Bengazi documents disprove all Pub myths

[blastoff]

How many days later was it again that Barry told his video tale at the UN?

 

[Jarhead]

In an information vacuum, the angry mob wants immediate answers. When they don't get them, their hack media outlets are more than happy to make some shit up for them. And that is exactly what Fox News did. Fox invented the stand down order. I don't know who it was who invented the "Obama watched as they died" lie, but the rubes sure did run with that.

The Obama Administration was under pressure to present every last detail in a nice neat package within 24 hours of the attack, and now they think any contradictions are evidence of some kind of cover-up. They parse every little word, completely missing the big picture. It just does not get any dumber than that. This demand for an accurate report within days of this kind of event is a ridiculous standard, but I'm sure the hypocritical rubes will forget all about that standard if and when a Republican is ever back in the White House.

As I said in October of that year, it would be several months before any kind of investigation could reach any solid determinations. But a retard doesn't like to wait. They'd rather drink some piss than wait for the truth.

I hope you all learned something, but I doubt it.

I notice this happens a lot. They dont have answers and never run out of questions so they use their lack of information as a basis to suspect something fishy is going on.

wrong.

The fact that questions are asked and not answered is why we are suspect something fishy is going on.

For example...

Fast and Furious....The President didn't know of it and the AG did not know of it. So we asked..."who did and who approved it?"

No answer. Sounds kind of fishy to me.

Benghazi....The President claimed the military said it would take 10 hours to get there and that would be too late. So we asked "how did you know how long the siege would take place?"

No answer. Sounds kind of fishy to me.

You see...I have no issue with Benghazi. I don't hold the President responsible. Shit happens in that part of the world.

But it is the lack of answers that pisses me off.

I have no issue with Fast and Furious. When dealing with the drug cartels, there is a good chance of danger.

But it is the fact that no one knew about it and no one in the administration wants to find out who approved it that pisses me off.

What I laugh at is how you guys talked about how Bush continually lied.....but you are more than willing to take THIS Presidents word as Gods word....even when some things don't make sense.

 

[Jarhead]

The guy says there was no stand down order and now the right is saying "Oh yeah, well...Yes you did!"

Get off the "stand down" thing. It was used incorrectly by the media.

All along the question was "why did we not go in and help them"

 

[DiamondDave]

Wow what a well reasoned retort

1) The thread has one intent.. trolling for angered responses
2) The poster is a well known troll with a history of trolling
3) The source, being Media Matters, is indeed an uber-biased source with a history of lies and deceit to fit their agenda of promoting leftist politics

There is no reason to take it seriously at all...

Intent? Troll? Source?

I notice you do everything you can to ignore whats in front of you to talk about things you imagine is going on. Cant deal with the substance so you go for guessing Intent and personal attacks just like ...someone with nothing

I will debate with opponents.. I will call out trolls

There is no 'substance' to be dealt with here.. it is hyper-partisan sensationalism... period..

 

[ClosedCaption]

1) The thread has one intent.. trolling for angered responses
2) The poster is a well known troll with a history of trolling
3) The source, being Media Matters, is indeed an uber-biased source with a history of lies and deceit to fit their agenda of promoting leftist politics

There is no reason to take it seriously at all...

Intent? Troll? Source?

I notice you do everything you can to ignore whats in front of you to talk about things you imagine is going on. Cant deal with the substance so you go for guessing Intent and personal attacks just like ...someone with nothing

I will debate with opponents.. I will call out trolls

There is no 'substance' to be dealt with here.. it is hyper-partisan sensationalism... period..

I know, but you should be debating facts not the people who say them.

 

[ClosedCaption]

In an information vacuum, the angry mob wants immediate answers. When they don't get them, their hack media outlets are more than happy to make some shit up for them. And that is exactly what Fox News did. Fox invented the stand down order. I don't know who it was who invented the "Obama watched as they died" lie, but the rubes sure did run with that.

The Obama Administration was under pressure to present every last detail in a nice neat package within 24 hours of the attack, and now they think any contradictions are evidence of some kind of cover-up. They parse every little word, completely missing the big picture. It just does not get any dumber than that. This demand for an accurate report within days of this kind of event is a ridiculous standard, but I'm sure the hypocritical rubes will forget all about that standard if and when a Republican is ever back in the White House.

As I said in October of that year, it would be several months before any kind of investigation could reach any solid determinations. But a retard doesn't like to wait. They'd rather drink some piss than wait for the truth.

I hope you all learned something, but I doubt it.

I notice this happens a lot. They dont have answers and never run out of questions so they use their lack of information as a basis to suspect something fishy is going on.

wrong.

The fact that questions are asked and not answered is why we are suspect something fishy is going on.

For example...

Fast and Furious....The President didn't know of it and the AG did not know of it. So we asked..."who did and who approved it?"

No answer. Sounds kind of fishy to me.

Benghazi....The President claimed the military said it would take 10 hours to get there and that would be too late. So we asked "how did you know how long the siege would take place?"

No answer. Sounds kind of fishy to me.

You see...I have no issue with Benghazi. I don't hold the President responsible. Shit happens in that part of the world.

But it is the lack of answers that pisses me off.

I have no issue with Fast and Furious. When dealing with the drug cartels, there is a good chance of danger.

But it is the fact that no one knew about it and no one in the administration wants to find out who approved it that pisses me off.

What I laugh at is how you guys talked about how Bush continually lied.....but you are more than willing to take THIS Presidents word as Gods word....even when some things don't make sense.

So once you run out of questions is the bar? lol...

 

[Jarhead]

Intent? Troll? Source?

I notice you do everything you can to ignore whats in front of you to talk about things you imagine is going on. Cant deal with the substance so you go for guessing Intent and personal attacks just like ...someone with nothing

I will debate with opponents.. I will call out trolls

There is no 'substance' to be dealt with here.. it is hyper-partisan sensationalism... period..

I know, but you should be debating facts not the people who say them.

OK. So lets debate this fact.

Fact: When the siege began, we had no idea how long it would last

Fact: The administration said we did not go in because it would have taken too long to go there.

Question up for debate.....How did the President know how long the siege would last?

 

[Jarhead]

I notice this happens a lot. They dont have answers and never run out of questions so they use their lack of information as a basis to suspect something fishy is going on.

wrong.

The fact that questions are asked and not answered is why we are suspect something fishy is going on.

For example...

Fast and Furious....The President didn't know of it and the AG did not know of it. So we asked..."who did and who approved it?"

No answer. Sounds kind of fishy to me.

Benghazi....The President claimed the military said it would take 10 hours to get there and that would be too late. So we asked "how did you know how long the siege would take place?"

No answer. Sounds kind of fishy to me.

You see...I have no issue with Benghazi. I don't hold the President responsible. Shit happens in that part of the world.

But it is the lack of answers that pisses me off.

I have no issue with Fast and Furious. When dealing with the drug cartels, there is a good chance of danger.

But it is the fact that no one knew about it and no one in the administration wants to find out who approved it that pisses me off.

What I laugh at is how you guys talked about how Bush continually lied.....but you are more than willing to take THIS Presidents word as Gods word....even when some things don't make sense.

So once you run out of questions is the bar? lol...

all we ask for is our questions answered.

So answer this:

Who approved fast and furious?

 

[BlindBoo]

The guy says there was no stand down order and now the right is saying "Oh yeah, well...Yes you did!"

Get off the "stand down" thing. It was used incorrectly by the media.

All along the question was "why did we not go in and help them"

The survivors were evacuated to the secret CIA Annex. There was a team sent from Tripoli to evacuate them to the embassy there. Weren't they out of Benghazi with in 12 hours of the attack?

 

[Jarhead]

The guy says there was no stand down order and now the right is saying "Oh yeah, well...Yes you did!"

Get off the "stand down" thing. It was used incorrectly by the media.

All along the question was "why did we not go in and help them"

The survivors were evacuated to the secret CIA Annex. There was a team sent from Tripoli to evacuate them to the embassy there. Weren't they out of Benghazi with in 12 hours of the attack?

Yes. The survivors were.

Key word being "survivors"..

The question is.....how did the administration know that there was not enough time to get the military there to prevent the deaths of anyone?

 

[ClosedCaption]

wrong.

The fact that questions are asked and not answered is why we are suspect something fishy is going on.

For example...

Fast and Furious....The President didn't know of it and the AG did not know of it. So we asked..."who did and who approved it?"

No answer. Sounds kind of fishy to me.

Benghazi....The President claimed the military said it would take 10 hours to get there and that would be too late. So we asked "how did you know how long the siege would take place?"

No answer. Sounds kind of fishy to me.

You see...I have no issue with Benghazi. I don't hold the President responsible. Shit happens in that part of the world.

But it is the lack of answers that pisses me off.

I have no issue with Fast and Furious. When dealing with the drug cartels, there is a good chance of danger.

But it is the fact that no one knew about it and no one in the administration wants to find out who approved it that pisses me off.

What I laugh at is how you guys talked about how Bush continually lied.....but you are more than willing to take THIS Presidents word as Gods word....even when some things don't make sense.

So once you run out of questions is the bar? lol...

all we ask for is our questions answered.

So answer this:

Who approved fast and furious?

IDK

the point is that you will never run out of questions so to say that there are questions unanswered as the reason to make up shit. You will never find the answer to anything.

Take any subject: Pencil...Why is it yellow? Person answers I dont know and you go AHA!!! Until we know pencils might be made of gold dust.

 

[BlindBoo]

I will debate with opponents.. I will call out trolls

There is no 'substance' to be dealt with here.. it is hyper-partisan sensationalism... period..

I know, but you should be debating facts not the people who say them.

OK. So lets debate this fact.

Fact: When the siege began, we had no idea how long it would last

Fact: The administration said we did not go in because it would have taken too long to go there.

Question up for debate.....How did the President know how long the siege would last?

Ah, I see what you did there. Using siege instead of attack. Was the president informed that the Consulate was under siege or had been attacked and was on fire?

What else was he told and what did he order his commanders to do?

 

[Jarhead]

So once you run out of questions is the bar? lol...

all we ask for is our questions answered.

So answer this:

Who approved fast and furious?

IDK

the point is that you will never run out of questions so to say that there are questions unanswered as the reason to make up shit. You will never find the answer to anything.

Take any subject: Pencil...Why is it yellow? Person answers I dont know and you go AHA!!! Until we know pencils might be made of gold dust.

That is a very childish accusation.

I am not asking what the guy was wearing when he authorized F and F.

The question of "who authorized it" came up immediately.

The president said he knew nothing about it.

The AG said he knew nothing about it.

Both claimed to NOT know who authorized it.

Both admitted that they were upset about the operation.

Yet....

to this day, no one knows who authorized it.

Making it a very valid question.

 

[Jarhead]

I know, but you should be debating facts not the people who say them.

OK. So lets debate this fact.

Fact: When the siege began, we had no idea how long it would last

Fact: The administration said we did not go in because it would have taken too long to go there.

Question up for debate.....How did the President know how long the siege would last?

Ah, I see what you did there. Using siege instead of attack. Was the president informed that the Consulate was under siege or had been attacked and was on fire?

What else was he told and what did he order his commanders to do?

Semantics?

Not going there.

So here is my question....

Why was the military not ordered to get there and do what they can to stop the attack?

 

[BlindBoo]

Get off the "stand down" thing. It was used incorrectly by the media.

All along the question was "why did we not go in and help them"

The survivors were evacuated to the secret CIA Annex. There was a team sent from Tripoli to evacuate them to the embassy there. Weren't they out of Benghazi with in 12 hours of the attack?

Yes. The survivors were.

Key word being "survivors"..

The question is.....how did the administration know that there was not enough time to get the military there to prevent the deaths of anyone?

Because that's what his commanders in the field advised him to do? They knew the survivors were likely safe at the Annex and from then on the mission was to evacuate.

 

[ClosedCaption]

all we ask for is our questions answered.

So answer this:

Who approved fast and furious?

IDK

the point is that you will never run out of questions so to say that there are questions unanswered as the reason to make up shit. You will never find the answer to anything.

Take any subject: Pencil...Why is it yellow? Person answers I dont know and you go AHA!!! Until we know pencils might be made of gold dust.

That is a very childish accusation.

I am not asking what the guy was wearing when he authorized F and F.

The question of "who authorized it" came up immediately.

The president said he knew nothing about it.

The AG said he knew nothing about it.

Both claimed to NOT know who authorized it.

Both admitted that they were upset about the operation.

Yet....

to this day, no one knows who authorized it.

Making it a very valid question.

Not saying it isnt valid but will the answer change anything? Lets say some guy name Joe Schmo authorized it. Now what?

More questions right? So again, if you have more questions and having questions is the bar for whether or not something is suspicious then everything will be suspicious forever

 

[Jarhead]

The survivors were evacuated to the secret CIA Annex. There was a team sent from Tripoli to evacuate them to the embassy there. Weren't they out of Benghazi with in 12 hours of the attack?

Yes. The survivors were.

Key word being "survivors"..

The question is.....how did the administration know that there was not enough time to get the military there to prevent the deaths of anyone?

Because that's what his commanders in the field advised him to do? They knew the survivors were likely safe at the Annex and from then on the mission was to evacuate.

Oh jeez...

You are way too pathetic to debate with.

Never the fuck mind you loser.

 

[Truthmatters]

I will debate with opponents.. I will call out trolls

There is no 'substance' to be dealt with here.. it is hyper-partisan sensationalism... period..

I know, but you should be debating facts not the people who say them.

OK. So lets debate this fact.

Fact: When the siege began, we had no idea how long it would last

Fact: The administration said we did not go in because it would have taken too long to go there.

Question up for debate.....How did the President know how long the siege would last?

past history of attacks


they happened under Bush too.


you just didn't care about THOSE dead people because you couldn't USE those deaths for political purposes

 

[Jarhead]

IDK

the point is that you will never run out of questions so to say that there are questions unanswered as the reason to make up shit. You will never find the answer to anything.

Take any subject: Pencil...Why is it yellow? Person answers I dont know and you go AHA!!! Until we know pencils might be made of gold dust.

That is a very childish accusation.

I am not asking what the guy was wearing when he authorized F and F.

The question of "who authorized it" came up immediately.

The president said he knew nothing about it.

The AG said he knew nothing about it.

Both claimed to NOT know who authorized it.

Both admitted that they were upset about the operation.

Yet....

to this day, no one knows who authorized it.

Making it a very valid question.

Not saying it isnt valid but will the answer change anything? Lets say some guy name Joe Schmo authorized it. Now what?

More questions right? So again, if you have more questions and having questions is the bar for whether or not something is suspicious then everything will be suspicious forever

You don't get it.

If Joe Schmo authorized it, then we can hold someone accountable.

They work for us and if they are incompetent, we need to know and toss them out.

You prefer not knowing...

So what happens if Joe Schmo uses his infinite wisdom and decides to authorize ANOTHER operation.....and this w[-opne ends up with the US being accused of committing an act of war?

For perhaps you aren't aware....Mexico let us off easy with F and F.....a little known fact....

But truth is....Joe Schmo authorized an act of war on Mexico.

We, the US, furnished arms to the enemy of Mexico.

In the 90's, the drug cartels were declared an enemy of the Mexican Government by the Mexican Government, and they were and still are engaged in a war with the cartels

Furnishing arms to the enemy of a sovereign nation who is at war with that enemy is deemed an act of war against that sovereign nation.

And it doesn't bother you that Obama doesn't give a crap who authorized it?

 

[Jarhead]

I know, but you should be debating facts not the people who say them.

OK. So lets debate this fact.

Fact: When the siege began, we had no idea how long it would last

Fact: The administration said we did not go in because it would have taken too long to go there.

Question up for debate.....How did the President know how long the siege would last?

past history of attacks


they happened under Bush too.


you just didn't care about THOSE dead people because you couldn't USE those deaths for political purposes

which ones under Bush were blamed on a US citizen irresponsibly exercising his right to free speech when, in fact, such was not ture and known such was not true at the very beginning?