Democrats Who Call Benghazi Hearings "Political", Forgot Something

[LoneLaugher]

Nutbags wanted to find something dirty on Clinton that RESULTED in the Benghazi attack.

What they learned.....is that in the hours and days AFTER the attack, there were conflicting reports about the details of the attack. As there always are It's a BOMBSHELL, folks.
The entire "investigation" is now worth it to these idiots because there is evidence that Clinton didn't have a crystal ball telling her who initiated the completely unforeseen and unannounced attack. Assholes.

The "assholes" are the liberals going around pretending that Hillary didn't deny security when it was requested, and needed. And denying that she isn't lying about the whole thing (the video, the emails, etc), when it has all been proven crystal clear.

You didn't watch the hearing, did you? Hillary did not deny security.

 

[protectionist]

You didn't watch the hearing, did you? Hillary did not deny security.

Chris Stevens sent the requests (600 times) He didn't get the security = She denied it. Only an idiot would think anything else.

 

[Care4all]

You are wrong on this....

Don't use my taxes for these dog and pony shows, don't use citizens taxes for this, use your own RNC/gop campaign advertising funds.

I'm not wrong and only an idiot would think it's wrong or call it a "dog and pony show", so I'll you the benefit of the doubt that just like all the other liberals on this, you also are lying (the new normal)

And it is Hillary and the Obama administration lying that is to blame for the money spent on the investigation. Should be interesting to see what the FBI is going to say. Will they do the right thing and lock her up, or will Barry save her deceitful ass ?

There were 7, not one, not two, not three not four, not five, not six, but 7, yes SEVEN investigative committee's from both the house and Senate BEFORE this EIghth committee.

IT'S YOU, YES YOU, WHO IS ILLINFORMED or simply lying ..... call it what you wish.

The fbi is not investigating Hillary, they are investigating whether Kerry's state dept released Hillary emails not redacted, that were LATER deemed confidential and they are differing with the State dept classifications on some, but in the end, the State dept has final say.

They are not investigating Hillary, but they are questioning the current state depts release of said emails and duking it out with current state dept.

 

[Camp]

Or in reality- what happened and what is clear to most Americans is that Republicans, immediately after the Benghazi attacks- were determined to use the attacks to politically attack President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

8 Congressional hearings so far.....how many more times will Congress meet to try to blame Obama and Clinton again?

Compare with how Congress reacted after 200 Marines died in Lebanon- Congress didn't hold hearings to blame Reagan- Congress looked to see what went wrong and to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

IN REALITY, we have the OP which refuted this very post, even before it showed up to waste our time. Congress looking to see what went wrong, and to prevent such a tragedy from happening again, is exactly what the House committee is doing now. And they found out what was wrong, as Post # 13 clearly pointed out.

The committee chairman admitted that nothing new was learned. Everything being discussed during and by this particular committee has been covered ad nauseam by previous committees and the original Benghazi commission. You are kind of missing the point of the latest criticism and news about this latest committee. It has proven to be a waste that has revealed nothing new of any substance. The criticism has been compounded by the fact that Republicans and even a staff member have confirmed that the committee was all about politics and getting bad PR pointed at Clinton, which it failed miserably to do.

 

[Stephanie]

Benghazi started as a serious breach in protocol, where Mitt Romney criticized a sitting President while an attack was ongoing, and laying blame on that President during the Presidential campaign.

Even McCain, in one of his more lucid moments, condemned Mitt Romney for doing that.

Republicans, scampering to create a smoke screen around their candidate, rallied around the "Benghazi Scandal" mantra.

And never let it go.

breach in protocol. would that be like how all the Democrats piled on Bush the whole time we were in Iraq? or the whole time the leftist scum were protesting in the streets while we had boots on the ground in Iraq. that kind of breach in protocol?
I guess that "protocol" only goes for a sitting warmonger like the Democrat Obama, who didn't ask Congress if he could go into Libya and take out their leader (like you all said about Saddam, he's better than no leader you put it) and then left them all Defenseless afterwards to take on the vultures by themselves. that kind of chickenshit protocol you talking about. Obama or Democrats has no clue what that word means. and neither do you on the left

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Everyday we hear Democrats yammering about the Benghazi hearings being just a political charade. But they missed something. And that is that it could only be a POLITICAL thing, IF there is something to make it BE political. In other words, it is only when there has been some serious wrongdoing on the part of Democrats (the State Dept. the Obama administration), that Republicans could slam the Democrats.

Without the serious misdeeds, there is nothing for Republicans to carry on political attacks. So whether Republicans are doing pure political work with the Benghazi hearings, and just trying to obtain all the truth, OR going after Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party for political reasons, one thing is clear. That there WERE things done very wrong by Hillary and others in her group, and we all know what they were. Anyone who doesn't at this point, is equivalent to a lichen.

Yes.

And those things that were done wrong... were done wrong intentionally.

Four people lost their lives, BECAUSE: The Left set them into circumstances which all but assured that they would be seriously injured or murdered, by the Left's failure to provide for their security.

Four People Lost their lives BECAUSE: The Left failed to render aid once they were being attacked.

Four People Lost their lives BECAUSE: The Left plotted with the enemy of the United States... for reasons unknown to us... and the reasons are unknown to us, because the Left has taken measures to hide those reasons, from us.

This is not just serious..., THIS IS AS SERIOUS AS IT GETS!

 

[jillian]

Benghazi started as a serious breach in protocol, where Mitt Romney criticized a sitting President while an attack was ongoing, and laying blame on that President during the Presidential campaign.

Even McCain, in one of his more lucid moments, condemned Mitt Romney for doing that.

Republicans, scampering to create a smoke screen around their candidate, rallied around the "Benghazi Scandal" mantra.

And never let it go.

the one thing you have to say about mccain is that he may have been misguided, but he's not generally rightwingnut scum (like the difference between how he and the donald handle their wacky rightwingnut flank).

 

[jillian]

Benghazi started as a serious breach in protocol, where Mitt Romney criticized a sitting President while an attack was ongoing, and laying blame on that President during the Presidential campaign.

Even McCain, in one of his more lucid moments, condemned Mitt Romney for doing that.

Republicans, scampering to create a smoke screen around their candidate, rallied around the "Benghazi Scandal" mantra.

And never let it go.

breach in protocol. would that be like how all the Democrats piled on Bush the whole time we were in Iraq? or the whole time the leftist scum were protesting in the streets while we had boots on the ground in Iraq. that kind of breach in protocol?
I guess that "protocol" only goes for a sitting warmonger like the Democrat Obama, who didn't ask Congress if he could go into Libya and take out their leader (like you all said about Saddam, he's better than no leader you put it) and then left them all Defenseless afterwards to take on the vultures by themselves. that kind of chickenshit protocol you talking about. Obama or Democrats has no clue what that word means. and neither do you on the left

no one "piled on bush" until he screwed it all up and his lies became apparent.

facts are your friends. use some, wackobird.

but nice deflection, crazy steffie

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The committee chairman admitted that nothing new was learned.

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

Of the new things we learned:

• Hillary is now known to have told her family, in the immediate time after the attack, that she knew that there was no protest and the attack was an organized and well executed attack by Islamists.
• Hillary claims to have had no communication with Stevens.
• Hillary has hundreds upon hundreds of communications with those presenting interests in Libya... but not with her Ambassador to Libya.
• It is now an established FACT that The Secretary of State lied to the American people, to the families of those killed and injured and took overt action in the wrongful arrest of US Citizen, as a means to perpetrate deceit. Etc, etc... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

no one "piled on bush" ...

 

[Camp]

Benghazi started as a serious breach in protocol, where Mitt Romney criticized a sitting President while an attack was ongoing, and laying blame on that President during the Presidential campaign.

Even McCain, in one of his more lucid moments, condemned Mitt Romney for doing that.

Republicans, scampering to create a smoke screen around their candidate, rallied around the "Benghazi Scandal" mantra.

And never let it go.

breach in protocol. would that be like how all the Democrats piled on Bush the whole time we were in Iraq? or the whole time the leftist scum were protesting in the streets while we had boots on the ground in Iraq. that kind of breach in protocol?
I guess that "protocol" only goes for a sitting warmonger like the Democrat Obama, who didn't ask Congress if he could go into Libya and take out their leader (like you all said about Saddam, he's better than no leader you put it) and then left them all Defenseless afterwards to take on the vultures by themselves. that kind of chickenshit protocol you talking about. Obama or Democrats has no clue what that word means. and neither do you on the left

no one "piled on bush" until he screwed it all up and his lies became apparent.

facts are your friends. use some, wackobird.

but nice deflection, crazy steffie

Bush had tremendous support domestically and internationally after 9/11. He had overwhelming support even after Iraq, at least the first phase of it. It wasn't until the WMD's were not found, Saddam was found, and the war began to transition into nation building and occupation became evident that the support began eroding and eventually got hostile.
Remember when Rumsfeld claimed the insurgency was nothing more than "dead enders" and the public bombings between the Shiites and Sunni's were getting started. People who knew the history of Iraq and the long standing historical warfare between the Shiite and Sunni began a desperate effort to inform the government and the general public of the quagmire the Bush administration was getting into. They echoed the phrase propagated by Gen. Powell about "if you break it you buy it". Those people were not listened to, Bush got what he wanted and we are still paying for those early blunders. The people bashing Bush for staying in Iraq were right and the criticism he got has been proven correct.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Bush had tremendous support domestically and internationally after 9/11.

Of course he did. The US had suffered the consequences of Political Correctness (Left-think)... allowing sub-human Islamists (Pardon the Redundancy) to attack the US, murdering 3000 innocent people and stripping a trillion dollars from US GDP in 2 hours. Bush did not start to lose support, until the politically correct (the Ideological Left) began to overtly promote the interests of those who attacked the US. And this despite the US Finding hundreds of tons of Chemical/Biological Weapon stockpiles and active CBW programs throughout Iraq... .

I said on 9/11/01, that it would only be a matter of time before the Left was found openly supporting those who attacked us that day... and I said so because: Such is quite simply, the nature of Evil.

 

[Camp]

Bush had tremendous support domestically and internationally after 9/11.

Of course he did. The US had suffered the consequences of Political Correctness (Left-think)... allowing sub-human Islamists (Pardon the Redundancy) to attack the US, murdering 3000 innocent people and stripping a trillion dollars from US GDP in 2 hours. Bush did not start to lose support, until the politically correct (the Ideological Left) began to overtly promote the interests of those who attacked the US. And this despite the US Finding hundreds of tons of Chemical/Biological Weapon stockpiles and active CBW programs throughout Iraq... .

I said on 9/11/01, that it would only be a matter of time before the Left was found openly supporting those who attacked us that day... and I said so because: Such is quite simply, the nature of Evil.

How does this stuff get into your head? What do you listen to or read to make you believe these things?
I would be particularly interested in where these claims of finding hundreds of tons of chemical/Biological Weapon stockpiles come from and the claim of CBW programs throughout Iraq. I suspect you are using the old buried artillery shells and common ingredients already found and listed by UN inspectors. Some of those ingredients can be found in your local markets due to their dual purpose Your CBW programs will be units or training activities used by armies all over the world as training and preparedness programs. But if you have something other than those kinds of things may you could post a link to explain your claims.

 

[protectionist]

There were 7, not one, not two, not three not four, not five, not six, but 7, yes SEVEN investigative committee's from both the house and Senate BEFORE this EIghth committee.

IT'S YOU, YES YOU, WHO IS ILLINFORMED or simply lying ..... call it what you wish.

The fbi is not investigating Hillary, they are investigating whether Kerry's state dept released Hillary emails not redacted, that were LATER deemed confidential and they are differing with the State dept classifications on some, but in the end, the State dept has final say.

They are not investigating Hillary, but they are questioning the current state depts release of said emails and duking it out with current state dept.

Spin it however you like now. And spin it however you like, after she's in a federal prison, which if this FBI doesn't indict her, the Trump administration one surely will. And I don't care how many investigative committees there are. I don't care if it takes 100 of them. The murderer, Hillary Clinton must (And WILL) be brought to justice.

 

[protectionist]

The committee chairman admitted that nothing new was learned. Everything being discussed during and by this particular committee has been covered ad nauseam by previous committees and the original Benghazi commission. You are kind of missing the point of the latest criticism and news about this latest committee. It has proven to be a waste that has revealed nothing new of any substance. The criticism has been compounded by the fact that Republicans and even a staff member have confirmed that the committee was all about politics and getting bad PR pointed at Clinton, which it failed miserably to do.

You're LYING. You know damn well this committee did indeed find new (and very relevant information). And it's all contained in my Post # 13. Try reading the thread before you shoot your big mouth off.

 

[reconmark]

There were 7, not one, not two, not three not four, not five, not six, but 7, yes SEVEN investigative committee's from both the house and Senate BEFORE this EIghth committee.

IT'S YOU, YES YOU, WHO IS ILLINFORMED or simply lying ..... call it what you wish.

The fbi is not investigating Hillary, they are investigating whether Kerry's state dept released Hillary emails not redacted, that were LATER deemed confidential and they are differing with the State dept classifications on some, but in the end, the State dept has final say.

They are not investigating Hillary, but they are questioning the current state depts release of said emails and duking it out with current state dept.

Spin it however you like now. And spin it however you like, after she's in a federal prison, which if this FBI doesn't indict her, the Trump administration one surely will. And I don't care how many investigative committees there are. I don't care if it take 100 of them. The murderer Hillary Clinton must (And WILL) be brought to justice.

^^^Proof positive that Geritol and acid should not be mixed^^^^

 

[protectionist]

Yes.

And those things that were done wrong... were done wrong intentionally.

Four people lost their lives, BECAUSE: The Left set them into circumstances which all but assured that they would be seriously injured or murdered, by the Left's failure to provide for their security.

Four People Lost their lives BECAUSE: The Left failed to render aid once they were being attacked.

Four People Lost their lives BECAUSE: The Left plotted with the enemy of the United States... for reasons unknown to us... and the reasons are unknown to us, because the Left has taken measures to hide those reasons, from us.

This is not just serious..., THIS IS AS SERIOUS AS IT GETS!

I'm wondering if the airhead, Hillary Clintion wasn't "advised" by her Muslim Brotherhood aide, Huma Abedin, who for years, has been sitting at conference tables with Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda affiliated terrorists.

 

[protectionist]

the one thing you have to say about mccain is that he may have been misguided, but he's not generally rightwingnut scum (like the difference between how he and the donald handle their wacky rightwingnut flank).

LEFTwingnut is what's killing this country > immigration, Islamization affirmative action, gun control, queer rights, etc

 

[protectionist]

no one "piled on bush" until he screwed it all up and his lies became apparent.

facts are your friends. use some, wackobird.

but nice deflection, crazy steffie

Democrat trash are who is ignoring facts, lying, and deflecting right now. The OP has reported on that.

 

[protectionist]

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

Of the new things we learned:

• Hillary is now known to have told her family, in the immediate time after the attack, that she knew that there was no protest and the attack was an organized and well executed attack by Islamists.
• Hillary claims to have had no communication with Stevens.
• Hillary has hundreds upon hundreds of communications with those presenting interests in Libya... but not with her Ambassador to Libya.
• It is now an established FACT that The Secretary of State lied to the American people, to the families of those killed and injured and took overt action in the wrongful arrest of US Citizen, as a means to perpetrate deceit. Etc, etc... .

I spelled it out in Post # 13. They just continue to distort the facts, and LIE about the whole thing. These lefty loonies are a disgrace to America.