammed el-Megarif says foreigners infiltrated Libya over the past few months, planned the attack and used Libyans to carry it out.


----------



## TooTall (Dec 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > From the NYT   accountThen, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening  a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel  El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington  about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their  embassy. No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya.
> ...



Put her remarks in context.  It was anything but a 'spontaneous' demonstration that got out of control.  She, and every body with more than half a brain knew that.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 30, 2013)

I've read all of this and some interesting facts have emerged.  


1.  Conservative folks seem to be saying all the available reporting other than the NY Times indicates the Times story over the weekend is basically complete bullshit.  It does not help the Times' case that their own reporting on multiple occasions in the past said Benghazi was the result of terrorist attacks.  The mountain of evidence on a bipartisan basis says if was a terrorist attack.  


2.  The liberals defenders of Benghazi seem to say it was a terrorists attack (the President allegedly called it a terrorist attack) but then say the NY Times article was correct and it was not a terrorist attack.  So to my liberal friends....was it a terrorist attack or was it not?  Please be clear.  

3.  Liberals also seem to be saying Benghazi is a non-issue, yet they have spent 55 pages discussing this "non-issue."  Obviously it is an issue to generate this amount of discussion, and it is a potential major liability to Hillary if she runs in 2016.  That is what is generating all the angst.  

4.  I think the reason liberals continue to contradict themselves on this issue is because the Obama Administration has changed their story so many times.  Again...was it a terrorist attack or not?   Some Obama people say it was...some say no depending on the person, the situation, or who they are talking too.  So which is it?  Thanks.


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> I've read all of this and some interesting facts have emerged.
> 
> 
> 1.  Conservative folks seem to be saying all the available reporting other than the NY Times indicates the Times story over the weekend is basically complete bullshit.  It does not help the Times' case that their own reporting on multiple occasions in the past said Benghazi was the result of terrorist attacks.  The mountain of evidence on a bipartisan basis says if was a terrorist attack.
> ...



The left cannot see how they are being used to launch Hillary, and this is what this is all about. 

They still believe it was all spontaneous. 

Regardless of the fact that Obama claimed it was an organized terror attack, as pointed out by Crowley (as his moronic constituency applauded in the back ground), and now the morons on the left are saying Obama was actually right when he initially claimed it was only spontaneous caused by a video. 

I still have no real idea what they are saying. Except paperview I believe is saying all of the attacks were spontaneous and the fact they happened on 911 was a mere coincidence, even though the Obama administration said it was an organized attack. 

So, what was Obama right about then? I still have no idea what they are claiming he was right about.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 30, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> And to think there were rightwing inmates here on USMB able to say with a straight face that Obama should be impeached over Benghazi.



True. But that is just one of several reasons he should be impeached.


----------



## Jroc (Dec 30, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > And to think there were rightwing inmates here on USMB able to say with a straight face that Obama should be impeached over Benghazi.
> ...



He should be impeached for violating his oath to protect and defend the constitution.


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

Theowl32 said:


> ...
> 
> I still have no real idea what they are saying. *Except paperview I believe is saying all of the attacks were spontaneous and the fact they happened on 911 was a mere coincidence*, even though the Obama administration said it was an organized attack.
> ....


No.  You're not even bothering to read - or care to learn, and you've made your lack of willingness to understand or discern  what is being said well known.

Not for you - because you are here just to insult  and tell us you won't bother reading, but  for the others, who _are_ reading  and want to gather the gist of what seems so damn difficult for hardheads to grasp,

I'll repeat what I  posted earlier, with highlights for the short readers:



paperview said:


> From the NYT   accountThen, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by  screening  a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian  satellite channel  El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm  in Washington  about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest  outside their  embassy. No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in  Libya.
> 
> But *Islamists  in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks  like El Nas and  El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. It is  Friday morning  viewing, popular on the day of prayer, said one young  Benghazi Islamist  who turned up at the compound during the attack,  speaking on the  condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.* By  Sept. 9, a  popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film.  On the  morning of Sept. 11, even some secular political activists were  posting  calls online for a protest that Friday, three days away.  Hussein Abu  Hamida, the acting chief of Benghazis informal police  force, saw the  growing furor and feared new violence against Western  interests.​*The whole fucking world was watching on the day of September 11th -- and that video was part of what caused some to get involved in the attack.*
> 
> ...


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

And to add:


DEMPSEY: You know, it wasn't a seven-hour battle. 

*It was two 20-minute  battles separated by about six hours. *

The idea that this was one  continuous event is just incorrect. 

And the nearest -- for example, the  nearest aircraft -- armed aircraft,   happened to be in Djibouti, the  distance from Djibouti to Benghazi is   the distance from Washington,  D.C., to Los Angeles. There is some   significant physics involved. And  the time available, given the   intelligence available, I have great  confidence in reporting to the   American people that we were  appropriately responsive given what we   knew at the time. [CNN, _State of the Union_, 2/3/13]

*Two* separate attacks. Some were part of the planned attack, 

some were spurred by the video, 

some were there to loot, 

some were there as the ferver and intensity grew to show their support for their angry countrymen,

and some were there for other reasons -- you know, when mobs converge, there are a multiplicity of motivators that drive different individuals. 

Weird, I know, huh?


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.
> ...



Rush Limbaugh....


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



The Fox narrative. 

Again, you claim it was all due to a video. 

You deny the other reports that said that Benghazi embassy was requesting more security, and I guess you still maintain that it happening on 911 was a coincidence. 

You are denying that Hillary failed miserably (which reflected on the Obama administration in an election year and a couple months away from November 6th) when she did not respond adequately to their repeated requests. 

What to do? Repeat the bullshit claim that was spontaneous and they had no prior warnings or requests. Not to mention orders to stand down as the 7 hour long assault took place. They gave them up, cause they did not want to risk a disaster in an election year two months prior to November 6th. Benghazi, afterall was their little baby, when Hillary and Rice claimed, they came they saw......


Watch that again you stubborn left wing, intolerable, know it all, hack. 

There are far more reports that indicate this was a political disaster, AND THE FUCKING NARRATIVE of a spontaneous attack was put out by this fucking administration. Then.....in the political debates, after it was more than clear that they dropped the ball along with more insidious reports, Obama claimed he said it was an ORGANIZED TERROR ATTACK as said by Crowley. 


However, Crowley had a problem. Now, that she had done her damage, it was clear that she was actually throwing Hillary under the bus. Well, the Clinton News Network could not have that, so she admitted she screwed up days after she made Obama look good before the November 6th elections. 




^^^^^^^^^^^^

CNN attempts to repairing Hillary. 

It worked. Why, cause really and truly paperview. You and your types are nothing but pawns. Shills for the left. You are too easy. 

The fact is you are the worst types of ignorant. You are the types that always believe you are the smartest ones in the room, and in reality, it is the exact opposite.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 30, 2013)

> 1.  Conservative folks seem to be saying all the available reporting other than the NY Times indicates the Times story over the weekend is basically complete bullshit.  It does not help the Times' case that their own reporting on multiple occasions in the past said Benghazi was the result of terrorist attacks.  The mountain of evidence on a bipartisan basis says if was a terrorist attack.


 
*It absolutely was a terrorist attack. Who is saying that it was not? The question was whether or not it was planed or spontaneous (or some planing)*



> 2.  The liberals defenders of Benghazi seem to say it was a terrorists attack (the President allegedly called it a terrorist attack) but then say the NY Times article was correct and it was not a terrorist attack.  So to my liberal friends....was it a terrorist attack or was it not?  Please be clear.



*This was always called "an act of terror."*



> 3.  Liberals also seem to be saying Benghazi is a non-issue, yet they have spent 55 pages discussing this "non-issue."  Obviously it is an issue to generate this amount of discussion, and it is a potential major liability to Hillary if she runs in 2016.  That is what is generating all the angst.



*Because it is a huge source of misinformation and out-right lies. Guess you were hoping that we would all just "go along?"
*


> 4.  I think the reason liberals continue to contradict themselves on this issue is because the Obama Administration has changed their story so many times.  Again...was it a terrorist attack or not?   Some Obama people say it was...some say no depending on the person, the situation, or who they are talking too.  So which is it?



*Obama and others have steadfastly claimed that Benghazi was an act of terror. Like any other incident, intelligence takes a while to be gathered up and deciphered. *


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

For a good little Wonkette read, written as only the Wonkette does, I'll drop this here for some to chomp on (no, cons, this isn't for you.  You wouldn't _get it _anyway.):



> *New York Times&#8217; Detailed Investigation Ends Rancor Over Benghazi Forever*
> 
> Over the weekend, the New York Times released its big investigative report  on the September 11, 2012, attack on the diplomatic compound in  Benghazi. The article by David Kirkpatrick suggested that several  aspects of the rightwing narrative don&#8217;t hold water &#8212; particularly the  claims that the &#8220;Innocence of Muslims&#8221; video had nothing to do with the  attack, that the attack had been planned far in advance, and that it was  an al Qaeda operation. The thorough report led critics of the Obama  administration to say, &#8220;Ah, we see. Well, so much for that, then. So  maybe it wasn&#8217;t Watergate plus Pearl Harbor times 9/11 after all.&#8221;
> 
> ...




> People on the ground! Except that David Kirkpatrick did indeed talk  to quite a few of them &#8212; not a single one of his sources in Benghazi was  hovering, in fact. Kirkpatrick said on NBC&#8217;s _Meet the Press_  that part of the problem is that American politicians tend to call all  Islamic radicals &#8220;al Qaeda&#8221; regardless of whether the groups have an  actual connection with the al Qaeda organization: &#8220;There&#8217;s just no chance that this was an al Qaeda  attack if, by al Qaeda, you mean the organization founded by Osama bin  Laden,&#8221; he said. &#8220;If you&#8217;re using the term al Qaeda to describe even a  local group of Islamist militants who may dislike democracy or have a  grudge against the United States, if you&#8217;re going to call anybody like  that al Qaeda, then okay.&#8221;
> Kirkpatrick continued, &#8220;Certainly there were some anti-Western,  Islamist militants involved in this attack. But to me, that&#8217;s a semantic  difference and not a useful way of answering the original question.&#8221;​Obviously, this is the kind of biased nit-picking that you&#8217;d expect  from a liberal news organization that thinks fine gradations of meaning  matter &#8212; the ultra-far-left _New York Times_ doesn&#8217;t even recognize that mandating that people buy private health insurance is socialized medicine.




More bubble gum fun at the link: New York Times | Detailed Investigation Ends Rancor Over Benghazi Forever​


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> > 1.  Conservative folks seem to be saying all the available reporting other than the NY Times indicates the Times story over the weekend is basically complete bullshit.  It does not help the Times' case that their own reporting on multiple occasions in the past said Benghazi was the result of terrorist attacks.  The mountain of evidence on a bipartisan basis says if was a terrorist attack.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Take a look folks. 

Both sides of the argument. 

You have to stand in awe at how they deal with their cognitive dissonance. Let me clarify it for you. WHEN WE CLAIM it was an ACT OF TERROR, it means the attacks were planned. Meaning, it happened on the anniversary of 911, and it was far more organized for it to have been some spontaneous thing. 

Also, the fact is Hillary failed to respond to the repeated requests for more security......


Here, since you will all use the NY Times as your source, here:

Progress Report on Benghazi Terror Attack Investigation | Speaker.gov

^^^^
The 46 page official report. Want to read it? No? Let me highlight it for you. 

A 46-page progress report released by five Republican House committees of jurisdiction indicates that security cuts at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to the terrorist attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were approved by then-Secretary of State Clinton. This contradicts her January 23, 2013 testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee declaring exactly the opposite. On that occasion she said under oath: I have made it very clear that the security cables did not come to my attention or above the assistant secretary level where the ARB (Accountability Review Board) placed that responsibility. Yet a cable bearing her signature dated March 28, 2012, acknowledges a formal request from then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz for additional security assets, but orders the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.

Hillary clearly wanted to put all accountabilities for the ugly Benghazi matter out of public sight and mind. When Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) asked her why she, her State Department and the White House, who immediately knew differently, continued to blame the deadly assault on our consulate upon an obscure anti-Muslim video for weeks afterwards, she angrily pounded the table and retorted: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided theyd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point, does it make?

The House interim report states that reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. It also concludes that dishonest changes to the public talking points discussing the entire Benghazi debacle were concocted at the behest of the White House to make the Obama administration look good. After original versions of the attack were drafted and the editing process began, draft talking points were sent to officials, throughout the Executive Branch, (and) senior State Department officials requested the talking points be changed to avoid criticism for ignoring the threat environment in Benghazi.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Let me know if you want more. The simple fact is NY Times is doing damage control for Hillary. Launching her 2016 campaign, and this will be her biggest problem. 

The usual squishpots on the left will carry the water for these pathetic liars. 

I cannot believe there are still morons on the left still parroting bullshit about spontaneous attacks, even after the administration later changed that narrative. It has been a long foregone conclusion that there nothing spontaneous about these. 

Yet, here we are. One NY Times article, and they are all get off the hook.


----------



## packerbacker (Dec 30, 2013)

Then which story is odumbo going to stick with?  Ths is all smoke and mirrors to pave the way for ol' Hillary. Notice how she has been out of the limelight lately?  She wants to see how this healthcare thing rolls out before she chooses which wagon to jump on.  More wool to pull over the sheeples eyes.


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

Progress Report on Benghazi Terror Attack Investigation | Speaker.gov

The report charges that: &#8220;The administration&#8217;s talking points were developed in an interagency process that focused more on protecting the reputation and credibility of the State Department than on explaining to the American people the facts surrounding the fatal attacks.&#8221; It quotes one email saying that there was concern that members of Congress would attack the State Department for &#8220;not paying attention to Agency warnings&#8221;. Further, it states that: &#8220;Those edits struck any and all suggestions that the State Department had been previously warned of threats in the region, that there had been previous attacks in Benghazi by al-Qaeda-linked groups in Benghazi and eastern Libya, and that extremists linked to al-Qaeda may have participated in the attack on the Benghazi Mission.&#8221;

The talking points representing the attack on the Benghazi compound as a &#8220;spontaneous&#8221; demonstration provoked by an anti-Muslim video were known to be false at the time soon after the attacks. This was before the White House dispatched U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to present that story on five Sunday morning talk shows. Also, contrary to administration rhetoric, protection of classified information had no influence in the editing process that produced the talking points narrative. No concern about this issue was mentioned in email traffic among senior administration officials who were involved.

According to the House report, the White House and branches of the Obama administration knew or learned quite a lot about the Benghazi tragedy at the time disingenuous accounts were repeatedly released to the public. CIA Director David Petraeus met with members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on September 14, telling them that CIA briefing notes included:

House Report Says Hillary Clinton Lied About Benghazi Attack - Investors.com

Information about five previous attacks on foreign interests in Benghazi since April 2012.

Potential links to al-Qaida connected to Libyan militia, Ansar al-Sharia.

Previous CIA assessment groups linked to al-Qaida in eastern Libya.

Many in Congress believe that Benghazi survivors who were evacuated after the attacks have been held incommunicado to keep politically-damaging information about an Obama administration failure to offer a military response from being released.  Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Fox News that &#8220;The bottom line is they feel they can&#8217;t come forth&#8230;They&#8217;ve been told to be quiet.&#8221; Graham said: &#8220;We cannot let this administration or any other administration get away with hiding from American people and Congress&#8230;people who were there in real time to tell the story.&#8221;

On April 17, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) told Secretary Kerry at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing: &#8220;We have made request after request about, for example, just to get the list of the people who were evacuated from Benghazi, and we haven&#8217;t even gotten that, much less some important questions.&#8221; Rohrabacher emphasized: &#8220;We need to talk to the people who are on the scene. Can you give us a commitment now that this administration, you will be coming up with the request, the honest request of this committee as to who was evacuated and how to talk to them so we can get a straight answer and an understanding of what happened in Benghazi?&#8221; 

Kerry On Benghazi: "We Got A Lot More Important Things To Move On To" | RealClearPolitics

Kerry responded that he didn&#8217;t think anybody lied to anybody, and &#8220;let&#8217;s find out exactly,  together, what happened because we need&#8230; we got a lot more important things to move on to and get done.&#8221;


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 30, 2013)

Theowl32 said:


> Take a look folks.
> 
> Both sides of the argument.
> 
> ...



Who quoted the NYT? Me? I am posting mostly from prior research I have already done on the subject. I have not read the NYT version of the events. 


If you actually read what I had written, you would see that those were my words - not the Times'.


*



			WHEN WE CLAIM it was an ACT OF TERROR, it means the attacks were planned. Meaning, it happened on the anniversary of 911, and it was far more organized for it to have been some spontaneous thing.
		
Click to expand...

*You did not really give a reason here to support your assertion that this was a planed event. Screaming your convoluted definition of TERROR does not explain anything.

Oy, this is getting a tad bit annoying.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 30, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama could blame the attack on Global Warming and the Left would believe it


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Take a look folks.
> ...



Yeah, when you claim Obama "steadfastly" claimed it was an ACT OF TERROR is you trying to obfuscate the point (through the liberal narrative as pushed by Candy Crowley) from the notion that Obama clearly said it was spontaneous as a result of a video. 

In your other quote.....you say this:



> The question was whether or not it was planed or spontaneous (or some planing)




Well, that is what the administration was claiming. You are saying it is most likely both. Meaning, even a "spontaneous attack" is an ACT OF TERROR. However, in this discussion or debate or controversy, there is a distinction. Meaning, if it was an ACT OF TERROR as we are saying, it means there was definite planning. Logistical steps being taken. If you want to believe there was no planning for the date 9/11 and it was simply something on the spur of moment that the administration was not prepared for, then fine. Of course, the fact it was on 911 and there was no heightened security should be indicative of this administration unreal incompetence, even if there were no warnings. I can assure you, that across the world, the embassies routinely raised security on that date, every year since that date. 


The fact is there was not enough security and there were repeated requests. You trying to link the two together by claiming a spontaneous act is the same thing as ACT OF TERROR is you not getting the point, and attempting to take accountability from an adminsitration that let 4 people die for political expediency. 

PERIOD.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 30, 2013)

Amelia said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Obama could blame the attack on Global Warming and the Left would believe it



This is getting really tiresome. Glad you guys feel no real need to explain your positions and instead have unlimited amounts of time to blame liberals for all your problems. This is PROVEN to work! 2016 can't come fast enough!

More potoshops pics of Obama will be greatly appreciated. 

Please post away and enjoy your next shellacking at the polls - you can always blame it on voter-fraud, reorganization of voting districts and Obama buying votes with unlimited EBT cards.

I love it!


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

Theowl32 said:


> ... I can assure you, that across the world, the embassies routinely raised security on that date, every year since that date. ...



Wait - you still think this happened at the Libyan *Embassy*?   

Do you know how many consulates we have around the world?

Do you not know this happened at a *temporary* facility, and not even a consulate? 

Do you know most of the officials there were working for the CIA, not State?

Do you know that building was basically a CIA operation?

I mean, basic stuff man.  Learnz it.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 30, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> And to think there were rightwing inmates here on USMB able to say with a straight face that Obama should be impeached over Benghazi.



Yes we've heard this speech before. Can't you come up with anything more informative to add to the discussion instead of the same liberal talking points memo? It's really rather boring and lacking of any real fact related substance.


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > ... I can assure you, that across the world, the embassies routinely raised security on that date, every year since that date. ...
> ...



You should keep on thinking the attacks carried out on 911 were spontaneous. Makes you look like the smartest water carrying squishpot for the democratic party there is. 

Yes, the security is indeed heightened across the world, especially in the middle east on 9/11 every year. 

The fact you do not know that, or seem to think that is ridiculous leaves me to one conclusion about you. 

Do you actually work for this pathetic administration? You seem to fit right in with all of their arrogant know it all academia presumptions, bullshit, and incompetence. I mean, are you Hillary herself?


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 30, 2013)

Please define the difference between "act of terror" and "terrorist attack."  Both indicate a conspiracy to act and planning by terrorist organizations.  WTF is the difference?

And remember the NY Times claimed it was neither "an act of terror," or a "terrorist attack."  This is after reporting for over a year it was both.  


The left is twisting themselves into pretzels over this Benghazi shit.  I have been laughing my ass off since yesterday reading all the convoluted logic.  Half the arguments say terrorism had nothing to do with it and it was about a video....half say in was an act of terror (i.e. a planned terrorist attack).   

Most are saying it is a non-issue after now spending two days and almost 60 pages defending a massive fuck up by Obama and Hillary.  Again....I've been laughing my ass off.  

Bnaghazi was a massive fuck up.  Hillary has said several times the fuck up is 100% her responsibility.  It was a coordinated terrorist attack.  End of story.  There is no amount of spin that will change those facts.


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 30, 2013)

Theowl32 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



Hey, man!!  You gots has your priorities in order!!

State Department Spent 4.5 Million for Embassy Art, Had No Money for Benghazi Security | FrontPage Magazine



> The New York Times reported in 2009 that Art in Embassies spends about $4.5 million a year for permanent art acquisitions



Hillary Clinton will give five artists medals for embassy art - Los Angeles Times

What's a few dead white people here or there?  Especially when they're former soldiers


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 30, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Shellacking as what was witnessed in 2010?

I have to agree that 2016 can't come fast enough.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 30, 2013)

Theowl32 said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



Dude, I'm not trying to defend anyone, I'm pointing out that you're insane and that's about it. 

Show me the planing, show me the Al-Qaeda connection - you are the one making this claim.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 30, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Keep telling yourself that - enjoy the ass-whipping headed your way and by all means - stick to the crap issues like Benghazi ... that stuff is working!


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

> Show me the planing, show me the Al-Qaeda connection - you are the one making this claim.


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 30, 2013)

This is how Progo plays....



> New reputation!
> Hi, you have received -2727 reputation points from Pogo.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> ...



Getting negged by a scumbag like Progo is a badge of honor.

He sent me two other PMs, as well.  Along the same subject line.

I don't think I can post those without breaking Board rules.  I can, however, post neg comments from him as they are not considered PMs.

I think I hurt his pussy and made him mad.  Or cry.  About the same.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 30, 2013)

*^^^^ Obama sleeping during the attacks. Proof positive that he really is a Mooslum.*


*Even more evidence....*







*The Mayans knew about Obozo CENTURIES ago!!! *







Obumbler sawing ZZZZ's while America is under attack....







*Yes, I've finally snapped!!!*


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 30, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



Why don't you do some reading outside your 'happy place' in the DISGUSTING FILTH of the LSM.

Here's just one piece.

The New York Times? Benghazi Revisionism | FrontPage Magazine

It's a complete and utter lie.  And everybody knows it....  Except for typically uninformed and downright stupid dimocrap scumbags on the left like you.

Proving you are a liar and a dirtbag is no longer of any interest to anyone with an IQ.

It just goes without saying that all dimocraps are.

The article is a lie, and the whole thinking world knows it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 30, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



Keep telling yourself that Benghazi isn't going to be a factor in Hillary's election campaign. Her "what difference at this point does it make" comment will be playing non-stop. Four Americans lost their lives and she doesn't care what caused it.   

The reason Hillary will not win in 2016 can be summed up in one word...China.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 30, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Why don't you do some reading outside your 'happy place' in the DISGUSTING FILTH of the LSM.
> 
> Here's just one piece.
> 
> ...



Once again instead of any actually substance to an argument, more crap about: Me, the lying liberal media, Elvis Presley's ghost, anything but the topic.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 30, 2013)

So...What is the GOP version of the Benghazi attacks?

It was an international AlQaida conspiracy planned to coincide with the 9-11 anniversary
The video had nothing to do with it


Both proven to be wrong


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you do some reading outside your 'happy place' in the DISGUSTING FILTH of the LSM.
> ...



I have added substance. I distinguished the difference between act of terror, and a spontaneous act as defined by the administration. 

There has been more than enough proof about what this was all about. 

Political expediency. 

Stop acting like anyone like you the other ones have provided anything of substance other than the Hillary water carrying rag known as the NY Times. 

Please, stop thinking you are the smartest one in the room while being in a perpetual ignorant brainwashed mesmerized state.


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 30, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Setting the lies by the New Yawk Slimes aside.....

The major questions that need to be answered are still, "Why weren't security forces assigned to Benghazi when the Ambassador had asked for them BEFORE the attack.  And why was there no attempt to rescue the men being murdered by Islamist scum."

THAT is the question.  I care about who did it because I want them DEAD>  

But anybody here who thinks that a bunch of pissed-off amateurs pulled off an attack like that is just FUCKING STUPID.  I will tell you to your face that you are stupid, I will write it on your fucking forehead, I will tell your mama, your daddy and your baby sister that you are one stupid motherfucker.

AMATEURS DON'T PULL OF ATTACKS LIKE THAT.

It just doesn't happen.

And if you (I almost typed 'people' but you're not, you're scumbags) scumbags want to believe it was all just some ragheads out for some revenge over a fucking Video, go ahead.  You ARE that stupid.

But, REGARDLESS of who did it....  Where was the help?  Why wasn't the security that Ambassador Stevens asked for in place?

The matter of 'who did it' will be unimportant in the 2016 election.

The fatass scrunt, Hitlery saying "What difference doesn it make" will sink her.

Because she, like every other dimocrap, is a scumbag.

ALL of you.

And no, I'm not kidding


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 30, 2013)

Theowl32 said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



Former Guantanamo detainee was on ground in Benghazi during terror attack, source says | Fox News



> A former Guantanamo Bay detainee with Al Qaeda ties was in Benghazi the night of the Sept. 11 attack, according to a source on the ground in Libya.
> 
> The source told Fox News that ex-detainee Sufian bin Qumu, who is suspected of running camps in eastern Libya where some of the assailants trained, is also a "respected member" of Ansar al-Sharia -- one of the Islamist groups identified in State Department email traffic two hours after the attack.
> 
> ...


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 30, 2013)

Ame®icano;8374823 said:
			
		

> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



No I believe this administration had tried to refer to such events as a "man made disaster". Something about the word terrorism was apparently believed that it might be construed as being just too offensive.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 30, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



*^^^^ "Substance!"*


----------



## Dante (Dec 30, 2013)

> Top News: The attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi that led to the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was not planned by Al Qaeda, but was coordinated by local militias and fueled by anger over a video that mocked Islam. According to an investigation by the New York Times, the U.S. wrongly emphasized threats from international terrorist organizations over volatility among local Libyan militias, and relied too heavily on supposed allies to give warning of possible attacks. Analysts also missed signs of building unrest in the days before the attack.
> 
> The prime suspect in the attack, which hit both the diplomatic mission and the CIA annex, is Ahmed Abu Khattala, an eccentric local militia leader who had been critical of U.S. interests in Libya. Efforts to arrest Khattala have been frustrated by other militia leaders, some of whom are friendly to the U.S., closing ranks around him.
> 
> The investigation reveals that neither of the two dominant narratives that emerged after the attack last Sept. 11 captured how events transpired: there was no international plot, but the attack wasn't entirely spontaneous. Rather, there were simmering threats that were misread or ignored, and a misunderstanding of the dangers posed by local strongmen.





rightwinger said:


> So...What is the GOP version of the Benghazi attacks?
> 
> It was an international AlQaida conspiracy planned to coincide with the 9-11 anniversary
> The video had nothing to do with it
> ...



It's all over the place. The poor wingnuts...  Al Qaeda Not Involved in Benghazi Attack | Foreign Policy


----------



## Dante (Dec 30, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



One guy with alleged ties to al qaeda?  Wow!


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 30, 2013)

Dante said:


> > Top News: The attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi that led to the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was not planned by Al Qaeda, but was coordinated by local militias and fueled by anger over a video that mocked Islam. According to an investigation by the New York Times, the U.S. wrongly emphasized threats from international terrorist organizations over volatility among local Libyan militias, and relied too heavily on supposed allies to give warning of possible attacks. Analysts also missed signs of building unrest in the days before the attack.
> >
> > The prime suspect in the attack, which hit both the diplomatic mission and the CIA annex, is Ahmed Abu Khattala, an eccentric local militia leader who had been critical of U.S. interests in Libya. Efforts to arrest Khattala have been frustrated by other militia leaders, some of whom are friendly to the U.S., closing ranks around him.
> >
> ...



Let me tell you something, scumbag....

Amateurs don't engage in an hours-long, running gun-battle with former Navy SEALs.

If you think they do, I know several that would love to teach a scumbag like you a lesson in that regard.

You are truly a stupid motherfucker.

But....  You're a dimocrap.  What else is new


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So...What is the GOP version of the Benghazi attacks?
> 
> It was an international AlQaida conspiracy planned to coincide with the 9-11 anniversary
> The video had nothing to do with it
> ...



So was it an act of terror or spontaneous event? You seem to be really all fixated on the Al qaida link. 

The NYT, reminiscent of Ted Koppel's visit to Vietnam to locate an eye witness to John Kerry's shooting of a young boy, recently resurrected the Obama's video story & said al Qaeda had nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks.

What the NYT's story ignores is that one of the assassins that killed Sadat (Aboud Al-Zomar) was released from prison after Mubarak was deposed in Egypt.  

Here's what al-Zomar said about Egyptian physician Ayman al-Zawahiri, who took over leadership of al Qaeda after bin Laden was killed.

Al-Zumar claims al-Zawahiri is a far more effective leader than bin Laden ever was.   He states that Al-Zawahiri is now organizing & inciting terror movements throughout the Middle East.  Plus, hes unifying & consolidating diverse militant Islamic groups all over the region with his vision of jihadist holy war. 

But for those that try to obfuscate & obscure the truth about the Benghazi attacks, this is not about responsibility & accountability.  And it's certainly not about truth or falsity.  Instead, it's all about the left's quest for power & control.  And truth & accountability make their quest for power & control more difficult.

So, expect to hear more Dem spins & more Dem lies in the lead-ups to the 2014 & 2016 elections.

What is the maximum number of degrees of separation between the locals who attacked the embassy and Al Quaeda to count as Al Queada involvement? Hopefully it's less than 6 degrees!


Either way, I am trying to figure out how this proves Obama right. He said it was an act of terror, didn't he? Yeah, he did. Oh wait, no he really didn't. Wait, didn't he?


Fucking liberals.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Dec 30, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Because she, like every other dimocrap, is a scumbag.
> 
> ALL of you.
> 
> And no, I'm not kidding



DOWN GOES MAD CABBIE!!!!









The bitter taste of defeat. 






.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Dec 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



^ 

Yes.

Let us all now pretend that "The Paper of Record" is actually reporting "news" instead of serving as a propaganda ministry for Obumbler and Shrillary.


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

Kosh said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Ha,ha, Obama isn't the one that reported the news.....it was the New York Times, ijit.


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



I'm sorry.....I really didn't understand your post.  You like Hillary, but you think that she messed up on Benghazi?  That's funny.....George W. Bush had more embassy attacks and the rw still love him.......voted him 2nd to Obama as most admired....bwahahaha......and his Benghazi was the original 911 in New York, and there were more than 4 people killed there....you rw's slay me.


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 30, 2013)

Dante said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



Nobody said al Qaeda itself was directly involved, but that Ansar al Sharia was.  And they are an affiliate of al Qaeda.

What you're saying, what you're trying to get us to believe (because you're a lying scumbag) is that a bunch of goat-fucking ragheads got some hashish somewhere and wanted some revenge for a bad (really bad) Video about Muhammed The Pedophile and Murderer.

That these amateurs, lobbed five mortar rounds at a building from (at least) a mile away and hit it three out of the five rounds.

That these 'amateurs' got into a running gun-battle with former SEALs and scared the Libyan Militia into hiding..

Are you really that stupid?

Unfortunately, I believe the answer is 'Yes, you are'

You're a dimocrap.  That requires a small brain and the lack of critical thought.


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > > Top News: The attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi that led to the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was not planned by Al Qaeda, but was coordinated by local militias and fueled by anger over a video that mocked Islam. According to an investigation by the New York Times, the U.S. wrongly emphasized threats from international terrorist organizations over volatility among local Libyan militias, and relied too heavily on supposed allies to give warning of possible attacks. Analysts also missed signs of building unrest in the days before the attack.
> ...


*sigh*

Another one spreading the false story it was an "hours long" attack.

From sworn testimony
 ADMIRAL DEMPSEY: You know, it wasn't a seven-hour battle. 

*It was two 20-minute  battles separated by about six hours. *

The idea that this was one  continuous event is just incorrect. 

And the nearest -- for example, the  nearest aircraft -- armed aircraft,    happened to be in Djibouti, the  distance from Djibouti to Benghazi  is   the distance from Washington,  D.C., to Los Angeles. There is some    significant physics involved. And  the time available, given the    intelligence available, I have great  confidence in reporting to the    American people that we were  appropriately responsive given what we    knew at the time. [CNN, _State of the Union_, 2/3/13]

*Two* separate attacks. Two twenty minute battles. Some were part of the planned attack, 

some were spurred by the video, 

some were there to loot, 

some were there as the fervor and intensity grew to show their support for their angry countrymen,

and some were there for other reasons -- you know, when mobs converge,  there are a multiplicity of motivators that drive different individuals.  

Weird, I know, huh?


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

oreo said:


> _The NYT's is just putting out a smoke screen to get the news off of Obamacare for a couple of days--*that no one believes anyway.* Sworn congressional testimony by those in security and others at this compound says much different.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_

You mean that no rightwinger believes.....right?  Just thought I should fix it for you._


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

You know what? I think lefties like rightwinger think that if there was no Al Qaeda link, then that means it was perfectly ok for the administration to ignore repeated requests for more security, and that it automatically means it was a totally spontaneous event. 


I think they think that. Am I wrong? They cannot possibly be this stupid, right?


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> We have a thread on this already.  What did you need people to pay attention to you?





You mean the one that the right jumped on to say it wasn't true?  Bwahaha.....y'all hope it isn't true....but, it doesn't look that way.  You can stay over there on the other thread and deny it all you want....you have plenty of company over there....all the whiners.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 30, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Good luck with that....

Misrepresenting what she was saying got you nowhere with Obama in 2012 and will get you nowhere against Hillary in 2016


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

It is a sad day on the planet where boarder whores are willing to lie for nothing. You know who you are.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> And to add:
> 
> 
> DEMPSEY: You know, it wasn't a seven-hour battle.
> ...



It was two 20 minute battles, yet ambassador Stevens found no justification or means to escape during an engagement that WASN'T continuous. Wow this just gets better, than just letting the excuse lay on merely stating it was an outrage over a video.

The question still remains though. The fact that the anniversary of 9-11 was coming, and the significant meaning behind such an event, why did the President opt to not add more protection to those embassies in volatile locations where extremists might seize an opportunity? If the left wants to use the excuse of Obama's military spending cuts, why not simply close these embassies down and have the Americans transferred to a safer location? Obviously 9-11 wasn't just simply a coincidence random attack date as the left may like to claim it was. President Obama left his guard down, and allowed Americans to remain in harms way if he couldn't provide appropriate measures of protection. 

The left can use their song and dance of excuses, change their stories as many times as they wish, but the unfortunate blunder associated with that attack still remains on President Obama's shoulders and his administration.


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

Theowl32 said:


> You know what? I think lefties like rightwinger think that is there was no Al Qaeda link, then that means it was perfectly ok for the administration to ignore repeated requests for more security, and that it automatically means it was a totally spontaneous event.



You mean like the right wing Congressmen who all voted against the bill to raise the funding for security?

Yeah.....the GOP wanted to ignore requests for more security....now they're bitching  and blaming the Democrats for not ignoring their refusal to increase funding.....y'all can't make up your minds.....now you don't want it, now you want it.....too much KoolAid.




> I think they think that. Am I wrong? They cannot possibly be this stupid, right?


The only ones that are stupid are the ones that agreed with their Congressmen to not raise the funding for security and are now bitching that the funding for security was not raised......ijits.

GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security | ThinkProgress


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

> ...why did the President opt to not add more protection to those embassies....





Another one who thinks this happened at an Embassy.

Not only was it not an Embassy, it wasn't even a Consulate.

& it was a freakin' CIA operation.  Ferchissakes, this gets old.


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



What 'planned attack'?  Didn't the New Yawk Slimes say there was no planned attack?

That it was just a few pissed off ragheads out for a little revenge?

And yes, there was an hours-long, running battle despite what the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM is telling you.

Which is one of the main resons you're so ignorant.....  You buy into their bullshit.  Nobody makes you, you do it because it's easy, it's popular, it's what all the kids are doing.

If you want to learn....

How the Benghazi Attack Unfolded - Timeline - WSJ.com

If you want to remain stupid?  Please do so.  I'm sure all your friends will appreciate it


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 30, 2013)

Times Deals Another Blow to Benghazi Truthers -- Daily Intelligencer


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



Can I give you a heads up here? Don't tie her to Benghazi. That's Chicago trying to spoil her chances and this is from a died in the wool conservative.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> > ...why did the President opt to not add more protection to those embassies....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



where do these rw'ers get their news from  oh yeah!! Sean/Rush


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

No Al Qaeda link? 

So how exactly does this let Hillary off the hook? 

Please, please explain.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Times Deals Another Blow to Benghazi Truthers -- Daily Intelligencer



You demean the people. Please stop.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> > ...why did the President opt to not add more protection to those embassies....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because the difference between a diplomatic "mission" and a consular office is quite crucial in the telling of the story.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

You know many are thinking its a game. Its not.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



I didn't misrepresent anything you moron! Not now nor in 2012.

You idiots must be allergic to honesty because you sure do go out of your way to avoid it.


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > > ...why did the President opt to not add more protection to those embassies....
> ...


And Edgeo there thinks Admiral Dempsey sworn testimony about it being two separate 20 minute battles is "disgusting LSM filth."


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > > ...why did the President opt to not add more protection to those embassies....
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

Amelia said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama was caught with his pants down when this massacre happened in Libya.
> ...



not he didnt. stop lying about this fake story


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> > ...why did the President opt to not add more protection to those embassies....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, it was a Consulate.

The question is.....  Where was the help?

Where was the Security?

Where was the Military?

Where were the reinforcements?

Did you know (of course you don't, you're too stupid) that killing an Ambassador is AN ACT OF WAR?

It's not just a criminal act, it is an Act Of War.

And guess what, Mr Bond?  The CIA operates out of EVERY Embassy and EVER Consulate we have on the Planet.  Every.Single.One.Of.Them.

Was there some hot 'n heavy nasty shit going on at Benghazi?  I'd say the odds are good, but where was the help?

Not a single F-16 was scrambled.  Know what a F-16 at Mach II and 1,500 feet of altitude sounds like?  I do, it'll rattle your brain.

We had a drone overhead, we already know that.  The drone could have guided an F-16 into a kill-zone.

Oh?  Sigonella was 4 hours away?  Well, guess what, jerk?  Mach II is around 1,200 Miles an hour.  Even at full Military speed, we're only talking an hour away -- TOPS.

Fuel might be a little tough, but worry about that later, after he gets there.

These things happen....  People die in bad neighborhoods.

What we need to know is....  What was super-**** and the scumbag-in-chief doing while these men were dying?

And I will tell you......  They were thinking of ways to keep the scumbag-in-chief's campaign slogan of "GM is alive and Osama is dead" from getting neutered.

These SCUM let good men DIE over a fucking Campaign Slogan.

And that is the lowest form of life on Earth.....

Well, next to the people that defend it.  THEY (you) are the lowest form the Earth has ever known.

Finally, the amoeba has someone he can look down on....  You


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Times Deals Another Blow to Benghazi Truthers -- Daily Intelligencer




You can't make this sort of thing up.....looks like all their vitriol is going up in smoke.....

from your link:
However, according to witnesses, a number of Libyans showed up on the day of the attack on *their own to protest the video and, later, as a result of rumors that the Americans were killing protesters.* Though Abu Khattala and members of Ansar al-Sharia were spotted at the scene, "Looters and arsonists, *without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack," the Times reports.*


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


Now because they never talk about your shit.

They don't Thats what makes it this funny


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Times Deals Another Blow to Benghazi Truthers -- Daily Intelligencer
> ...




Now I Know you are 68. I know what you do.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Ok...they still can be merged into the same thread
> ...



Funny.


----------



## paperview (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Times Deals Another Blow to Benghazi Truthers -- Daily Intelligencer
> ...


And remember what happened in the following days at US Embassies *around the whole freakin' world*?  That video spurred shit everywhere with extremists and  hard line Muslims freaking out because that video was like making a movie about Jesus fucking a pig, to them anyway.  

Those nutcakes flip wigs if you depict their Prophet like that -- even in a newspaper _cartoon_, it sends 'em flyin...
These were places attacks and protests erupted all  over the Muslim world that week.






54 Countries/locales, if memory serves.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Times Deals Another Blow to Benghazi Truthers -- Daily Intelligencer
> ...



The same New York Times that told me Stalin wasn't killing them?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > You know what? I think lefties like rightwinger think that is there was no Al Qaeda link, then that means it was perfectly ok for the administration to ignore repeated requests for more security, and that it automatically means it was a totally spontaneous event.
> ...



No.



> Given the threat environment, the physical security platform in Benghazi was inadequate. It is incumbent upon the Board,however, to acknowledge that several upgrades and repairs took place over 2012. *DS provided additional funding for the Local Guard Force (LGF), February 17, and residential security upgrades, including heightening the outer perimeter wall, safety grills on safe area egress windows that helped save the life of ARSO 1 on the night of September 11, concrete jersey barriers, manual drop-arm vehicle barriers, a steel gate for the Villa C safe area, some locally manufactured steel doors, sandbag fortifications, security cameras, some additional security lighting, guard booths, and an Internal Defense Notification System. Because OBO does not fund security upgrades for &#8220;temporary&#8221; facilities, DS also identified non-traditional funding streams to fund physical security upgrades and worked with the IMOs, NEA and Embassy Tripoli to move funds and supplies to Benghazi.*The Engineering Security Office (ESO) in Cairo provided strong technical support and regularly visited. Following the June 2012 IED incident, which blew a large hole in the compound wall, DS, OBO, Tripoli, NEA and ESO Cairo immediately responded to Benghazi&#8217;s request for assistance. Tripoli identified OBO funds that could be used to fix the wall, and ESO Cairo traveled to Benghazi on June 8 to provide technical support. The TDY IMOs worked tirelessly with the RSOs, Tripoli procurement and financial management staff, and Libyan professionals on statements of work, contracts and funding for the emergency repair of the SMC wall and for the other physical security upgrades, as well as ongoing electrical repairs. New upgrades remained a challenge, however, due to a lack of cash reserves and contract and procurement expertise, which meant Benghazi had to rely on Tripoli for further processing.



http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

Also, funding for Diplomatic Security exceeded $1.5 billion in 2012, meaning there was more than enough funds for security that night. Cutting $300 million would have been a drop in the bucket:






Pegging the Republicans for this incident is stupid and dishonest.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 30, 2013)

paperview said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Dont do this you do not have to. 

But now you get us into a pissing contest 

I'm telling you dont

Think of me as a northern carville Only (I'm pretty. Oh looking at James.............WAY prettier


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



Why ya diving into the weeds, bra?


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

BluesMistress said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > BluesMistress said:
> ...



guess i was right..again


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > > ...why did the President opt to not add more protection to those embassies....
> ...


You can't plan for help on an spontaneous attack.....er, duh!  Same thing happened to GW Bush.....like 17 times....remember?  Of course, you don't.



> Where was the Security?


Did you forget already, or did you not read some of the posts that mention the Republicans didn't want to raise the funding for security? Duh!  It was your own party that refused to vote for raising the funding, duh!

GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security | ThinkProgress


> Where was the Military?


Are you that dense.   Where was the military during the 911 in NY?  You can't expect the military to beam themselves on the spot, Duh!



> Where were the reinforcements?


Your party voted "no" to increasing the funding for more security....ask them.



> Did you know (of course you don't, you're too stupid) that killing an Ambassador is AN ACT OF WAR?


Are you a jr. high kid?  You can't debate without getting all defensive and attacking people?  No, of course you can't, that seems to be so prevalent among most rw'ers.....they can't debate, so they get angry and start name-calling and throwing out insults....so childish.



> It's not just a criminal act, it is an Act Of War.


Yeah, and when you find out who did it, you go after their country, not some other country, like George Bush did when we were attacked on 9/11.



> And guess what, Mr Bond?  The CIA operates out of EVERY Embassy and EVER Consulate we have on the Planet.  Every.Single.One.Of.Them.


Yeah....so explain why George Bush had 17 attacks.....where was the CIA then?



> Was there some hot 'n heavy nasty shit going on at Benghazi?  I'd say the odds are good, but where was the help?
> 
> Not a single F-16 was scrambled.  Know what a F-16 at Mach II and 1,500 feet of altitude sounds like?  I do, it'll rattle your brain.


You are so dense that you obviously don't realize that they would not have gotten there in time?  And wooh.....you know how an F-16 sounds like.....I guess that makes you an expert! Bwahahaha....



> We had a drone overhead, we already know that.  The drone could have guided an F-16 into a kill-zone.


There were our people in the area too, that would have been killed had they done that.....I guess that's too hard for you to comprehend?



> Oh?  Sigonella was 4 hours away?  Well, guess what, jerk?  Mach II is around 1,200 Miles an hour.  Even at full Military speed, we're only talking an hour away -- TOPS.


And now, you know more than the Generals that were in charge and claimed there was no way we could reach them....rich....conservatives are all so smart....they should all join the military and help us out....



> Fuel might be a little tough, but worry about that later, after he gets there.


Yeah....no need to worry about fuel, what's another F-16 crashing because it ran out fuel.....you really are sounding unintelligent....maybe you better stop posting...



> These things happen....  People die in bad neighborhoods.


Yeah, and that's what happened....4 people died, but here you are suggesting that more people sacrifice their lives....you really sound inane.



> What we need to know is....  What was super-**** and the scumbag-in-chief doing while these men were dying?


You really are a sick person.....all that vitriol and hate....I hope you don't blow up.



> And I will tell you......  They were thinking of ways to keep the scumbag-in-chief's campaign slogan of "GM is alive and Osama is dead" from getting neutered.


Aha, it all boils down to butt hurt.....you're so angry that your stupid candidate, who besmirched all of the middle-class didn't win....that's it, isn't it?



> These SCUM let good men DIE over a fucking Campaign Slogan.


That's your opinion and it's a really dumb one.



> And that is the lowest form of life on Earth.....


I think you just now sunk lower than any form of life on earth....with your uneducated suggestions and your ignorant advice, not to mention the jr high name-calling and insults...it must suck to not be able to debate.



> Well, next to the people that defend it.  THEY (you) are the lowest form the Earth has ever known.
> 
> Finally, the amoeba has someone he can look down on....  You


You are so pathetic.....if you only knew how inane you really sound you would probably quit posting....to late..you've already made an ass of yourself.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



ohes noes Paper she said dont do something because she might actually....well do nothing honestly...lol..someone has been hitting the sauce.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 30, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the blatant attempt to rehabilitate Hillary is an epic failure.  Benghazi will hang around her neck for the rest of her political life.  No amount of lies or spin by the NY Times are other corrupt rags will change that.  Might as well deal with it Libs.
> ...



The attack was planned by terrorists. Period.
Which group is immaterial.
The administration failed those 4 Americans. 
You don't care about them. 
Your entire focus is on protecting Obama and Hillary.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



My goodness. You are an uninformed suck up to the Obamessiah.


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



It was the Republicans that voted "no" to increase the funding for security....you can't increase security without the funding, right?   Trying to blame Clinton for not doing more to increase the security when Republicans in Congress were voting "no" to any increase is also stupid and dishonest.  It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback and suggest all the things that could have been done, but it's another thing to actually be involved in it before and during the occurrence.   Same thing happened during George Bush's terms, like 17 times, so why weren't Republicans up in arms about those attacks like they are about Benghazi?

From your link:



> *New upgrades remained a challenge, however, due to a lack of cash reserves* and contract and procurement expertise, which meant *Benghazi had to rely on Tripoli for further processing.*


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Are you really using budget cuts as a reason for the lack of security?

Then you are either stupid, ignorant or a liar.

In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?

Lamb responded, No, sir.

Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats.

QUESTION: Mr. Nordstrom, you were on that panel. Do you remember what she [Lamb] said?

REGIONAL SECURITY OFFICER ERIC NORDSTROM: Yes, she said that resources was not an issue. And I think I would also point to the ARB report, if I'm not mistaken, that they talked to our chief financial officer with D.S. [Diplomatic Security], who also said that resources were not an issue.

The Republicans voted to cut the funding from Obama's proposed budget request. Facts are a bitch and often missing from liberal talking points.


Source


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> My goodness. You are an uninformed suck up to the Obamessiah.



Says the one who has offered no rebuttal to the NY times article....

Guess who is the one that is uniformed......ijit.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 30, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > 1776 said:
> ...


No it isn't..Sworn testimony by dozens of eye witnesses say it's not fake.
The NYT report is bullshit.


----------



## LeadRoundNose (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Yeah, and when you find out who did it, you go after their country, not some other country, like George Bush did when we were attacked on 9/11.



Are you really that devoid of the facts clearly represented in history?  George Bush DID go after the country and the ideology of those that attacked us on 9/11 2001.  

War in Afghanistan (2001?present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The war in Afghanistan under President Bush was prosecuted in an intelligent way, using limited forces and advanced technology.  The Taliban were driven from power and Bin laden was forced out of that country to reside in nearby Pakistan till he was found and killed (if you can believe this shithead liar of a pResident we have now).

That war has basically gone to hell in a hand basket since the knucklehead in chief has taken over.  HIS war, *obama's war* is now officially more unpopular than the Vietnam war was with the American people.  

We understand your need to blame everything on President Bush, but you don't get to make up the story as you go along.  2001 was not that long ago and your revisionist history lesson is a much bigger pill to swallow than you would have us do.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 30, 2013)

The T said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > BluesMistress said:
> ...



Do facts hurt your tender feelings there Shirley?


----------



## Listening (Dec 30, 2013)

candycorn said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Hey T and BlueMistress,

I don't have time to do all the research, but I did look up the Yeman attack.

There were 19 people killed (that number seems to include the terrorists....wow...they fought back !

Six members of the Yemeni security forces, six attackers (one of whom wore an explosives belt), and seven bystanders (one of whom was discovered later[8]) were killed in the attack.

There were six members of the Yemeni security forces killed.  The apparently attacked in broad daylight and that is why the seven bystanders were killed.

The only American killed was a bystander.

As near as I could tell...there were no ambassadors killed in that attack.  In fact, the attack was basically repelled.

I wonder about the rest ?

Seems like kind of a spurious comparison. 

But then, SlimeyCorn never was very good at this.

Oh, and wait for the reply...betcha it's got nothing to do with this.


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 30, 2013)

candycorn said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Know what I think is great, CC?

The Ambassador is dead.  As are some very brave men who did their duty when their president and their boss, the SecState, deserted them.

There's nothing we can do to change that.  Nothing.  We can't put the scum-sucking piece of fucking shit, Hitlery, in prison for it.  And I wouldn't want to, frankly.

We can't impeach the lying scumbag-in-chief over it.  Not gonna happen.

And yes, HE IS A PROVEN LIAR.  Even you admit that much.  I give you credit where credit is due.

But you know what I love about this.....??

It won't go away.  As much as you want it to, it just won't go away.

And this latest pile of shit from the biggest propaganda pile of shit on Earth, the New Yawk Slimes, does you no favors.  At all.

Some people were actually starting to think about other things.....  obamacare, the NSA,  how Client #9 (eliot Spitzer) likes to choke women (oh yeah), Anthony (let me show you my) Weiner wanting to make another comeback......

You know, just your average, everyday, dimocrap scum antics.

But the Slimes brought it back into the Public Consciousness.  And most of America sees right through it.

You don't, but you're accustomed to letting what you want interfere with your perception of reality, aren't you?

Yeah, we both know I'm right.

As usual.

This hurts Hitlery, not helps.  And THAT is what counts


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 30, 2013)

Chris Stevens: Hello! This is the Benghazi Consulate we're under attack, send help!

Val Jarrett: Let them die


----------



## Spoonman (Dec 30, 2013)

candycorn said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



So what you are admitting to here is that you are a hypocrite.  You were outraged when people died under Bush, but you give a free pass when it happens under obama


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



uh huh...i know it happened, the outrage is fake.


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 30, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Chris Stevens: Hello! This is the Benghazi Consulate we're under attack, send help!
> 
> Val Jarrett: Let them die



Dead Men Tell No Tales.

Think about it.

I still wanna know who this scumbag reporter for the scummiest paper on Earth talked to....

Anybody??

"Tell me, Herr Hitler, is it true what they say about you and the Jews?"

"Nein, nein, nein, nein!!!!  All lies.  Lies!  I tell you!!  Ask Herr Goebbels, he will tell you!!"

"Yah, yah, yah.  zis ist true, mein freund"

Headlines in next day's New Yawk Slimes......

*Hitler Not Guilty of War Crimes.*

"After months of research and talking to people who were actually there........"

What a crock of shit.  You gotta be some kind of dumbfuck to buy this shit.

But, that's what dimocraps do....  They lie.


----------



## Dante (Dec 30, 2013)

Mr. Stevens, like his bosses in Washington, believed that the United States could turn a critical mass of the fighters it helped oust Colonel Qaddafi into reliable friends. He died trying.

Reports of the video were just beginning to spread on Sept. 9 when Mr. McFarland, then the officer normally in charge of politics and economics at the United States Embassy in Tripoli, had his meeting with the Benghazi militia leaders. Among them were some of the same men who had greeted Mr. Stevens when he arrived in Benghazi at the start of the revolt, including Mr. Gharabi, 39, a heavyset former Abu Salim inmate who ran a local sandwich truck before becoming the leader of the Rafallah al-Sehati. Another was Wissam bin Hamid, also 39, a slim and slightly hunched mechanic known for his skill with American cars who by then had become the leader of Libya Shield, considered one of the strongest militias in Libya.  A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times In an interview, Mr. Gharabi said that he had known about the building rage in Egypt over the video, but that, &#8220;We did not know if it was going to reach us here.&#8221;


----------



## RoadVirus (Dec 30, 2013)

candycorn said:


> BluesMistress said:
> 
> 
> > My hope is the NYTimes False story starts the unraveling of the truth about Benghazi.
> > I Will NEVER Forget Benghazi where Americans were left to die & the POS POTUS went to Vegas.



But how many *Ambassadors* died under Bush? *ZERO!* Too bad The Black Messiah can't say the same.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



no not really, these things are a part of life, but thank you for admitting that you yourself instead of being open and honest about how this happened under Bush as well. You just deflected.


----------



## Friends (Dec 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



Ever since the Watergate Scandal Republicans have hoped they could use a mistake made by Democrats to destroy a Democratic administration.


----------



## RoadVirus (Dec 30, 2013)

This is from Fox News and not Media Matters or HuffnPoop, so the Lefty USMBers won't like it:



> *'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report*
> 
> 'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report | Fox News


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 30, 2013)

Dante said:


> Mr. Stevens, like his bosses in Washington, believed that the United States could turn a critical mass of the fighters it helped oust Colonel Qaddafi into reliable friends. He died trying.
> 
> Reports of the video were just beginning to spread on Sept. 9 when Mr. McFarland, then the officer normally in charge of politics and economics at the United States Embassy in Tripoli, had his meeting with the Benghazi militia leaders. Among them were some of the same men who had greeted Mr. Stevens when he arrived in Benghazi at the start of the revolt, including Mr. Gharabi, 39, a heavyset former Abu Salim inmate who ran a local sandwich truck before becoming the leader of the Rafallah al-Sehati. Another was Wissam bin Hamid, also 39, a slim and slightly hunched mechanic known for his skill with American cars who by then had become the leader of Libya Shield, considered one of the strongest militias in Libya.  A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times In an interview, Mr. Gharabi said that he had known about the building rage in Egypt over the video, but that, &#8220;We did not know if it was going to reach us here.&#8221;



This reads like what it is intended to be.....  A background script for a made-for-TV-Movie.

Reads more like a work of fiction than a news story.  

Which, it is.....  A work of fiction, I mean.

Only thing missing is, "It was a cloudy night, a mist in the air with the occasional drop of rain moistening my forehead.  And that's when I saw her go into a seedy Bar she didn't belong in....."

What a load of shit you people buy into.

I wasted my life trying to accomplish something when all I had to do was find a job hood-winking stupid fucking liberals.....






They'll believe anything


----------



## LeadRoundNose (Dec 30, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> I wasted my life trying to accomplish something when all I had to do was find a job hood-winking stupid fucking liberals.....
> 
> 
> They'll believe anything



Especially if you promise them free stuff.


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

Friends said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...










Nixon spies on democrats, and liberals are all like....








Obama illegally targets groups with the IRS, Lies about Obamcare blatantly, abandons the ambassador for political expediency and those same liberals....







Now, liberals all of a sudden bring up the Benghazi thing again, and are actually pushing the notion that it was spontaneous, due to a video.


----------



## RoadVirus (Dec 30, 2013)

Friends said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



And since this administration started, the mistakes...or should i say _major league fuck-ups_...have been piling up. Besides Benghazi:

Fast & Furious: weapons in drug cartel hands + 1 dead BP agent + White House coverup
IRS targetting Conservative groups
NSA leaks showing data mining of every American through phone & internet usage + spying on our *allies*
BoondoggleCare: costly website creation + said website *not* working properly + millions losing existing insurance despite promises to the contrary + sticker shock when buying new coverage


----------



## Dante (Dec 30, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Stevens, like his bosses in Washington, believed that the United States could turn a critical mass of the fighters it helped oust Colonel Qaddafi into reliable friends. He died trying.
> ...



head in the sand or up your ass?


most rational people know the NYT story is reporting, not fiction


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > You know what? I think lefties like rightwinger think that is there was no Al Qaeda link, then that means it was perfectly ok for the administration to ignore repeated requests for more security, and that it automatically means it was a totally spontaneous event.
> ...



It was the Republican's idea to cut funding with President Obama's boastful political "mission accomplished" speech to the media over the death of Osama Bin Laden?



> *Obama Budget Cuts Target Military Funding - May 8, 2009*
> 
> The administration identified $11.5 billion in discretionary program terminations and reductions for next year. The Defense Department will take a $9.4 billion hit, constituting 82 percent of the cuts. Defense accounts for 49 percent of spending on discretionary programs, which Congress must fund each year.
> 
> ...





> *Obama announces Pentagon budget cuts - Jan 05, 2012 *
> 
> 
> "I just want to say that this effort reflects the guidance I gave throughout this process," Obama said. "Yes, the tide of war is receding. But the question that this strategy answers is what kind of military will we need after the long wars of the last decade are over. And today, we're moving forward, from a position of strength."
> ...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 30, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



the blue street journal?
Yer kidding, right?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 30, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



No. Your side insits it's a fake story.
Which means this NYT report is bullshit.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 30, 2013)

Dante said:


> Mr. Stevens, like his bosses in Washington, believed that the United States could turn a critical mass of the fighters it helped oust Colonel Qaddafi into reliable friends. He died trying.
> 
> Reports of the video were just beginning to spread on Sept. 9 when Mr. McFarland, then the officer normally in charge of politics and economics at the United States Embassy in Tripoli, had his meeting with the Benghazi militia leaders. Among them were some of the same men who had greeted Mr. Stevens when he arrived in Benghazi at the start of the revolt, including Mr. Gharabi, 39, a heavyset former Abu Salim inmate who ran a local sandwich truck before becoming the leader of the Rafallah al-Sehati. Another was Wissam bin Hamid, also 39, a slim and slightly hunched mechanic known for his skill with American cars who by then had become the leader of Libya Shield, considered one of the strongest militias in Libya.  A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times In an interview, Mr. Gharabi said that he had known about the building rage in Egypt over the video, but that, We did not know if it was going to reach us here.



The video is irrelevant and was concluded to be in no way associated with the attack. 
Testimony and evidence gathered has concluded the attack was planned.


----------



## Dante (Dec 30, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Stevens, like his bosses in Washington, believed that the United States could turn a critical mass of the fighters it helped oust Colonel Qaddafi into reliable friends. He died trying.
> ...



that narrative is being disproved

the end


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 30, 2013)

Dante said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


Facts are not narratives.
Once again..Witness testimony as well as evidence gathered in the investigation concluded the attack was planned.
The NYT story is a collaboration with the White House at the insistence of the Administration.
The timing of the release of the NYT report is suspect. 
This is another can of worms the Obama admin has opened. And it WILL come back to haunt them.


----------



## Dante (Dec 30, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...





another 911 truther-like conspiracy theory


----------



## Spoonman (Dec 30, 2013)

Pissed I am (3AM) A tribute to Chris Stevens and the 3 men dead who tried to save him.


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 30, 2013)

How easy it is for this administrations praetorian media to lie and manipulate the minds of the demented left. 

Can you believe they still think it was a spontaneous attack?


----------



## Mojo2 (Dec 30, 2013)

TooTall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



I really dig good snarky quips, ESPECIALLY when they pierce a hot gas bubble of Liberal bull shit.


----------



## Plasmaball (Dec 30, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



A fake story to get all outraged over...


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 30, 2013)

Plasmaball said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



The GOP will try to ride the lie into 2016 to stop Hillary.  They are scared to death of her!

*SOME FUNNY STUFF INDEED!*


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

LeadRoundNose said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, and when you find out who did it, you go after their country, not some other country, like George Bush did when we were attacked on 9/11.
> ...



I don't go by Faux News' revised history, nor the GOP's revised version of history, and no, Bush didn't go after the right country....Iraq.....they had nothing to do with it.

The rest of your post is just garbage....so I'll just dispose of it.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM]Bush admits that Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

BluesMistress said:


> My hope is the NYTimes False story starts the unraveling of the truth about Benghazi.
> I Will NEVER Forget Benghazi where Americans were left to die & the POS POTUS went to Vegas.




Calling it a false story without backing it up with links....links to Al Qaeda just proves that the GOPers are so angry that their only hope to attack Hillary is dissolving into thin air.

As for your last comment, but you sure were able to forget the 3000 that died in NY on 9/ll, and the 4000+ that died defending a worthless war due to Booooooosh.....that's unbelievable!

What was so special about the 4 that died in Benghazi that the 7000 that died due to Bush's 9/ll didn't have?


----------



## Listening (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> BluesMistress said:
> 
> 
> > My hope is the NYTimes False story starts the unraveling of the truth about Benghazi.
> ...



Did the folks in the towers call for help and get told no ?


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Ha,ha, your comprehension must be dull because it's the rw story, about Al Qaeda being responsible and blaming the President for not saying it, that just got busted......


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

Listening said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > BluesMistress said:
> ...




Bush had information that there was going to be a terrorist attack and he and Rice just sat on it......if the people on the tower had called for help...it would've been too late, the planes had already hit......


A provocative new report from the New York Times alleges the Bush administration failed to heed several warnings of an imminent attack on U.S. on 9/11 back in 2001 that have not been previously revealed or declassified. According to Kurt Eichenwald, the new material is even more damning than the infamous Bin Laden determined to strike within U.S. briefing former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified to Congress about. The New York Times reports:
New York Times report: Bush administration ignored early Bin Laden warnings | theGrio


----------



## Spoonman (Dec 30, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



the GOP is so scared  her the democrats haven't even figured out if she will be marketable in 2016.


----------



## Crackerman (Dec 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



Here we have it folks, a proven idiot makes a statement from one of the most untrust worthy newspaper in America and Hillary "what does it matter Americans were murdered" Clinton is free and clear.

HAHAHA FOOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 30, 2013)

BluesMistress said:


> My hope is the NYTimes False story starts the unraveling of the truth about Benghazi.
> I Will NEVER Forget Benghazi where Americans were left to die & the POS POTUS went to Vegas.



He had a busy night of ball handling with Reggie Love while Val Jarrett was giving the "Let Them Die!" order


----------



## Listening (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



So we have two things going on here.

First, an article some eleven years, after the fact, that is based on s**t this guy supposedly read but can't quote.

Second, this is about Obama's failure and the fact that the left needs to deflect with their favorite tactic.....Boooooosssshhhhhhh.

If we assumed for a minute (and BTW: this is a NYT's article) that this article was worth anything.  Would those four guys be any less dead and would Hillary Clinton be any less guilty ?

Clue: No.


----------



## Mertex (Dec 30, 2013)

Listening said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Yep.....everything anyone says that doesn't come from Faux News is questionable....but whatever Faux News, Washington Times or Briebart says....is the utter truth....bwahahaha.

If the article wasn't worth anything, you rw'ers wouldn't have your panties all in a wad...everyone one of you has claimed that it is fake yet none of you have provided any proof that there was an Al Qaeda link......sorry.....you can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts..............


----------



## BDBoop (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



I think they are trying to shoot the messenger.


----------



## Listening (Dec 30, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Get back to us when Fox does an article on some "current event" 11 years after the fact.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 31, 2013)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > 1776 said:
> ...



ya got a source for your lies ???/ didn't think so


----------



## NoNukes (Dec 31, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



They would likely blame it on Al Queda to deflect responsibilities from them.


----------



## S.J. (Dec 31, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


Where is the lie, Billyecrock?


----------



## paperview (Dec 31, 2013)

NoNukes said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


What I want to know is why Lonestar thinks all Libyans are lying criminals.


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 31, 2013)

Dante said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



You mean like Walter Duranty?

Jason Blair?

You're the one with the problem.


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 31, 2013)

*New Yawk Slimes Giddy: &#8220;Happy Birthday, Chairman Mao&#8221;&#8230;*

The man killed at least 50 million people making him the biggest mass-murderer of the 20th century.







People who take the word of the piece of fucking shit, New Yawk Slimes, over the word of people who were there are too stupid to breathe the same air as the rest of us

'Happy Birthday, Chairman Mao' ? From CNBC and the New York Times | NewsBusters

From the link....






The transcript of the NBC Beijing correspondent's report and her joyous tone while reciting it are equally nauseous


----------



## Wildman (Dec 31, 2013)

*



			Bush had information that there was going to be a terrorist attack and he and Rice just sat on it.....
		
Click to expand...

.*

*got proof to back up this lie ??*


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 31, 2013)

Obviously, you are a bit confused. 

Regardless of how many people Mao killed, most Chinese consider him the man who liberated their country from foreign domination and made it a modern state.  

But it's okay, man, I feel your pain.  You guys have a religous belief about Benghazi, and how Saint Stevens was martyred to re-elect Obama, and you just aren't going to let anything get in the way of that. 

Especially not the truth.


----------



## Geaux4it (Dec 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Obviously, you are a bit confused.
> 
> Regardless of how many people Mao killed, most Chinese consider him the man who liberated their country from foreign domination and made it a modern state.
> 
> ...



You know the 'truth' about Benghazi?

Do tell.......please..... do tell

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 31, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously, you are a bit confused.
> ...



Yup. 

An angry mob stormed our embassy, and because they had weapons, people died.

End of story. 

No vast conspiracy to cover up an Al Qaeda attack by making up stories about a video. 

But it's okay, man, you guys need to really believe that if only the truth had come out, you'd have gotten your weird Mormon Robot elected.


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Obviously, you are a bit confused.
> 
> Regardless of how many people Mao killed, most Chinese consider him the man who liberated their country from foreign domination and made it a modern state.
> 
> ...



Like a typical liberal scumbag, Mao murdered most of the people who disagreed with him.

The only ones left revered him.  If they knew what was good for them.

As to making China a modern Country?  You really are stupid.....

That didn't happen until AFTER Mao died.

His "Great Leap Forward"  (funny how so many totalitarians like that word, huh?) was a disaster as was his 'Cultural Revolution'.

The Great Leap Forward

Cultural Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're on top now, but you won't be forever.  My hope is that when, not if.... When, we take back power that our people remember what kind of scum we're dealing with on the other side.

Not the "Loyal Opposition" but complete and utter scum. 

You don't negotiate or bargain with a snake, you kill it.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 31, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



What lies? Here are the links you requested.



> As President Obama ran to *election "victory" last fall with claims that al Qaeda was decimated and on the run*, his intelligence team was privately offering a different assessment that the terrorist movement was shifting resources and capabilities to emerging spinoff groups in Africa that posed fresh threats to American security.
> 
> Intel clashes with Obama's election-year al Qaeda claims - Washington Times





> Twice the man in charge of security for our diplomats in Libya, Greg Nordstrom, begged the State Department for more security in Benghazi after no less than 48 security "incidents" there, including two bombings.
> 
> Washington, however, said no. Hillary Clinton... had her minion Charlene Lamb... tell Nordstrom that State wanted "to normalize operations" in Libya and to *"reduce security resources."*
> 
> ...



*Senator Feinstein link blaming no heightened security*
Feinstein: Intelligence Mistake, Inadequate Security To Blame For Libyan Terror Attack « CBS San Francisco

President Obama's "I" victory speech on Bin Laden vs President Bush speech capturing Saddam
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OSWtWAdZYE]obama bin laden speech compared to bush saddam speech - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 31, 2013)

Mertex said:


> LeadRoundNose said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



From W's mouth! * Saddam had NO WMD! * I continue to hear that lie on here,  Let me ask you.  How many writers for FOX news are now posting on USMB.  I know you are there!


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



An "angry mob" huh?

With AK-47s, PKMs and 82mm Mortars.

And ran a 'Fire and Maneuver' drill to perfection.

And engaged in, and won, a running gun battle with former Navy SEALS.

And fought off the Libyan Army.

You are one of the stupidest motherfuckers on Earth if you believe that.

And so are your pals.


----------



## Desperado (Dec 31, 2013)

Bottom Line: Obama has not been correct about anything a day in his life.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Dec 31, 2013)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...





Good effort but this chick is willfully stupid.  She has repeated the "funding was the problem" lie about 15 times despite posters giving her a link where a State Dept person said under oath funding was not an issue in Benghazi.  

When people are presented with direct evidence...in this case in video form....and still continue with the same bullshit...you have to write them off.  They are not interested in anything other than willful stupidity.


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 31, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > LeadRoundNose said:
> ...



The liberals and their hypocrisy. 

Who lied about the existence of WMDs?


Who propagated the existence of these WMDs before Bush took office?


Who wanted to "invade Baghdad?" 



What did UNSCOM say in regards to the violations of Iraq? UNSCOM was an INDEPENDENT UN investigation. 

Saddam Hussein's Weapons Of Mass Destruction | Gunning For Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS


At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein and his elite military units were still in power and in possession of huge stockpiles of deadly weapons. In April 1991, the U.N. Security Council created UNSCOM, a special commission to find and dismantle this arsenal. The U.N. imposed economic sanctions on Iraq that would be enforced until the country eliminated all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capability.

Two agencies were charged with the task. UNSCOM would uncover and destroy Iraq's biological- and chemical-weapons and ballistic-missile programs; the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was charged with uncovering and dismantling Iraq's clandestine nuclear program.

A 58 page annex to the final report describes what the Commission was able to learn about the BW program, despite Iraq's concealment activities, and documents discrepancies between what Iraq claimed to have developed, or destroyed, and the physical evidence. Some of the findings include:

*Extensive BW program*: Iraq had an extensive BW program from 1973 until at least 1991. In mid-1995, Iraq admitted that it had weaponized BW agents, but claimed that the entire BW program had been in "obliterated" in 1991 and that all BW weapons had been destroyed and all bulk BW agents had been deactivated. The Commission found, however, that the evidence produced in support of this claim was not credible, and that Iraq "retained suitable growth media, *BW facilities, production equipment, teams of expert personnel, and the essential technical knowledge" after 1991.*

*Bulk production:* In July, 1995, Iraq acknowledged that between 1988 and 1991, it had produced two BW agents in bulk: botulinum toxin and Bacillus anthracis spores (anthrax). Iraq reported 19,180 liters of botulinum toxin (10-20 fold concentrated) and 8445 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores (10 fold concentrated).

UNSCOM found, however, that "bulk warfare agent production appears to be considerably understated," given the resources available to Iraq's BW program, including growth media and fermenter capacity. The Commission said that the production rate of Botulinum toxin could be as much as double the stated amount, and 3 times greater than that stated for Bacillus anthracis spores.

Iraq claimed that it unilaterally destroyed more than 7500 liters of the Botulinum toxin and 3412 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores in 1991; UNSCOM noted that there was not evidence to support quantities claimed to be destroyed.* The report concludes "the Commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed... and that a BW capability does not exist in Iraq."*

Iraq also claims to have produced lesser quantities of clostridium perfringens spores, ricin, and wheat cover smut.

*BW Warheads*: Iraq claimed to have produced 25 Al-Hussein missile warheads and filled them with BW agents. The Commission found that there was no credible evidence to show that only 25 missiles were produced and filled. Iraq declared that the 25 missiles were unilaterally destroyed; the Commission found enough physical evidence to account for the declared quantities of BW warheads, but the location of the remnants were inconsistent with Iraq's story.

*BW bombs*: Iraq declared that 200 R-400 aerial bombs were manufactured for BW purposes, but acknowledged that the numbers of bombs filled with particular agents (100 with botulinum toxin, 50 with bacillus anthracis spores, and 7 with aflatoxin) were "guesses." UNSCOM did find evidence of the destruction of some BW bombs at the site declared by Iraq, but found that the remnants account for less than one third of the bombs Iraq claims to have destroyed. In addition, UNSCOM found evidence of R-400A bombs carrying BW at an airfield where no BW weapons were declared.

*Aircraft drop tanks:* Iraq claimed that it produced 4 aircraft drop tanks to disseminate BW agents, and was developing a pilotless aircraft that could carry the tanks, holding either BW or chemical weapons, and release the toxins at a preset time. UNSCOM found that there was no evidence corroborate that only 4 were produced, and noted that interviews indicated that 12 were planned. Remnants of only three destroyed tanks were recovered. U*NSCOM also rejected the evidence offered by Iraq--a letter thanking the project workers--that the pilotless aircraft project was shut down.*

*Aerosol Generators:* Iraq developed aerosol generators for the dispersal of BW agents by modifying helicopter-borne commercial chemical insecticide disseminators. Although Iraq claimed the devices were ineffective,* UNSCOM received documentation that they were successfully field tested. Interview evidence suggests that there were 12 devices produced; none were destroyed by UNSCOM.*

*Remaining Bacterial Growth Media:* UNSCOM determined that there remained substantial bacterial growth media imported into Iraq which remains unaccounted for: 460 kg. of casien; 80 kg. of thioglocollate broth; 520 kg. of yeast extract; and 1100 kg of peptone. *The report says that "the amounts that are 'missing' are significant, and would be sufficient to produce quantities of agent comparable to that already declared by Iraq."*



*IRAQ'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS (CW) PROGRAM*

UNSCOM was more successful in its pursuit of Iraq's CW program largely because Iraq was more cooperative with its disclosures. The final report notes that a "significant number" of chemical weapons, their components, and related equipment were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision between 1991 and 1997. In addition, the report found:

*Extensive CW program:* Iraq acknowledged that it carried out a large scale CW program between 1982 and 1990. It claims that more than 50% of its chemical weapons stocks were consumed during the 1980s, and that the majority of its production facilities were destroyed by aerial bombing during the Gulf War.

*Bulk CW agents: *Iraq said that it produced 3,859 tons of CW agents during the entire implementation of its CW program, and that 3,315 tons of these agents were weaponized. Agents produced in large quantities included mustard, tabun, and sarin.

According to Iraq, 80% of the weaponized CW agents were consumed between 1982 and 1988. In addition, they claim to have unilaterally discarded 130 tons of non-weaponized CW agents during the 1980s. *UNSCOM found that these numbers could not be verified.*

After the Gulf War, Iraq claimed that it had 412.5 tons of CW agents remaining. Four hundred eleven tons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision; 1.5 tons of the CW agent VX remain unaccounted for.

*Special Munitions:* Iraq claimed that between 1982 and 1988, 100,000 munitions filled with CW agents were consumed or disposed of. UNSCOM found that this number could not be verified.

After the Gulf war, Iraq declared that there remained over 56,000 special munitions which could carry either CW or BW agents (22,000 filled, 34,000 unfilled). These munitions are all accounted for. They were either destroyed or converted for conventional weapons purposes.

Iraq claimed that there were 42,000 special munitions destroyed in the Gulf War. UNSCOM was unable to verify that number, and found that the destruction of 2,000 unfilled munitions remains uncertain, and 550 filled munitions remain unaccounted for.

*Iraq claimed that it unilaterally destroyed 29,000 special munitions; UNSCOM found that of these, 100 filled munitions remain unaccounted for.*


As usual, the double talking, hypocritical liberals that had no clue the Iraq Liberation Act was passed by Clinton (of course they have no idea Clinton awarded at least 4 no-bid contracts to that big bad Halliburton in the 90s, nor do they care that Clinton repealed Glass Steagall Act, which directly led to the deregulated derivatives and also led to the housing bubble) which was one of many big reasons why those democrats voted for the war, and then spoke out against it, and acted as though they were the ones misled. 

The democrats are nothing but overt liars. Hypocrites. Their little sheep, like this person here are the the real reasons why we have to endure the eventual absolute collapse of the middle class, along with the country.


Anyone have conclusive evidence on where Syria got their chemical weapons that they have been using? Anyone? Hello?


----------



## Edgetho (Dec 31, 2013)

WelfareQueen said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



You also have to have the will to call them what they are....

Lying, scum-sucking filth.

That has been, and continues to be, why Republicans can't win anything.

They're too afraid of hurting somebody's feelings, they're too afraid of being portrayed as 'mean'.

Meanwhile, the filth on the left in this Country gets away with pure, unadulterated hate mongering

Melissa Harris-Perry Panel Mocks Black Romney Grandchild As Token » The Right Scoop -

P.S.  If you want to see the video, you better hurry up.  It is QUICKLY and thoroughly being scrubbed off the internet by the commies at pMSNBC


----------



## RandallFlagg (Dec 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Obviously, you are a bit confused.
> 
> Regardless of how many people Mao killed, most Chinese consider him the man who liberated their country from foreign domination and made it a modern state.
> 
> ...




Makes complete sense coming from a communist like yourself - "The ends justify the means".

My God - what a moron.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Dec 31, 2013)

Theowl32 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...




The liberals and their revisionist history. Hell, look at our public schools - that should tell you all you need to know.


----------



## S.J. (Dec 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Obviously, you are a bit confused.
> 
> *Regardless of how many people Mao killed, most Chinese consider him the man who liberated their country from foreign domination and made it a modern state.*
> 
> ...


No surprise you would defend a murdering communist like Mao.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Dec 31, 2013)

S.J. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously, you are a bit confused.
> ...



Yep, these are the same "enlightened progressives" ( What BS) that romanticizes about that piece of human excrement Che' Gueverra - who was nothing more than a murdering thug.

Again, to one of these communists - the ends ALWAYS justify the means. Mind you - they aren't willing to do anything other than stand back and watch (opting to let some murderer do their dirty work for them) but they will sit back and tell you how "it must be done to "nudge" the common folk"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Obviously, you are a bit confused.
> 
> Regardless of how many people Mao killed, most Chinese consider him the man who liberated their country from foreign domination and made it a modern state.
> 
> ...



Same way the Left thinks Cubans Love Fidel and Russians Love Stalin


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Dec 31, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously, you are a bit confused.
> ...



The Cubans DO love Fidel.   They received their orders.


----------



## HUGGY (Dec 31, 2013)

*Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi 
*

That's just not factually possible.

He is a halfbreed nigga born in Africa to a radical communist muslim terrorist father that abandoned his wife and son.  Obummer attended a muslim school in Indonesia and smoked weed and snorted cocaine and his best friend in Chicago was a convicted terrorist bomber cop killer. It is comon knowledge that Obama watched with glee as the ambassadore was fucked in the poop shooter then burned alive by Al Kaida terrorists.  Those are the FACTS.  Nothing else matters.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 31, 2013)

Firebug (R) is going to have to find another faux scandal to blow a huge wad of taxpayer $$$ on to keep people distracted from the fact that Boehner's House is the least productive in memory if not history


----------



## birddog (Dec 31, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Firebug (R) is going to have to find another faux scandal to blow a huge wad of taxpayer $$$ on to keep people distracted from the fact that Boehner's House is the least productive in memory if not history



P-K-B ALERT!

You are the biggest deflection POS around here! (well, almost)


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 31, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> [
> 
> An "angry mob" huh?
> 
> ...



Guy, honestly, you seem to have a religious need for your narrative on Benghazi, one that really hasn't been borne out by any investigation.  

Maybe I'm old, but frankly, having seen the tiresome "Vince Foster was murdered to hide the fact he was Chelsea's Real Dad" threads coming from the Nutty Right Wing, it's just hard to take you guy seriously anymore.

Something about Hillary makes you all batshit nuts.  Probably the fact she has a vagina and an opinion.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 31, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously, you are a bit confused.
> ...



A recent poll found that Russians consider Stalin the third greatest figure in their history. 

That was after a Saint who defeated the Teutonic Knights and the Prime Minister who freed the serfs.   

Maybe you need to talk to some Russians, who still look upon Stalin the way we look at FDR and the Brits look at Churchill....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



When I talk to you I'm talking to a Russian who idolizes Stalin. The Russian Emigres I know are all glad to be living in the USA and think people like you are the biggest fools on the planet, pining openly for the most oppressive, dehumanizing, failed system ever enacted


----------



## S.J. (Dec 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Well, you've praised Mao, now Stalin.  Who are you gonna praise next, Hitler?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 31, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> When I talk to you I'm talking to a Russian who idolizes Stalin. The Russian Emigres I know are all glad to be living in the USA and think people like you are the biggest fools on the planet, pining openly for the most oppressive, dehumanizing, failed system ever enacted



Sorry, not Russian. I'm German.  (Actually, half German, the other half a mixture of English, Irish, Dutch and Cherokee.... but I digress)

Second, I don't take the word of anyone who was driven out of their country by their neighbors seriously.  

Third, the only reason WHY there are Russians today, instead of lamp shades and bars of soap, is because Stalin beat Hitler...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 31, 2013)

S.J. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Well, no Hitler lost. Therefore he's considered a loser. 

Get it. History loves winners and hates losers. (Probably why you are so hated.)


----------



## KGB (Dec 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



not surprising given Russia's history.  They've only had about 20 years of quasi-democratic experience in their entire history....


----------



## Listening (Dec 31, 2013)

Dante said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Hahahaha....

Now that was a good one.


----------



## tjvh (Jan 1, 2014)

Let's see... The coordinated bombing happens, immediately the Obama run Media runs with a BS story it was about a movie that offended people, then after months of perpetuating this nonsense, a left leaning rag conducts a so-called investigation... Hmmm. Essentially some people in Libya were interviewed and they had two choices, implicate their own, or run with the story the Obama administration came up with for them which essentially passes the blame to someone other than the friends of the very people who were being questioned in the "investigation". Do the math, it isn't hard... What's hard is that there are people dumb enough to fall for the results of this nonsensical investigation designed solely to lesson the damage of the "what difference at this point does it make?" comment made by a certain Clinton who wants to be President, and at the time had no interest in finding justice for dead Americans, and their families. Sorry, but people who do their own thinking haven't been fooled by the NYT, or those they do the dirty work for.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

tjvh said:


> Let's see... The coordinated bombing happens, immediately the Obama run Media runs with a BS story it was about a movie that offended people, then after months of perpetuating this nonsense, a left leaning rag conducts a so-called investigation... Hmmm. Essentially some people in Libya were interviewed and they had two choices, implicate their own, or run with the story the Obama administration came up with for them which essentially passes the blame to someone other than the friends of the very people who were being questioned in the "investigation". Do the math, it isn't hard... What's hard is that there are people dumb enough to fall for the results of this nonsensical investigation designed solely to lesson the damage of the "what difference at this point does it make?" comment made by a certain Clinton who wants to be President, and at the time had no interest in finding justice for dead Americans, and their families. Sorry, but people who do their own thinking haven't been fooled by the NYT, or those they do the dirty work for.



Nope, no matter how many time you prove to nutbags that it's a weather balloon, they will INSIST it was a flying saucer. 

Here's the problem with your theory.  The people in Libya would really have no reason to lie.  

If Al Qaeda was involved, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.  Al Qaeda would be shouting it from the rooftops.  

The thing is, for the nutters, Benghazi has become a religious event.  And like religion, you just don't want logic or facts getting in the way.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Jan 1, 2014)

Al-Qaeda took responsibility for Benghazi.  Some nutters have their head so far up their ass they do not know the obvious.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> Al-Qaeda took responsibility for Benghazi.  Some nutters have their head so far up their ass they do not know the obvious.



Sure they did...


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 1, 2014)

You just watch, Firebug will STILL get reelected despite this rw, witch-hunting, disaster. Establ. cronyism.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 1, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> Al-Qaeda took responsibility for Benghazi.  Some nutters have their head so far up their ass they do not know the obvious.



Al-Qaeda or some other Terrorist group...Makes no difference really. it certainly wasn't some spontaneous attack. It was planned and executed by terrorist .


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jan 1, 2014)

So sayith "some guy" on the internet.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Stalin responsible for the deaths of ten of millions of people you idiot


----------



## Jroc (Jan 1, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> So sayith "some guy" on the internet.



"So Sayith" a bipartisan congressional investigation, and military experts who know a coordinated attack when they see it


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

Jroc said:


> [
> 
> Stalin responsible for the deaths of ten of millions of people you idiot



Do you really think that when Ivan blew out Sergei's brains, it was because Stalin told him to. 

Or do you think it was because Sergei was a Kulak who fought for the Whites during the Civil War and burned his farm and raped his wife?  

Civil Wars are nasty.  But usually, when people go about killing their neighbors, a lot of shit happened leading up to that. In the case of Russia, it was a decade of World Wars, Civil Wars and invasions.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyIZiRCvqVM]Brutal Stalin Documentary - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

Yawn, guy, get over it.... 

You think the world would have been better off had Hitler won WWII instead of Stalin?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 1, 2014)

of course a wing nut will defend the lying piece of shit in the white house.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > Al-Qaeda took responsibility for Benghazi.  Some nutters have their head so far up their ass they do not know the obvious.
> ...



Fucking idiot GUY

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails | Reuters


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jan 1, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > So sayith "some guy" on the internet.
> ...



"Military experts" - what military experts? The same ones who offered up their opinions about J. Kerry DESPITE not even serving at the time?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WelfareQueen said:
> ...





> The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.



Ansar al Sharia is not Al Qaeda.  Sorry.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



sorry you fail
But two members of the House intelligence committee, Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Adam Schiff, told Fox News on Sunday that *U.S. intelligence assessments concluded al Qaeda did play a role in the attack. *While no Republicans have asserted the Benghazi attacks were planned in a manner similar to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, evidence has emerged in the last year that does show the participation of militias and fighters with known ties to al Qaeda.
Yes, There IS Evidence Linking al Qaeda to Benghazi - The Daily Beast

Why don't you die and go to hell?


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 1, 2014)

Wildman said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yes, the pdb file bush got ... he ignored it ... rice was warned about it ... she chose to take it lightly sat on it


----------



## WelfareQueen (Jan 1, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WelfareQueen said:
> ...





Joe is a partisan hack.  No amount of factual information makes the slightest impression.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 1, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> Al-Qaeda took responsibility for Benghazi.  Some nutters have their head so far up their ass they do not know the obvious.



well, the nasty smell you're smelling that smells like shit??? that's your head in your ass that you're speaking about here 

it was about the movie ... where real investigative reporter took almost a year researching it ... that's what they found out ... that it was pissed off Muslims not pissed off  al-Qaeda ... nice try ... try again... oh yse can you answere me this


----------



## WelfareQueen (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




This is so pathetically sad and lame.  Poor, poor Joe.  You keep digging the hole deeper.  



King: Terror Group Ansar al-Sharia 'New Face of al-Qaida'


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 1, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> You just watch, Firebug will STILL get reelected despite this rw, witch-hunting, disaster. Establ. cronyism.



that's funny... Firebug!!!! he did his best on meet the press ... looked the fool he is


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 1, 2014)

Jroc said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > Al-Qaeda took responsibility for Benghazi.  Some nutters have their head so far up their ass they do not know the obvious.
> ...


 *CONTINUED​*that were pissed off about the movie that Rice spoke about on all the morning shows... we get it ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 1, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > WelfareQueen said:
> ...



had nothing to do with a protest over a movies that was posted on you tube months before obama and Clinton dropped the ball at Benghazi


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 1, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > So sayith "some guy" on the internet.
> ...


*CONTINUED​*because of the movie ... the movie that pissed them off ...you know the one .... the one Rice talked about on 5 Sunday shows ...


----------



## WelfareQueen (Jan 1, 2014)

^^^^Bat Shit crazy.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 1, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



yes it did ... its what pissed them off... the fact that they have documented proof, you can't stand that fact .... unlike fox noise lies


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 1, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



typical repub-lie-turd when losing the debate

*REPUB-LIE-TURDS ARE TRAITORS*​


----------



## Vox (Jan 1, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> ^^^^Bat Shit crazy.



Billy? he definitely is.

*or brain dead as a result of intense government brainwashing.*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 1, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Typical of a ding bat when he's lost the debate

But two members of the House intelligence committee, Republican Mike Rogers and *Democrat* Adam Schiff


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 1, 2014)

welfarequeen said:


> joeb131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



so far all you've posted is a blogger and yet your source is what??? Not the people on the ground now is it...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 1, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



The movie was posted on you tube 3 months before the attack dumb ass.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 1, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



P.S.
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH A PROTEST.. IT WAS THE AMERICANS AIRING A MOVIE THAT PISSED THEM OFF ... SEE HOW SIMPLE IT THAT IS ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 1, 2014)

Vox said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^^Bat Shit crazy.
> ...



*translation= neither one has one once of truth to their debating skills here ... so they do what they do best whine or insult... its their nature ... its what they do when cornered ... they can't help them selves ... they meaning these repub-lie-tards here
*[/B]
P.S. 
I forgot ... the big letter attacks ... thank goodness we get doooooooooo overs


----------



## WelfareQueen (Jan 1, 2014)

^^^^Like I said....Bat Shit Crazy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 1, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



you are beating a dead jack ass dude it was a planned attack on 911 by alqeada


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 1, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 
there was a democrat helping your republican to tell your so called truth ...  so the fact that one democrat was helping  now makes it, they're telling the truth ... GOT IT !!!! so when and two democrats tell you something its a lie ... but if a republican and a democrats tells us it makes it true ... GOT IT !!!!  I'LL try to remember .... the facts are as followed .. the Al-qaeda had nothing to do with it ...there wasn't any protest on the ground ... the whole thing took place by mad Muslims who were angry about the Americans insulting their religious... got it... but if a Republican and a democrt says all their reserch on the ground is wrong ... then it must be right HUH!!!!

*REPUB-LIE-TURDS ARE TRAITORS*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 1, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



you really are a fucking idiot.
Stop lying.


----------



## Vikrant (Jan 1, 2014)

There is a Chinese recycling company negotiating the purchase of NYT. I am not sure if the company is aware that most people no longer get their news from print medium.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 1, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> ^^^^Like I said....Bat Shit Crazy.



*you are bat shit crazy ... and a dumb fuck to boot*


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 1, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



you're a lazy repub-lie-tard ... that doesn't want to do any research at all ...we all get that about you ... when you're challenged, insults is all ya got... the problem you have is you don't know a liar when you hear one   ... try reading your post ... read it out loud so you can hear a actual liar... if that post of yours doesn't say lying idiot, I don't know what does...

*Repub-lie-tards are traitors ​*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 1, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



lazy lying sack of shit. hillary dropped the ball and obama played cards you ignorant bastard.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Jan 1, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^^Like I said....Bat Shit Crazy.
> ...




So angry.  Look, it is not my fault you're living below the poverty line and had to get a Obamacare subsidy.  I am all for helping the mental disabled.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

Because there isn't a Hell for me to go to. 

And, sorry, no, you really haven't proven much of anything.  Now I know you nutters NEED TO BELIEVE it was an Al Qaeda attack and the Video had nothing to do with it... 

But it's just not so.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Because there isn't a Hell for me to go to.
> 
> And, sorry, no, you really haven't proven much of anything.  Now I know you nutters NEED TO BELIEVE it was an Al Qaeda attack and the Video had nothing to do with it...
> 
> But it's just not so.



I've proven you're a dumb son of a bitch.


----------



## driveby (Jan 1, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Nutters,
> 
> Please stop trying to use the death of those four people for political gain.
> 
> Thanks.



Nutters, 

Please stop trying to cover up what really happened in the death of those four people for political gain.


Thanks....


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jan 1, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Because there isn't a Hell for me to go to.
> ...



Any thoughts on the topic?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 1, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



wow almost one of the last post and you comment on that one. How about taking your lazy ass back up in the thread and shut the fuck up.


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 1, 2014)

well dang it!!! Now repubs are going to have to find some other *cough* "scandal"


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Jan 1, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Actually I find that response rather hilarious, seeing that the left keeps going back to their one source of information on this thread - a contrived article which stems from a left leaning newspaper.  

You honestly are going to say with a straight face that the New York Times is not biased, without producing any other investigative sources of information to collaborate with this? Something concrete other than "but because Mrs. Rice says so. This administration must be telling the truth." Just like "If you like your plan you can keep it, right?" -or- "If you like your doctor, I guess you can keep him too."


----------



## Dirk the Daring (Jan 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Something about Palin makes you all batshit nuts.  Probably the fact she has a vagina and an opinion.
> ...


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jan 2, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Go back and read through your pile of off-topic garbage and tell me I'm off-base.


----------



## Dirk the Daring (Jan 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn, guy, get over it....
> 
> You think the world would have been better off had Hitler won WWII instead of Stalin?



Good gosh, what an idiot.  Joe logic, 'evil A defeats evil B, therefore evil A is good.'  

Here's your 'logic' in practice; 'because murderers exists, rapists aren't that bad.'


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jan 2, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> well dang it!!! Now repubs are going to have to find some other *cough* "scandal"



No shortage of phoney scandals to pick from. Maybe Obama's tie is a funny color?


----------



## Dirk the Daring (Jan 2, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



You're off base.  That was easy enough.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jan 2, 2014)

Dirk the Daring said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Fuck off, dork.

^^^ Even easier.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



Nothing I posted was off topic so go back and stop lying or shut the fuck up.


----------



## driveby (Jan 2, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> well dang it!!! Now repubs are going to have to find some other *cough* "scandal"



Well, if Obama and his top enablers say the scandals are phony, they must be telling the truth and if anyone disagrees they're definitely racist.....


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jan 2, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



^^^^ On-topic.

Sorry, guess I owe you an apology.


----------



## Dirk the Daring (Jan 2, 2014)

Dirk the Daring said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn, guy, get over it....
> ...



Oh noes, good old 'Joe Stalin wasn't half bad Joe' negative rep'd me!  My day is ruined!  RUINED I SAY!!


----------



## WelfareQueen (Jan 2, 2014)

Dirk the Daring said:


> Dirk the Daring said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




He negged repped me and called me a racist shit stain.  Looks like we both won the argument.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> Dirk the Daring said:
> 
> 
> > Dirk the Daring said:
> ...



No, you just proved you were a racist shitstain, but since you do that every day, you probably don't notice the smell anymore.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Because there isn't a Hell for me to go to.
> 
> And, sorry, no, you really haven't proven much of anything.  Now I know you nutters NEED TO BELIEVE it was an Al Qaeda attack and the Video had nothing to do with it...
> 
> But it's just not so.



One terrorist group here, the other there, it doesn't really matter if it was Al Qaida or some other group does it? It certainly was a coordinate attack by terrorist.  Not some  spontaneous, protest ,because of some stupid video nobody saw. Until Obama and Hillary plastered it all over every TV in the world.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 2, 2014)

The president has a habit of being right about things.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2014)

Jroc said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Because there isn't a Hell for me to go to.
> ...



Except the NYT reporting indicated it was over the video, just like the 23 other attacks across the middle east were over the video.   

That would be 23 attacks over a video no one saw, according to you.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Jan 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > Dirk the Daring said:
> ...





Another Joey meltdown.  Poor little guy.   So much impotent rage.  Sad.


----------



## HUGGY (Jan 2, 2014)

The most dangerous terrorist organization in the world is the American Tea Party.  They have caused more damage to this country than all of the others put together.


----------



## Antares (Jan 2, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> The most dangerous terrorist organization in the world is the American Tea Party.  They have caused more damage to this country than all of the others put together.



Is there something you wanted to try and do to us boy?


----------



## HUGGY (Jan 2, 2014)

Antares said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > The most dangerous terrorist organization in the world is the American Tea Party.  They have caused more damage to this country than all of the others put together.
> ...



Oh my GAAWWWDDD  !!!!  You sound real scary !!!   The word "us" is a nice touch.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 2, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> The most dangerous terrorist organization in the world is the American Tea Party.  They have caused more damage to this country than all of the others put together.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Most of the islamic nutjobs never saw that stupid video until these idiots pushed it as the reason, for the attack in Benghazi. We had more riots, throughout the Mideast after the stupid apology tour. Benghazi was preplanned way before the video crap. The ambassador even reported his compound being watched. You Obama apologists are a pathetic joke. I don't give a shit what your precious, liberal, crap, newspaper says 


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtwk3SXoN_g]Libyan President (15 Sept 2012) - Benghazi Attack Was a Pre-Planned Attack NOT Because of a Movie - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## HUGGY (Jan 3, 2014)

The second most dangerous terrorist organization is AIPAC - The American Israel Public Affairs Committee which openly promotes the offering of American soldiers as sacrificial lambs and the draining of U S treasure to fight Israeli causes while they make billions off of our country and lift nary a finger in any of the "wars" they have encouraged us to fight for them.  Thanks Iroc for reminding me what snakes you and your kind are.  

All of the subversive Pieces of Shit that operate in our country influencing our government should be arrested and deported immediately.  That includes those from and those that work for Israel.


----------



## HUGGY (Jan 3, 2014)

I have been wondering how much of the uproar over the terrible incident in Benghazi was reaction by American homosexuals and closet homosexuals such as body builders that spend an unsusual amount of time adoring the male body for the unconscionable rape of one of thier homosexual bretheren.  I have no idea why a gay American man would be stationed as an ambassadore in a part of the world where homosexuals are killed on sight.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Jan 3, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> The second most dangerous terrorist organization is AIPAC - The American Israel Public Affairs Committee which openly promotes the offering of American soldiers as sacrificial lambs and the draining of U S treasure to fight Israeli causes while they make billions off of our country and lift nary a finger in any of the "wars" they have encouraged us to fight for them.  Thanks Iroc for reminding me what snakes you and your kind are.
> 
> All of the subversive Pieces of Shit that operate in our country influencing our government should be arrested and deported immediately.  That includes those from and those that work for Israel.



Then perhaps President Obama needs to butt out and allow the nation of Israel to defend their own boarders against Iran, right? After all, what right does this President have telling another nation how to defend itself. I'm quite sure with the hostilities that surround them from neighboring Muslim countries, that Israeli pilots have more skilled combat flight time than the vast majority of our own Air Force.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 3, 2014)

Jroc said:


> [
> 
> Most of the islamic nutjobs never saw that stupid video until these idiots pushed it as the reason, for the attack in Benghazi. We had more riots, throughout the Mideast after the stupid apology tour. Benghazi was preplanned way before the video crap. The ambassador even reported his compound being watched. You Obama apologists are a pathetic joke. I don't give a shit what your precious, liberal, crap, newspaper says
> 
> ...



Well, the fastest way to get peace in the middle east would be to stop propping up the Zionist entity.  

But the fact is, unless you've talked to the guys who carried out the attack, you really don't know what they were planning.  

the NYT did talk to people who were there, and they said, "Nope, we aren't Al Qaeda, and yes, we were damned pissed about the Video!"


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 3, 2014)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > The second most dangerous terrorist organization is AIPAC - The American Israel Public Affairs Committee which openly promotes the offering of American soldiers as sacrificial lambs and the draining of U S treasure to fight Israeli causes while they make billions off of our country and lift nary a finger in any of the "wars" they have encouraged us to fight for them.  Thanks Iroc for reminding me what snakes you and your kind are.
> ...



If the Zionists could successful attack Iran, they'd have done so by now. 

The fact they are still trying to goad us into doing it prove they can't.


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 3, 2014)

Has Firebug issued an apology for blowing that huge wad of taxpayer $$$ for basically a rw dog & pony show? I'll give him this he didn't blow $70MILLION like Starr did the last time the repubs did some zany investigation like this.Is there ANY amt of taxpayer $$$ Repubs won't throw down a rat hole just to score political points


----------



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> I have been wondering how much of the uproar over the terrible incident in Benghazi was reaction by American homosexuals and closet homosexuals such as body builders that spend an unsusual amount of time adoring the male body for the unconscionable rape of one of thier homosexual bretheren.  I have no idea why a gay American man would be stationed as an ambassadore in a part of the world where homosexuals are killed on sight.



Owe ..poor baby, Quit being a hater, did that neg hurt you? Your'e a joke boy. kinda anti gay for a liberal nutjob aren't you?


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 3, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



still drinking the coolaid.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Well as long as they said so


----------



## editec (Jan 3, 2014)

I didn't care about/refused to comment about this issue when the right wingers manufactured this brouhaha

I still DON"T CARE about it.

That is all.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

editec said:


> I didn't care about/refused to comment about this issue when the right wingers manufactured this brouhaha
> 
> I still DON"T CARE about it.
> 
> That is all.



Thank you for that no comment


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Jan 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Actually they have already done it once before known as Operation Babylon, and as usual the United Nations Security Council had condemned the attack. Of course that only shows how utterly worthless the UN has proven to be when handling rogue nations trying to develop chemical or nuclear capabilities. An organization that's "all talk" with no teeth, who has proven key members can be easily bought.  In this case it's the United States, and particularly this administration, that has been trying their best "diplomatically" to hold Israel back from doing it again.


----------



## HUGGY (Jan 3, 2014)

The U S has hopefully learned a lesson in the Mid East when they outrageously were sucked into attacking Iraq by Bush I and starting a snowball rolling down a mountain when Kuwaitt was stealing Iraqi oil by cross drilling miles under the border into Iraqi oil fields.  

The Jews were afraid of Saddam so they helped start the war with selling the New American Century doctrine and then we were saddled with "protecting" poor little Israel AND Saudi Arabia against big bad Saddam who was by the by just a tad busy with Iran at the time.  Saddam was given the OK by the U S and then "mysteriously" labeled the Crazy Dictator when he did what he said he would do and get payment for the stolen oil from the incredibly stupid Kuwaittis.

ALL OF SUDDEN the whole sheebang was about protecting Israel from the SCUD missles.

The truth is that Israel instigated the U S involvement.  Iraq never had any intentions of attacking Israel untill the fucking Jews got us involved.  How many Americans died needlessly?  How much U S treasure was wasted needlessly?  How much has happened since as a result of that first war that Bush only took up to Bagdad then pulled out?  ALL of this...that war that was none of our business and then Bush II's war cuz they threatened his idiot Israeli dick sucking daddy's blunder.  How much of Americas future have we squandered at the demand of Israel?  Whe we add up the cost of running to the defense real or imagined of the Jews we pay in TRILLIONS of dollars and hundreds of thousands of our fighting best killed and probably over a million affected by injury not counting the affect of the families we have devastated here at home.. 

That's just the effect on America.  I believe that Israel goaded America to start wars with thier neighbors so they could hide what they have done in the shadows of these unneccesary conflicts to the Arabs living on thier stolen borders.  How many Iraqis were killed or injured or run out of thier country?  tens of MILLIONS!!!  All that blood is on the hands of a people with no conscience... Israel and it's subversive agents in the U S.

If there was a god I would thank him that we have a president that will not be a fool for the Jews.  Obama has quitely spent much of his presidency cleaning up after the bloody messes created by the hubris of the Bush Family.  

All this to protect a nest of snakes and vermin.


----------



## Dirk the Daring (Jan 3, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> Dirk the Daring said:
> 
> 
> > Dirk the Daring said:
> ...



You know who JoeB DIDN'T neg rep?  That's right, Joseph Stalin!


----------



## Dirk the Daring (Jan 3, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> The most dangerous terrorist organization in the world is the American Tea Party.  They have caused more damage to this country than all of the others put together.



I feel sorry that our educational system failed you in such extraordinary fashion.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 3, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> The U S has hopefully learned a lesson in the Mid East when they outrageously were sucked into attacking Iraq by Bush I and starting a snowball rolling down a mountain when Kuwaitt was stealing Iraqi oil by cross drilling miles under the border into Iraqi oil fields.
> 
> The Jews were afraid of Saddam so they helped start the war with selling the New American Century doctrine and then we were saddled with "protecting" poor little Israel AND Saudi Arabia against big bad Saddam who was by the by just a tad busy with Iran at the time.  Saddam was given the OK by the U S and then "mysteriously" labeled the Crazy Dictator when he did what he said he would do and get payment for the stolen oil from the incredibly stupid Kuwaittis.
> 
> ...



Shut up with your Jew derangement syndrome you idiot. Stick to the topic of the thread.


----------



## Friends (Jan 5, 2014)

Mertex said:


> BluesMistress said:
> 
> 
> > My hope is the NYTimes False story starts the unraveling of the truth about Benghazi.
> ...


 
It's called "Obama Derange Syndrome."


----------



## Friends (Jan 5, 2014)

The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the statements -- nay -- the very existence of Barack Obama.

The state of paranoia in which people fear President Obama so much, they stop thinking logically and stop using common sense. Usually a direct result of watching too much Fox News.

When a person stops disagreeing with Obama on political policy and believe every single policy decision that he make is apart sinister conspiracy to weaken or destroy America and possibly the world.

"Obama will confiscate guns, bring the Muslim brotherhood to power in America, Take all his orders from Putin, declare war on Israel, become a permanent dictator, maybe even become the anti Christ and set up a one world government...But I just disagree with the guy. How an I suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome?"
Urban Dictionary: obama derangement syndrome


----------



## Friends (Jan 5, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> That's just the effect on America.  I believe that Israel goaded America to start wars with thier neighbors so they could hide what they have done in the shadows of these unneccesary conflicts to the Arabs living on thier stolen borders.  How many Iraqis were killed or injured or run out of thier country?  tens of MILLIONS!!!  All that blood is on the hands of a people with no conscience... Israel and it's subversive agents in the U S.
> 
> If there was a god I would thank him that we have a president that will not be a fool for the Jews.
> 
> All this to protect a nest of snakes and vermin.


 
Israel is a small oasis of civilization surrounded by a vast desert of the most brutal and repulsive barbarism. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBIvPkdIOT8]Hatikva- Israeli national anthem - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jan 6, 2014)

Friends said:


> The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the statements -- nay -- the very existence of Barack Obama.
> 
> The state of paranoia in which people fear President Obama so much, they stop thinking logically and stop using common sense. Usually a direct result of watching too much Fox News.
> 
> ...



Paranoia and/or fear? No.
Substitute dislike and you have just described the average thinking American.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Jan 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> BluesMistress said:
> 
> 
> > My hope is the NYTimes False story starts the unraveling of the truth about Benghazi.
> ...



President Bush didn't send a representative to address the public in an attempt to look back to find blame outside of his own administration for the attack on 9-11. Instead he was pushing forward to find solutions on how our nation can prevent such an attack on American soil from happening again. President Obama was too busy looking for an scape goat to cover his own ass.

With respect to Iraq, each of our US soldiers had the ability and military "support" to defend themselves.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> BluesMistress said:
> 
> 
> > My hope is the NYTimes False story starts the unraveling of the truth about Benghazi.
> ...



Benghazi is what happens when you don't pay attention to warning signs. 

The same kind of thing happened in Somalia when I was there. We kept sending word up the chain that we needed this or needed that in order to defend ourselves and they refused. Then on October 3, 1993 all of the neglect of the Clinton Administration resulted in the unnecessary deaths of 18 Rangers and Delta members along with the wounding of nearly 100 members of Taskforce Ranger. Instead of allowing us to have armored vehicles like every other country there we were forced to use unarmored Hummers and flatbed trucks. Fact is Hillary doesn't care if a few people die because of her lack of preparation. All she cares about is being the first woman to become president of the United States.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jan 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



That's it...I carried your water longer than just about every conservative on this forum.
This is the last straw. For you to cling to this story by NYT and give it immediate credence over all of the investigation by private and government agencies in multiple countries - dismiss all of them, for this story - can only be because you want it to be true.
  You are as dismissible as Sallow now.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 6, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > BluesMistress said:
> ...



Or we could have not been there at all... that would have been a great idea.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 6, 2014)

iamwhatiseem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



Well, the New York Times did what Darryl Issa refused to do... actually do an investigation and talk to people.  

But Congressman Issa (R-Koch Brothers) was just out there stirring up shit without basis, and wonders why no one takes him seriously.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



We were there because like Americans always do, we try to help those who are suffering. Somalia was in the middle of a civil war and people were dying, so of course America had to chip in and help. By the time we left the starvation had ended and the people there were getting back to murdering anyone who was not Muslim as they always do.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 6, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Actually, the humanitarian need was already settled and we went home.  

Then some idiot- and yes, that idiot was a Democrat- decided that we needed to send folks in to do some "nation building".  

Again, sticking our dicks in a hornet's nest and wondering why we get stung.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Strange how the New York Times is granted better access to intelligence from the Obama Administration than Congressional investigators.

Why is that? Could it be because it allows the White House to control the story?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 6, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...



No, not really.  

The NYT actually wanted to DO an investigation.  

Issa wants to get face time on Faux News.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Nonsense. The NYT gave up investigative reporting years ago. 

Today they're just another arm of the Democrats. Not much different from MSNBC or any other lib "News" outlet.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jan 6, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...



  Unfortunately you are right.
It is a sad, sad thing when an organization as big and important as the NYT allows themselves to become an arm for a political party - but that is unarguably what they are.
 When the Iraq war was being fought under GWB - daily negative stories - daily. As well as consistent stories about Abu Ghirab...then Afghanistan. 
TODAY - the middle east has never been this f*cked up. It is a disaster throughout the entire region - and yet - where are the negative stories? Where are the "DAY 500" stories - the casualties stories...where?


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 6, 2014)

who owns the NYT folks?


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 6, 2014)

Ownership[edit]





The New York Times headquarters 620 Eighth Avenue
In 1896, Adolph Ochs bought the New York Times, a money-losing newspaper, and formed the New York Times Company. The Ochs-Sulzberger family, one of the United States' newspaper dynasties, has owned The New York Times ever since.[14] After the publisher went public in the 1960s, the family continued to exert control through its ownership of the vast majority of Class B voting shares. Class A shareholders are permitted restrictive voting rights while Class B shareholders are allowed open voting rights.

The Ochs-Sulzberger family trust controls roughly 88 percent of the company's class B shares. Any alteration to the dual-class structure must be ratified by six of eight directors who sit on the board of the Ochs-Sulzberger family trust. The Trust board members are Daniel H. Cohen, James M. Cohen, Lynn G. Dolnick, Susan W. Dryfoos, Michael Golden, Eric M. A. Lax, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and Cathy J. Sulzberger.[38]

Turner Catledge, the top editor at The New York Times from 1952 to 1968, wanted to hide the ownership influence. Arthur Sulzberger routinely wrote memos to his editor, each containing suggestions, instructions, complaints, and orders. When Catledge would receive these memos he would erase the publisher's identity before passing them to his subordinates. Catledge thought that if he removed the publisher's name from the memos it would protect reporters from feeling pressured by the owner.[39]

Carlos Slim loan and investment[edit]

On January 19, 2009, the New York Times reported that Carlos Slim, Mexican telecommunications magnate and the world's richest person, loaned it $250 million "to help the newspaper company finance its businesses".[40] Since then, Slim has made additional investments in Times stock; according to Reuters, his position as of October 6, 2011, was estimated at over 8.1 percent of Class A shares.[41]

Dual-class shares[edit]

Dual-class structures caught on in the mid-20th century as families such as the Grahams of The Washington Post Company sought to gain access to public capital without losing control. Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, had a similar structure and was controlled by the Bancroft family but was later bought by News Corporation in 2007, which itself is controlled by Rupert Murdoch and his family through a similar dual-class structure.[42]




The New York Times - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jan 6, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> who owns the NYT folks?



That's irrelevant to the discussion. But then again you're not relevant to this discussion either.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jan 6, 2014)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > who owns the NYT folks?
> ...



No shit...quite disappointing she was allowed to come back.
Right back to the same crap..literally taking over threads with posting multiple posts in a row in the same damn thread.
Like sand in your shoes.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jan 6, 2014)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Same old crap and same old "republicans cheat to win elections" mantra. Still waiting on her "Fox sued for the right to lie" BS. Two issues she has been soundly beaten on, multiple times.


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 6, 2014)

Issa & the GOP. How much money he/them spend this time?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jan 6, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Issa & the GOP. How much money he/them spend this time?



The same amount as any other member of Congress or political party.


----------



## Misty (Jan 6, 2014)

This is the left's attempt to clean up
Benghanzi before Hillary's presidential run. 

It will probably work unless the republicans pull their heads out of their bottoms.


----------



## R.D. (Jan 6, 2014)

carolinglick | The New York Times destroys Obama


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> _.  Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens&#8217;s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.
> One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama&#8217;s national security adviser.
> The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda&#8217;s role to avoid undermining the president&#8217;s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
> The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.
> _



Also note: the LIE that the attack was based on a video caused protests that got MORE PEOPLE KILLED and terrorized the filmmaker who was forced to go into hiding.

I understand that the strategy may have been to "take the thunder" away from the terrorists and blame it on something else to keep from fueling victory statements or more anti-US campaigns, attacks or other such reactions to incite further violence.

But even the diversion tactic DID incite violence and cost lives, and the freedom/security of people falsely blamed for inciting this with their video. the other actors were also threatened. And the families were insulted about being lied to. 

It had other costs.

Not just because of the initial LIE, but the subsequent denial that caused even further distrust, lack of respect and confidence in trusting the Obama Administration.

It will take a lot more to repair that DAMAGE caused by the denial, and especially
this projection of blame on the very people who protested BEING LIED TO. Purely for politics.

How can you blame the victims for not trusting this administration to be truthful and responsible?
why shouldn't Obama take responsibility for lying and creating this problem or making it worse?

Since when do you blame the people for reacting to lies and denial afterward?
Really?


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 6, 2014)

Misty said:


> This is the left's attempt to clean up
> Benghanzi before Hillary's presidential run.
> 
> It will probably work unless the republicans pull their heads out of their bottoms.



It's not just the Republicans,
but the far left, Greens and other Democrats left behind
need to unite with them, with Libertarians and Tea Party
and any other independents willing to enforce the Constitution
and put aside political differences to include all views as equally protected
and included.

As long as we divide by party, the people playing the political
games get away with wasting taxpayers money for their own benefit and convenience.

we don't have to agree on all solutions,
just agree to let each party pursue their own without
interference by govt overrun by partisan bias forcing us to pay for their messes.
Make each party pay for their own agenda, and we can all be equally free
from this oppression by policies none of these parties really agrees to.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 6, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > _.  Fifteen months after Mr. Stevenss death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.
> ...



He's trying to cover up the fact that he's helping al Qaeda, not fighting them. The cover story was just a way to explain away the resurgence of al Qaeda in the Middle East. 

Honestly, nothing they say is believable.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Jan 6, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > BluesMistress said:
> ...



I was stationed overseas in Brindisi Italy tied to a special ops gunship task force with combat controllers, when that fuel truck exploded just outside an Air Force instillation in Dhahran Saudia Arabia killing 19 military personnel. We were on hightened alert for about two weeks awaiting a need for a military response. All it resulted in was heightened security checks entering the base and a briefing of increase military awareness of our surroundings, no need for further alerts, drills, or responses were required of us. Our planes remained grounded and in wait. The only action we would see of our President was the later downsizing and "suggested" early retirements of our higher ranking military personnel, along with a calculated reduction in our retirement benefits as part of required defense cuts. Now this need to consistently change story lines behind the Benghazi attacks, appear to be only a preparation to allow an open door into a Hillary candidacy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 6, 2014)

iamwhatiseem said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Has it occured to you the reason why the Media turned on Bush over Iraq is because Bush lied to them?


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



yep- "we'll be greeted as liberators" & "the war will pay for itself w/ oil revenue" 

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm


> March 16, 2003 Meet the Press interview of Vice President Dick Cheney, held less than a week before the Iraq War began, host Tim Russert reported that "every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement."



$100 BILLION? Thats chump change.  We're looking at $3.5-4 TRILLION for that war & Afghanistan both started and left unfinished.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jan 6, 2014)

Bush was incorrect about some things but I don't know of any lies he told.

Obama on the other hand...
Well I can't think of anything he's said that has actually been proven as true. He's actually managed to make Nixon look like a Boy Scout.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 7, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama could blame the attack on Global Warming and the Left would believe it



I don't think they would believe in it, but they would for sure support anything he says and do whatever it takes to make everyone else believe in it.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> So...What is the GOP version of the Benghazi attacks?
> 
> It was an international AlQaida conspiracy planned to coincide with the 9-11 anniversary
> The video had nothing to do with it
> ...



What attacks? I thought left claims those were spontaneous demonstrations.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 7, 2014)

paperview said:


> > ...why did the President opt to not add more protection to those embassies....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What difference does it make?


----------



## jasonnfree (Jan 7, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> Bush was incorrect about some things but I don't know of any lies he told.
> 
> Obama on the other hand...
> Well I can't think of anything he's said that has actually been proven as true. He's actually managed to make Nixon look like a Boy Scout.



Look into the Downing street memos.  I can't get too excited about what Obama does compared to the enormity of the bush mistakes made since  the supreme court installed him in the oval office.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 7, 2014)

The T said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > BluesMistress said:
> ...



There are attacks on Americans all the time. 
Our outrage is not about attacks, but about cover ups.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 7, 2014)

Desperado said:


> Bottom Line: Obama has not been correct about anything a day in his life.





Update: Still unchanged.


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 7, 2014)

Looks like Firebug has nothing.  Whats his committee going to spend taxpayer $$$ on now


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 7, 2014)

candycorn said:


> The president has a habit of being right about things.



He's never been wrong. Just last month he declared how "excessively high temperatures' 'already' harming public health". In other words, what we got these days can't be cold and meteorologists are wrong. It's probably Bush's fault anyways. If you think it's not, then you are in war on women. Raising the minimum wage would most likely warm up some people.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 7, 2014)

Ame®icano;8416239 said:
			
		

> The T said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



What cover-up is that?


----------



## Edgetho (Jan 7, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano;8416239 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You really need to go read my post on the Politics Board called 'Noble Lies'

All of you.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 7, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano;8416239 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How many people who were in Benghazi during the attacks were allowed to testify before Congress?


----------



## BlindBoo (Jan 7, 2014)

Ame®icano;8418004 said:
			
		

> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;8416239 said:
> ...



I suppose you're referring to the CIA mission in Benghazi.  Didn't Congress get testimony in classified hearings from the CIA about their mission in Libya?


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 8, 2014)

BlindBoo said:


> Ame®icano;8418004 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And what do we know from those hearings? 

Just to remind, Petraues testified too and he said what? Ex-CIA chief Petraeus testifies Benghazi attack was al Qaeda-linked terrorism


----------



## LilOlLady (Jan 8, 2014)

deltex1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...




What difference does it make why or by whom the attack was by??? They just hate us. They video was offensive and I was pissed also. and I am sure any Muslim would have been pisses and how does anyone know WHY??? But the attackers.


----------



## LilOlLady (Jan 8, 2014)

Ame®icano;8426281 said:
			
		

> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;8418004 said:
> ...



Numerouis investigations say* Al Qaeda not involved.*


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jan 8, 2014)

Ame®icano;8418004 said:
			
		

> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;8416239 said:
> ...



What was there for them to testify, exactly? 

"A bunch of rag heads charged the gate and we booked?"


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jan 8, 2014)

LilOlLady said:


> Numerouis investigations say* Al Qaeda not involved.*



Yes, but were they "right-wing" approved?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jan 8, 2014)

Ame®icano;8416239 said:
			
		

> There are attacks on Americans all the time.
> Our outrage is not about attacks, but about cover ups.



So, where was the cover-up? 

No one can point to it, but there MUST be one for so many to allude to it, right?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jan 9, 2014)

LilOlLady said:


> Ame®icano;8426281 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would ask you the same question you just asked:

_"What difference does it make why or by whom the attack was by??? They just hate us."_


----------



## LilOlLady (Jan 9, 2014)

Ame®icano;8416239 said:
			
		

> The T said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Cover up what? Hard to hide the attack and three dead americans. 
Who created these terrorists on Bush's watch? Again what difference does it make if it was done by al qaeda or pissed off muslims? Lets not forget the 911 attack on the world trade buildings under Bush where thousands died. And illegal alien invasion for the last 50 plus years that has killed thousands of Americans.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 9, 2014)

the idiots on the right will just pretend there is some cover up even when they don't have a shred of evidence.


they will deny court documented evidence that their party has cheated in elections for decades that goes all the way to the SCOTUS yet they will swallow whole a rumor that targets the first black president based on not one rational thought.


the people we talk to here are terminally partisan level of stupid.


there lies must be attacked by every honest American.


they need to be publically shamed by the FACTS until they stop fucking lying with every breath.


----------



## LilOlLady (Jan 9, 2014)

The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during a protest by an armed group said to have been protesting a film being produced in the United States September 11, 2012.
CREDIT: REUTERS/ESAM AL-FETORI

(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

While officials did mention the possible involvement of "extremists,"* they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups *or *possible links to al Qaeda* or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails | Reuters


If anything is going on its Right Wing Nutsled by Master Issa trying to cover up the truth.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 9, 2014)

The outrage is over congressional testimony that wasn't given.  Ok.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Jan 9, 2014)

The investigation to uncover what happened in Benghazi that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, apparently doesn't end with the New York Times. What about all those apparent facts the article thought they had?




> *Former Guantanamo detainee implicated in Benghazi attack
> By Adam Goldman, Published: January 7, 2014*
> 
> U.S. officials suspect that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee played a role in the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and are planning to designate the group he leads as a foreign terrorist organization, according to officials familiar with the plans.
> ...







> *Former Gitmo detainee with ties to al Qaeda implicated in Benghazi attack
> By Douglas Ernst -The Washington Times Wednesday, January 8, 2014*
> 
> In 1993, Qumu was allegedly trained at one of Osama bin Laden&#8217;s training camps in Afghanistan and later worked for one of bin Laden&#8217;s companies as a driver, according to a leaked Joint Task Force Guantánamo (JTF-GTMO) threat assessment.
> ...


----------



## Sallow (Jan 9, 2014)

Ame®icano;8416239 said:
			
		

> The T said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



What "coverup"?

Benghazi was a secret?

Romney was giving play by play outrage as the attack was happening.

First time that a Presidential candidate has done that.

In any case..the big story you folks gleaned from this was that the CIA sent the state department on the morning shows to blame this on a video which was responsible for protests ALL OVER THE MIDDLE EAST.

3 DAYS LATER, the administration came out and said that MAY NOT BE THE CASE.

So ALL THIS outrage is over 3 days and a video.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jan 9, 2014)

LilOlLady said:


> The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during a protest by an armed group said to have been protesting a film being produced in the United States September 11, 2012.
> CREDIT: REUTERS/ESAM AL-FETORI
> 
> (Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
> ...



Again, why do you think it matters which group of terrorists attacked?
The failures of Obama's government were the same whichever group it was.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 9, 2014)

LilOlLady said:


> Ame®icano;8416239 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cover up of truth. Fifteen months later we still don't know what exactly happened in Benghazi and who should be held responsible.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jan 9, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Ame®icano;8416239 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Only serious dumbasses ever believed that idiotic tale to begin with or that the "why" actually matters.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 9, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Ame®icano;8416239 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As usual, you're playing dumb card.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jan 9, 2014)

Again. Why does anyone think it's important that Al Ouida might have been involved?
Our mistakes were the same whoever did it.


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 9, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Ame®icano;8416239 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yep, rw'ers were basically broadcasting the existence of "the annex" all over the globe.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 10, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> Again. Why does anyone think it's important that Al Ouida might have been involved?
> Our mistakes were the same whoever did it.



Because it was a vast conspiracy by Obama to minimize Al Qaeda involvement so he could claim he won teh war on terror. 

Even though Obama called it an act of terror when it happened. That didn't matter. He was trying to hide it was terrorism.  

Our mistake was getting involved in someone else's civil war.  But we do that a lot.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Jan 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Even though Obama called it an act of terror when it happened. That didn't matter. He was trying to hide it was terrorism.



Sept. 12, 2012  the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word terrorism:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack. 

OBAMA: Right.

KROFT: Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?

OBAMA: Well, its too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.


----------



## namvet (Jan 10, 2014)

He has covered up, delayed, impeded and obstructed the 
investigation of the Benghazi Battle.
Specific conduct includes: (1) failing to adequately secure 
the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi; (2) failing to send a response team to rescue embattled US citizens  in  Benghazi;  (3)  lying  to  the  American  people  about 
why the US Consulate and the CIA annex were attacked in 
Benghazi;  and  (4)  hiding  from  the  media  and  congressional investigators the Central Intelligence Agency personnel 
and other wounded US citizens who were on the ground in 
Benghazi by scattering them throughout the United States, 
forcing them to adopt new identities and subjecting them to 
monthly polygraph tests.
Benghazi Battle elements that are under investigation:
On September 11, 2012, the anniversary of the September 
11, 2001, the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, 
Libya  was  targeted  in  a  premeditated,  preplanned  attack 
launched without warning by Islamist militants.
Footage of the attack broadcast in real time showed armed 
men  attacking  the  consulate  with  rocket-propelled  grenades, hand grenades, assault rifles, 14.5 mm anti-aircraft 
machine guns, truck mounted artillery, diesel canisters, and 
mortars. It was not an act of savage mob violence, nor a 
spontaneous  protest  in  response  to  an  anti-Islamic  video 
on YouTube.
In that attack, four American citizens were killed: US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; Information Officer Sean Smith; 
and two embassy security personnel, Glen Doherty and Tyrone 
Woods, both former Navy SEALs. Ambassador Stevens is the 
first U.S. ambassador killed in an attack since Adolph Dubs 
was killed in 1979.

artilce 1 of 10 filed for impeachment by the black GOP. which I totally support


----------



## Sallow (Jan 10, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;8416239 said:
> ...



What idiotic tale?

That the people of the middle east are pissed?

That they don't like the fact their countries are run by puppets of the west?

That they don't like the fact that their religion is constantly shitted on?

That they don't like the fact that their natural resources are considered "national interests" of foreign countries?

Not really sure which "idiotic tale" you are going with..


----------



## Sallow (Jan 10, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;8416239 said:
> ...



Not one fucking conservative has ever addressed that.

And the one's here? They are like "so what!".


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 10, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



they were basically spilling state secrets by egging-on the partisan witch hunt. GOP= party before country


----------



## Sallow (Jan 10, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Issa was doing that long before Snowden or Manning.

He's been giving classified material with no redaction to the Press since his first investigations.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 10, 2014)

Sallow said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




Do you want us to stop buying their oil?

Think that'll make em happy?

I get a kick out of liberals who hate fossil fuels and spend most of their free time proclaiming it while typing on their PC which needs electricity to operate. Electricity that needs coal or fuel oil plants to generate energy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 10, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> [
> 
> 
> Do you want us to stop buying their oil?
> ...



I live in Illinois, most of our power comes from Nuclear.  

But here's the gag. We are addicted to oil.  3% of the world population, 25% of its energy consumption.  We do have an addiction, and terrorism is a side effect.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jan 10, 2014)

Sallow said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



That would be the idiotic tale that this was not a planned attack by terrorists. People are outraged by Obama's and the State dept.'s negligence before, during, and after the attack. Also by the idea people bring mortars and other heavy weapons to a peaceful demonstration. Terrorist can be expected to act like terrorists. Obama and the State Dept. are _supposed_ to be on our side.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jan 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> * * * *
> 
> I live in Illinois, most of our power comes from Nuclear.
> 
> But here's the gag. We are addicted to oil.  3% of the world population, 25% of its energy consumption.  We do have an addiction, and terrorism is a side effect.



^ silly faux analysis.

We _are_ dependent on oil.  That does not mean we have to be dependent on Arabian oil.  Dependency isn't always a bad thing:  I am pretty dependent upon oxygen, too.

In any event, it is plainly not the case that terrorism (of the al qaeda variety) is a side effect of our alleged "addiction" to oil.

That kind of terrorism is a side effect of a variety of the filthy disease we call Islam.


----------



## namvet (Jan 13, 2014)

most everything we use is made a plastic. and plastic is made of what???


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



Really? How much trouble did we have with Islam in 1880?  In 1920?  

And one more time, the reason why we have Al Qaeda was because back in the 1980
s, your boy Reagan decided to call these guys "Freedom Fighters" and arm them with weapons because the Ruskies were teaching girls how to read in Afghanistan.


----------



## Antares (Jan 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



*The First Barbary War (18011805), also known as the Tripolitan War or the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States and the Northwest African Berber Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were Tripoli and Algiers, which were quasi-independent entities nominally belonging to the Ottoman Empire, and the independent Sultanate of Morocco.*

First Barbary War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Get an education Joe.


----------



## Antares (Jan 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Without those Arms the Afghani's could never have done what they did...oh the horror Ronnie help an oppressed people defeat an invading army.

What a moron.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


When they weren't raping or killing them.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 13, 2014)

Obama's a lying piece of shit



> *Top Defense officials briefed Obama on &#8216;attack,&#8217; not video or protest*
> 
> minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, *the nation's top civilian and uniformed defense officials -- headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama -- were informed that the event was a "terrorist attack," declassified documents show*. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president's Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.
> 
> ...





> *The transcript reads as follows: *
> 
> *WENSTRUP:* "As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack."
> 
> ...






> Ham's declassified testimony further underscores that Obama's earliest briefing on Benghazi was solely to the effect that the incident was a terrorist attack, and raises once again the question of how the narrative about the offensive video, and a demonstration that never occurred, took root within the White House as the explanation for Benghazi.



The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ?attack,? not video or protest | Fox News


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 13, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Obama's a lying piece of shit
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you can figure whatever he says 

or the admin puts out is a lie or omission 

or or has some fine print to it


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2014)

Antares said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Hey, Bugwit, I didn't ask about 1801.  Which wasn't about "Islam" or Religion, it was about piracy. 

Again-  What was our beef with "Islam" in 1880? or in 1920?  

We didn't have one. 

We started having a beef with them when we decided that their oil was our oil.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Joe the election is over don't you think it's time to stop campaigning for obama, after all you are a republican, or at least you say you are.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2014)

Again, wasn't talking about Obama. 

I asked a valid point, did we make our own mess with Bin Laden by arming him? 

Tell you what, the GOP stops acting batshit crazy, I'll stop sticking up for Obama.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, wasn't talking about Obama.
> 
> I asked a valid point, did we make our own mess with Bin Laden by arming him?
> 
> Tell you what, the GOP stops acting batshit crazy, I'll stop sticking up for Obama.



Sure joe, you do post in other threads.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, wasn't talking about Obama.
> ...



Then talk to me about it in those threads. 

The Grown-ups are talking here.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I'm not chasing the threads down, I'll address it here.
So when are you going to stop campaigning for obama?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You mean you can't back up what you say? Okay.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, wasn't talking about Obama.
> 
> I asked a valid point, did we make our own mess with Bin Laden by arming him?
> 
> Tell you what, the GOP stops acting batshit crazy, I'll stop sticking up for Obama.



Did we arm Bin Laden with 767s?

I don't think a civilian passenger jet is in the military inventory.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



ok joe sure fine, but you need to drop your rino suit


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, wasn't talking about Obama.
> ...



No, but we did provide his organization with arms, support, and money, which gave it the prestige to recruit lots of young kids to fly 767's. 

Now, imagine, if you would an alternative universe where we didn't arm crazy people, where the Soviets turned Afghanistan into a Roach Motel for Jihadists.... 

Can't see that as a bad thing, really.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No, you guys need to stop being crazy.

Hey, did you hear the one about the REpublican President who signed amnesty for illegal aliens, supported gun control, raised taxes when needed, and nominated moderates to the courts? 

His name was Ronald Reagan.  

Today, he'd be a RINO.  Except he's dead, the nutters can rewrite him like a Disney character.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 14, 2014)

You can tell that to someone who might believe you.

oh yes Reagan signed it and it was a failure, and democrats want to do it again.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You can tell that to someone who might believe you.
> 
> oh yes Reagan signed it and it was a failure, and democrats want to do it again.



How was it a "failure"?  

The Purpose of Amnesty was never to prevent illegal immigration.  It was to allow those who were otherwise hard working to get a chance at citizenship.  That worked just fine. 

Unfortunately, even though McCain and George W. Bush supported a much more limited and sensible "path to citizenship", the Crazies in the GOP went nuts at the suggestion, and then wondered why 71% of Hispanics voted against them.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 14, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, wasn't talking about Obama.
> ...



Conservatives might as well have.

In addition to arming, training and recruiting "Afghan freedom fighters", they shot down Al Gore's attempt to modernize Air Port Security.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > You can tell that to someone who might believe you.
> ...



It was a failure because it was a one time deal and was suppose to fix the illegal immigrate problem. Well joe did it fix the problem?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No, but that was mostly due to the fact that the GOP insisted EMPLOYERS be the ones who enforced elibility laws. 

Which is kind of like putting foxes in charge of running the Henhouse. 

You do get WHY we have an illegal problem, right.  

It's because rich people hire them because they don't want to pay an American a fair wage. 

Instead of buidling fences or harrassing children at school, go after the employers.  Problem solved.  

But it isn't about solving the problem.  It's about keeping dumb bible thumping inbreds like you upset w hile the rich don't pay a fair wage.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



irrelevant
it was supposed to fix the problem but didn't that's why it was a failure


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2014)

See, I knew he wouldn't be able to understand the argument.  

Reb is exactly what is wrong with the GOP. People too stupid to see who their real enemies are.


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 14, 2014)

Well what this thread proves is that liberals will let Obama and Democrats get away with anything..

No charges of how they lied and people died, bla bla bla

this is the sad state of this country and is it any wonder these politicians feel they can just lie, cheat and steamroll over us

16 atta boys all over some Nyslimes article


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 14, 2014)

links and documents at site

SNIP:




The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on &#8216;attack,&#8217; not video or protest



James Rosen 

By James Rosen
&#8226; Published January 14, 2014
Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation's top civilian and uniformed defense officials -- headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama -- were informed that the event was a "terrorist attack," declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president's Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward. 




Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing -- in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing -- occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief. 

According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham -- who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 -- said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center. 

"My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey's office, to say, 'Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,'" Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. "I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta."

Ham's account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee. The testimony, given under "Top Secret" clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America's national security apparatus, all the way up to the president. 

ALL of it here
The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ?attack,? not video or protest | Fox News


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> See, I knew he wouldn't be able to understand the argument.
> 
> Reb is exactly what is wrong with the GOP. People too stupid to see who their real enemies are.



So joe did it fix the problem?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > See, I knew he wouldn't be able to understand the argument.
> ...



As far as I'm concerned, it did.  

Did exactly what it set out to do.  

That other problem... meh, that wasn't the goal and you know it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



So, we don't have anymore illegals here in America?
And the borders have been closed?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No, we exactly what we want. 

We have a disenfranchised labor force willing to do jobs most of us wouldn't want to do. 

Come on, guy, get real.  You don't want the illegals to go away. You like eating cheap lettuce and you like shitting on a clean toilet.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



But but but.   I thought you guys wanted everyone in the US to have a "living wage".   Why do you hate mexicans and want them to subsist on starvation wages while they clean your toilets?   

hypocrisy, joe--------you libs are filled with it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2014)

Redfish said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I do.  But i was pointing out the reality of why all the talk about "illegals" is just to get racists like you and Reb upset.   

This is what you guys want.  

And you complain because you have it.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 14, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yep...Learn from our mistakes..


> *According to Ronald Reagan himself, as told to his trusted long-time friend and U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, the biggest mistake of his presidency was signing the 1986 amnesty for what turned out to be more than half the five million illegal immigrants in the country.* Reagan was uncomfortable with the amnesty but was persuaded by some of the leaders of his own party (still living) that it would only affect a small number of illegal immigrants and would assure that Congress would follow through with more vigorous enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. The misnamed Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was touted by its supporters as &#8220;comprehensive immigration reform&#8221; that would grant amnesty only to a few long-settled immigrants and strengthen border security and internal immigration enforcement against employers who were hiring illegal immigrants.
> 
> Internal enforcement was critical to Reagan. He knew that the real key to stopping illegal immigration was to cut off the job magnet at the employment place. He was also honest enough to call what he believed would only be a small amnesty by its real name&#8212;amnesty. He did not try to deceive the American people into thinking it was not really an amnesty, a deception much in vogue with many politicians today.
> 
> ...





Ed Meese Says Reagan Regretted 1986 Amnesty | VDARE.com


----------



## candycorn (Jan 14, 2014)

The president has an annoying habit of being right more often than not.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


You're a confused little boy, first you can't realize everybody sees you for what you are, and you can't see the bigiot and liar that you are, and you call me a racist? Not hardly short fry the retard.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 14, 2014)

candycorn said:


> The president has an annoying habit of being right more often than not.



Obamacare
Iraq
Syria
Benghazi
Fast & Furious
The list goes on. He screws up so much he has to keep Joe Biden around just to make him look competent.


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 14, 2014)

your siggie pics are annoying as hell!! Any way I can turn just muddy's siggie pics off??? They are distracting as all get out.

As to the OP- yeah 44 is always right in the end. Thats one of the reasons the people  reelected him


----------



## Theowl32 (Jan 14, 2014)

> As to the OP- yeah 44 is always right in the end. Thats one of the reasons the people  reelected him




The funny thing is all of the morons that voted for him twice actually believe this. 

Pathetic, but hilarious how these dolts always think they are the smartest ones in the room.


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 14, 2014)

oh oh,

SNIP:
January 14, 2014, 06:00 am 
Feinstein rejects NYT on Benghazi

 By  Julian Pecquet 

.The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said that key conclusions of a recent New York Times investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack are wrong.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) rejected the Times&#8217;s conclusion that al Qaeda wasn&#8217;t responsible for the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. She also took issue with the notion that the Libya strike was sparked by a U.S.-made anti-Islam video online.




&#8220;I believe that groups loosely associated with al Qaeda were&#8221; involved in the attack, she told The Hill last week. &#8220;That&#8217;s my understanding.&#8221;

She also disputed the notion that the Sept. 11, 2012, assault evolved from a protest against the video, which was widely disseminated by Islamic clerics shortly before the attack.

&#8220;It doesn&#8217;t jibe with me,&#8221; she said.

The months-long Times investigation, which was published late last month, &#8220;turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.&#8221; It concluded, after talking to actors on the ground, that &#8220;contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.&#8221;

A spokesman for the senator took issue with The Hill&#8217;s characterization of Feinstein&#8217;s comments.

&#8220;When Senator Feinstein said &#8216;loosely affiliated&#8217; she clearly was referring to groups not directly connected to (or taking orders from) core AQ in Pakistan &#8212; which was essentially the conclusion of The New York Times as well,&#8221; said Brian Weiss. &#8220;So to say she &#8216;rejected&#8217; the conclusion of The New York Times is an overstatement.&#8221;

Still, Feinstein&#8217;s comments represent a departure from the Times&#8217;s reporting. The Dec. 28, 2013, article pinned the blame on Ansar al-Sharia, which it deemed a &#8220;purely local extremist&#8221; organization and &#8220;Benghazi&#8217;s most overtly anti-Western militia.&#8221;

Critics say the Times was overly reliant on militants&#8217; assertion that they had no link to al Qaeda.

They point out that an August 2012 report from the research division of the Library of Congress found that Ansar al-Sharia &#8220;has increasingly embodied al Qaeda&#8217;s presence in Libya.&#8221; And they fault the news outlet for making no mention of the suspected role played by other groups that have known ties with al Qaeda&#8217;s senior leadership, such as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, despite previous reporting in the Times itself.

&#8220;The article makes clear that the attack was led by groups sympathetic to Al Qaeda's goals but states there is &#8216;no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault,&#8217; &#8220; New York Times Company spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said in an email.

&#8220;The article also explains that many of the attackers were motivated by anger at the American-made video denigrating Islam, which they believed was set for its debut on 9/11,&#8221; she added. 

*The report has rekindled debate about Benghazi on Capitol Hill. The incident is likely to be a major national security issue in this year&#8217;s midterms and the 2016 presidential campaign, especially if Hillary Clinton &#8212;who was the secretary of State at the time of the attack &#8212; decides to run.*
.
ALL of it here

Read more: Feinstein rejects NYT on Benghazi | TheHill 
Follow us:  [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 14, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> your siggie pics are annoying as hell!! Any way I can turn just muddy's siggie pics off??? They are distracting as all get out.
> 
> As to the OP- yeah 44 is always right in the end. Thats one of the reasons the people  reelected him



Jew hater


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2014)

Jroc said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> Ed Meese Says Reagan Regretted 1986 Amnesty | VDARE.com



Seriously, guy, you are citing a RACIST website like VDARE?


----------



## Antares (Jan 14, 2014)

Too funny you stupid fucks, as of today we know that our Cracka Prez KNEW it was terror and NOT the video, our Ex Bitch SEC of Defense KNEW it was terror within minutes of it happening....our Left is completely stupid.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 14, 2014)

Now We KNOW: Obama Knew ?Within Minutes? That Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack


----------



## paperview (Jan 14, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Now We KNOW: Obama Knew ?Within Minutes? That Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack





Gettit to Issa -- STAT@!


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2014)

Antares said:


> Too funny you stupid fucks, as of today we know that our Cracka Prez KNEW it was terror and NOT the video, our Ex Bitch SEC of Defense KNEW it was terror within minutes of it happening....our Left is completely stupid.



Actually, all we know is that three flag officers talking amongst themselves called it "Terror" when they had no real information at the time. 

Here's the thing.  Until we actually capture the folks who attacked, we really don't know what they were thinking.  

But most of the ones who've testified said, "Um, yeah, we were pissed off about the Video!"


----------



## percysunshine (Jan 14, 2014)

Gosh. The New York Times wants Hillary as the next President.

Who could have predicted that?

This is a totally galactic revelation.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Ronald Reagan?s Biggest Mistake ? According to Reagan Himself | Conservative Heritage Times


----------



## Jroc (Jan 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Too funny you stupid fucks, as of today we know that our Cracka Prez KNEW it was terror and NOT the video, our Ex Bitch SEC of Defense KNEW it was terror within minutes of it happening....our Left is completely stupid.
> ...


some day you may actually wake up to the real world...Lets hope it's soon but i doubt it 


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN6Eu5G1n4w]Benghazi Transcripts: Terror Attack NOT a Protest - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jan 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Too funny you stupid fucks, as of today we know that our Cracka Prez KNEW it was terror and NOT the video, our Ex Bitch SEC of Defense KNEW it was terror within minutes of it happening....our Left is completely stupid.
> ...



I'm pretty sure those that were killed or wounded knew they were terrorists. Last I heard rape was definitely against the Geneva convention not to mention minor details like, torture, a lack of uniforms, etc.  It would have been a terrorist act even if it had been a demonstration to start with.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Actually, do you know why I have to laugh whenever I hear a wingnut scream about "Terrorism"?  

When Osama bin Laden was killing Russians for teaching Afghan Girls how to Read, Ronald Reagan called them "Freedom Fighters".  

When Osama Bin Laden killed American Yuppies working in offices in New York City, we called them "Terrorists". 

Same assholes killing people for the same bad reasons.  They hated Modernity and religions that weren't theirs.  

So a bunch of assholes in Libya didn't like a tasteless movie on YouTube that made fun of their religion, and they killed Americans at what they thought was a CIA office. Yes, this is really bad, but there's no reason to get self-righteous.  We've been sticking our dicks in this hornet's nest for decades, we shouldn't complain when we get stung.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 15, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Now We KNOW: Obama Knew ?Within Minutes? That Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack



President Barack Hussein Obama really can't get away with the Benghazi lie any longer. Newly released declassified testimony reported by Fox News shows that just minutes after the attack on our consulate in Benghazi Libya that killed ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 others, all the top civilian and military defense officials, including President Obama knew that attack was a terrorist attack.


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Maybe you can go further back than Reagan to make excuses for your Dear leader?
and who care why you laugh, everything isn't always about you


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Now We KNOW: Obama Knew ?Within Minutes? That Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack
> ...



No one ever denied it was a terrorist attack.  Obama called it a "terrorist" attack the next day.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



No, but the pomposity of the fools on the right is always laughable. 

OH, gosh, they are "Terrorists"! 

"Um, didn't these guys used to be Freedom Fighters?" 

"Yeah, but that's when they were killing Commies!!!!"


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You do realize you're lying?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Nope, that's what he said.  Romney tried to make this claim, and he got FAMOUSLY slapped down by the moderator. 

Major Newspapers Whitewash Obama's "Act Of Terror" Assertion | Research | Media Matters for America

Sept. 12: Obama Said Of Benghazi: "No Acts Of Terror Will Ever Shake The Resolve Of This Great Nation." On September 12, the day after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, President Obama gave a speech in the Rose Garden. He said, "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."


----------



## Sallow (Jan 15, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What I don't understand is why you guys think it was just fine that Romney, while the attack was ongoing, thought it was a good idea to criticize the President as a political talking point.

That's the height of traitorous behavior.

Romney should have been roundly condemned for that one.

It sets a horrible precedent.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 15, 2014)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysFUD9e-Ws4]Libyan President: Anti-Islam Film NOT Cause of Attack. It WAS Terrorism. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Jroc (Jan 15, 2014)

Sallow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Here's you "horrible precedent'.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogk2dgSQETA]Infamous Obama Admin - State Dept - Pakistani TV Ad Apologizing For Mohammed Video - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Don't fucking lie to me you dumb son of a bitch.
Why don';t you fucking losing power so you'll be unable to lie on this forum?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 15, 2014)

Sallow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Fuck obama


----------



## AquaAthena (Jan 15, 2014)

*Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi*

Looks like they all knew, all along. What bad people at the top...


----------



## HUGGY (Jan 15, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You forgot..."and the country"....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 15, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



obama is not the country and fuck you for thinking that he is.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 15, 2014)




----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 15, 2014)

It is my patriotic duty to ridicule that piece of shit in the white house


----------



## Dirk the Daring (Jan 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Candy Crowley: Romney Was ?Right in the Main? on Benghazi, But ?Picked the Wrong Word? in Debate | Video | TheBlaze.com

*Candy Crowley: Romney Was Right in the Main on Benghazi, But Picked the Wrong Word in Debate*

Look at that, the VERY MODERATOR that Joe mentions says after the fact that Romney was correct.


----------



## Spoonman (Jan 15, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



obama is fucking the country for us


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 15, 2014)

paperview said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Now We KNOW: Obama Knew ?Within Minutes? That Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack
> ...




You called???


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Libyan President: Anti-Islam Film NOT Cause of Attack. It WAS Terrorism. - YouTube



what else is he going to say... 

"I have no control over my own countrymen and can't protect foreign diplomats when a film ticks them off"  

You see, here's the things you Wingnuts and Zionists like to forget.  

People in 20 other Islamic countries, including Egypt, rioted over this film. 

Except those countries, the local police did their job, kept order and didn't blame mysterious Al Qaeda militants for an angry mob.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 15, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.


----------



## Antares (Jan 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Too funny you stupid fucks, as of today we know that our Cracka Prez KNEW it was terror and NOT the video, our Ex Bitch SEC of Defense KNEW it was terror within minutes of it happening....our Left is completely stupid.
> ...



No, we have General Ham, the man in charge of the theatre telling us briefed Obama and Hillary within minutes telling them they were under attack by terrorists, it had nothing to do with any stupid video.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jan 15, 2014)

It looks exactly like President Obama was totally and intentionally full of shit about Benghazi.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2014)

Antares said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



HOw did General Ham know what they were rioting over.  Did they send him a memo?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jan 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Interesting argument.  It raises the better question:

*How would ANYBODY imagine that they were "rioting" over a cheap ass video that nobody had fucking even seen?*

It certainly IS possible however to recognize the hallmarks of al qaeda behavior when you are so familiar with it.


----------



## Antares (Jan 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




*According to the documents, Gen. Carter Ham - who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya - said that while there was mention of the demonstrations - which started on the same day day as Benghazi but in Egypt - he and the other commanders involved were always clear that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.*

You'll have to ask him Joe....but see.....hmmmmm...the General in charge....or you.
Sorry


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jan 15, 2014)

Antares said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...


----------



## Trajan (Jan 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


----------



## Trajan (Jan 15, 2014)

Antares said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



and of course his speech at the UN using the video , again, etc. or refusing to call the attack a terrorist attack when questioned umpteen times directly on the 60 minutes blurb  by steve croft which cbs edited out and held back ), telling the mother of one of the men killed a video was responsible for the attack ( or was that hillary?), the massaging out of 'terrorism' in the "Memo", susan rice , 5 sunday shows....see, none of that happened


----------



## Antares (Jan 15, 2014)

Trajan said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I've never seen anything like this...this blind allegiance to a liar and traitor...apparently the over riding requirement to be a Democrat is to not have any integrity.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jan 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




"Nobody?"  

More than half of you left wing fubars are PRESENTLY still denying that it was a terrorist attack.  And that bastion of lolberal crapaganda, The NY Slimes, is urgently trying to peddle exactly that.  This explains the ridiculous OP.

And, Obumbler inadvertently suggested or admitted that a terrorist attack was a terrorist attack BEFORE he (and Rice and Shrillary) started steadfastly *denying* that the terrorist attack was a terrorist attack.

For Christ's sake.  Pick a story line you loopey libs.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




There was no riot you idiot

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeR34hrvrCw]ABC: Obama Admin admits no protest before Benghazi attack, security 'inappropriately low' - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Wehrwolfen (Jan 16, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> _.  Fifteen months after Mr. Stevenss death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.
> One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obamas national security adviser.
> The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaedas role to avoid undermining the presidents claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
> The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.
> _



Yeah, Fifteen months after the attack and Americans are getting trickles of information and no arrests have been made. Now the NY Slimes tell us al Qaeda or it's affiliates were not involved. Then we get those declassified documents exposing the Obama, Hillary and NYT lies. Oh my, oh my. The embarrassment, neither Obama or Hillary were capable of handling that 3:00 AM call.  But to lie about it? Gen. Carter Ham of AFRICON has exposed the truth and he was relieved of duty for his response and so was Admiral Charles Gaouette of the Stennis Group that were near the coast of Libya at the time.


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

I took the time to read the report.  It made me even more sick than I already was and I didn'think that was possible.  Such flagrant ineptness from the state dept and others. Simply unbelievable and borders on criminal in my mind.  If you haven't reae it take the time-not media reports on it but the actual Senate Intelligence Report.


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

And much is still not being disclosed.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2014)

Antares said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Sorry, dude, doesn't impress me.  I've met a lot of officers that were really empty suits. 

And again, no one really denied it was a "Terrorist" attack.   Man, you paranoids need to get your story straight.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yawn, guy.  Everyone agreed it was a "Terrorist" attack.  Of course, I find the very word "Terrorist" laughable, because a couple months earlier, these same douchebags were "Freedom fighters" when they were killing Khadafy.   

Just like Bin Laden was a "Freedom Fighter" when he was killing Russians.  But I digress.  

but if the word "Terror" is what has your panties in a bunch, the President called it "Terror" the next day.  

The two issues that are in contention are 1) Was Al Qaeda involved and 2) was the YouTube video that was causing riots in 20 Islamic countries at the same time a factor.  

And the answers to those questions seem to be 1) Probably not, and 2) Probably.


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Are you just a blatant liar or prefer to keep yoUrself totally uninformed?
Which ever it is you really look silly when the truth has come out from your beloved senate and is there for anyone to easily find and read to inform themselves.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 16, 2014)

Sorry, but America could of flatten that place with 7 hours. Unless something is seriously wrong.


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Sorry, but America could of flatten that place with 7 hours. Unless something is seriously wrong.



Sadly, according to the report, the DOD wasn't even aware of our Benghazi annex or compound before the attacks.  Makes  it hard to plan  for contingencies when  you don't even know we have people there.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



No one did.

But that begs the question.

Was it a "terrorist" attack?

Is it a terrorist attack when a foreign nation has participated in knocking over your government, then they put up a "Consulate" that is really a cover for a Spy headquarters?

Or are the militants involved in a legitimate attack against invaders?


----------



## Sallow (Jan 16, 2014)

depotoo said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Liar about what?

When you bring a charge of lying against someone..it's helpful to identify the lie.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2014)

depotoo said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Did the Senate include itself in the blame for slashing security funds for the State Department?


----------



## Sallow (Jan 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



It's funny how they left themselves out of the mix.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 16, 2014)

LOL.....well this thread is bogus as of yesterday!!!


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

Sallow said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Re: your 1 and 2


----------



## Sallow (Jan 16, 2014)

depotoo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...



And this is about as clear as dirt.

What the heck are you referring too?


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



How many times are you going to make that erroneous claim, when you know damn well the state dept stated funds were not lacking, as to why their was inadequate security.


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)




----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

Sallow said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


  I know you can be dense, but surely not this dense.  Go reread it from where you first made your claims of 1 and 2 and go from there.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2014)

depotoo said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...



You mean they didn't slash the shit out of State Department funding, especially security? 

becuase they totally did that.  

That State hasn't pressed the issue enough isn't the problem here. 

I think my biggest complaint with Obama and Hillary is that they haven't pushed back against the ghouls hard enough.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2014)

depotoo said:


> State Department: Budget Had Nothing To Do With Security Decisions At Benghazi - YouTube



I notice the video cuts her off right in the middle of her answer.   

Do you have the complete tape or transcript?


----------



## Sallow (Jan 16, 2014)

depotoo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...



"My" claims?

And you are accusing me of being dense?


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


 couldn't have a thing to do with the fact they already stated outright funding was not a problem, now could it?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2014)

The GOP's embassy security problem | MSNBC

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department&#8217;s Worldwide Security Protection program &#8211; well below the $2.15&#8201;billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration&#8217;s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration&#8217;s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans&#8217; proposed cuts to her department would be &#8220;detrimental to America&#8217;s national security&#8221; &#8211; a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan&#8217;s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2014)

So let's be clear. 

Republicans slash the shit out of embassy security, and then complain when one of our outposts gets attacked.  

Nice. 

Kind of like breaking someone's leg and then complaining they can't run a marathon.


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

And rhe report states they were going to find another location at the end of the year for the compound mission and thus why they had not supplied the necessary resources.


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> So let's be clear.
> 
> Republicans slash the shit out of embassy security, and then complain when one of our outposts gets attacked.
> 
> ...



Just because that is the lie you wish to push doesn't make it reality. And I will continue to respond with the truth each and every attempt you make.
And the budget was such that they even were buying electric vehicles and their needed resources for other  embassies at the time.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2014)

depotoo said:


> And rhe report states they were going to find another location at the end of the year for the compound mission and thus why they had not supplied the necessary resources.



So? 

I mean, I know you guys have a religious thing about Benghazi, St. Stevens Martyred over whatever we are accussing Obama of this week, but frankly, it strikes me that you guys can't keep your story straight. 

The Middle East is a dangerous place.   We keep sticking our dicks in the hornet's nest and wonder why we get stung.   

If there's a fault to blame Obama for, it was going along with the European Union and their attempt to get rid of Khadafy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2014)

depotoo said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > So let's be clear.
> ...



OH NOES, NOT ELECTRIC VEHICLES!!!!!

Is this a good time to point out that Congress approved every line in State's budget, and they were the ones who signed off on the electric cars...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2014)

Okay, got to go to work, so you guys without jobs living off the dole can complain about how governmetn spends too much.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 16, 2014)

depotoo said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > So let's be clear.
> ...



What lie?

The republicans DID slash the budget for security.


----------



## editec (Jan 16, 2014)

This issue continues to fail in its mission.

NOBODY BELIEVES the right wing cranks about his issue.

_NOBODY_


----------



## Sallow (Jan 16, 2014)

editec said:


> This issue continues to fail in its mission.
> 
> NOBODY BELIEVES the right wing cranks about his issue.
> 
> _NOBODY_



Because their supposition is ludicrous and makes absolutely no sense.

Additionally they refuse to deviate from it in light of evidence.

The CIA had an annex there. By definition, the militants probably were not involved in terrorism.


----------



## Ellasophia (Jan 16, 2014)

Sherry said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...


No they did not.  Cheney, Bush, Rummy, Condy are still walking around freely.  I'll see your 4 dead and raise you 5000.  Colin Powell was right when he told the fools if they broke it they bought it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jan 16, 2014)

Sallow said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The budget was never the issue.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> So let's be clear.
> 
> Republicans slash the shit out of embassy security, and then complain when one of our outposts gets attacked.
> 
> ...



Bush did it. The Tea Party is at fault. Fox News is making up phony scandals caused by rouge agents in Cincinnati appointed by Bush. Hey, what difference does it make anyway. The cover-up was only intended to re-elect the president. He actually called it an act of terror even before he blamed it all on a disgusting video that nobody saw. We need to talk about more important issues like removing income inequality, profiling during criminal investigations, women's rights, climate-change, racism, traffic cones on the GWB, and it's time Obama stopped following the Constitution and start turning America into a more authoritarian based governmental system rather than a representative Republic with co-equal branches of government and those nasty checks and balances.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 16, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > So let's be clear.
> ...



They saw the video all over the middle east and they were plenty of riots.

Couple that with the fact that the US has a heavy footprint in the region and considers the natural resources of multiple countries as US assets.


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



you really are naive. Really


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

from page 26 of the report-
State Department documents indicate that its Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
was aware of the fact that many of the tripwires had indeed been crossed and
discussed suspending operations, but never did. *Given these developments and the
available intelligence at the time, the Coii1IIllttee believes the State Department
should have recognized the need to increase security to a level commensurate with
the threat, or suspend operations in Benghazi. *However, operations continued with
minimal improvements in security and personnel protections.


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

Anyone actually lookng for the truth, here is the link for you.  

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf


----------



## Theowl32 (Jan 16, 2014)

Liberals....

It is hilarious how wrong you all are on every single issue. 

Then to watch all of you squirm like little toads. 

I still remember all of you actually saying Bush lied about WMDs. I think you all still believe that bullshit. 

Do any of you (swallow or the stat asshole or rightwinger etc) have any control over how dumb you allow yourselves to get?

Or is it that hard to be proven wrong over and over again, where you add layers of bullshit to the established layers of bullshit?

Tell us again how Bush and Cheney organized 911 and rigged explosives at the base of WTC#7 again. I always loved that one. Always reminds me that I am talking to mental cases who have the thinking power of a 7 year old, but always think they are smarter. 


How does it feel to be proved wrong again?


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

page 27 - 
With respect to the role of DoD and AFRICOM in emergency evacuations
and rescue operations in Benghazi, the Committee received conflicting information
on the extent of the awareness within DoD of the Benghazi Annex. *According to
U.S. AFRICOM, neither the command nor its Commander were aware of an annex*
page 21 -

RECOMMENDATION: The State Department must ensure that security
threats are quickly assessed and security upgrades are put into place with
minimal bureaucratic delay. The State Department has made changes since
September 11,2012, including the creation of a new position of Deputy
Assistant Secretary for High-Threat Posts. Although this new position will
help the State Department focus on high-threat posts, the State Department
must make the institutional changes necessary to quickly and efficiently
respond to emerging security threats--especially those threats that have been
identified numerous times by the U.S. Intelligence Community. The
Committee urges the State Department to consider the recommendation of its
Independent Panel on Best Practices to, "as a matter of urgency, establish an
Under Secretary for Diplomatic Security" to "bring security governance into
the 21st Century and align security management with the realities of a post
9/11 threat environment."84 As noted by the Chairman of the Independent
Panel on Best Practices in his written testimony to a House Committee, this
structural recommendation is not new and was suggested in a report written
14 years ago, following the 1998 East Mrica Embassy bombings. 5


----------



## Sallow (Jan 16, 2014)

Theowl32 said:


> Liberals....
> 
> It is hilarious how wrong you all are on every single issue.
> 
> ...



Well TheOwlFag.

You continue to spout lies as truth.

And continue to be wrong.

A good deal of the terrorism that we face today are a result of Conservative policies and a result of the wishes of their allies in Saudi Arabia.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 16, 2014)

editec said:


> This issue continues to fail in its mission.
> 
> NOBODY BELIEVES the right wing cranks about his issue.
> 
> _NOBODY_



The liberal dingbats that are in the tank for Obama and Hillary apparently don't believe the bi-partisan Senate report on the issue.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 16, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals....
> ...



9-11 happened after 8 years of Bill Clinton.  What were his conservative policies?


----------



## Sallow (Jan 16, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



It must have been the funding and backing of close friend of the Bush's, Osama Bin Laden.

Oh wait, no, that was Ronald "I love terrorists that rape and kill American Nuns" Reagan and George HW Bush.

Clinton was trying to kill him.


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

As the Accountability Review Board found, there were at least 20 security
incidents involving the Temporary Mission Facility, international organizations,
non-governmental organizations, and third-country nationals and diplomats in the
Benghazi area in the months leading up to the September 11, 20 12, attacks. 51

The 20 security incidents detailed in the unclassified report of the ARB on pages 15-16 are as follows:
o March 18, 2012-Anned robbery occurs at the British School in Benghazi.
&#8226; March 22, 2012-Members of a militia searching for a suspect fire their weapons near the U.S. Mission
and attempt to enter.
&#8226; April 2, 2012-A British armored diplomatic vehicle is attacked after driving into a local protest; the
vehicle was damaged but occupants uninjured.
&#8226; April6, 2012-A gelatina bomb or "fish bomb" (traditional homemade explosive device used for fishing)
is thrown over the Temporary Mission Facility's north wall.
&#8226; April 10, 2012-An lED (gelatina or dynamite stick) is thrown at the motorcade ofthe United Nations
(UN) Special Envoy to Libya in Benghazi.
o April26, 2012-The principal officer ofthe U.S. Mission is evacuated from the International Medical
University (IMU) after a fistfight escalated to gunfire between Tripoli-based trade delegation security
personnel and IMU security.
&#8226; April27, 2012-Two South African nationals in Libya as part of a U.S.-funded weapons abatement,
unexploded ordnance removal, and demining project are detained at gunpoint by militia, questioned, and
released.
&#8226; May 22, 2012-Benghazi-based International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) building is struck by
RPGs.
&#8226; May 28, 2012-A previously unknown organization, Omar Abdurrahman group, claims responsibility for
the ICRC attack and issues a threat against the United States on social media sites.
&#8226; June 6, 2012-IED attack on the Temporary Mission Facility; the lED detonates with no injuries but blows
a large hole.in the compound's exterior wall. Omar Abdurrahman group makes an unsubstantiated claim of
responsibility.
&#8226; June 8, 2012--=-Two hand grenades target a parked United Kingdom (UK) diplomatic vehicle in Sabha (800
km south of Benghazi).
&#8226; June 11, 2012-While in Benghazi, the British Ambassador's convoy is attacked with an RPG and possible AK-47s; two UK security officers are injured. The UK closes its mission in Benghazi the following day.
June 12, 2012-An RPG attack occurs on the ICRC compound in Misrata (400 km west of Benghazi).
&#8226; June 18, 20 12-Protestors storm the Tunisian consulate in Benghazi.
&#8226; July 29, 2012-An lED is found on grounds ofthe Tibesti Hotel in Benghazi.
&#8226; July 30, 2012-A Sudanese consul in Benghazi is carjacked and his driver is beaten.
&#8226; July 31, 2012-Seven Iranian-citizen ICRC workers are abducted in Benghazi. .
&#8226; AugustS, 2012-ICRC Misrata office is attacked with RPGs; ICRC withdraws its representatives from
Misrata and Benghazi.
&#8226; August 9, 2012-A Spanish-American dual national NGO worker is abducted from the Islamic Cultural
Center in Benghazi and released the same day.
&#8226; August 20, 2012-A small bomb is thrown at an Egyptian diplomat's vehicle parked outside ofthe
Egyptian consulate in Benghazi.
In the months prior to the attack, Ambassador Stevens and other State
Department officials in Libya outlined concerns via cables to State Department
headquarters about the security of the Mission compound in Benghazi and made
several requests for additional security resources. For example:
&#8226; On June6, 2012, Stevens recommended the creation of
~teams, made up of locally hired personnel, in Benghazi and
Tripoli. The State Department attempted to create a team in Tripoli, but
was unable to so because it was difficult  to find and clear appropriate personnel.
*A ----   team was never created in Benghazi, despite the Ambassador's recommendation. 60*On July 9, 2012, Stevens sent a cable to State Department headquarters
requesting a minimum of 13 "Temporary Duty" (TDY) U.S. security
personnel for Libya, which he said could be made up of DS agents, DoD
Site Security Team (SST) personnel, or_some combination ofthe two.61
These TDY security personnel were needed to meet the requested
security posture in Tripoli and Benghazi. The State Department never
fulfilled this request and, according to Eric Nordstrom,* State Department
headquarters never responded to the request with a cable*.62

In an August 16, 2012, cable to State headquarters, Stevens raised
additional concerns about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi
following an Emergency Action Committee (EAC) meeting held on
August 15, 2012, in Benghazi. The EAC is an interagency group
convened periodically in U.S. embassies and other facilities in response
to emergencies or security matters. ~n this case, the head State
Department officer in Benghazi, ca11ed the Principal Officer, convened
the meeting "to evaluate Post's tripwires in light of the deteriorating
security situation in Benghazi." 63 The cable summarizing this EAC
included the following points:
( 1) The Principal Officer "remarked that the security situation in
Benghazi was 'trending negatively"' and "that this daily pattern of
violence would be the 'new normal' for the foreseeable future,
particularly given the minimal capabilities of organizations such as
the Supreme Security Council and local police."
(2) A CIA officer "*briefed the EAC on the location of approximately ten
Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi*."
(3) The Principal Officer and a CIA officer "expressed concerns with the
lack of host nation security to support the U.S. Mission [facility]."
(4)~ssed con.c~~s with.Post's r~lat.ionship with the
-[local mihtia], particularly m hght of some of the
actions taken by the brigade's subsidiary members."
(5) The Regional Security Officer "expressed concerns with the ability to
defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited
manpower, security me~sures, weapons_capabilities, host nation
support, and the overall size of the compound."

Despite the clearly deteriorating security si_tuation in Benghazi and requests
for additional security resources, few significant improvements were made by the
State Department to the security posture of the Temporary Mission Facility.
page 16


----------



## Jroc (Jan 16, 2014)

Sallow said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




There was no riot in Libya prior to the attack ..Why do you people keep saying that?


----------



## Sallow (Jan 16, 2014)

Lest we forget..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow]Telling Lies - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o]Bush: Truly not concerned about bin Laden (short version) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Jroc (Jan 16, 2014)

Sallow said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



You're off in Lah..lah..land come back to the real world


----------



## Sallow (Jan 16, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Bullshit.

The Libyans were well aware of that video and have been using it to recruit militants.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 16, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



Eyah..

Arbusto Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lah lah land.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 16, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeR34hrvrCw]ABC: Obama Admin admits no protest before Benghazi attack, security 'inappropriately low' - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Jroc (Jan 16, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


it's fucking sad the lengths you libs will go in order to protect your people. Really?...I mean I guess we conservatives can take lessons from you libs, but we are just more principled than you.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 16, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...





> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATOs extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
> 
> A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syrias civil conflict.
> 
> ...



That's probably a little too complex for you.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 16, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



The Bushes and Ronald Reagan have a relationship with the Bin Ladens that stretch over the years..and you conservatives just gloss over it.

Principled..


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 16, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



The Bin Laden family is the biggest construction contractors in Saudi Arabia. This spoiled little rich kid goes nuts and becomes a terrorist. Should we destroy the rest of his family because of one black sheep?

Yet, Obama is friends with the Muslim Brotherhood, Hillary's chief of staff is a daughter of brotherhood members, but nothing to see here. Let's talk about Booosh.


----------



## HUGGY (Jan 16, 2014)

*Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi*

What seems mind boggling to me is that Bush eroneously engaged the U S in two major wars and got many tens of thousands of Americans murdered illegally and hundreds of thousands injured and millions of Muslims killed injured and displaced ..

Yet Obama had NOTHING to do with the unfortunate losses in Benghazi and you mouth breathing knuckle dragging morons believe Obama is the end all of evil in the Mid East American involement.  

Astonishing.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 16, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> *Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi*
> 
> What seems mind boggling to me is that Bush eroneously engaged the U S in two major wars and got many tens of thousands of Americans murdered illegally and hundreds of thousands injured and millions of Muslims killed injured and displaced ..
> 
> ...



Many tens of thousands?

Link

Obama has made it clear he doesn't believe in sweating the details. This one just bit him in the ass, and he compounds it by covering it up.

That's how they got Nixon BTW.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jan 16, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> *Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi*
> 
> What seems mind boggling to me is that Bush eroneously engaged the U S in two major wars and got many tens of thousands of Americans murdered illegally and hundreds of thousands injured and millions of Muslims killed injured and displaced ..
> 
> ...



Lol at liberals. two major wars blamed on Bush? Look everyone a fucking demented truther.

The Iraq war? Yeah. Carrying out Clintons Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs he signed before Bush took office.

You blind ignorant brainwashed left wing hack.

Of course Gitmo is still open. Yeah, just like we thought. You don't care.

Piece of commie shit.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > So let's be clear.
> ...



If no one saw the video, why did they have riots over it in 20 countires. 

Here's the thing, guy.   Obama has made you all so batshit crazy that no one takes your side seriously anymore. 

It starts when you guys turn against your own ideas just because the black guy implements them.


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The last line of your statement shows exactly who the racist is. Sad you can't even see it.


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

Never once can you see past his skin color to be aable to look at the disastrous policies, or in this case the lack therof, of those within the state department, found by the Senate which  resulted in the death of a US Ambassador.


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

It's a good thing his skin color is black for you on the left, even though he is equally whie, because if not then you would have to actually look at  the facts of these scandals and discuss them instead of the color of a man's skin.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2014)

depotoo said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Pointing out the obvious that the main thing about Obama that makes you all batshit crazy is that he's black.  

You do get, this, right.  That you aren't even about ideas anymore, you are just against what the black guy is for. 

Because it's obvious to everyone else.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2014)

depotoo said:


> It's a good thing his skin color is black for you on the left, even though he is equally whie, because if not then you would have to actually look at  the facts of these scandals and discuss them instead of the color of a man's skin.



He looks like a black guy, and that's how society treats him. It really doesn't matter what his ancestory is.


----------



## HUGGY (Jan 16, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > *Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi*
> ...



This *"ONE"* ????  If you want to label in numbers.. let's say Bush's daddy had *"ONE"* Bush had *two* and *three* and Obama's "Benghazi" which he had nothing to do with it occuring might be a *".000000001".  *AND that only because the timing and dispersion of the explaination of it was clumbsy.  You morons have your panties stuck up your cracks *because of a news release snafu *... but the intentional illegal decision to send our troups to senseless slaughter doesn't even register in your fucking willfully ignorant pea brains.

I'm tired of talking to you dangerously stupid assholes.


----------



## depotoo (Jan 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > It's a good thing his skin color is black for you on the left, even though he is equally whie, because if not then you would have to actually look at  the facts of these scandals and discuss them instead of the color of a man's skin.
> ...



As you have so convinced yourself because that is how you see him, all others must as well. Sorry to break it to you, but that is only your reality, because if its otherwise you would have to deal with actual issues instead.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 16, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



Wow, the DNC daily newsletter printed that?

How very convincing.....

The New York Times is like a print version of MSNBC, but far more biased and much less credible. You could up your credibility by linking a post on DailyKOS...


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 17, 2014)

Sallow said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



It didn't matter that they timed it to coincide with 9/11?

They went around asking everyone about the video, and most said they never saw it but heard it was pretty bad. 

That's a good reason to torch an embassy.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 17, 2014)

Theowl32 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > *Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi*
> ...



Clinton didn't invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

That was George W. Bush.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 17, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Of course it matters.

Which brings into question why Ambassador Stevens went to the embassy knowing full well of the danger.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 17, 2014)

Theowl32 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



What part of "Clinton didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan" aren't you understanding?

English doesn't seem to be your first language.

You may be a Saudi..as it certainly sounds like it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 17, 2014)

Sallow said:


> What part of "Clinton didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan" aren't you understanding?
> 
> English doesn't seem to be your first language.
> 
> You may be a Saudi..as it certainly sounds like it.



What's that you're holding in your hands, Shallow?

Is it a rump roast?

Oh wait, looks like Theowl handed you your ass....

Carry on.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jan 17, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Wait a minute. You were not on the side of Bush "invading Afghanistan" you piece of disingenuous shit?

Or are you a fucking truther like I suspect?

Or are you going to admit the entire fucking country was behind the "invasion" of Afghanistan?

You piece of shit. 

Also, what does....the democrats were behind the "invasion of Iraq" when they voted for it mean to you? They also propagated the existence of WMDs before Bush took office. 

What is it about the notion that the paradigm shifted in this country post 911 on how to deal with perceived threats abroad from terror sponsored nations?


Do you have any thinking power where you can make actual conclusions that are separate from the left wing narrative, or are you lock step with every fucking fucked up left wing issue?


----------



## Sallow (Jan 17, 2014)

Theowl32 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > What part of "Clinton didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan" aren't you understanding?
> ...



The unvarnished fact is that Congress authorized the use of force.

And Bush invaded.

He gave the order. There were other avenues available to him.

Mr. Saudi guy.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jan 17, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



You are just plain stupid. No offense.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 17, 2014)

Theowl32 said:


> You are just plain stupid. No offense.



Nah, Shallow isn't stupid.

BUT he is a partisan hack. He says what he thinks will promote his party, or will attack the opposition, with utterly no regard for facts.

The problem that so many of us have in dealing with the left is the delusion that we are dealing with honest people who will be swayed by evidence and facts. We are not. To bury Shallow in facts and irrefutable evidence is useless, because he doesn't care about what is true, he serves the party and will lie as easily as the rest of us breath.

And this is the real danger of the American left, these are people who will do ANYTHING for power, they don't give a flying fuck about facts or rationality. Anything that serves to give the party power will be claimed, no matter how absurd, no matter how completely refuted. 

You cannot reason with Shallow, he has zero integrity and is here ONLY to serve the party, driven by a lust for power that he thinks will be his as a table scrap if his shameful party achieves the goal of establishing an authoritarian system.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Jan 17, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I'd rather see Americans WORK, than support them through various government programs while cloaked under some 'help thy brother' crap. Why not call it like it is, and say this war on poverty is based on those jobs that many would otherwise CHOOSE not to do. At least you'd be honest.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Jan 17, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



How is Red or Reb the ones being racist here, when this fight over amnesty is simply focused around one particularly dominate group of people? Do you see the Germans, Polish, Russians, French, Greeks, Italians, Chinese, Swedish, Irish, (to name but a few) getting the same treatment? Generally when you willfully choose to isolate and treat a large group of immigrants (who are overwhelmingly Hispanics in this case), with standards and privileges that are very different from the vast majority of other immigrants who desire to be citizens but submit themselves UNDER Federal Immigration law, that is (by definition) racist... and I will call you out as such. To say otherwise would be to prove an amnesty bill that is very clearly beyond reproach. I quite doubt you are able to do that, Joe. How about we place *ALL immigrants* under the same legal Federal standards, and quit all your childish tantrums that "you must be racist" for daring to suggest every immigrant be treated and submitted under the same law.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jan 17, 2014)

Theowl32 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > What part of "Clinton didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan" aren't you understanding?
> ...



Virtually everyone was behind President Bush when he said he was going to pursue the terrorist who committed 9-11, no matter where in the world they were.

The majority of Democrats voted against the Authorization of Force in Iraq.

Iraq was not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower.  Saddam was supporting groups fighting in Palestine and a group inside Iran.  He was contained and his military had been decimated in the first Gulf War.  Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 17, 2014)

BlindBoo said:


> Virtually everyone was behind President Bush when he said he was going to pursue the terrorist who committed 9-11, no matter where in the world they were.
> 
> The majority of Democrats voted against the Authorization of Force in Iraq.



Lying again Boo?

Your shameful party appreciates your service.



> Iraq was not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower.  Saddam was supporting groups fighting in Palestine and a group inside Iran.  He was contained and his military had been decimated in the first Gulf War.  Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11



It's nice of you to post your ThinkProgress bleating points - sadly that is ALL you are capable of....


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Jan 17, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Let's be honest to what explanation the Obama administration had chosen to stand firm on, regarding the Benghazi attack. 



> Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice represented the Obama administration in discussing the incident in the aftermath of the attack, suggesting the death of Ambassador Chris Stephens and three Americans came as the result of a protest over an incendiary viral video blasting the prophet Mohammad and was not a preplanned act of terrorism.
> 
> Rice appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation," CNN's "State of the Union," NBC's "Meet The Press," "Fox News Sunday" and ABC's "This Week" on Sep. 16, 2012, to speak on behalf of the President and she repeated the belief that *the incident was a "spontaneous" mob uprising and not "a preplanned, premeditated attack.*"
> 
> ...


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 17, 2014)

Sallow said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...





Because somebody asked him to. 

Ever been in that situation yourself? Having to depend on the President to back you up when you need it?

I have. With Obama in the WhiteHouse help is pretty far away. I felt pretty much the same when the Clintons were in office.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 17, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


Democrat presidents are known for abandoning our own.  Kennedy in the Bay of Pigs, Johnson in Vietnam, Carter in the Iranian Hostage Crisis, Obama in Benghazi...


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Jan 17, 2014)

Sallow said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



That much was apparently evident.


On February 26, 1993, Islamic terrorists attempt to bring down the World Trade Center towers by detonating truck bombs in the underground parking garage. The attack fails to topple the twin towers but kills six people and wounding 1,042.

Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.





> *Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA), 1992-2001 (FY1993-FY2001)*
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IB85159.pdf
> 
> The FY1993 National Defense Authorization Act (Sec. 4403, P.L. 102-484) granted temporary authority (which expired on September 30, 2001) for the services to offer early retirements to personnel with more than 15 but less than 20 years of service. TERA was used as a manpower tool to entice voluntary retirements during the drawdown.TERA retired pay was calculated in the usual ways except that there is an additional reduction of one percent for every year of service below 20. Part or all of this latter reduction could be restored if the retiree worked in specified public service jobs (such as law enforcement, firefighting, and education) during the period immediately following retirement, until the point at which the retiree would have reached the 20-year mark if he or she had remained in the service.





> Clinton Offers $19.5-Billion Package to Help Defense Industry After Cuts : Pentagon: Expansion of high-technology jobs is the primary goal. Little immediate relief is proposed for displaced workers or affected firms. - Page 3 - Los Angeles Times
> 
> 
> Clinton also said he will propose allocating almost $4 billion over the next four years for worker retraining programs, including $150 million for government- and employer-sponsored projects to help displaced defense workers.
> ...






> *Bill Clinton and the Decline of the Military*
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Bill Clinton and the Decline of the Military.html
> *By Lynn Woolley  Posted Dec 21, 2006*
> 
> ...


----------



## HUGGY (Jan 17, 2014)

It appears the one that got his ass handed to him was TheOwl..  

Just sayin...


----------



## BlindBoo (Jan 17, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Virtually everyone was behind President Bush when he said he was going to pursue the terrorist who committed 9-11, no matter where in the world they were.
> ...



Nope.  147 Democrats in Congress voted against it.  111 voted for it.  But apparently history, facts and stuff are not your strong point.  You believe in truthiness don't-cha?

I feel ya.

24 February 2001 Powell:

-- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. *He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors*. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

"The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained.."

The Memory Hole > 2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat


----------



## BlindBoo (Jan 17, 2014)

S.J. said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



So when President Obama was informed the Consulate had been attacked what did he say again?  Was it "Abandon Ship", "Run Away"  or something?

Or, was something like ordering his commanders to do everything possible to save American lives?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 17, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> [
> 
> It didn't matter that they timed it to coincide with 9/11?
> 
> ...



You're right.  They need to torch things over truly noble causes, like sports games like we do in America!  

Not because someone insulted their religion.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jan 17, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Horse shit.  Lying doesn't make you appear any less absurd.

It is absolutely NOT the case that 'everyone" agreed that it was a terrorist attack.

President Obumbler kind of sorta suggested it (inadvertently( BEFORE he and his hack team back-peddled the HELL out of it. 

To this day HALF you asshole far left wing liberal twats STILL wish to pretend that it was nothing more than a spontaneous MOB reaction to the fucking idiotic video that nobody had even seen.

I couldn't give half a shit how YOU define "terrorist."  The three thousand souls lost on 9/11/2001 would not agree that the 19 Arab shit suckers were "freedom fighters."  Face facts.  Those vile pieces of filth were nothing more and nothing less than terrorists.

The fucking lying sack of rat twat President INADVERTENTLY let it slip that it was terrorism.  But thereafter it would take Mohammed Mountain Moving Magic to get get Obumbler and you idiotic liberals to just fucking SAY it.

The STORY that it was a spontaneous MOB reaction to the unseen stupid video was ALWAYS intentionally dishonest crap.  And you know it.  But you aren't man enough to just acknowledge it.


----------



## HUGGY (Jan 17, 2014)

You WRONGwing morons are like a school of BIGMOUTH bass still striking at every little shiny object thrown your way and you don't even notice that the drought YOU have created in politics is draining your little pond.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 17, 2014)

BlindBoo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


I don't know what he SAID, but he DID nothing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 18, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> [
> 
> Horse shit.  Lying doesn't make you appear any less absurd.
> 
> ...



Guy, "Terrorist" is just a word.  "Freedom Fighter" is two words, and equally meaningless.  It really depends what side you are on, doesn't it?  

But "Terror" was a word the President used to describe the attacks. So if that's what has your panties in a bunch, you need to get over it. He said it several times.  

He didn't say it was Al Qaeda because we still don't really know if it was Al Qaeda.  We do know that most of the middle east was damned upset about this video, even if they didn't see it.


----------



## Camp (Jan 18, 2014)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



The real reason for the reduction in force and the change in the types of ready forces available was the fall of the USSR and the need for huge divisions to confront a possible war with the USSR in Europe. Large numbers of armour, artillery and infantry divisions were no longer deemed appropriate. Instead, forces were transitioned into more effective, efficient and technologicaly superiour units. At the same time, special operation forces were increased, better equiped with high tech gear and trained for the types of warfare predicted by military planners.  Add the further developement of cruise missils and drones and you have the "new military" for the 21rst Century.             
Bush inherited the military used in response to the 9/11 attacks and it worked exactly the way planned.
Special Op's did the job in Afganistan in record time with minimum casualties. They defeated the Taliban protectors of Al Qaeda and chased both the Taliban and Al Qaeda out of Afganstan. They were not given the tools or support needed to complete an extended mission to pursue those forces into sanctuaries in Pakistan.
In Irag the newly designed conventional warfare forces did exactly what they were meant to do. Armoured forces with layers of air support entered Irag with the best and most high tech equipment ever seen on a convetional battlefield. The Iraq military fell in record time and with minimum American casualties.
Unfortunatly, our highly trained forces were transitioned into occupation forces without  proper training or proper equipment. They became sitting ducks in canvas covered scout vehicals designed to be light and fast. Easy targets for snipers and IED's. They were forced to walk down urban streets and participate in urban warfare without body armour. Parents of troops were forced to hold bake sales to raise funds to buy their soldiers body armour as Al Qaeda forces rushed to Iraq from around the world to murder the easy American targets.
Bush destroyed the military he was handed. He abused it and he used it improperly. The history of Bush is one of a spoiled rich frat boy squandering everything that was ever given to him. He carried this character flaw into the Presidency and our toops and nation paid for it.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jan 18, 2014)

_He didn't say it was Al Qaeda because we still don't really know if it was Al Qaeda. We do know that most of the middle east was damned upset about this video, even if they didn't see it._ 
__________________
Again, who cares? All terrorists don't belong to Al Qaeda and "being upset" gives no one a right to rape, murder and torture.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 18, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> _He didn't say it was Al Qaeda because we still don't really know if it was Al Qaeda. We do know that most of the middle east was damned upset about this video, even if they didn't see it._
> __________________
> Again, who cares? All terrorists don't belong to Al Qaeda and "being upset" gives no one a right to rape, murder and torture.



No one said they did.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Jan 18, 2014)

Camp said:


> The real reason for the reduction in force and the change in the types of ready forces available was the fall of the USSR and the need for huge divisions to confront a possible war with the USSR in Europe. Large numbers of armour, artillery and infantry divisions were no longer deemed appropriate. Instead, forces were transitioned into more effective, efficient and technologicaly superiour units. At the same time, special operation forces were increased, better equiped with high tech gear and trained for the types of warfare predicted by military planners.  Add the further developement of cruise missils and drones and you have the "new military" for the 21rst Century.
> Bush inherited the military used in response to the 9/11 attacks and it worked exactly the way planned.
> Special Op's did the job in Afganistan in record time with minimum casualties. They defeated the Taliban protectors of Al Qaeda and chased both the Taliban and Al Qaeda out of Afganstan. They were not given the tools or support needed to complete an extended mission to pursue those forces into sanctuaries in Pakistan.
> In Irag the newly designed conventional warfare forces did exactly what they were meant to do. Armoured forces with layers of air support entered Irag with the best and most high tech equipment ever seen on a convetional battlefield. The Iraq military fell in record time and with minimum American casualties.
> ...




No, I was tied to a special ops unit in Florida under President Clinton starting in 1994, that is how I came to know about Temporary Early Retirement Authority or (TERA). We had a few Master Sargents feel the pressure to reduce manpower at our unit, I believe two took the offer. There was no increase to our special forces unit. Parts to repair the gunships also came in shorter supply, as we had to allow a few more planes to be used for parts. Our responsive role in Italy during the attack on June 25, 1996 was also rather quite. From my own experience, President Clinton did not do much at all in the battle against terrorism from a military perspective.


----------



## Antares (Jan 18, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> So let's be clear.
> 
> Republicans slash the shit out of embassy security, and then complain when one of our outposts gets attacked.
> 
> ...



Joe this lie has been completely exposed.

*Ms. Shea-Porter*

*Before this attack there had been budget cutbacks. And there was
a lot of talk about impact on budget cutbacks. So I would just like
to ask you did budget cutbacks in any way set up a stage for this event
*

*General Ham*

*No, ma'am, not as far as Africa Command was
concerned. There was not a budgetary constraint that affected my
decision-making in this event. *

Press Releases - News - Armed Services Republicans


----------



## percysunshine (Jan 18, 2014)

At this point, does Hillary's potential candidacy even matter any more?


----------



## Antares (Jan 18, 2014)

percysunshine said:


> At this point, does Hillary's potential candidacy even matter any more?



It depends on how all of this declassified info gets used.

I hope she tries to play the victim like she did against Lazio when he "invaded he personal space".

She is a stone cold bitch.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jan 18, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > _He didn't say it was Al Qaeda because we still don't really know if it was Al Qaeda. We do know that most of the middle east was damned upset about this video, even if they didn't see it._
> ...



Then what was the point of your statement?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jan 18, 2014)

S.J. said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Was he supposed to jump into a chopper and unleash a can of whoop-ass?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jan 18, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Joke:

Terrorist IS just a word.   But words, you moron, have meaning.

YOUR desire to deny the MEANING of certain words does not one damn thing to actually negate those meanings.  

Your fail is epic.

Post more bullshit.  It's funny to watch you flop and flounder so much.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Jan 18, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Well I doubt having Susan Rice as your PR spokeswoman, and using the United Nations as a CYOA personal political platform, has improved our nation's image with the Muslim world in making us any safer from extremists..... much like the first apology tour.


----------



## Camp (Jan 18, 2014)

S.J. said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Bullcrap. America abandoning it's own and it's friends and specific political partiy has nothing to do with it.  Truman abandoned American POW's to the Soviets after WWII and Eisenhower abandoned Americican POW's to North Korea and China. Johnson didn't abandon troops in Vietnam. Thats a mistake. The POW''s in Vietnam were abandoned by Nixon and Ford. Carter didn't abandone the hostages in Iran, he attempted to rescue them. They were not abandoned, they were released. The next group to be abandoned will be those who worked with and befriended us in Afghanistan. We promise and have promised people all over the world to stand and support them if they support us. We have broken those promises time after time. It is because we change governments with elections every few years. Newly elected officials do not feel an obligation to honor promises made by the previous elected officials. And sometimes we are just ruled by dishonest peope who can not be trusted.


----------



## Antares (Jan 18, 2014)

Camp said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



You are correct, the last time we FINISHED what we began was WWII.

Since then we have half assed every conflict we've entered.


----------



## Antares (Jan 18, 2014)

Theories like....

"Limited War"
"Rules of Engagement"
"Proportional Response"

Have neutered this Nation.


----------



## Camp (Jan 18, 2014)

Antares said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Sorry, I disagree. We left alot of unfinished crap at the "end" of WWII.


----------



## Antares (Jan 18, 2014)

So you agree with Patton, we should have just continued East and finished the Soviets


----------



## Camp (Jan 18, 2014)

Antares said:


> So you agree with Patton, we should have just continued East and finished the Soviets



We had the nuke, they didn't. Wouldn't have finished them as a people, but would have finished them as a viable military threat to Europe. Also would have told France and GB to fuck off on the colony bullshit. Let the colonies, including Indochina and Korea have independence.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 18, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


No, sub-human, he should have sent some help instead of worrying about covering his political ass.  Instead, he just left them to die.  I'm sure you would have done the same.

Benghazi hearing: U.S. military assets were told to stand down - CNN.com

Hicks went on to say he believes "if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced" -- around 9:30 that night -- "I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them."
The former deputy chief of mission suggested that the Libyan government would have granted the United States permission to fly the planes.
"I believe that the Libyans were hoping that we were going to come bail them out of this mess," Hicks said. "And, you know, they were as surprised as we were that ... the military forces that did arrive only arrived on the evening of September 12th."
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of the committee, tells CNN that "military personnel were ready willing and able, and within proximity, but the Pentagon told them they had no authority and to stand down."


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 18, 2014)

Antares said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > So let's be clear.
> ...



Well, if General Ham had enough money for security, then why isn't he facing a courtmartial for incompetence, then?  

Bottom line.  The GOP slashed the shit out of diplomatic security, and then complained when an office got attacked.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 18, 2014)

Camp said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > So you agree with Patton, we should have just continued East and finished the Soviets
> ...



If we had done that, the Soviets would have pushed our asses out of Europe.


----------



## Antares (Jan 18, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Poor Joe. 

*Mr. Nugent.*

*The Site Security Team left
on August 3rd. Whose decision was that to remove that Site Security
Team?*

*General Ham.*

*WellJ sir J for me it was simple. The Secretary of
Defense had issued what we call an execution order J which directed U.S.
AFRICOM to deploy the Site Security Team to Libya in support of the
Ambassador. And it was extended twice. And the termination date for
the second extension was the 3rd of August of 2012.**And there was not
a subsequent request by the State Department to review it.*

Hillary did not renew the request.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 18, 2014)

Now wait, guy, you are moving the goalposts again.  

The mlitary's job is not to secure embassies.  That's the State Department's job. 

The State Department that got 300 million slashed from embassy security.


----------



## Antares (Jan 18, 2014)

*Mr. Nugent.*

*So that would have been the State Department's
responsibility to request DOD to provide that Site Security Team?*

*General Ham.*

*That is correct) sir. *


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 18, 2014)

Yes, General Ham is very good at covering his ass... 

Other than that, what's your point?


----------



## Antares (Jan 18, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, General Ham is very good at covering his ass...
> 
> Other than that, what's your point?



LOL, every point you've attempted to make has been refuted by what I've posted.

Lick your wounds and move on.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 18, 2014)

S.J. said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



There were no orders to stand down.


----------



## Antares (Jan 18, 2014)

"Remain in place."


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 18, 2014)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFf0dUH3OtU]The White House Disinformation Campaign on Benghazi, Libya - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## S.J. (Jan 18, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...


You're a liar.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 18, 2014)

S.J. said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf

Finding # 7 page 29. 

Read it and fuck off.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 18, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


I prefer to take the word of the people who were there, not the ones who obstructed the investigation and told the witnesses to keep their mouths shut.  You are a useful idiot as well as a liar.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 18, 2014)

S.J. said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Coward.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 18, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


Now you're a DESPERATE, lying, useful idiot.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jan 18, 2014)

EVERYONE is overlooking the HUMOR of the thread title.

"Obama" and "correct" in the same fucking sentence.  

Hilarious!


----------



## blackhawk (Jan 18, 2014)

Well the New York Times article has been discredited by the Bi-Partisan Senate Intelligence Committee report so it looks like Obama was incorrect about Benghazi.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 18, 2014)

blackhawk said:


> Well the New York Times article has been discredited by the Bi-Partisan Senate Intelligence Committee report so it looks like Obama was incorrect about Benghazi.


The Times made a noble effort but everyone saw through it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 18, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



Correct. 

Of course most on the partisan right will attempt to keep this lie alive, ignoring the facts.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 18, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


Hey look, another useful idiot!


----------



## BDBoop (Jan 19, 2014)

David Ignatius: Senate intelligence report takes GOP tirades about Benghazi head-on - The Washington Post



> Driving the Republican jihad was a claim, first reported in October 2012 by Fox News, that CIA personnel had wanted to respond more quickly to the Benghazi attack but were ordered to stand down, perhaps by political higher-ups. Although this claim was promptly rebutted by CIA officials, it was repeated by Fox News at least 85 times, according to a review by the liberal advocacy group Media Matters. This barrage fueled Republican charges that the Democrats were engaging in a coverup.
> 
> The Senate intelligence report addressed this inflammatory charge head-on. The committee explored claims that there was a stand down order given to the security team at the annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the mission compound, the committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the chief of [the CIA] base or any other party.
> 
> The Senate panel also rejected the insinuation, made repeatedly by Republicans, that the Obama administration failed to scramble available military assets that could have defended the Benghazi annex and saved the lives of the four American victims. There were no U.S. military resources in position to intervene in short order in Benghazi, the report says flatly. The committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel .&#8201;.&#8201;. prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 19, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



There may not have been an order to stand down, but there wasn't an order to go where the shooting is either. That is what soldiers do when Americans are being shot at!  

There are several days in the year where troops should be on high alert and 9/11 is one of those days.  That would take some leadership from the Oval office.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 19, 2014)

TooTall said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Have you read the Senate report? 

If you have, why are you STILL saying things that are just not true? In what fantasy universe do you live? To say that no order was given to go where the shooting is.......is to say something that is in no way accurate. 

Just stop.


----------



## Decus (Jan 19, 2014)

If Obama was correct regarding Benghazi, when did he say insufficient effort was made to prepare for increased risk of attack?

The SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE delivered certain findings in their report. Here is their 2nd finding which can be found starting at the bottom of page 11 (reading pages 12 through 20 states just how much warning there was, causing the CIA annex in Benghazi to make numerous upgrades to their security prior to the attack).

From page 11 of the report:

_"FINDING #2: 
The State Department should have increased its security posture 
more significantly in Benghazi based on the deteriorating security situation on the ground and IC threat reporting on the prior attacks against Westerners in Benghazi  including two incidents at the Temporary Mission Facility on April 6 and June 6, 2012."_ 

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/benghazi.pdf


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 19, 2014)

Decus said:


> If Obama was correct regarding Benghazi, when did he say insufficient effort was made to prepare for increased risk of attack?
> 
> The SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE delivered certain findings in their report. Here is their 2nd finding which can be found starting at the bottom of page 11 (reading pages 12 through 20 states just how much warning there was, causing the CIA annex in Benghazi to make numerous upgrades to their security prior to the attack).
> 
> ...



You think he said otherwise? 

I am not going to search for it....but I am pretty sure that both he and Sec. Clinton have commented regarding there was a lack of adequate security there. 

You fuckers are persistent, if nothing else.


----------



## Decus (Jan 19, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> > If Obama was correct regarding Benghazi, when did he say insufficient effort was made to prepare for increased risk of attack?
> ...



Are you saying that they failed to act on a known risk? Looking at the Senate report it is clear that the risk was known months before the attack. In fact the CIA annex in Benghazi acted on the same information and made improvements to their security. Why was nothing done for the Ambassador?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 19, 2014)

Decus said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Decus said:
> ...



There was a failure to secure the place. That is obvious. The investigation resulted in proposals to TRY to insure that it is not repeated. The report goes into detail on the "why". And the answer does not point to the POTUS. Nor does it point to a dereliction of duty on behalf of Sec. Clinton. 

What sucks is your thirst for political blood. You will squeeze this for every drop because you are fucking crazy.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Jan 19, 2014)

BlindBoo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Well it appeared not to have effected Obama's scheduled fund raising efforts in Las Vegas, but then every President has their priorities. Yet at the same time liberals are to find President Bush's judgment questionable, for not leaving a classroom surrounded by young children in response to the World Trade Center attacks in New York?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 19, 2014)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



 [MENTION=36327]TheGreatGatsby[/MENTION]

It is a daily thing, bro. It just never stops.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2014)

Decus said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Decus said:
> ...



The ambassador didn't work out of Benghazi, he was just visiting that day.  

Look, hindsight is always 20/20.   

And what is pretty clear is that a lot of these agencies didn't talk to each other.  State didn't know that the CIA had operations in Benghazi, etc.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2014)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Well, I think continuing to do a photo op in the middle of an ongoing attack was kind of silly. 

So was saying, "Well, you've covered your ass" to the CIA breifer who told him Bin Laden was determined to strike at the US with airplanes.  

But, hey, let's give Bush passes on thousands of deaths while harping on Obama over four.


----------



## Decus (Jan 19, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Incredible. Do you realize that it was at the very least an act of negligence and possibly incompetence that led to the tragedy in Benghazi? From the same report:

"*In the months prior to the attack*, Ambassador Stevens and other State Department officials in Libya outlined concerns via cables to State Department headquarters about the security of the Mission compound 
in Benghazi *and made several requests for additional security resources.*"
page 14

Repeated requests were ignored!

Obviously some departments had better leadership than others:

"In contrast, *the CIA, in response to the same deteriorating security 
situation* and IC threat reporting, *consistently upgraded its security posture over the same time period*."
page 17 

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/benghazi.pdf


----------



## Antares (Jan 19, 2014)

*Mrs. Roby.*

*The President and the principals
discussed specific measures we are takirig in the homeland to prevent
9/11 related attacks, as well as the steps taken to protect U.S. persons
and facilities abroad as well as force protection.The President
reiterated the departments and agencies must do everything possible
to protect the American people both at home and abroad."

We cannot lay this at the feet of our Boi KIng (not directly)*


----------



## Antares (Jan 19, 2014)

*Mr. Conaway.*

*Did he receive an order to not go from anybody in
your chain of command?*

*General Ham.*

*He did not.*

We cannot lay this at the feet of ANYONE  _in the chain of command._


----------



## Antares (Jan 19, 2014)

*General Ham.*

*I know now
that Lieutenant Colonel Gibson requested approval to move to Benghazi
in the morning of the 12th. And it is understandable to me why he would
want to do that. What military people want to do is move to the sound
of the guns.**The decision was no_, you have a mission in Tripoli.*


----------



## Antares (Jan 19, 2014)

[BMs. Tsongas.][/B]

*To what degree are you
aware of had Lieutenant Colonel Gibson's request been granted) who would
have been left protecting the embassy in Tripoli?*

*General Ham.*

*Essentially no one) ma'am) other than the country
team staff) which is I think the primary rationale for the decision
to direct Lieutenant Colonel Gibson to remain in place.*

*......I think that was an absolutely vital role for them to have perform in Tripoli.**Had they boarded the aircraft and flown to Benghazi) the**likelihood is that actually they probably would have passed in the air
with Lieutenant Colonel Gibson and his team headed to Benghazi with
the aircraft with most of the evacuees, to I
nclude those who had been
wounded coming back to Tripoli.*


----------



## Antares (Jan 19, 2014)

*There would have been no one -- no
one well trained, certainly not as well trained as Lieutenant Colonel
Gibson and his team to receive them upon arrival.*

*Ms. Tsongas.*

*So essentially the order was to divert this desire
to be helpful to staying in Tripoli to greet those who were coming back
among that that them some injured, and so that they could also be sure
we were adequately protecting those staying still in Tripoli.*

They were ordered to remain in place to help with the wounded coming in from Benghazi, that makes sense.


----------



## Antares (Jan 19, 2014)

Here is what we have from the declassified materials.....

Obama knew within minutes that it was a terror attack and that it was not connected to the video.

Obama gave the order to ANYTHING necessary to protect out people...

Colonel Gibson saddled up his men to get to Benghazi to help BUT was ordered to "remain" in place so that his men could help tend to the wounded coming to Tripoli from Benghazi.

THAT was ordered by Admiral Lohse.


----------



## Antares (Jan 19, 2014)

That leaves us with the security force....it was reduced on August 3rd, nobody seems to know why exactly. There were NO requests for more security between August 3rd and Sept 11th.

Nobody seems to know why the Security Team was reduced either.


----------



## blackhawk (Jan 19, 2014)




----------



## S.J. (Jan 19, 2014)

blackhawk said:


>


Pass the buck is right.  That's all this administration does, they take responsibility for nothing.  Nothing is ever their fault.


----------



## depotoo (Jan 19, 2014)

S.J. said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Nor anyone in it.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Jan 19, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Actually placing the majority of your attention towards trying to lay blame on a video over your own administrative responsibilities and mistakes, when an attack had just occurred claiming American lives, doesn't speak well for this Comander-in-Chiefs character. Apparently saving his own self image is a lot more important than those lives that were lost, provided he can break away from his Las Vegas fundraising long enough for an attack to get his attention. I don't recall President Bush wasting a lot of time making public excuses through PR media blitzes, and before the United Nation, in an attempt to save face for what had just occurred after the World Trade Center and Pentigon attacks. Actually he looked to see what went wrong, uncovering why various intelligence agencies were not speaking to each other and sharing information. Perhaps President Obama should have concerned himself with investigating into issues such as that, at the time, and less about how it might effect his campaign donations.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 19, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.
> ...



Each other, in the echo chamber.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jan 19, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.
> ...



^ 

leftwhiner laps that shit right the fuck up.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 19, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



What do you want me to say? Obama slept through Benghazi and went on a plane to Vegas the next day. Those are the facts. Oh, and lest we forget his made-up video excuse cover-up.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 19, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



I want you to say that you now understand that the your fellow conservatives are the ones who bring up BOOOOOOOOOOSH in thread after thread. Not, as you have complained, liberals. 

That is what I want you to say. For once in the history of nutter message board participation I want a nutter to retract a statement and admit his fucking mistake. Get it?


----------



## Antares (Jan 19, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



So then you are ready to retract all of the "it was the video" shit?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 19, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Are you fucking retarded? I've explained this on more than one occasion now, that my thread was never about comparing conservatives' and liberals actions. I said it was epidemic among liberals to not hold Obama accountable and to deflect with Bush talk. That is still true. I made 'no fucking mistake' you big bag of puke.


----------



## Antares (Jan 19, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



*Obama slept through Benghazi and went on a plane to Vegas the next day.*

That's not true, whatever he DID or DID not do that we think he should have, he DID give the order to WHATEVER was needed to protect our people.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 19, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



First of all, I have never once said that "it was the video". I didn't even comment on causes of  the Benghazi attack until a few weeks after it occurred. I always wait for the dust to settle so as to avoid saying something stupid. 

I understand that the information available to the President in the days after the attack included the video as a possible motivator of the attack. 

The is nothing to retract. 

Perhaps you can call me out on something that I actually said that I need to retract?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 19, 2014)

Antares said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Thanks, Rommels. I'll let you know if I need anything else.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 19, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Unable to come clean. Loser.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 19, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Look at you.....another proven mistake that you will not come clean on. Man...you suck.


----------



## Antares (Jan 19, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Sure thing, I can understand you being comfy in your ignorance...next you'll claim I am a

Lib


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 19, 2014)

Antares said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



I don't care how you classify yourself politically. You're a propagandist.


----------



## Antares (Jan 19, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



LOL, I am a guy who detests the Boi King.....but I am also a guy with integrity...and in this case I'll go with the word of the General who briefed him on what was happening.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 19, 2014)

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 19, 2014)

Antares said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Obama has never accounted for his actions during Benghazi. That's first off. And who cares that a bullied general lied for him. Furthermore, Obama spun a lie about a video after Benghazi. Those are the facts. To say nothing of the inaction to save Americans or the further cover-ups after the fact.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 19, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Why the delete genius! Had some second thoughts?


----------



## Antares (Jan 19, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



*And who cares that a bullied general lied for him.*

Can you prove he was "bullied"?
(He couldn't have been too bullied, Obama replaced him anyway.)

*Furthermore, Obama spun a lie about a video after Benghazi. *

Yes he did.

*To say nothing of the inaction to save Americans or the further cover-ups after the fact*

Obama gave the order to do WHATEVER was needed, we'll need to look elsewhere for the reasons we couldn't muster the personnel needed to save the men who died.

The video story was (in my opinion) given as a cover for Hillary.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 19, 2014)

Please see page 46 to 53. 

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf

The official talking points ( not the same thing as your everyday pundit talking points ) following the incident were edited 12 times by members of the IC and the State Department. 

In all 12 edits, the verbiage regarding the demonstrations related to the video was left intact. The intelligence community believed that it had something to so with it. It was not a cover for anyone. It is not "made up". For the love of all that is honest...please stop with that story line.


----------



## Antares (Jan 19, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Please see page 46 to 53.
> 
> http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf
> 
> ...



Nope, sorry. General Ham said there NO demonstrations, there weren't.....so for the next two Bammy lied through his teeth.

Irrefutable.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 19, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Please see page 46 to 53.
> ...



Refuted in the talking points. 

At question is not if there were....but if the Admin HONESTLY BELIEVED there were based on intel at the time. They did. 

This shit has been put through a strainer.


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 19, 2014)

Antares said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



integrity & you use the term "boi king"?  Riiight.  You're a partisan hack. Where you get that term from anyway? because I've heard another loser here, who shall remain nameless, use it too


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 19, 2014)

Antares said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Yup. That's the pattern. Anyone with knowledge has been silenced. You are deluded if you think Obama was worried about a fake story for Hillary amidst a presidential election. No, he was worried about the security lapses on 9/11.

And again, Obama has never accounted for his actions. I don't care what pandering crap you think a frightened general said. We saw firsthand how pathetic Obama's actions were. And for that matter WHATEVER was not done. NOT EVEN FUCKING CLOSE.


----------



## Antares (Jan 19, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



There was no demonstration LL, none.

NOBODY believed there was one, they spun it for Hillary....Ham briefed Obama within 20 minutes of its start...


----------



## Antares (Jan 19, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



I detest the Boi King Dot....I do however believe DID give the order General Ham says he did, protect Americans at all costs.

You? you are the partisan hack....you'd swallow Bammy jizz no matter what he said or did.


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 19, 2014)

Antares said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



whats w/ the "boi king" & "Bammy"? Racist much? On ignore you go Rightard.  I don't know why I waited this long.

As to the OP, millions wasted by Issa(R)  MILLIONS of taxpayer $$$ for nothing because it was a rw hack witch hunt


----------



## Decus (Jan 19, 2014)

There is a growing consensus that Obama is either misguided or incompetent in matters relating to foreign affairs. One more expert has gone on the record to openly state that Obama is doing harm to America's stature in the world:

_"A top British defense adviser has called President Barack Obama &#8220;chronically incapable&#8221; of implementing a successful military strategy in Syria and Afghanistan, and has "no sense of what he wants to do in the world."" _

Top UK Defense Adviser: Obama has 'No Sense' of World Military Strategy

Sadly this is also the perception of the president's Libya strategy.


----------



## Antares (Jan 19, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...




Poor Dottie...an "offended" lil black chile...


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 19, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 19, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> As to the OP, millions wasted by Issa(R)  MILLIONS of taxpayer $$$ for nothing because it was a rw hack witch hunt



That's rich. An Obama dick sucker complaining about (only) millions 'wasted.'


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Jan 19, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Is JoeB actually a conservative? I initially believed President Obama had used bad judgement, simply in choosing a fundraiser event as a priority over a terrorist attack. As it seems pretty obvious his self image is the most important characteristic concerning this president.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 20, 2014)

Antares said:


> There was no demonstration LL, none.
> 
> NOBODY believed there was one, they spun it for Hillary....Ham briefed Obama within 20 minutes of its start...



Even the far left Salon.com points out that the NY Times has no credibility, and is just a mouthpiece for the party/administration.

Manipulated by power: What is wrong with the New York Times? - Salon.com


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 27, 2014)

Antares said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Dear Dot Com and Antares:
I would agree with Dottie's objections that any such resorting to namecalling
is demeaning, abusing emotional reaction to bully opposition in an otherwise logical argument based on points and principles, and discredits the intent of the speaker as less effective.

On the other hand, the opposition to the mistreatment of Benghazi response, media representation and investigation was NOT just a "RW witch hunt"

People were truly offended, outraged and aggrieved and have legitimate grievances questioning the priorities of Obama and willingness to compromise for election and media politics.

This is a key issue that needs to be resolved or it obstructs our political democratic process.
Different events may trigger us to be offended by others, but that doesn't make us racist it just means we are human and react to different issues while forgiving others.

Dottie if you do not like the namecalling to demean, discredit or dismiss
then I suggest not dismissing the VALID points of the opposition either.

Both sides need to show more respect in order to command the same of others.

If it restores dignity and sense of respect here,
I apologize on behalf of whoever has offended you with
either opposition or namecalling or other political threats
that came across as racist or bigoted for unfair reasons or ill intent.

I do not approve of such tactics and I want you to hear
a sincere apology that this is going on, no matter where
it is coming from. I do not accept it either. Thank you and I'm sorry.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 27, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...




It takes a person with a big heart and a lot of humility to write something that human.

I applaud you.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 28, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > As to the OP, millions wasted by Issa(R)  MILLIONS of taxpayer $$$ for nothing because it was a rw hack witch hunt
> ...


How about Ted Cruz costing the taxpayers $20 Billion with his shutdown?

Are you a Ted Cruz dick sucker?


----------



## candycorn (May 3, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



Bump.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 3, 2014)

candycorn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> ...



Stupid Bump 

This makes rw look really stupid......and you bump it.


----------



## Zander (May 3, 2014)

Great idea to bump this thread. 

Everyone knows that Obama was "right" again. Like when he told us all those "truths" about Obamacare. How we'd all save $2500, and we could keep our plans and Doctors!! Like everyone knows that "Rightwinger" is a real right winger. 

It's the Ministry of Truth!!


----------



## rightwinger (May 3, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It is the truth

There were protests going on throughout the Muslim world that day and Benghazi was no different

Terrorist took advantage of the protests to stag an attack and Republicans took advantage of the terrorist attack for political gain


----------



## Zander (May 3, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Yes. It was those evil Republicans!!


----------



## rightwinger (May 3, 2014)

Zander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



First I have ever seen a political party use a terrorist attack for political gain


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 3, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Just as the partisan right has contrived Benghazi in to a controversy for some perceived political gain.


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 3, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Rightwinger - I suggest that you go back and read your OP. You're simply a victim of your own party. 

Propaganda is a bitch. It sucks you in, spins you and then, when you actually see or hear the truth, makes you feel like a fool. 

And you wonder why I call liberals "Nazis"......


----------



## Zander (May 3, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I agree. It was despicable how the Obama Admin trotted out that lying bitch Suan Rice on 5 television shows to tell us that the Benghazi attack was "a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islamic video".


----------



## tinydancer (May 3, 2014)

Geeze louise who was the one that brought out this thread from the Lazarus files? 

The liberals trying so desperately in this one is hysterical.


----------



## tinydancer (May 3, 2014)

Geeze louise who was the one that brought out this thread from the Lazarus files? 

The liberals trying so desperately in this one is hysterical.


----------



## percysunshine (May 3, 2014)

I am starting to think that rightwinger is a conservative with a twisted sense of humor.

.


----------



## Mertex (May 3, 2014)

tinydancer said:


> Geeze louise who was the one that brought out this thread from the Lazarus files?
> 
> The liberals trying so desperately in this one is hysterical.




Yeah sure....that is why Issa kept dragging it on....oops, Issa is not a liberal...my bad..


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 3, 2014)

Oh lookie, whoda thought trolls would bump an old thread that makes them look foolish.


----------



## depotoo (May 3, 2014)

percysunshine said:


> I am starting to think that rightwinger is a conservative with a twisted sense of humor.
> 
> .


I believe he is an admitted progressive. He just hopes others that don't know will think otherwise.


----------



## Rozman (May 3, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
> 
> A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.



I guess that mkes it OK for Libs...
Just a bunch of peace loving Muslims...
Who just happened to have some rocket propelled granade launchers and Mortars
that they figured it was time to put to use... LOL


----------



## RoadVirus (May 3, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Spoken like a true Leftist drone.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 3, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Victim or willing participant? It's a fine line, maybe.


----------



## candycorn (May 4, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



They haven't gained politically....f'ing hilarious they keep it going when nobody cares.


----------



## Darkwind (May 4, 2014)

Obama has been correct so rarely, that the entire would would stop and gape in astonishment if it were to happen.  I haven't see anyone gaping since 9/11/12.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (May 4, 2014)

So, just to recap....

Obama and Hillary both get accused of apathy, because of the attack in Benghazi.

Benghazi is not actually an embassy nor a consulate, but rather a CIA outpost.

No one was told to "stand down," but instead told not to attempt coming all that way just to be far too late to help.

The actual battle did not span seven hours, instead the fighting (two separate attacks) lasted only several minutes.

Fake pictures surface of an American, supposedly being tortured, are latter found to be from Canada!!! 

Stevens, the guy who spilled these beans in the first place, LIED about being punished with a transfer after it was discovered that HE requested it. 

Obama was in fact NOT SLEEPING, because Rush Limburger is too stupid to realize that it was 10 O'clock at night in Libya, but 4 PM in DC! 

Obama ... accused of doing nothing to help ... was in reality, briefed within the hour, instructing the military to do 'whatever was necessary.'

A Republican led investigation found no wrong doing.




Oh, but NOW we finally have the evidence to impeach Obama, that thus far, had eluded everyone! 

Nice ... I'm not buying. 

Crying wolf for two years has done irreversible damage to my tenuous belief that ANYTHING other than a partisan witch-hunt was afoot, here.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 5, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Candy is a lot of things, bright ain't one of them.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 5, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Just as the partisan right has contrived Benghazi in to a controversy for some perceived political gain.



This is why you had to settle for law school in the Philippines, Saul...

{Late last week, House Speaker John Boehner announced he will be putting together a select committee to investigate the 9/11 attack in Benghazi after bombshell emails obtained by Judicial Watch showed the White House was directly involved in altering talking points. Further, Secretary of State John Kerry was issued a subpoena demanding more documentation and asked to give testimony on May 21 in front of the House Oversight Committee about the attack. }

Details on Benghazi Select Committee to Be Released This Week - Katie Pavlich

You're just not the best and brightest - you know?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 5, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Oh, but NOW we finally have the evidence to impeach Obama, that thus far, had eluded everyone!
> 
> Nice ... I'm not buying.
> 
> Crying wolf for two years has done irreversible damage to my tenuous belief that ANYTHING other than a partisan witch-hunt was afoot, here.



Dude, you're a partisan hack.

Obama could rape and murder a small boy on national TV and you'd call any attempt to impeach a "witch hunt."

I'm just sayin...


----------



## Camp (May 5, 2014)

Select committees are jokes. They are rarely taken seriously. They give opportunities to majority members and minority members to write separate reports that more often than not give totally partisan conclusions of the subject of the committee. The kicker is that the tax payer foots the bill for printing up almost unlimited amounts of these reports that look like very official documents in book form. Of course they also get printed online and thus become quoted by the opposing sides endlessly as if they were indeed, official government conclusions when they are nothing of the sort. If there is such a thing as official government propaganda, Select Committee Report on......is at the top of the list.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 5, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> So, just to recap....
> 
> Obama and Hillary both get accused of apathy, because of the attack in Benghazi.
> 
> ...



But Dude, it was like, two years ago.

Obama told everyone to do what was necessary, but what was necessary seems elusive. Obama walked away, got the hell out of there, and nobody knows where he was. Obama's team of experts decided to do nothing, and instead dreamed up a false narrative and stuck to it knowing they were full of crap. 

So it depends on your perspective.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 5, 2014)

Camp said:


> Select committees are jokes. They are rarely taken seriously. They give opportunities to majority members and minority members to write separate reports that more often than not give totally partisan conclusions of the subject of the committee. The kicker is that the tax payer foots the bill for printing up almost unlimited amounts of these reports that look like very official documents in book form. Of course they also get printed online and thus become quoted by the opposing sides endlessly as if they were indeed, official government conclusions when they are nothing of the sort. If there is such a thing as official government propaganda, Select Committee Report on......is at the top of the list.



Yeah, total waste of time. 

Terrible waste of money. But so is everything Obam proposes.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 5, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Yeah, but Obama got Bin Laden, so case closed.....


----------



## Zander (May 6, 2014)

It was a YouTube video!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## whitehall (May 6, 2014)

Did the Times manage to dig up one a-hole who claimed he was offended by an obscure you tube video? The Times is worse than pathetic.


----------



## Lenore (May 6, 2014)

Surprise surprise. The New York Times defends Obama.

Obviously, the rest of the world is mistaken. The NYT has such a golden record when it comes to exposing the truth about the current admin.


----------



## natstew (May 6, 2014)

Warning! Warning!
Arguing with liberals could have a lowering effect on your IQ!!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 6, 2014)

Zander said:


> It was a YouTube video!



That the Muzzie Beasts played on the asshole of their camels..


----------



## mudwhistle (May 6, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> So, just to recap....
> 
> Obama and Hillary both get accused of apathy, because of the attack in Benghazi.
> 
> ...



That's the spin.

Nice to have the facts hidden so long so you can make all of these false claims. 

Televise the hearings and all of the misinformation will fall by the wayside.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 6, 2014)

Camp said:


> Select committees are jokes. They are rarely taken seriously. They give opportunities to majority members and minority members to write separate reports that more often than not give totally partisan conclusions of the subject of the committee. The kicker is that the tax payer foots the bill for printing up almost unlimited amounts of these reports that look like very official documents in book form. Of course they also get printed online and thus become quoted by the opposing sides endlessly as if they were indeed, official government conclusions when they are nothing of the sort. If there is such a thing as official government propaganda, Select Committee Report on......is at the top of the list.



You mean like the Watergate select committee. Oh, but that one had repubs asking the tough question of a repub admin. You won't see any dems do the same for this one. Because they are not Americans. They are subversives.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 6, 2014)




----------



## HUGGY (May 6, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


>



So what?  Did anyone come to harm because there was some initial conflict over the first reports about the incident in Benghazi?

FOX news intentionally lies to the public every single day.  What is your point?


----------



## srlip (May 6, 2014)

Dems voted, to a man, for obamacare, not a single Republican voted for it.  We KNOW clinton is all for it, and we know it sucks and can't be funded. We know clinton is a scumbag who should have been locked up 20years ago, for travelgate, insider trading, etc. Dems voted, to a man, to not convict the  MALE clinton, even tho it was proven beyond a doubt that he'd lied to Congress (which is a FELONY) dems will vote for an old yeller dog if he's a Dem, for a fact.


----------



## d_tyler (May 6, 2014)

Can you honestly ask that question with a straight face?  

Physical harm....the damage had already been done.  Brave soldiers were dead...along with US Ambassador Stevens.  What more harm do you need?  It doesn't matter what the lie was ...  it was the fact that the initial reports were FABRICATED!!!!

Let's do it this way...  Your son is killed in a gang fight at a club.  He's stabbed over a dozen times.  The owner of the club tells the two bouncer / security guys to NOT call the police officers that are just down the block.  Your son and 3 of his friends are dead.  In a search for answers, the investigators are not allowed to speak with the bouncers and witnesses.  The owner of the club insists that the fight broke out because your son knows somebody who said something disrespectful about somebody that the guy with the knife knows.  He even goes on TV the next day and says it happened due to somebody saying the wrong thing.  No details...no accountability.  But all appearances of the security camera video shows that 10 gang members methodically selected your son and 3 friends and killed them in a cold blooded attack.

Are you gonna accept that?

Now, let's say you get a call from NY Times and they tell you that they interviewed over 100 people who say that there was no gang related activity surrounding this event.

Are you still ok with this?


It's funny that you accuse FOX of lies when you believe the BS that comes out of the WH.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 6, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Oh, so somebody has to die before it's a crime....

Keep moving the goalposts.


----------



## HUGGY (May 6, 2014)

d_tyler said:


> Can you honestly ask that question with a straight face?
> 
> Physical harm....the damage had already been done.  Brave soldiers were dead...along with US Ambassador Stevens.  What more harm do you need?  It doesn't matter what the lie was ...  it was the fact that the initial reports were FABRICATED!!!!
> 
> ...



I believe the white house should have said "we will wait to comment until more facts have surfaced" before making any seemingly factual statements.

There was no criminal intent nor intentional miss use of the events that occured in Benghazi.  You people are so seperated from reality in an effort to make Obama look bad that you have lost all grip on what is important in our country.  You are mentally ill.  Seek help.


----------



## tinydancer (May 6, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> d_tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Can you honestly ask that question with a straight face?
> ...



They couldn't let anyone know it was a terror attack. Obama had vanquished Al Qaeda after all.

The Pentagon knew it was a terror attack immediately. 

*Pentagon labeled Benghazi a terrorist attack as Obama administration wavered: newly declassified testimony

Gen. Carter Hams newly declassified testimony before the House suggests the prospect of an out-of-control demonstration was not raised by Defense officials and that they immediately considered the incident an attack.

BY Leslie Larson
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Published: Tuesday, January 14, 2014, 1:23 PM
Updated: Tuesday, January 14, 2014, 1:23 PM*

From the testimony:

* "There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack," Panetta said of his early assessment of the situation on the ground in Benghazi.*

Pentagon labeled Benghazi a terrorist attack as Obama administration wavered: newly declassified testimony - NY Daily News


----------



## tinydancer (May 6, 2014)

The interference is obvious in the Nuland emails. This has been already been out front and center. It was an election year after all and this was politics at its worst.

*Leaked emails show that then State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland suggested that a CIA memo on Benghazi not include any reference of links to al-Qaeda and the intelligence warnings in the months preceding the attack.

Nuland wrote in protest to the CIA description, saying it "could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up on the State Department for not paying attention to warnings," in an email to the White House and the CIA, according to ABC.*

Pentagon labeled Benghazi a terrorist attack as Obama administration wavered: newly declassified testimony - NY Daily News


----------



## d_tyler (May 6, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> d_tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Can you honestly ask that question with a straight face?
> ...



Anytime a federal agency takes steps to lie to the American people in an attempt to cover up something, there is criminal intent.  Anytime false information is produced to shroud the truth, there is criminal intent.  

No one here is mentally ill...not even you.  But you do need help recognizing a cover up when you stare at one.


----------



## d_tyler (May 6, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> d_tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Can you honestly ask that question with a straight face?
> ...



Oh....and btw, there is no effort on our part to make Obama look bad.  He is doing that ALL BY HIMSELF.


----------



## HUGGY (May 6, 2014)

tinydancer said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > d_tyler said:
> ...



*"They couldn't let anyone know it was a terror attack. Obama had vanquished Al Qaeda after all."*

Seriously?  THAT is what you think this is all about.

That isn't the dumbest statement I've ever heard but certainly one of them.

Well I never heard such a claim.  I believe you owe this thread a link showing THAT assertion.

I am looking forward to seeing the claim from Obama about how Al Queda was vanquished.


----------



## Zander (May 6, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


Dumb fuck....


----------



## S.J. (May 7, 2014)

Obama is an actor, and not a very good one.


----------



## HUGGY (May 7, 2014)

Zander said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



I am the "dumb fuck?"

Decimated is NOT the same thing as "Vanquished"

Decimated:  "to severely damage or destroy *a large part *of (something)." as in to defeat a large part of something.

Vanquished: "To defeat or conquer in battle" *as in TOTAL defeat*

No sir...It is YOU that is the dumb fuck. 

You are simply just too stupid to understand the difference. 

Anyone that believes that it was not a serious blow to Al Qaeda to kill Bin Ladin and recover the information he had in that house in Pakistan is beyond a moron or in YOUR words..."a dumb fuck".

You people and you in particular are the only proof neccesary to come to the conclusion that America is doomed.

Your little video clip taken TOTALLY out of context is REALLY what you are all about isn't it.  You REALLY are this stupid.  Your leaders REALLY are this stupid.  

We will never have reasonable discourse with stupid people.  

It is most unfortunate for this country that there is no cure for stupidity.

What is also unfortunate is that you are too stupid to understand what I just told you.

We are doomed.


----------



## tinydancer (May 7, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



How many do you want? This was the mantra pre 2012.

*Today, Al Qaeda has been decapitated, one war has been ended and the other is heading toward resolution. *

'GM is alive, Osama is dead' is Obama's answer to Republicans - Los Angeles Times


----------



## tinydancer (May 7, 2014)

Nuland's emails:

*Leaked emails show that then State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland suggested that a CIA memo on Benghazi not include any reference of links to al-Qaeda and the intelligence warnings in the months preceding the attack.

Nuland wrote in protest to the CIA description, saying it "could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up on the State Department for not paying attention to warnings," in an email to the White House and the CIA, according to ABC.*

Pentagon labeled Benghazi a terrorist attack as Obama administration wavered: newly declassified testimony - NY Daily News


----------



## Politico (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.
> ...



More people than you ever did in your grandma's basement.


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 7, 2014)

tinydancer said:


> Nuland's emails:
> 
> *Leaked emails show that then State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland suggested that a CIA memo on Benghazi not include any reference of links to al-Qaeda and the intelligence warnings in the months preceding the attack.
> 
> ...



there are pages and pages of emails 

on how to cover this up 

more to follow


----------



## HUGGY (May 7, 2014)

tinydancer said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Are you REALLY this stupid?  Did you expect all terrorism would end when Ossama was killed?  Really?   OK..maybe you ARE that stupid.  

Nevermind.  My bad.  

I bet you threw an absolute fit when you discovered your parents had been keeping to themselves the truth about Santa Claus .  

Ha..ha..ha...ha...  Losers!

You people are pathetic.


----------



## Zander (May 7, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


Dumb fuck...


----------



## HUGGY (May 7, 2014)

Zander said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...


----------

