Do Repubs believe Obama lied about Benghazi to win reelection

[ClosedCaption]

So let's say it would have thrown the election. Just for argument. Does that make it OK? Are the American people entitled to know the truth about what their government does? Granted some things need to remain secret, that's obvious. But this isn't oen of them.

That's my entire point. No it's not ok, but does it rise to the level of 9 hearings and a big hoopla in the conservative media? Hell no

Since everyone expects and admits Politian's lie all the time what makes this lie so extraordinary?

Can't stand having all the eyes on Obama can you? You sit there wanting him to be embellished with attention, but when he screws up. Guess what? He isn't so attractive anymore, is he? No wonder the liberal media couldn't get enough of Amanda Berry and Jodie Arias.

Yep, you voted for an idiot. Idiot.

So, you have nothing...I get it already

 

[bendog]

Admitting what?

They got it wrong.

Yeah..that's what happens when you try to get information out quickly. Sometimes you screw up. Doesn't mean anyone lied.

When you know what you are saying isn't the truth, you are lying.

Obama and Hillary both knew the facts. They sent people out to lie. They lied. Only a partisan hack won't admit that.

No you're a lying.

Partisan hack.

Man..that was easy.

I think they sent Susan Rice to lie. Of course, it's not exactly the first time an admin was less than truthful. But, the question is ... so what? We get the full story. Rice's career takes a hit, but she gets a good gig. Hicks shouldn't have been talking to the media without getting approval first. He gets a desk job, and eventually will get a promotion.

It's all about partisan booshite.

Now we could have a discussion of whether Obama needs to have America more directly involved in things like Syria .... but no, that'd actually require honesty and a willingness to listen and think. What fun would that be. LOL

 

[healthmyths]

There has been suggestions floating around but repubs wont say it directly. Are you guys saying Romney would've won if Obama didn't lie about Benghazi?

Look the REASON OBAMA won was 3 million conservatives DIDN"T vote... the IDIOTS!

Now if these same idiots had been aware of the deception that for several days Obamatrons said it was ONLY the video that caused Benghazi,
maybe more of them and LESS of people on the fence about Obama would either NOT vote for Obama or NOT VOTE as these idiot conservatives didn't vote!

We could also have some evangelicals in that group that said, "You know what? I'm tired of the Republicans not reaching out to me. I'm tired of making fun of me. I don't like Mormons." Who knows what it is? You could have any number of reasons why these three million don't show up, but they are the difference.
If these three million had voted, Romney's popular vote total would have beaten Obama's by 180,000.
Why Did Three Million Republicans Stay Home? - The Rush Limbaugh Show

So the FACT these shills including MSM kept pushing the Video as the cause and downgraded the FACT it was an organized terrorist attack some on the fence
voters if TOLD the truth might not have voted at all!

 

[Freewill]

There has been suggestions floating around but repubs wont say it directly. Are you guys saying Romney would've won if Obama didn't lie about Benghazi?

Those who knew the truth or at least would admit to the truth, know he lied, what was his motive is anyone's guess. I am thinking that lying is just what he does.

 

[bendog]

you are citing Rush seriously for support? I think you might want to do a little bit more research into the cause of gop malaise. LOL

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Do Repubs believe Obama lied about Benghazi to win reelection

That's not the election they're worried about. This is all about 2016 and the FACT the Rs don't have anyone who can win.

There are no lies. Nor is there any thing to lie about. The REPUBLICANS had previously voted against increased security and our military was too far away to help.

During the Bush admin, there were 54 attacks on our embassies with 13 Americans killed. The Rs said nothing and fux said even less.

 

[007]

The fact is that the administration lied about what happened in Benghazi, and attempted to cover-up, obfuscate, and difuse responsibility for failure to properly protect the consulate and failure to send any rescue to the aid of American diplomats in serious trouble.

Except for reelection, can you think of any reasons for the lies?

As much for Hitlery's future presidential hopes as obama's reelection.

And it wasn't a "failure" to send help, it was a "STAND DOWN ORDER," and we still need to find out who gave that.

We also still need to find out who told Susan Rice to go on FIVE talk shows and LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Was it obama?

 

[BlindBoo]

As you can see, all you have are insults and ad hom. The way I know it's true? When people like you come up with these statements.

Please, keep confirming what we already know is true, Boo Boo.

Does that mean you believe?

I believe in reality, if that's what you mean.

Like this:

To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.

................

To those on the ground, the circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to the group. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound.

The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/w...nghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

According to this report it was the video and there was no protest before hand, just the assault.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's my entire point. No it's not ok, but does it rise to the level of 9 hearings and a big hoopla in the conservative media? Hell no

Since everyone expects and admits Politian's lie all the time what makes this lie so extraordinary?

Can't stand having all the eyes on Obama can you? You sit there wanting him to be embellished with attention, but when he screws up. Guess what? He isn't so attractive anymore, is he? No wonder the liberal media couldn't get enough of Amanda Berry and Jodie Arias.

Yep, you voted for an idiot. Idiot.

So, you have nothing...I get it already

Posted it earlier in the thread, dumbass. Now I'm having my fun pissing you off.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Does that mean you believe?

I believe in reality, if that's what you mean.

Like this:

To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.

................

To those on the ground, the circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to the group. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound.

The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/w...nghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

According to this report it was the video and there was no protest before hand, just the assault.

The New York Times is the loudest Liberal mouthpiece in the United States! Moreover, do you really think protestors would launch mortars into a compound over a video? What a load of crap.

From your same article:

“It was the Ansar al-Shariah people,” said Mohamed Bishari, 20, a neighbor of the compound who watched the assault and described the brigade he saw leading the attack. “There was no protest or anything of that sort.”

 

[007]

There are no lies. Nor is there any thing to lie about.

You're so full of shit and lies it's almost painful to wade past your posts.

The LYING about Benghazi by the obama administration and democrats is RAMPANT, and EVERYONE knows it, EVEN YOU, shit for brains. So go peddle your ultra zealot extreme radical hack bull shit somewhere else.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Can't stand having all the eyes on Obama can you? You sit there wanting him to be embellished with attention, but when he screws up. Guess what? He isn't so attractive anymore, is he? No wonder the liberal media couldn't get enough of Amanda Berry and Jodie Arias.

Yep, you voted for an idiot. Idiot.

So, you have nothing...I get it already

Posted it earlier in the thread, dumbass. Now I'm having my fun pissing you off.

Everytime someone asks you something you claim you already answered it instead of answering it. Instead of typing another zinger how about you type an answer not an excuse why you cant type an answer

 

[blackhawk]

That's absurd because there is no indication that a terror attack would have hurt the president politically;

that is simply the story that the rightwing propaganda machine concocted in order to make their attack on the president work.

You invent the premise that suits you and then argue from that point of advantage.

It's classic.

Then why push the attack was inspired by a video story for two weeks? Obama and the Democrats had been pushing the Al-Qaeda is done Bin Laden is dead GM is alive line for some time leading up to the election which is fine but a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9-11 a couple of months before the election damages that claim and had the potential to hurt Obama they realized that and tried to spin us the video story there is no other logical reason to put that story out there. The fact your so blind where Obama is concerned you can't even acknowledge that he made a political calculation that lead to a dumb decision a decision that has not even really cost him anything is truly sad.

Really? Since when?
Your going to have to be more specific
They've been saying Al Qaeda's on the run. Bush said the same thing, lots of times.
Yes he did but Bush was not the one who put out the video story was he?
If they were done? Why not repeal the AUMF?
Ask those in charge namely the CIC
Eh?

Oh..and GM is alive. They are building snazzy new muscle cars.

Has nothing to with Benghazi and the video story though.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No I don't think that and that is the irony of this whole situation I think Obama made the decision to mislead people or lie for those who prefer that word because he feared it could sway the election while it might have made the election closer I don't think it would have changed the end result. The Obama administration created this mess by making a decision to mislead based on a political calculation that the truth would hurt their reelection chances.

That's absurd because there is no indication that a terror attack would have hurt the president politically;

that is simply the story that the rightwing propaganda machine concocted in order to make their attack on the president work.

You invent the premise that suits you and then argue from that point of advantage.

It's classic.

Let me get this right:

You don't like a rational explanation to the Obama Administration's irrational explanation?

The idea that the Administration would intentionally try to tell what they knew for certain was a lie,

an EASILY DISCOVERABLE LIE,

6 weeks before the election,

is absurd. As are you.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you a child and don't realize that Politicians lie? Lets look at it as a lie...Obama lied and what happened because of that lie? it's already been admitted that Romney winning wouldntve happened so....what?

edit: You know something like Bush lied ppl died....If Obama lied...then what significant event happened?

So let's say it would have thrown the election. Just for argument. Does that make it OK? Are the American people entitled to know the truth about what their government does? Granted some things need to remain secret, that's obvious. But this isn't oen of them.

That's my entire point. No it's not ok, but does it rise to the level of 9 hearings and a big hoopla in the conservative media? Hell no

Since everyone expects and admits Politian's lie all the time what makes this lie so extraordinary?

That involved teh deaths of innocent people. That it showed that the line that Obama was selling--al Qaeda is dead--was wrong, and he knew it was wrong. That the president would lie about a matter of national security for political gain.
Want me to continue?

 

[Freewill]

That's absurd because there is no indication that a terror attack would have hurt the president politically;

that is simply the story that the rightwing propaganda machine concocted in order to make their attack on the president work.

You invent the premise that suits you and then argue from that point of advantage.

It's classic.

Let me get this right:

You don't like a rational explanation to the Obama Administration's irrational explanation?

The idea that the Administration would intentionally try to tell what they knew for certain was a lie,

an EASILY DISCOVERABLE LIE,

6 weeks before the election,

is absurd. As are you.

The problem is that they DID know they were telling what was not true. You have to be living in a lot of denial to not see it. You're already to proudly push the Bush lied crap when in fact, just as Hillary, they both believed there to be WMD in Iraq, and they were right. They just didn't find WMD in sufficient quanities to satisfy your BDS, and they never could have found enough. Rice lied for Obama two weeks after everyone knew the truth, Obama went to the UN and told a whopper. It is clearly the facts, ones you choose to ignore.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So let's say it would have thrown the election. Just for argument. Does that make it OK? Are the American people entitled to know the truth about what their government does? Granted some things need to remain secret, that's obvious. But this isn't oen of them.

That's my entire point. No it's not ok, but does it rise to the level of 9 hearings and a big hoopla in the conservative media? Hell no

Since everyone expects and admits Politian's lie all the time what makes this lie so extraordinary?

That involved teh deaths of innocent people. That it showed that the line that Obama was selling--al Qaeda is dead--was wrong, and he knew it was wrong. That the president would lie about a matter of national security for political gain.
Want me to continue?

Heres the problem with those...You have yet to prove any of those things except that ppl died. Everything else is speculation and if you think Politicians lie is something that needs 9 hearings then you don't value hearings very much.

Lets say he said Al Qaeda was dead and turned out they aren't. Why do you think it was a purposeful lie and not bravado?

Yes, please continue

 

[BlindBoo]

I believe in reality, if that's what you mean.

Like this:

To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.

................

To those on the ground, the circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to the group. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound.

The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/w...nghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

According to this report it was the video and there was no protest before hand, just the assault.

The New York Times is the loudest Liberal mouthpiece in the United States! Moreover, do you really think protestors would launch mortars into a compound over a video? What a load of crap.

From your same article:

“It was the Ansar al-Shariah people,” said Mohamed Bishari, 20, a neighbor of the compound who watched the assault and described the brigade he saw leading the attack. “There was no protest or anything of that sort.”

Did you not see the report claims that there was no protest at the compound before the attack started? Or did you just see red when you saw it was published by the NYT's?

BTW the NYT was one of the loudest mouthpieces parroting the Iraq Invasion talking points, not exactly a hotbed of liberalism. Statist, Corporate, for Profit.

 

[BlindBoo]

So let's say it would have thrown the election. Just for argument. Does that make it OK? Are the American people entitled to know the truth about what their government does? Granted some things need to remain secret, that's obvious. But this isn't oen of them.

That's my entire point. No it's not ok, but does it rise to the level of 9 hearings and a big hoopla in the conservative media? Hell no

Since everyone expects and admits Politian's lie all the time what makes this lie so extraordinary?

That involved teh deaths of innocent people. That it showed that the line that Obama was selling--al Qaeda is dead--was wrong, and he knew it was wrong. That the president would lie about a matter of national security for political gain.
Want me to continue?

Let see, al Queda hit us in 2001 and killed over 3000 innocent people. Then in 2012 they can only muster an attack on a far flung outpost in a lawless land and only kill 4 people? I'd say the President was correct. Al Queda is on the run. (I don't recall him ever saying they were dead either)

 

[Clementine]

I think he lied about a lot of things to get elected both times.

Lies about health care that didn't come to light till after they shoved it through by questionable means.

Lies about the cost of amnesty.

Lies about a filmmaker causing the Benghazi attacks.

Lies about the effects of the sequester.

The list goes on and on.................

If anyone believes Obama on Benghazi, after he intitially lied about who did it and why, I would question their judgement.