Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
wrong, the findings have been substantial. It has been proven that hillary, obama, and rice lied to the american people for weeks about who did it and why they did it. the whole video thing was a huge lie-----and the guy that made the video remains in jail--------for what?
the incompetence of the clinton state dept is evident, the non caring attitude of obama is evident. the cover up is evident.
Hillary is done, obama is a lame duck. liberalism is dying. Maybe the USA can be saved.
The findings were no different than the findings after any embassy attack
You can always come in after the fact and say this or that could have been done differently. We did the same thing after the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut under Reagan. Analysis showed that the barracks were not defended against a truck bomb. After the attack, all compounds had barriers to prevent vehicles from getting that close
The only difference is that nobody called for Reagan to be impeached
On March 6, 1987 Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez, Chairman of the House Banking, Finance, and Urban Affair, introduced articles of impeachment against President Ronald Reagan. This resulted in appointment of a special prosecutor and an investigation costing something over $40 million - roughly $60 million in today's dollars - and joint hearings that dominated the summer.
Further Democrats took to the House floor night after night after night in full view of the Cspan cameras giving long speeches during a then House privilege called 'special orders' and accusing President Reagan and those in his administration of all manner of hateful things. Gonzalez continued those well into the George H.W. Bush adminisration accusing President Bush of ridiculous conspiracy theories.
The special prosecutor, appointed by a Democratic controlled Congress, found that laws were broken, and some indictments and convictions resulted. But though they did their damndest to hang Reagan and, if possible, Bush 41, they were unable to link either one to any crime.
But I don't recall any Democrat or even any Republicans referring to all that as a 'witch hunt', nor did President Reagan object to the investigation in any respect. We deserve to have a government that welcomes investigations.
The findings were no different than the findings after any embassy attack
You can always come in after the fact and say this or that could have been done differently. We did the same thing after the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut under Reagan. Analysis showed that the barracks were not defended against a truck bomb. After the attack, all compounds had barriers to prevent vehicles from getting that close
The only difference is that nobody called for Reagan to be impeached
The difference is that Reagan didn't lie and start a huge coverup campaign.
The truck bombing in Beirut is a non seuqitur. The Reagan administration had no forewarning that the barracks was going to come under assault. However, the Obama administration had ample warning, and they ignored it.
they'll be no impeachment folks,,,,,,forget it.
The findings were no different than the findings after any embassy attack
You can always come in after the fact and say this or that could have been done differently. We did the same thing after the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut under Reagan. Analysis showed that the barracks were not defended against a truck bomb. After the attack, all compounds had barriers to prevent vehicles from getting that close
The only difference is that nobody called for Reagan to be impeached
Reagan did not lie about it and try to cover up the truth------obama lied, hillary lied, rice lied-------thats the difference.
Reagan tended to say ...."I forgot" a lot
Reagan did not lie about it and try to cover up the truth------obama lied, hillary lied, rice lied-------thats the difference.
Reagan did not lie about it and try to cover up the truth------obama lied, hillary lied, rice lied-------thats the difference.
What difference does it make whether they lied to the people about what happened? Nowhere in the law of the land does it say that the government must be honest with the American people about what happens at their Embassies abroad. Presidents have been lying to the public since the first President was elected. In this case the lies were told at the behest of the CIA because they hoped to catch the terrorists by continuing to monitor their radio communications. But the Republicans ended that opportunity when they outed the CIA's role in this.
No one has ever told the truth to the public about national security matters or what the CIA has been up to. Why is Obama and only Obama being called out for national security lies?
Reagan said he never supplied arms to the Iranians and that was a lie. Nixon said he didn't help Pinochet in Chile and that was a lie. American Presidents have lied to the people endlessly. Why are Obama's lies worse?
The GOP won't impeach Obama because even they have the sense to try to retain some chance of winning the presidency in the next twenty years.
Impeach Obama and he'll end up like Clinton, only without the baggage.
Impeach Obama and his approval rating will go up even further than Clinton's did.
Impeach Obama and he will successfully help Democrats win races, including the presidency, for the next twenty years.
The GOP won't impeach Obama because even they have the sense to try to retain some chance of winning the presidency in the next twenty years.
Impeach Obama and he'll end up like Clinton, only without the baggage.
Impeach Obama and his approval rating will go up even further than Clinton's did.
Impeach Obama and he will successfully help Democrats win races, including the presidency, for the next twenty years.
Reagan did not lie about it and try to cover up the truth------obama lied, hillary lied, rice lied-------thats the difference.
What difference does it make whether they lied to the people about what happened? Nowhere in the law of the land does it say that the government must be honest with the American people about what happens at their Embassies abroad. Presidents have been lying to the public since the first President was elected. In this case the lies were told at the behest of the CIA because they hoped to catch the terrorists by continuing to monitor their radio communications. But the Republicans ended that opportunity when they outed the CIA's role in this.
No one has ever told the truth to the public about national security matters or what the CIA has been up to. Why is Obama and only Obama being called out for national security lies?
Reagan said he never supplied arms to the Iranians and that was a lie. Nixon said he didn't help Pinochet in Chile and that was a lie. American Presidents have lied to the people endlessly. Why are Obama's lies worse?
Seems to me the Democrats are talking about impeachment a whole lot more than one or two right of center here is. And certainly more than any Republicans on Capitol Hill are. There must be evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors and that is something different than being a lying, opportunistic, deceptive, dishonorable person. Obama rarely goes on the record about anything, and when he does and it turns out badly, he denies that he did.
But even though impeachment is not on the table--and it never was--I still hope there are more Americans who want the truth than there are those who continue to divert attention away from it just because it is inconvenient to their ideologoy and the day's assigned talking points. And throwing out the 'impeachment' word must be the current assigned talking point.
Seems to me the Democrats are talking about impeachment a whole lot more than one or two right of center here is. And certainly more than any Republicans on Capitol Hill are. There must be evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors and that is something different than being a lying, opportunistic, deceptive, dishonorable person. Obama rarely goes on the record about anything, and when he does and it turns out badly, he denies that he did.
But even though impeachment is not on the table--and it never was--I still hope there are more Americans who want the truth than there are those who continue to divert attention away from it just because it is inconvenient to their ideologoy and the day's assigned talking points. And throwing out the 'impeachment' word must be the current assigned talking point.
sometimes a screen shot
says it all
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BJ9eDnGCcAAQvTX.jpg:large
Summaries of White House and State Department emails -- some of which were first published by Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard -- also contradict the White House version of events that led to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice misleading the public about the cause of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. installation in Libya.
Where does this all lead?
Politics: It would be naïve to expect any White House to ignore the political implications of a foreign policy crisis occurring two months before a presidential election. But there is a reason why no White House admits to finessing a tragedy: It's unseemly. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland injected politics into the U.S. response to Benghazi when she raised objections to draft talking points being prepared for Rices television appearances.
One paragraph, drafted by the CIA, referenced the agencys warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months prior to the attack, as well as extremists linked to the al-Qaida affiliate Ansar al-Sharia. In an email to officials at the White House and intelligence agencies, Nuland said the information could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned
The paragraph was deleted. The truth was scrubbed.
Nuland still had concerns. These changes dont resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings (sic) leadership, she wrote.
(An administration official familiar with Nuland's thinking said she was worried that the CIA was trying to exonerate itself at the expense of the State Department by suggesting that security warnings were ignored. Nuland was focused on interagency politics, not presidential politics, said the official who refused to be identified. Nuland declined to comment for this story, and thus the official's characterization of her motive could not be verified.)
Did she have good reason to believe that Republicans or the CIA would undermine then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (the building leader)? Yes.
Could she trust the GOP or CIA to play fair? No.
Could Benghazi be a campaign issue if not carefully managed? Yes.
But regardless of Nuland's motive, this is now clear: The Obama administration let political considerations cloud the public record. For far too long, the White House shied away from calling Benghazi a terrorist attack and stood behind Rices initial statement that it was inspired by protests over a crude anti-Islamic video.
Scrubbing the Truth from Benghazi - NationalJournal.com
