Analysis of Benghazi: Right Wing World Spin & Distortions

Once the American public figures out how much this Administration HAS lied to them and continues to lie to them I think they'll "give two fucks".

Nobody likes to be treated like an idiot and that's exactly what the Obama people did when they pushed that YouTube video narrative to explain what happened in Benghazi. They made a calculated decision to lie to the American people.

and this is where you exhibit what is commonly referred to as 'dementia'

why?

the incessant over-the-top attacks from the right make President Obama a sympathetic and heroic figure. To overcome such odds. :clap2:
 
Scuse me but the hearings were part of the Constitutional responsibility of Congress. Left wing ignorant paranoid nut cases might characterize the hearings in strange ways but the American public deserves the right to get to the truth. What the hell does the administration have to hide?
The American public doesn't give two fucks what the GOP Congress wants to do. They voted for Obama in 2012

They don't ?
Then why did the voters keep the GOP in power in the House?
Maybe because they control the purse stings.

Try to keep up: Congressional redistricting.:eusa_whistle:
 
Once the American public figures out how much this Administration HAS lied to them and continues to lie to them I think they'll "give two fucks".

Nobody likes to be treated like an idiot and that's exactly what the Obama people did when they pushed that YouTube video narrative to explain what happened in Benghazi. They made a calculated decision to lie to the American people.

and this is where you exhibit what is commonly referred to as 'dementia'

why?

the incessant over-the-top attacks from the right make President Obama a sympathetic and heroic figure. To overcome such odds. :clap2:

Now Obama is "heroic" for how he's handled what happened in Benghazi? :cuckoo: I hate to point out the "inconvenient truth" here, Dante but what happened in Libya simply underscores the point that this Administration's Middle East plan is based more on what they "wish" the world was like than what the world really "is" like.

We cut back security for our diplomats because the Obama Administration was in love with a campaign slogan of Osama bin Laden is dead and GM is alive. Barry was on the stump bragging that he had Al Queda on the run. You don't beef up security if you've got Al Queda on the run...you lessen it! So when Ambassador Stevens pleaded for added security he was turned down by the State Department. Why? Because that went counter to how Obama and Clinton viewed what they had "achieved" in the fight against Islamic terror.

Now that was bad enough...but what turns Benghazi into the scandal that it's slowly become is how this Administration reacted once they found out that our diplomats WERE under attack. Rather than admit that they miscalculated, they decided to "manage" the event. Rather than immediately send help they immediately began to work on a the story that they wanted to sell to the American people...that this wasn't a planned terrorist attack but was a spontaneous mob reaction to a YouTube video. Two people died in the initial attack...something that was a result of a lack of security...but what's appalling is that two other Americans died 7 hours later simply because this Administration was more concerned with it's re-election chances than those people's lives.
 
Last edited:
Once the American public figures out how much this Administration HAS lied to them and continues to lie to them I think they'll "give two fucks".

Nobody likes to be treated like an idiot and that's exactly what the Obama people did when they pushed that YouTube video narrative to explain what happened in Benghazi. They made a calculated decision to lie to the American people.

and this is where you exhibit what is commonly referred to as 'dementia'

why?

the incessant over-the-top attacks from the right make President Obama a sympathetic and heroic figure. To overcome such odds. :clap2:

Now Obama is "heroic" for how he's handled what happened in Benghazi? :cuckoo:

reading and comprehension not your strong suit?

:eusa_whistle:
 
Once the American public figures out how much this Administration HAS lied to them and continues to lie to them I think they'll "give two fucks".

Nobody likes to be treated like an idiot and that's exactly what the Obama people did when they pushed that YouTube video narrative to explain what happened in Benghazi. They made a calculated decision to lie to the American people.

and this is where you exhibit what is commonly referred to as 'dementia'

why?

the incessant over-the-top attacks from the right make President Obama a sympathetic and heroic figure. To overcome such odds. :clap2:


We cut back security for our diplomats because the...

because the GOP fiscal hawks are in control of the purse strings. Funny how NOW they just added money...after the fact
 
sorry if this has already been posted -

Megyn Kelly Says Media Issued 'Collective Yawn' On Benghazi, Even Though It Was Covered Extensively

Megyn Kelly claimed on Thursday that the mainstream media issued a "collective yawn" about the Congressional hearings — a contention that drew scrutiny from some media-watchers.

Kelly quoted headlines from outlets like the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle and The Huffington Post which she felt underplayed the drama of the hearings.

"If you look at, sort of, across the mainstream media, it was a collective yawn," she said.

Ditzy Dum Dum speaks. Very funny and very typical of fux but don't look for facts.

The R knows there's nothing more but they're hoping to lay the groundwork to discredit Hillary in 2016. And, the nutters have a pretty short attention span and will find something else to lie about.
 
sorry if this has already been posted -

Megyn Kelly Says Media Issued 'Collective Yawn' On Benghazi, Even Though It Was Covered Extensively

Megyn Kelly claimed on Thursday that the mainstream media issued a "collective yawn" about the Congressional hearings — a contention that drew scrutiny from some media-watchers.

Kelly quoted headlines from outlets like the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle and The Huffington Post which she felt underplayed the drama of the hearings.

"If you look at, sort of, across the mainstream media, it was a collective yawn," she said.

Ditzy Dum Dum speaks. Very funny and very typical of fux but don't look for facts.

The R knows there's nothing more but they're hoping to lay the groundwork to discredit Hillary in 2016. And, the nutters have a pretty short attention span and will find something else to lie about.

The Hillary angle is over-hyped because it sells with progressive nitwits and right wing kooks.

This is about retaining and maybe gaining seats in 2014. The GOP base was defeated so badly in 2012 it was looking to be another 2006.

Hillary and 2016 are so far out any consideration on how this would affect things is lacking and laughable if it is taken too seriously

stop being such a pawn of media hype and learn some basic critical thinking skills...then come back to posting @ USMB
 
and this is where you exhibit what is commonly referred to as 'dementia'

why?

the incessant over-the-top attacks from the right make President Obama a sympathetic and heroic figure. To overcome such odds. :clap2:


We cut back security for our diplomats because the...

because the GOP fiscal hawks are in control of the purse strings. Funny how NOW they just added money...after the fact

935710_572393456115857_389872834_n.jpg
 
and this is where you exhibit what is commonly referred to as 'dementia'

why?

the incessant over-the-top attacks from the right make President Obama a sympathetic and heroic figure. To overcome such odds. :clap2:


We cut back security for our diplomats because the...

because the GOP fiscal hawks are in control of the purse strings. Funny how NOW they just added money...after the fact

You know what's REALLY funny, Dante? How the State Department's security chief for Libya, Charlene Lamb testified in front of the Senate committee and totally blew your progressive "talking point" right out of the water. Lamb said that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with the draw down of security personnel. I repeat...Lamb said that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with how many security personnel were in Libya.

Care to try some other line of bullshit?:razz:
 
and this is where you exhibit what is commonly referred to as 'dementia'

why?

the incessant over-the-top attacks from the right make President Obama a sympathetic and heroic figure. To overcome such odds. :clap2:

Now Obama is "heroic" for how he's handled what happened in Benghazi? :cuckoo:

reading and comprehension not your strong suit?

:eusa_whistle:

So he's been "heroic" for how he's handled the questions about how he handled what happened in Benghazi? Sorry, Dante but I don't see Barry being "heroic" in ANY context when it comes to the deaths of those four Americans. You even trying to make that argument is pure farce...
 
Analysis of Benghazi: Right Wing World Spin & Distortions

The Washington Times pretends to analyze fairly and with balance, the GOP obsession with Benghazi

The GOP promises 'bombshells' and promises to 'expose' things that have supposedly been 'suppressed'. GOP members are 'shocked' (ever watch FOX News commentators who are 'shocked' on a daily basis?) by 'press reports' (from FOX?) about 'whistleblowers' 'intimidation' and possible 'coverups' ---

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican, has promised bombshells at the hearing, which he says will “expose new facts and details that the Obama administration has tried to suppress.”

“I strongly urge the Senate to hold new hearings on Benghazi” ...He added that he was “shocked” by press reports that survivors of the attack or other whistleblowers might have been intimidated...

Mr. Issa has publicly accused the State Department of trying to muzzle potential Benghazi witnesses...leading to speculation that his hearing will feature testimony from one or more whistleblowers.

Lawyers Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing, who say they are trying to represent Benghazi witnesses who want to testify publicly about what they know...Mr. diGenova said on Fox News that the hurdles he faced amounted to a “cover-up” and that the Accountability Review Board failed to interview key witnesses for its report, starting with Mrs. Clinton.

--- the Washington Times prints this shit and then covers itself with something most of Right Wing World will magically glide over without really absorbing...

[The accountability review board “interviewed everyone that was there who played a role in the events such that their account was needed to answer the questions they had,” said the source familiar with the review, speaking on the condition of anonymity."

...the person familiar with the investigation by the accountability review board, which published a 40-page report last year, insisted that the board already interviewed 100 witnesses, including all the CIA and State Department personnel involved in the defense of the diplomatic post and of the secret CIA base known as the annex a few miles away.

They also had access to transcripts of all the FBI interviews of those and other witnesses.

“The unclassified report is the best account of the events as they unfolded,” he said, adding that, although the inquiry also issued a longer classified report, its conclusions were the same.

The classified version “amplifies and extends the account the Board gave [in the published version] but doesn’t in any way change the conclusions it came to,” said the person, who had access to both versions.]


Benghazi investigations included CIA activities; personnel had secret base in Libyan city - Washington Times

What is wrong with this picture? Is the Washington Times reporting/spinning anything new, anything that was previously unknown?

:eusa_whistle:
:razz:how many threads are you going to start about Benghazi ??:razz:
 
There was plenty of money in the embassy budgets to buy up the failing Volt cars and give them to embassies when the Volt needed propping up.
 
We cut back security for our diplomats because the...

because the GOP fiscal hawks are in control of the purse strings. Funny how NOW they just added money...after the fact

You know what's REALLY funny, Dante? How the State Department's security chief for Libya, Charlene Lamb testified in front of the Senate committee and totally blew your progressive "talking point" right out of the water. Lamb said that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with the draw down of security personnel. I repeat...Lamb said that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with how many security personnel were in Libya.

Care to try some other line of bullshit?:razz:

Charlene Lamb who had to resign in disgrace?

The report also called on Congress to fully fund the State Department's security initiative, noting that budget constraints in the past had led some management officials to emphasize savings over security despite numerous requests from the Benghazi mission and embassy in Tripoli for enhanced protection.

'For many years the State Department has been engaged in a struggle to obtain the resources necessary to carry out its work with varying degrees of success,' it said.

This has led to efficiencies but also 'had the effect of conditioning a few State Department managers to favor restricting the use of resources as a general orientation.'

It said the number of Diplomatic Security staff in Benghazi before and on the day of the attack 'was inadequate despite repeated requests ... for additional staffing.'


also a VIDEO: Fmr. Sec. Boswell testifies on security in June 2011:
 
because the GOP fiscal hawks are in control of the purse strings. Funny how NOW they just added money...after the fact

You know what's REALLY funny, Dante? How the State Department's security chief for Libya, Charlene Lamb testified in front of the Senate committee and totally blew your progressive "talking point" right out of the water. Lamb said that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with the draw down of security personnel. I repeat...Lamb said that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with how many security personnel were in Libya.

Care to try some other line of bullshit?:razz:

Charlene Lamb who had to resign in disgrace?

The report also called on Congress to fully fund the State Department's security initiative, noting that budget constraints in the past had led some management officials to emphasize savings over security despite numerous requests from the Benghazi mission and embassy in Tripoli for enhanced protection.

'For many years the State Department has been engaged in a struggle to obtain the resources necessary to carry out its work with varying degrees of success,' it said.

This has led to efficiencies but also 'had the effect of conditioning a few State Department managers to favor restricting the use of resources as a general orientation.'

It said the number of Diplomatic Security staff in Benghazi before and on the day of the attack 'was inadequate despite repeated requests ... for additional staffing.'


also a VIDEO: Fmr. Sec. Boswell testifies on security in June 2011:

People who are in charge when a FUBAR as big as Benghazi take place generally resign in disgrace...unless of course your name is Hilary and then it's something that you knew NOTHING about.

Charlene Lamb learned first hand the "joy" of working for superiors who operate like Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. When things go well it's because of them...when things go badly it's because of you.
 
You know what's REALLY funny, Dante? How the State Department's security chief for Libya, Charlene Lamb testified in front of the Senate committee and totally blew your progressive "talking point" right out of the water. Lamb said that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with the draw down of security personnel. I repeat...Lamb said that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with how many security personnel were in Libya.

Care to try some other line of bullshit?:razz:

Charlene Lamb who had to resign in disgrace?

The report also called on Congress to fully fund the State Department's security initiative, noting that budget constraints in the past had led some management officials to emphasize savings over security despite numerous requests from the Benghazi mission and embassy in Tripoli for enhanced protection.

'For many years the State Department has been engaged in a struggle to obtain the resources necessary to carry out its work with varying degrees of success,' it said.

This has led to efficiencies but also 'had the effect of conditioning a few State Department managers to favor restricting the use of resources as a general orientation.'

It said the number of Diplomatic Security staff in Benghazi before and on the day of the attack 'was inadequate despite repeated requests ... for additional staffing.'


also a VIDEO: Fmr. Sec. Boswell testifies on security in June 2011:

People who are in charge when a FUBAR as big as Benghazi take place generally resign in disgrace...unless of course your name is Hilary and then it's something that you knew NOTHING about.

Charlene Lamb learned first hand the "joy" of working for superiors who operate like Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. When things go well it's because of them...when things go badly it's because of you.

you do know this is easily refuted with examples and facts? :eusa_whistle:
 
We're talking about Benghazi! It's your job as a progressive "mouthpiece" for the Obama Administration to OBSCURE the facts about Benghazi. Remember the drill, little buddy...pretend it never happened...pretend it was something it never was...pretend it's all a political witch hunt...and above all stonewall any and all investigations for as long as you possibly can.
 

Forum List

Back
Top