Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side

[Bfgrn]

Democrats should win because we have Republican lies on our side.

Lies about Iraq

about trickle down

about birth certificates

about fake scandals

about deficit creating tax cuts

about WMD's

The list is endless. All the GOP lies help the Democrats.

yep, that's pretty funny coming from the Iraq "we'll be treated as liberators" crowd. or "It'll cost $2BILLION" crowd, or the "we won't need 100's of 1000's of troops to secure Iraq" crowd

Those are examples of people opening their mouths and saying something they cannot possibly predict. That is not a lie. That is a miscalculation. Now saying that an attack in Benghazi was caused by rioting over a video when you know there were no riots before the attack, now that is a lie. Or saying that if you like your doctor or your coverage you can keep them, period. That is a lie. Especially when his own CBO predicted that millions of Americans would lose their coverage. Over half of us will lose our coverage, and Obama knew this. The law was changed or amended to make it happen. It was discussed during meetings, but he felt that lying was a better option than telling the truth.

Can you prove the anti-Islam video had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi?

Did think so, but you folks on the right operate on pure propaganda.

Educate yourself...

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi

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.

 

[Iceweasel]

Gee, and I thought the GOP was the party of personal responsibility.

Funny how their candidates are NEVER responsible for their losing.

Funny that you are too lazy to have ever checked. I heard it a lot but I don't get my news from comedy shows.

 

[candycorn]

Gee, and I thought the GOP was the party of personal responsibility.

Funny how their candidates are NEVER responsible for their losing.

Funny that you are too lazy to have ever checked. I heard it a lot but I don't get my news from comedy shows.

Checked what? Look at this thread. Romney lost nearly every swing state, told a bunch of lies in the process, and now we're told it's because the democrats lie?

Look at this video--if you want to see an effective liar:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMnmdTuxy-k]Mitt Romney - How Can You Trust This Guy??? - YouTube[/ame]

It was produced by a republican challenger of his.

 

[Iceweasel]

Can you prove the anti-Islam video had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi?

Did think so, but you folks on the right operate on pure propaganda.

Educate yourself...

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi

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.

You could educate yourself by reading your own link.


"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.

Mr. Abu Khattala had become well known in Benghazi for his role in the killing of a rebel general, and then for declaring that his fellow Islamists were insufficiently committed to theocracy. He made no secret of his readiness to use violence against Western interests. One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.

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."


So of the dozens in the initial attack, the reporter says some of them saw the video.

then:
"More broadly, 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."

So the administration effed it up from the get go. Thanks for the link.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side

And don’t forget the liberal media, free stuff, and the entitlement mentality.

True, that all has an affect as well.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side

Where are the WMDs?

 

[Bfgrn]

Can you prove the anti-Islam video had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi?

Did think so, but you folks on the right operate on pure propaganda.

Educate yourself...

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi

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.

You could educate yourself by reading your own link.


"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.

Mr. Abu Khattala had become well known in Benghazi for his role in the killing of a rebel general, and then for declaring that his fellow Islamists were insufficiently committed to theocracy. He made no secret of his readiness to use violence against Western interests. One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.

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."


So of the dozens in the initial attack, the reporter says some of them saw the video.

then:
"More broadly, 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."

So the administration effed it up from the get go. Thanks for the link.

What don't you understand pea brain? YOU posted from the link:

"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..."

 

[Plasmaball]

Democrats should win because we have Republican lies on our side.

Lies about Iraq

about trickle down

about birth certificates

about fake scandals

about deficit creating tax cuts

about WMD's

The list is endless. All the GOP lies help the Democrats.

yep, that's pretty funny coming from the Iraq "we'll be treated as liberators" crowd. or "It'll cost $2BILLION" crowd, or the "we won't need 100's of 1000's of troops to secure Iraq" crowd

Those are examples of people opening their mouths and saying something they cannot possibly predict. That is not a lie. That is a miscalculation. Now saying that an attack in Benghazi was caused by rioting over a video when you know there were no riots before the attack, now that is a lie. Or saying that if you like your doctor or your coverage you can keep them, period. That is a lie. Especially when his own CBO predicted that millions of Americans would lose their coverage. Over half of us will lose our coverage, and Obama knew this. The law was changed or amended to make it happen. It was discussed during meetings, but he felt that lying was a better option than telling the truth.

thats some neat partisan spin mud.

 

[The T]

yep, that's pretty funny coming from the Iraq "we'll be treated as liberators" crowd. or "It'll cost $2BILLION" crowd, or the "we won't need 100's of 1000's of troops to secure Iraq" crowd

Those are examples of people opening their mouths and saying something they cannot possibly predict. That is not a lie. That is a miscalculation. Now saying that an attack in Benghazi was caused by rioting over a video when you know there were no riots before the attack, now that is a lie. Or saying that if you like your doctor or your coverage you can keep them, period. That is a lie. Especially when his own CBO predicted that millions of Americans would lose their coverage. Over half of us will lose our coverage, and Obama knew this. The law was changed or amended to make it happen. It was discussed during meetings, but he felt that lying was a better option than telling the truth.

Can you prove the anti-Islam video had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi?

Did think so, but you folks on the right operate on pure propaganda.

Educate yourself...

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi

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.

Benghazi Hearing Take Away: YouTube Video Had Nothing To Do With It - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Three whistleblowers are testifying to the House Committee on Government Oversight today about last September’s attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, during which the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans were killed. One of the witnesses is Gregory Hicks, who was the number two American in Libya last September and among the last to talk to Stevens. He’s testified that the ambassador made no mention of a demonstration at the mission in Benghazi, only an attack, and that “[t]he YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” despite the Obama Administration’s attempts to pin the violence in Libya to protests over a trailer for an anti-Muslim film that had been on YouTube for months.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ct_PHtLkgWw"]Gregory Hicks (Whistleblower) Embarrassed By Blame Placed On YouTube Video. Benghazi Hearing - YouTube[/ame]​

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR8IxtS1AiY&feature=player_embedded"]MSNBC on Benghazi Cover Up: Looks "Clintonian"--There's Risk of "Impeachment" - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Plasmaball]

Is the Republican Party in danger of dying out?

Dems dont need to lie. they just need to wait things out.

 

[The T]

Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side

Where are the WMDs?

Syria.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side

Oh, yes, and how could one forget the liberal, activist judges legislating from the bench, perverting the Constitution and ignoring the will of the people.

 

[Bfgrn]

Those are examples of people opening their mouths and saying something they cannot possibly predict. That is not a lie. That is a miscalculation. Now saying that an attack in Benghazi was caused by rioting over a video when you know there were no riots before the attack, now that is a lie. Or saying that if you like your doctor or your coverage you can keep them, period. That is a lie. Especially when his own CBO predicted that millions of Americans would lose their coverage. Over half of us will lose our coverage, and Obama knew this. The law was changed or amended to make it happen. It was discussed during meetings, but he felt that lying was a better option than telling the truth.

Can you prove the anti-Islam video had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi?

Did think so, but you folks on the right operate on pure propaganda.

Educate yourself...

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi

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.

Benghazi Hearing Take Away: YouTube Video Had Nothing To Do With It - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Three whistleblowers are testifying to the House Committee on Government Oversight today about last September’s attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, during which the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans were killed. One of the witnesses is Gregory Hicks, who was the number two American in Libya last September and among the last to talk to Stevens. He’s testified that the ambassador made no mention of a demonstration at the mission in Benghazi, only an attack, and that “[t]he YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” despite the Obama Administration’s attempts to pin the violence in Libya to protests over a trailer for an anti-Muslim film that had been on YouTube for months.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ct_PHtLkgWw"]Gregory Hicks (Whistleblower) Embarrassed By Blame Placed On YouTube Video. Benghazi Hearing - YouTube


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR8IxtS1AiY&feature=player_embedded"]MSNBC on Benghazi Cover Up: Looks "Clintonian"--There's Risk of "Impeachment" - YouTube

The Benghazi-based C.I.A. team had briefed Mr. McFarland and Mr. Stevens as recently as the day before the attack. But the American intelligence efforts in Libya concentrated on the agendas of the biggest militia leaders and the handful of Libyans with suspected ties to Al Qaeda, several officials who received the briefings said. Like virtually all briefings over that period, the one that day made no mention of Mr. Abu Khattala, Ansar al-Shariah or the video ridiculing Islam, even though Egyptian satellite television networks popular in Benghazi were already spewing outrage against it.

 

[mudwhistle]

yep, that's pretty funny coming from the Iraq "we'll be treated as liberators" crowd. or "It'll cost $2BILLION" crowd, or the "we won't need 100's of 1000's of troops to secure Iraq" crowd

Those are examples of people opening their mouths and saying something they cannot possibly predict. That is not a lie. That is a miscalculation. Now saying that an attack in Benghazi was caused by rioting over a video when you know there were no riots before the attack, now that is a lie. Or saying that if you like your doctor or your coverage you can keep them, period. That is a lie. Especially when his own CBO predicted that millions of Americans would lose their coverage. Over half of us will lose our coverage, and Obama knew this. The law was changed or amended to make it happen. It was discussed during meetings, but he felt that lying was a better option than telling the truth.

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud....great mis-calculation.

Another one in Mudwhistle's series of "victimization" threads.

Thus sayeth Candycorn, the queen of victims.

 

[Dot Com]

Nation-building cons I thought they were all gone?

 

[whitehall]

I boils down to the mainstream media. Before around 1989 and the advent of talk radio the entire media was controlled by the left. Since fair and balanced Fox came on the scene the "mainstream" media has dropped every facade and come out in total support of democrats no matter what the policy.

 

[mudwhistle]

yep, that's pretty funny coming from the Iraq "we'll be treated as liberators" crowd. or "It'll cost $2BILLION" crowd, or the "we won't need 100's of 1000's of troops to secure Iraq" crowd

Those are examples of people opening their mouths and saying something they cannot possibly predict. That is not a lie. That is a miscalculation. Now saying that an attack in Benghazi was caused by rioting over a video when you know there were no riots before the attack, now that is a lie. Or saying that if you like your doctor or your coverage you can keep them, period. That is a lie. Especially when his own CBO predicted that millions of Americans would lose their coverage. Over half of us will lose our coverage, and Obama knew this. The law was changed or amended to make it happen. It was discussed during meetings, but he felt that lying was a better option than telling the truth.

Can you prove the anti-Islam video had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi?

Did think so, but you folks on the right operate on pure propaganda.

Educate yourself...

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi

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.

So, where does it say it was caused by a video?

It doesn't. That was a cover story the White House dreamed up.

Only the White House knows exactly the cause, and that is why they're hiding any eye-witnesses.

 

[candycorn]

Those are examples of people opening their mouths and saying something they cannot possibly predict. That is not a lie. That is a miscalculation. Now saying that an attack in Benghazi was caused by rioting over a video when you know there were no riots before the attack, now that is a lie. Or saying that if you like your doctor or your coverage you can keep them, period. That is a lie. Especially when his own CBO predicted that millions of Americans would lose their coverage. Over half of us will lose our coverage, and Obama knew this. The law was changed or amended to make it happen. It was discussed during meetings, but he felt that lying was a better option than telling the truth.

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud....great mis-calculation.

Another one in Mudwhistle's series of "victimization" threads.

Thus sayeth Candycorn, the queen of victims.

Wow, quite a comeback...I can't stop laughing at how impotent you are.

 

[candycorn]

Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side

Where are the WMDs?

Syria.

Then why did Bush lie and say they were in Iraq?

 

[The T]

Those are examples of people opening their mouths and saying something they cannot possibly predict. That is not a lie. That is a miscalculation. Now saying that an attack in Benghazi was caused by rioting over a video when you know there were no riots before the attack, now that is a lie. Or saying that if you like your doctor or your coverage you can keep them, period. That is a lie. Especially when his own CBO predicted that millions of Americans would lose their coverage. Over half of us will lose our coverage, and Obama knew this. The law was changed or amended to make it happen. It was discussed during meetings, but he felt that lying was a better option than telling the truth.

Can you prove the anti-Islam video had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi?

Did think so, but you folks on the right operate on pure propaganda.

Educate yourself...

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi

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.

So, where does it say it was caused by a video?

It doesn't. That was a cover story the White House dreamed up.

Only the White House knows exactly the cause, and that is why they're hiding any eye-witnesses.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka0_nz53CcM]Hillary Clinton at Benghazi Hearing: 'What Difference, Does It Make?' - YouTube[/ame]

And for those of you that don't know Hillary's past? THIS and the rest of her lies WILL haunt her IF she runs for POTUS. It cannot be excused, dismissed...Her and Obama's incompetence got four Americans killed...and they LIED about it all.