Dems want to pack the USSC

[Faun]

Never said report. I said they agreed the security was deficient. OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

Once again, you prove even you don't know what you're talking about.

ShortBus, you said...

​

The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

... g''head, tell me again how you never said "report."

So that is not their version? It was just verbal not in the report? OCD Ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

You're cracking me up, ShortBus.

You posted a misquote from Wikipedia from that report. YOU posted it came from a report.

Then in response to me pointing you're lying, that 'point one in the Democrats' report was there was inadequate security due to decisions by officials in the DS, not Hillary,' you idiotically deny saying anything about a report.

Like I said, time and time again, you prove me right for calling you "ShortBus." You're a fucking retard.

I posted the same from WAPO, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. The initial discussion was what benefit came from the investigations. My point was to have better security going forward in our embassy as the bi-partisan report showed that security was deficient. That was all and you jumped all over it like a fucking OCD ridden loser. Stop stalking me, it is getting weird.

Fucking moron, the Washington Post article you eventually quoted after getting caught posting from Wikipedia included the part where they blamed the DS, not Hillary. Something you didn't do earlier because the Wikipedia article you copied & pasted from left that part out.

Idiot that has nothing to do what FFI and I were discussing, you OCD ridden fat fuck.

LOLOLOL

Like I said, even you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course that was part of the discussion as that was the part of the quote you left out. I believe it was meaner gene who first called you out for omitting that from the actual quote.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

They had enough fuel for a flyover (no loitering) and would have to then either emergency land in Libya, or splash in the Adriatic.

Think of the Doolittle raid, but without bombs.

So they fly, destroy the terrorists. Land, refuel and fly back? OK....my thoughts. Terrorists would scatter with F-16s bombing the fuck out of them.

Are you intentionally playing stupid. The article clearly says that the range of the F-16 with arms aboard, wasn't enough to reach Benghazi.
They could either fly over Benghazi unarmed, or run out of fuel on the way there, carrying weapons.

There was no way they could "attack" Benghazi.

Not what I read. But I could be mistaken. I'll research it some more. Thank you.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Never said report. I said they agreed the security was deficient. OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

Once again, you prove even you don't know what you're talking about.

ShortBus, you said...

​

The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

... g''head, tell me again how you never said "report."

So that is not their version? It was just verbal not in the report? OCD Ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

You're cracking me up, ShortBus.

You posted a misquote from Wikipedia from that report. YOU posted it came from a report.

Then in response to me pointing you're lying, that 'point one in the Democrats' report was there was inadequate security due to decisions by officials in the DS, not Hillary,' you idiotically deny saying anything about a report.

Like I said, time and time again, you prove me right for calling you "ShortBus." You're a fucking retard.

I posted the same from WAPO, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. The initial discussion was what benefit came from the investigations. My point was to have better security going forward in our embassy as the bi-partisan report showed that security was deficient. That was all and you jumped all over it like a fucking OCD ridden loser. Stop stalking me, it is getting weird.

Fucking moron, the Washington Post article you eventually quoted after getting caught posting from Wikipedia included the part where they blamed the DS, not Hillary. Something you didn't do earlier because the Wikipedia article you copied & pasted from left that part out.

Idiot that has nothing to do what FFI and I were discussing, you OCD ridden fat fuck.

LOLOLOL

Like I said, even you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course that was part of the discussion as that was the part of the quote you left out. I believe it was meaner gene who first called you out for omitting that from the actual quote.

My point is both parties agreed that security was deficient. That was the positive of the investigations. That was all. meaner gene is an idiot leftist like you.

Do you agree or disagree that the security in Benghazi was deficient? Yes or no?

Let us see if you can answer a simple question.

 

[justoffal]

I keep reading in left leaning media that these types of laws are akin to Jim Crow laws, that they favor GOP candidates, mostly because these tactics were used primarily by the left to win elections. . .

. . . but none of these left leaning sites have ever specifically told me how these laws are "racist," or how these tactics used by the left, somehow, made it easier for ethnic communities.

Vote harvesting seems to be a tactic to get low income, low educated voters to vote, when they are not really engaged in the process.

. . and of course, due to cultural differences, marginalization, and implicit bias, yes, POC communities do tend to have a higher percentage of lower income, and higher percentage of DNC voters. . . but? I still don't understand how this is necessarily disenfranchising voters.

These voters STILL have all the same rights to vote, as any other voter.

If they need someone else to hold their hand, and basically vote for them? meh, that isn't Jim Crow or disenfranchisement. This narrative is just false, and a very bad paradigm being spun in the MSM.

. .. . and the MSM talks about the harm of the independent news.

Disgusting.

The oligarchical agenda being seen through by the intellectuals, is just the reverse of that the founders intended.

Mob rule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oligarchical Collectivism: The Institutional "ism" That Threatens Our Very Biology

The ism of all isms, oligarchical collectivism benefits the powerful few at the expense of the powerless many. And today, it threatens our very biology.

wakeup-world.com

I think that the Democrats are forgetting the court is perfectly capable of defending itself against them also.
To keep this nonsense up the justices may just have to reconsider some of the 2020 election results.

 

[Faun]

You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.

So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.

So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?

The report addresses that. You should read it if you really want to know the reason.

Enlighten me, OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

I just did, ShortBus. I told you where you can find the answer to your question.

No, I mean your opinion on it, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. Do you believe Benghazi was handled well. You cut and paste shit but rarely if ever opine. I get that you're a simpleton but this is an opinion board.

No, I think Republicans fucked it up by politicizing it. Case in point, some 60 people were killed in a dozen embassy and consulate attacks while Bush was president. Zero attacks on Bush over them. Zero attacks on his Secretary of State over them. Zero investigations over them. Zero tax dollars wasted.

Bush was the worst president of all time. My point was what happened in Benghazi should not happen again and both the Republicans and Democrats agreed that security was deficient. The initial debate was whether or not an investigation was warranted and I say yes to attain better best practices as both parties agreed that security was deficient. That was all. Now STFU and stop stalking me, you deranged OCD ridden fat fuck.

LOLOL

By "stalking," you mean destroying your bullshit. No worries, ShortBus, keep crying like a 4 year old girl who had her Barbie doll taken away.

No, by stalking I mean stalking you OCD ridden fat fuck. You jumped into a conversation at its end point and missed the meaning of the conversation. Go stalk elsewhere. You are such a pathetic loser.

Nope, I jumped in because you lied. You posted half a quote from a report you now deny referencing and falsely claimed that quote from a report written solely by Democrats was bipartisan because a few words from it, while omitting most of it, matched what Republicans said if you also edit what they wrote in their report.

But g'head, tell me again how you never said "report." I'm still laughing at you for that one.

 

[Faun]

They had enough fuel for a flyover (no loitering) and would have to then either emergency land in Libya, or splash in the Adriatic.

Think of the Doolittle raid, but without bombs.

So they fly, destroy the terrorists. Land, refuel and fly back? OK....my thoughts. Terrorists would scatter with F-16s bombing the fuck out of them.

Are you intentionally playing stupid. The article clearly says that the range of the F-16 with arms aboard, wasn't enough to reach Benghazi.
They could either fly over Benghazi unarmed, or run out of fuel on the way there, carrying weapons.

There was no way they could "attack" Benghazi.

No, he's not playing. He's dead serious.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The final argument, made by a whistleblower at Wednesday’s Benghazi hearing, is that the military could have ordered a “flyover” of F-16 fighter jets to “scatter” the militants in Benghazi.

The nearest of these planes was in Aviano, Italy, which is almost exactly the maximum distance that the jets can fly without refueling (provided they aren’t carrying any weapons whatsoever.)

Flying refuelers like the Stratotanker could refuel the jets mid-flight though, right? Not so fast.

As Joe Pappalardo of Popular Mechanics points out, the tempo of operations in Afghanistan and other areas dictates the usage of refuelers, “so getting a Stratotanker over the Adriatic to refuel an F-16 on short notice is pretty hard.”

So yes, Italy. They could have flown over.

They would have to have launched with no guarantee they could make it back. They had enough fuel for a flyover (no loitering) and would have to then either emergency land in Libya, or splash in the Adriatic.

Think of the Doolittle raid, but without bombs.

What I read:

Military leaders decided early on that jets armed with 500-pound bombs were unsuited for the chaotic crisis in an urban area.

"Ultimately, it was my decision that said no, not the right response in this circumstance," Ham said.

He didn't have anyone on the ground to provide target information for airstrikes. He didn't want to harm innocent people or risk inflaming more Libyans to join the attack. He believed some militants had missiles capable of downing a plane.

"Had I made a different decision, had strike aircraft deployed, we don't really know what the outcome would have been," Ham said. "Maybe it would have been positive, but maybe it would have got shot down. Maybe it would have killed civilians."

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.

So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.

So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?

The report addresses that. You should read it if you really want to know the reason.

Enlighten me, OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

I just did, ShortBus. I told you where you can find the answer to your question.

No, I mean your opinion on it, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. Do you believe Benghazi was handled well. You cut and paste shit but rarely if ever opine. I get that you're a simpleton but this is an opinion board.

No, I think Republicans fucked it up by politicizing it. Case in point, some 60 people were killed in a dozen embassy and consulate attacks while Bush was president. Zero attacks on Bush over them. Zero attacks on his Secretary of State over them. Zero investigations over them. Zero tax dollars wasted.

Bush was the worst president of all time. My point was what happened in Benghazi should not happen again and both the Republicans and Democrats agreed that security was deficient. The initial debate was whether or not an investigation was warranted and I say yes to attain better best practices as both parties agreed that security was deficient. That was all. Now STFU and stop stalking me, you deranged OCD ridden fat fuck.

LOLOL

By "stalking," you mean destroying your bullshit. No worries, ShortBus, keep crying like a 4 year old girl who had her Barbie doll taken away.

No, by stalking I mean stalking you OCD ridden fat fuck. You jumped into a conversation at its end point and missed the meaning of the conversation. Go stalk elsewhere. You are such a pathetic loser.

Nope, I jumped in because you lied. You posted half a quote from a report you now deny referencing and falsely claimed that quote from a report written solely by Democrats was bipartisan because a few words from it, while omitting most of it, matched what Republicans said if you also edit what they wrote in their report.

But g'head, tell me again how you never said "report." I'm still laughing at you for that one.

I posted all seven points and concentrated on the first you OCD ridden fat fuck. Thanks for stalking though. You are one weird dude.

 

[Faun]

Never said report. I said they agreed the security was deficient. OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

Once again, you prove even you don't know what you're talking about.

ShortBus, you said...

​

The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

... g''head, tell me again how you never said "report."

So that is not their version? It was just verbal not in the report? OCD Ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

You're cracking me up, ShortBus.

You posted a misquote from Wikipedia from that report. YOU posted it came from a report.

Then in response to me pointing you're lying, that 'point one in the Democrats' report was there was inadequate security due to decisions by officials in the DS, not Hillary,' you idiotically deny saying anything about a report.

Like I said, time and time again, you prove me right for calling you "ShortBus." You're a fucking retard.

I posted the same from WAPO, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. The initial discussion was what benefit came from the investigations. My point was to have better security going forward in our embassy as the bi-partisan report showed that security was deficient. That was all and you jumped all over it like a fucking OCD ridden loser. Stop stalking me, it is getting weird.

Fucking moron, the Washington Post article you eventually quoted after getting caught posting from Wikipedia included the part where they blamed the DS, not Hillary. Something you didn't do earlier because the Wikipedia article you copied & pasted from left that part out.

Idiot that has nothing to do what FFI and I were discussing, you OCD ridden fat fuck.

LOLOLOL

Like I said, even you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course that was part of the discussion as that was the part of the quote you left out. I believe it was meaner gene who first called you out for omitting that from the actual quote.

My point is both parties agreed that security was deficient. That was the positive of the investigations. That was all. meaner gene is an idiot leftist like you.

Do you agree or disagree that the security in Benghazi was deficient? Yes or no?

Let us see if you can answer a simple question.

Yes, it was deficient. Now why was it deficient...?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Never said report. I said they agreed the security was deficient. OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

Once again, you prove even you don't know what you're talking about.

ShortBus, you said...

​

The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

... g''head, tell me again how you never said "report."

So that is not their version? It was just verbal not in the report? OCD Ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

You're cracking me up, ShortBus.

You posted a misquote from Wikipedia from that report. YOU posted it came from a report.

Then in response to me pointing you're lying, that 'point one in the Democrats' report was there was inadequate security due to decisions by officials in the DS, not Hillary,' you idiotically deny saying anything about a report.

Like I said, time and time again, you prove me right for calling you "ShortBus." You're a fucking retard.

I posted the same from WAPO, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. The initial discussion was what benefit came from the investigations. My point was to have better security going forward in our embassy as the bi-partisan report showed that security was deficient. That was all and you jumped all over it like a fucking OCD ridden loser. Stop stalking me, it is getting weird.

Fucking moron, the Washington Post article you eventually quoted after getting caught posting from Wikipedia included the part where they blamed the DS, not Hillary. Something you didn't do earlier because the Wikipedia article you copied & pasted from left that part out.

Idiot that has nothing to do what FFI and I were discussing, you OCD ridden fat fuck.

LOLOLOL

Like I said, even you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course that was part of the discussion as that was the part of the quote you left out. I believe it was meaner gene who first called you out for omitting that from the actual quote.

My point is both parties agreed that security was deficient. That was the positive of the investigations. That was all. meaner gene is an idiot leftist like you.

Do you agree or disagree that the security in Benghazi was deficient? Yes or no?

Let us see if you can answer a simple question.

Yes, it was deficient. Now why was it deficient...?

Why is what subsequent investigations should be held and people should be held accountable. Could have been informational tactics, lack of funding, although if private security was there and they are highly trained and highly expensive not sure that is the reason. Why wasn't there a battleship closer with planes ready? Why wasn't there a better escape route? There are many questions for military intelligence to ponder and with both parties agreeing security was deficient maybe we save future lives. So the investigations did have that positive aspect. That was my only point. Now go stalk elsewhere.

 

[Faun]

You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.

So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.

So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?

The report addresses that. You should read it if you really want to know the reason.

Enlighten me, OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

I just did, ShortBus. I told you where you can find the answer to your question.

No, I mean your opinion on it, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. Do you believe Benghazi was handled well. You cut and paste shit but rarely if ever opine. I get that you're a simpleton but this is an opinion board.

No, I think Republicans fucked it up by politicizing it. Case in point, some 60 people were killed in a dozen embassy and consulate attacks while Bush was president. Zero attacks on Bush over them. Zero attacks on his Secretary of State over them. Zero investigations over them. Zero tax dollars wasted.

Bush was the worst president of all time. My point was what happened in Benghazi should not happen again and both the Republicans and Democrats agreed that security was deficient. The initial debate was whether or not an investigation was warranted and I say yes to attain better best practices as both parties agreed that security was deficient. That was all. Now STFU and stop stalking me, you deranged OCD ridden fat fuck.

LOLOL

By "stalking," you mean destroying your bullshit. No worries, ShortBus, keep crying like a 4 year old girl who had her Barbie doll taken away.

No, by stalking I mean stalking you OCD ridden fat fuck. You jumped into a conversation at its end point and missed the meaning of the conversation. Go stalk elsewhere. You are such a pathetic loser.

Nope, I jumped in because you lied. You posted half a quote from a report you now deny referencing and falsely claimed that quote from a report written solely by Democrats was bipartisan because a few words from it, while omitting most of it, matched what Republicans said if you also edit what they wrote in their report.

But g'head, tell me again how you never said "report." I'm still laughing at you for that one.

I posted all seven points and concentrated on the first you OCD ridden fat fuck. Thanks for stalking though. You are one weird dude.

LOL

Moron, how many times need I point out that first one is bullshit because Democrats and Republicans didn't agree on it when you factor it the entire quote from the report. You're an idiot and mentally lazy because you quote from wikipedia and not the actual report. Wikipedia is not a reliable source as you have proved here.

 

[Faun]

Never said report. I said they agreed the security was deficient. OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

Once again, you prove even you don't know what you're talking about.

ShortBus, you said...

​

The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

... g''head, tell me again how you never said "report."

So that is not their version? It was just verbal not in the report? OCD Ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

You're cracking me up, ShortBus.

You posted a misquote from Wikipedia from that report. YOU posted it came from a report.

Then in response to me pointing you're lying, that 'point one in the Democrats' report was there was inadequate security due to decisions by officials in the DS, not Hillary,' you idiotically deny saying anything about a report.

Like I said, time and time again, you prove me right for calling you "ShortBus." You're a fucking retard.

I posted the same from WAPO, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. The initial discussion was what benefit came from the investigations. My point was to have better security going forward in our embassy as the bi-partisan report showed that security was deficient. That was all and you jumped all over it like a fucking OCD ridden loser. Stop stalking me, it is getting weird.

Fucking moron, the Washington Post article you eventually quoted after getting caught posting from Wikipedia included the part where they blamed the DS, not Hillary. Something you didn't do earlier because the Wikipedia article you copied & pasted from left that part out.

Idiot that has nothing to do what FFI and I were discussing, you OCD ridden fat fuck.

LOLOLOL

Like I said, even you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course that was part of the discussion as that was the part of the quote you left out. I believe it was meaner gene who first called you out for omitting that from the actual quote.

My point is both parties agreed that security was deficient. That was the positive of the investigations. That was all. meaner gene is an idiot leftist like you.

Do you agree or disagree that the security in Benghazi was deficient? Yes or no?

Let us see if you can answer a simple question.

Yes, it was deficient. Now why was it deficient...?

Why is what subsequent investigations should be held and people should be held accountable. Could have been informational tactics, lack of funding, although if private security was there and they are highly trained and highly expensive not sure that is the reason. Why wasn't there a battleship closer with planes ready? Why wasn't there a better escape route? There are many questions for military intelligence to ponder and with both parties agreeing security was deficient maybe we save future lives. So the investigations did have that positive aspect. That was my only point. Now go stalk elsewhere.

LOLOL

Fucking moron, there were 8 independent investigations by the GOP. Exactly how many more do you think are necessary to determine why security was inadequate?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Never said report. I said they agreed the security was deficient. OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

Once again, you prove even you don't know what you're talking about.

ShortBus, you said...

​

The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

... g''head, tell me again how you never said "report."

So that is not their version? It was just verbal not in the report? OCD Ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

You're cracking me up, ShortBus.

You posted a misquote from Wikipedia from that report. YOU posted it came from a report.

Then in response to me pointing you're lying, that 'point one in the Democrats' report was there was inadequate security due to decisions by officials in the DS, not Hillary,' you idiotically deny saying anything about a report.

Like I said, time and time again, you prove me right for calling you "ShortBus." You're a fucking retard.

I posted the same from WAPO, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. The initial discussion was what benefit came from the investigations. My point was to have better security going forward in our embassy as the bi-partisan report showed that security was deficient. That was all and you jumped all over it like a fucking OCD ridden loser. Stop stalking me, it is getting weird.

Fucking moron, the Washington Post article you eventually quoted after getting caught posting from Wikipedia included the part where they blamed the DS, not Hillary. Something you didn't do earlier because the Wikipedia article you copied & pasted from left that part out.

Idiot that has nothing to do what FFI and I were discussing, you OCD ridden fat fuck.

LOLOLOL

Like I said, even you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course that was part of the discussion as that was the part of the quote you left out. I believe it was meaner gene who first called you out for omitting that from the actual quote.

My point is both parties agreed that security was deficient. That was the positive of the investigations. That was all. meaner gene is an idiot leftist like you.

Do you agree or disagree that the security in Benghazi was deficient? Yes or no?

Let us see if you can answer a simple question.

Yes, it was deficient. Now why was it deficient...?

Why is what subsequent investigations should be held and people should be held accountable. Could have been informational tactics, lack of funding, although if private security was there and they are highly trained and highly expensive not sure that is the reason. Why wasn't there a battleship closer with planes ready? Why wasn't there a better escape route? There are many questions for military intelligence to ponder and with both parties agreeing security was deficient maybe we save future lives. So the investigations did have that positive aspect. That was my only point. Now go stalk elsewhere.

LOLOL

Fucking moron, there were 8 independent investigations by the GOP. Exactly how many more do you think are necessary to determine why security was inadequate?

You fat idiot. I agreed it was overkill. My point was something good came out of it. And it was to a larger point that FFI and I were talking about. You are one deranged mother fucker.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.

So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.

So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?

The report addresses that. You should read it if you really want to know the reason.

Enlighten me, OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

I just did, ShortBus. I told you where you can find the answer to your question.

No, I mean your opinion on it, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. Do you believe Benghazi was handled well. You cut and paste shit but rarely if ever opine. I get that you're a simpleton but this is an opinion board.

No, I think Republicans fucked it up by politicizing it. Case in point, some 60 people were killed in a dozen embassy and consulate attacks while Bush was president. Zero attacks on Bush over them. Zero attacks on his Secretary of State over them. Zero investigations over them. Zero tax dollars wasted.

Bush was the worst president of all time. My point was what happened in Benghazi should not happen again and both the Republicans and Democrats agreed that security was deficient. The initial debate was whether or not an investigation was warranted and I say yes to attain better best practices as both parties agreed that security was deficient. That was all. Now STFU and stop stalking me, you deranged OCD ridden fat fuck.

LOLOL

By "stalking," you mean destroying your bullshit. No worries, ShortBus, keep crying like a 4 year old girl who had her Barbie doll taken away.

No, by stalking I mean stalking you OCD ridden fat fuck. You jumped into a conversation at its end point and missed the meaning of the conversation. Go stalk elsewhere. You are such a pathetic loser.

Nope, I jumped in because you lied. You posted half a quote from a report you now deny referencing and falsely claimed that quote from a report written solely by Democrats was bipartisan because a few words from it, while omitting most of it, matched what Republicans said if you also edit what they wrote in their report.

But g'head, tell me again how you never said "report." I'm still laughing at you for that one.

I posted all seven points and concentrated on the first you OCD ridden fat fuck. Thanks for stalking though. You are one weird dude.

LOL

Moron, how many times need I point out that first one is bullshit because Democrats and Republicans didn't agree on it when you factor it the entire quote from the report. You're an idiot and mentally lazy because you quote from wikipedia and not the actual report. Wikipedia is not a reliable source as you have proved here.

They did not agree security was inadequate? I posted it from WAPO as well. Not that WAPO is all that reliable. You have mental issues. Seek help.

 

[Faun]

You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.

So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.

So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?

The report addresses that. You should read it if you really want to know the reason.

Enlighten me, OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

I just did, ShortBus. I told you where you can find the answer to your question.

No, I mean your opinion on it, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. Do you believe Benghazi was handled well. You cut and paste shit but rarely if ever opine. I get that you're a simpleton but this is an opinion board.

No, I think Republicans fucked it up by politicizing it. Case in point, some 60 people were killed in a dozen embassy and consulate attacks while Bush was president. Zero attacks on Bush over them. Zero attacks on his Secretary of State over them. Zero investigations over them. Zero tax dollars wasted.

Bush was the worst president of all time. My point was what happened in Benghazi should not happen again and both the Republicans and Democrats agreed that security was deficient. The initial debate was whether or not an investigation was warranted and I say yes to attain better best practices as both parties agreed that security was deficient. That was all. Now STFU and stop stalking me, you deranged OCD ridden fat fuck.

LOLOL

By "stalking," you mean destroying your bullshit. No worries, ShortBus, keep crying like a 4 year old girl who had her Barbie doll taken away.

No, by stalking I mean stalking you OCD ridden fat fuck. You jumped into a conversation at its end point and missed the meaning of the conversation. Go stalk elsewhere. You are such a pathetic loser.

Nope, I jumped in because you lied. You posted half a quote from a report you now deny referencing and falsely claimed that quote from a report written solely by Democrats was bipartisan because a few words from it, while omitting most of it, matched what Republicans said if you also edit what they wrote in their report.

But g'head, tell me again how you never said "report." I'm still laughing at you for that one.

I posted all seven points and concentrated on the first you OCD ridden fat fuck. Thanks for stalking though. You are one weird dude.

LOL

Moron, how many times need I point out that first one is bullshit because Democrats and Republicans didn't agree on it when you factor it the entire quote from the report. You're an idiot and mentally lazy because you quote from wikipedia and not the actual report. Wikipedia is not a reliable source as you have proved here.

They did not agree security was inadequate? I posted it from WAPO as well. Not that WAPO is all that reliable. You have mental issues. Seek help.

ShortBus, you posted a quote that cut off half the quote. No, Democrats and Republicans did not agree on that quote unless you edit what they wrote. You're a dishonest fuck as you are proving here yet again.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.

So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.

So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?

The report addresses that. You should read it if you really want to know the reason.

Enlighten me, OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

I just did, ShortBus. I told you where you can find the answer to your question.

No, I mean your opinion on it, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. Do you believe Benghazi was handled well. You cut and paste shit but rarely if ever opine. I get that you're a simpleton but this is an opinion board.

No, I think Republicans fucked it up by politicizing it. Case in point, some 60 people were killed in a dozen embassy and consulate attacks while Bush was president. Zero attacks on Bush over them. Zero attacks on his Secretary of State over them. Zero investigations over them. Zero tax dollars wasted.

Bush was the worst president of all time. My point was what happened in Benghazi should not happen again and both the Republicans and Democrats agreed that security was deficient. The initial debate was whether or not an investigation was warranted and I say yes to attain better best practices as both parties agreed that security was deficient. That was all. Now STFU and stop stalking me, you deranged OCD ridden fat fuck.

LOLOL

By "stalking," you mean destroying your bullshit. No worries, ShortBus, keep crying like a 4 year old girl who had her Barbie doll taken away.

No, by stalking I mean stalking you OCD ridden fat fuck. You jumped into a conversation at its end point and missed the meaning of the conversation. Go stalk elsewhere. You are such a pathetic loser.

Nope, I jumped in because you lied. You posted half a quote from a report you now deny referencing and falsely claimed that quote from a report written solely by Democrats was bipartisan because a few words from it, while omitting most of it, matched what Republicans said if you also edit what they wrote in their report.

But g'head, tell me again how you never said "report." I'm still laughing at you for that one.

I posted all seven points and concentrated on the first you OCD ridden fat fuck. Thanks for stalking though. You are one weird dude.

LOL

Moron, how many times need I point out that first one is bullshit because Democrats and Republicans didn't agree on it when you factor it the entire quote from the report. You're an idiot and mentally lazy because you quote from wikipedia and not the actual report. Wikipedia is not a reliable source as you have proved here.

They did not agree security was inadequate? I posted it from WAPO as well. Not that WAPO is all that reliable. You have mental issues. Seek help.

ShortBus, you posted a quote that cut off half the quote. No, Democrats and Republicans did not agree on that quote unless you edit what they wrote. You're a dishonest fuck as you are proving here yet again.

So they didn't agree security was deficient in Benghazi? You are one deranged OCD ridden fat fuck. I am done with you here. Read WAPO and educate yourself and stop fucking stalking me. You're a 64-year old man. So strange.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/benghazi-panel-presents-findings-to-lawmakers-makes-recommendations/2012/12/18/9ada6032-495c-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html

 

[Faun]

You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.

So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.

So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?

The report addresses that. You should read it if you really want to know the reason.

Enlighten me, OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

I just did, ShortBus. I told you where you can find the answer to your question.

No, I mean your opinion on it, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. Do you believe Benghazi was handled well. You cut and paste shit but rarely if ever opine. I get that you're a simpleton but this is an opinion board.

No, I think Republicans fucked it up by politicizing it. Case in point, some 60 people were killed in a dozen embassy and consulate attacks while Bush was president. Zero attacks on Bush over them. Zero attacks on his Secretary of State over them. Zero investigations over them. Zero tax dollars wasted.

Bush was the worst president of all time. My point was what happened in Benghazi should not happen again and both the Republicans and Democrats agreed that security was deficient. The initial debate was whether or not an investigation was warranted and I say yes to attain better best practices as both parties agreed that security was deficient. That was all. Now STFU and stop stalking me, you deranged OCD ridden fat fuck.

LOLOL

By "stalking," you mean destroying your bullshit. No worries, ShortBus, keep crying like a 4 year old girl who had her Barbie doll taken away.

No, by stalking I mean stalking you OCD ridden fat fuck. You jumped into a conversation at its end point and missed the meaning of the conversation. Go stalk elsewhere. You are such a pathetic loser.

Nope, I jumped in because you lied. You posted half a quote from a report you now deny referencing and falsely claimed that quote from a report written solely by Democrats was bipartisan because a few words from it, while omitting most of it, matched what Republicans said if you also edit what they wrote in their report.

But g'head, tell me again how you never said "report." I'm still laughing at you for that one.

I posted all seven points and concentrated on the first you OCD ridden fat fuck. Thanks for stalking though. You are one weird dude.

LOL

Moron, how many times need I point out that first one is bullshit because Democrats and Republicans didn't agree on it when you factor it the entire quote from the report. You're an idiot and mentally lazy because you quote from wikipedia and not the actual report. Wikipedia is not a reliable source as you have proved here.

They did not agree security was inadequate? I posted it from WAPO as well. Not that WAPO is all that reliable. You have mental issues. Seek help.

ShortBus, you posted a quote that cut off half the quote. No, Democrats and Republicans did not agree on that quote unless you edit what they wrote. You're a dishonest fuck as you are proving here yet again.

So they didn't agree security was deficient in Benghazi? You are one deranged OCD ridden fat fuck. I am done with you here. Read WAPO and educate yourself and stop fucking stalking me. You're a 64-year old man. So strange.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/benghazi-panel-presents-findings-to-lawmakers-makes-recommendations/2012/12/18/9ada6032-495c-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html

Here it is again, ShortBus... again, the part in red is the part you left out and the part they didn't agree on...

The State Department’s security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate as a result of decisions made by officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but Secretary Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi.​

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.

So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.

So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?

The report addresses that. You should read it if you really want to know the reason.

Enlighten me, OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOLOL

I just did, ShortBus. I told you where you can find the answer to your question.

No, I mean your opinion on it, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. Do you believe Benghazi was handled well. You cut and paste shit but rarely if ever opine. I get that you're a simpleton but this is an opinion board.

No, I think Republicans fucked it up by politicizing it. Case in point, some 60 people were killed in a dozen embassy and consulate attacks while Bush was president. Zero attacks on Bush over them. Zero attacks on his Secretary of State over them. Zero investigations over them. Zero tax dollars wasted.

Bush was the worst president of all time. My point was what happened in Benghazi should not happen again and both the Republicans and Democrats agreed that security was deficient. The initial debate was whether or not an investigation was warranted and I say yes to attain better best practices as both parties agreed that security was deficient. That was all. Now STFU and stop stalking me, you deranged OCD ridden fat fuck.

LOLOL

By "stalking," you mean destroying your bullshit. No worries, ShortBus, keep crying like a 4 year old girl who had her Barbie doll taken away.

No, by stalking I mean stalking you OCD ridden fat fuck. You jumped into a conversation at its end point and missed the meaning of the conversation. Go stalk elsewhere. You are such a pathetic loser.

Nope, I jumped in because you lied. You posted half a quote from a report you now deny referencing and falsely claimed that quote from a report written solely by Democrats was bipartisan because a few words from it, while omitting most of it, matched what Republicans said if you also edit what they wrote in their report.

But g'head, tell me again how you never said "report." I'm still laughing at you for that one.

I posted all seven points and concentrated on the first you OCD ridden fat fuck. Thanks for stalking though. You are one weird dude.

LOL

Moron, how many times need I point out that first one is bullshit because Democrats and Republicans didn't agree on it when you factor it the entire quote from the report. You're an idiot and mentally lazy because you quote from wikipedia and not the actual report. Wikipedia is not a reliable source as you have proved here.

They did not agree security was inadequate? I posted it from WAPO as well. Not that WAPO is all that reliable. You have mental issues. Seek help.

ShortBus, you posted a quote that cut off half the quote. No, Democrats and Republicans did not agree on that quote unless you edit what they wrote. You're a dishonest fuck as you are proving here yet again.

So they didn't agree security was deficient in Benghazi? You are one deranged OCD ridden fat fuck. I am done with you here. Read WAPO and educate yourself and stop fucking stalking me. You're a 64-year old man. So strange.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/benghazi-panel-presents-findings-to-lawmakers-makes-recommendations/2012/12/18/9ada6032-495c-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html

Here it is again, ShortBus... again, the part in red is the part you left out and the part they didn't agree on...

The State Department’s security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate as a result of decisions made by officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but Secretary Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi.​

I never blamed Clinton your fat fuck suffering OCD idiot. My point was that security was lacking.

 

[meaner gene]

What I read:

Military leaders decided early on that jets armed with 500-pound bombs were unsuited for the chaotic crisis in an urban area.

"Ultimately, it was my decision that said no, not the right response in this circumstance," Ham said.

Why did you leave this out? It was the following paragraph explaining why they couldn't have sent air support

Brig. Gen. Scott Zobrist, then the wing commander at Aviano, had similar worries. He said that, even if called right away, it would have taken 20 hours to get jets to Benghazi from the base in Italy normally used for training flights.

Pilots would have to be recalled from their homes, bombs loaded onto planes, the 1,000-mile route planned. The jets would need refueling along the way, which meant coordinating with tanker planes stationed in England — something that typically takes days to plan.

 

[meaner gene]

ShortBus, you posted a quote that cut off half the quote. No, Democrats and Republicans did not agree on that quote unless you edit what they wrote. You're a dishonest fuck as you are proving here yet again.

He also cut off the military answer to why air support wasn't sent. He cut that off half way too.