GOP lies on Benghaz keep piling up

[TooTall]

yeah that one

The ponderous stupidity of the left. A war fully authorized by the UN and Congress. Again, you're a fucking idiot.

Based on the best intel the Bush administration and the Republicans could provide.

The best intel that every intelligence agency in the free world could provide. Their intel was based on the fact that the Israeli's took out Saddams first attempt to build a nuclear power plant, he invaded Kuwait, and he used WMD's in the form of nerve gas on Iranian troops and Kurds.

The FACT that he was in violation of several UN resolutions led EVERY intelligence agency to surmise that he still had WMD's.

You may have noticed, but I seriously doubt it, that some of the statements made by Bill Clinton and other Democrats regarding Iraq's WMD's were before Bush was elected President.

 

[Lumpy 1]

He didn't "boast" that, you idiot.

The sign didn't - but his speech did.

No it didn't.

CNN.com - Bush makes historic speech aboard warship - May. 1, 2003

[ame=http://youtu.be/i87cZ3Og6ts]Democrats on Iraq's WMD - YouTube[/ame]

 

[rdean]

1. January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

No US fatalities.

No U.S. citizens were killed or injured in the attack outside the U.S. Information Service building, which is near the U.S. Consulate in the eastern city.

Deadly Shooting in Calcutta May Be Linked to Al Qaeda - Los Angeles Times

-----

2. June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

All of the injured and dead were Pakistani. No US fatalities.

On the morning of June 14, 2002, a truck with a fertilizer bomb driven by a suicide bomber was detonated outside the United States Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. Twelve people were killed and 51 injured, all Pakistanis.

Karachi consulate attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-----

3. October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

Don't know why this one is on the list. But no US fatalities here either.


-----


4. February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

No US fatalities/injuries here.



CNN.com - Karachi consulate shooting kills 2 - Feb. 28, 2003

-----

5. May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.




U.S. Sought Security Improvements Prior to Attacks | PBS NewsHour | May 14, 2003 | PBS

So far, just one Benghazi style incident on Bush's watch. The kicker here was that the US tried to ramp up security at the compound prior to the bombing, but as with Benghazi, the request was denied. Can't really fault Bush for this one. Next.

-----

6. July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

Nether of whom were American. They were Uzbek security guards.



U.S., Israeli Embassies Hit In Uzbek Bomb Attacks (washingtonpost.com)

-----

7. December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

Once again, none of the fatalities were American. They consisted mainly of Arabs and Asians.



Nine killed as US consulate in Jeddah attacked | World news | theguardian.com

-----

8. March 2, 2006.Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers.

This was an attempt by terrorists to deter a Bush visit to Pakistan. While a Diplomat and his driver did die in the attack, the other two fatalities were not Americans. So, I fail to see how this one resembles Benghazi. Moving on.

-----

9. September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

No Americans were killed in the incident.



Four Armed Men Attack U.S. Embassy in Damascus

-----

10. January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

See that? No fatalities. No Americans died. So how does this resemble Benghazi? On to the next.

-----

11. March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

Neither of the dead were Americans. The mortar completely missed the embassy and landed in a schoolyard.



Intel Wars: The Secret History of the Fight Against Terror - Matthew M. Aid

-----

12. July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

Three police officers were among the dead. The other three were the assailants themselves.

A group of unidentified gunmen opened fire Wednesday on Turkish security guards outside the U.S. Consulate in Istanbul, the Turkish authorities said, and at least three police officers and three assailants were killed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/world/europe/09iht-turkey.4.14369483.html?_r=0

-------

13.September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Yes, two people were killed here. But no US Embassy staff were killed in the attack. But this again in no way resembles Benghazi.

Those killed include six Yemeni policemen and four civilians, he said, noting that the number of wounded is unclear. No U.S. Embassy employees were killed, the official added.

However, CNN affilliate WGRZ reported that Ahmed Elbaneh of Lackawanna, New York, said his sister, Susan, 18, and her new husband died in the attack.

Elbaneh said his sister left Lackawanna about a month ago for an arranged marriage and that she had been married for only 30 days. Elbaneh said family members in Yemen told him she was at the embassy translating for her new sister-in-law when the blast occurred.

...

President Bush condemned the attack, and warned that it is "a reminder that we are at war with extremists who will murder innocent people to achieve their ideological objectives."

Al Qaeda blamed for U.S. Embassy attack - CNN.com


______________________________________________________________


Seriously, who came up with this stuff? These "13 Benghazis that happened under Bush's watch" never happened. Perhaps people should do research. And as far as GOP lying goes, perhaps you should go after the liberal talking heads who polluted your minds with this nonsense.

Curious. Are you saying al Qaeda attacks don't count unless Americans are killed?

 

[rdean]

Nope.



Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Information provided by the Bush Administration. You conveniently left that part out. One thing we did know for sure was that it was Bin Laden who was behind 9/11. And Republicans let him go. Where is the outrage? And what exactly is Bush saying here? Can any Republicans explain it to me?

Girlfriend....was Bush in office in the 1990's? Idiot.

We invaded Iraq in the 1990's? Wow, you must be so smart. Knowing things no one else does.

The fact is, Republicans created the intel that tricked the country into invading Iraq. If Republicans could pass the deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts and use reconciliation three times, the didn't need Democrats to invade.

And when Bush said, "You are with us or with the terrorists", it would have been political suicide for Democrats to fight against the invasion. What kind of shitstain, scumbag, asswipe, creep tells patriotic Americans "you are with us or with the terrorists". It's these kinds of statements that make the Republicans the terrorists. The dirty fuckers.

 

[JoeB131]

[

They weren't Libyan "forces"of course. The were members of the local tribal militias ( they were not government forces). Why would the U.S. hire Lybian tribesman? Why didn't our government give Stevens the protection he asked for? Who pushed the f*cking video? Why are the murderers allowed to walk free while giving interviews to the press? WTF?

If Obama called a drone strike on one of these assholes, you'd be the first one running back here saying how he murdered a man without a trial...

As far as why Stevens didn't get what he asked for, maybe you should talk to House REpublicans who slashed 100 million from Embassy Security budgets.

 

[eagle1462010]

[

They weren't Libyan "forces"of course. The were members of the local tribal militias ( they were not government forces). Why would the U.S. hire Lybian tribesman? Why didn't our government give Stevens the protection he asked for? Who pushed the f*cking video? Why are the murderers allowed to walk free while giving interviews to the press? WTF?

If Obama called a drone strike on one of these assholes, you'd be the first one running back here saying how he murdered a man without a trial...

As far as why Stevens didn't get what he asked for, maybe you should talk to House REpublicans who slashed 100 million from Embassy Security budgets.

Yeah, I heard about that..............We have no armed forces anymore...........They are all gone...............................

Couldn't spare a platoon to the region............BTW which POTUS recently wanted to cut the size of the Marines.................But it's terrible Lib...................

Poor Obama didn't have the resources anymore as the Evil GOP got rid of the military while he wasn't loo ing. Dang this eyboard........................

 

[Caroljo]

Great, here's your big chance to speak the truth! If I'm wrong, show me!

If you REALLY wanted to know the truth, it is out there...google is your friend. Do you know how many times we've posted links to this truth? If you missed it, it's not my fault. I'm also no wasting my time anymore. If you really want the truth, you would do your own research. We already have.

Sorry - when YOU or your constituents make a claim, the onus is on YOU to prove your case! Not the other way around.

You already have????

Jesus H Christ!!!

You just joined this board this month. So yes, we HAVE proven it many times here, and it's really a pain having to keep proving it every time someone new come here. Do a search and find the threads.....

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

If you REALLY wanted to know the truth, it is out there...google is your friend. Do you know how many times we've posted links to this truth? If you missed it, it's not my fault. I'm also no wasting my time anymore. If you really want the truth, you would do your own research. We already have.

Sorry - when YOU or your constituents make a claim, the onus is on YOU to prove your case! Not the other way around.

You already have????

Jesus H Christ!!!

You just joined this board this month. So yes, we HAVE proven it many times here, and it's really a pain having to keep proving it every time someone new come here. Do a search and find the threads.....

Would you like a tissue? A bottle of Midol? How about a lesson in political discourse?

This new guy just owned a whole barrel of you old-timers.

I don't need to "do a search" that's not how it works - we are having a debate and I have done my homework. You, like your ditto-head bowling buddies, have not.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

[

They weren't Libyan "forces"of course. The were members of the local tribal militias ( they were not government forces). Why would the U.S. hire Lybian tribesman? Why didn't our government give Stevens the protection he asked for? Who pushed the f*cking video? Why are the murderers allowed to walk free while giving interviews to the press? WTF?

If Obama called a drone strike on one of these assholes, you'd be the first one running back here saying how he murdered a man without a trial...

As far as why Stevens didn't get what he asked for, maybe you should talk to House REpublicans who slashed 100 million from Embassy Security budgets.

First off, you obviously don't know me since I've been saying (like many other conservatives/republicans) that Obama's drone policy is one of the few things I agree with Obama on. Of course, many people who dislike Obama's drone program are from his own party. I would also point out that there are other ways to kill terrorists than drone attacks. Why not have agents pose as reporters to find the Benghazi terrorists? It certainly worked for the reporters.
As far as the republicans-slashed-100-million-from-embassy-budget talking point. Well, that talking point fell on its face long ago when Obama's own state department said that was nonsense. I might also point out that Obama's own state department spent a lot of money on recharging stations for electric cars for the embassy in Vienna. So apparently money wasn't too much of an obstacle to begin with.
So let us re-examine your last post. It was wrong. It was completely, factually, horribly wrong. Your rebuttal wasn't even regular wrong. It was a kind of wrong that makes other wrongs look true by comparison. It was almost spiritually wrong in the sense that it's transcending the borders of time and space. It was Buddha wrong.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Information provided by the Bush Administration. You conveniently left that part out. One thing we did know for sure was that it was Bin Laden who was behind 9/11. And Republicans let him go. Where is the outrage? And what exactly is Bush saying here? Can any Republicans explain it to me?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwbFzCvvSns

Girlfriend....was Bush in office in the 1990's? Idiot.

We invaded Iraq in the 1990's? Wow, you must be so smart. Knowing things no one else does.

The fact is, Republicans created the intel that tricked the country into invading Iraq. If Republicans could pass the deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts and use reconciliation three times, the didn't need Democrats to invade.

And when Bush said, "You are with us or with the terrorists", it would have been political suicide for Democrats to fight against the invasion. What kind of shitstain, scumbag, asswipe, creep tells patriotic Americans "you are with us or with the terrorists". It's these kinds of statements that make the Republicans the terrorists. The dirty fuckers.

Well, technically, he is right. We did invade Iraq the first time, in January of 1991 - but we weren't there for long. And Bush Sr. broke his word with the Shiiites and left 400,000 of them to be slaughtered by Saddam Hussein once he was firmly back in power. But I think the talk here is actually of Gulf War II, from March 19, 2003.

Sometimes we forget that Clinton was not the only president in the 1990s. Bush Sr. was president until January 20, 1993....

 

[Statistikhengst]

[

They weren't Libyan "forces"of course. The were members of the local tribal militias ( they were not government forces). Why would the U.S. hire Lybian tribesman? Why didn't our government give Stevens the protection he asked for? Who pushed the f*cking video? Why are the murderers allowed to walk free while giving interviews to the press? WTF?

If Obama called a drone strike on one of these assholes, you'd be the first one running back here saying how he murdered a man without a trial...

As far as why Stevens didn't get what he asked for, maybe you should talk to House REpublicans who slashed 100 million from Embassy Security budgets.

Yeah, I heard about that..............We have no armed forces anymore...........They are all gone...............................

Couldn't spare a platoon to the region............BTW which POTUS recently wanted to cut the size of the Marines.................But it's terrible Lib...................

Poor Obama didn't have the resources anymore as the Evil GOP got rid of the military while he wasn't loo ing. Dang this eyboard........................

That was some interesting smelling bullshit:

United States Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just as strong as it was 5 years ago.

 

[TemplarKormac]

1. January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

No US fatalities.

No U.S. citizens were killed or injured in the attack outside the U.S. Information Service building, which is near the U.S. Consulate in the eastern city.

Deadly Shooting in Calcutta May Be Linked to Al Qaeda - Los Angeles Times

-----

2. June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

All of the injured and dead were Pakistani. No US fatalities.


Karachi consulate attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-----

3. October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

Don't know why this one is on the list. But no US fatalities here either.


-----


4. February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

No US fatalities/injuries here.



CNN.com - Karachi consulate shooting kills 2 - Feb. 28, 2003

-----

5. May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.




U.S. Sought Security Improvements Prior to Attacks | PBS NewsHour | May 14, 2003 | PBS

So far, just one Benghazi style incident on Bush's watch. The kicker here was that the US tried to ramp up security at the compound prior to the bombing, but as with Benghazi, the request was denied. Can't really fault Bush for this one. Next.

-----

6. July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

Nether of whom were American. They were Uzbek security guards.



U.S., Israeli Embassies Hit In Uzbek Bomb Attacks (washingtonpost.com)

-----

7. December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

Once again, none of the fatalities were American. They consisted mainly of Arabs and Asians.



Nine killed as US consulate in Jeddah attacked | World news | theguardian.com

-----

8. March 2, 2006.Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers.

This was an attempt by terrorists to deter a Bush visit to Pakistan. While a Diplomat and his driver did die in the attack, the other two fatalities were not Americans. So, I fail to see how this one resembles Benghazi. Moving on.

-----

9. September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

No Americans were killed in the incident.



Four Armed Men Attack U.S. Embassy in Damascus

-----

10. January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

See that? No fatalities. No Americans died. So how does this resemble Benghazi? On to the next.

-----

11. March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

Neither of the dead were Americans. The mortar completely missed the embassy and landed in a schoolyard.



Intel Wars: The Secret History of the Fight Against Terror - Matthew M. Aid

-----

12. July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

Three police officers were among the dead. The other three were the assailants themselves.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/world/europe/09iht-turkey.4.14369483.html?_r=0

-------

13.September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Yes, two people were killed here. But no US Embassy staff were killed in the attack. But this again in no way resembles Benghazi.

Those killed include six Yemeni policemen and four civilians, he said, noting that the number of wounded is unclear. No U.S. Embassy employees were killed, the official added.

However, CNN affilliate WGRZ reported that Ahmed Elbaneh of Lackawanna, New York, said his sister, Susan, 18, and her new husband died in the attack.

Elbaneh said his sister left Lackawanna about a month ago for an arranged marriage and that she had been married for only 30 days. Elbaneh said family members in Yemen told him she was at the embassy translating for her new sister-in-law when the blast occurred.

...

President Bush condemned the attack, and warned that it is "a reminder that we are at war with extremists who will murder innocent people to achieve their ideological objectives."

Al Qaeda blamed for U.S. Embassy attack - CNN.com


______________________________________________________________


Seriously, who came up with this stuff? These "13 Benghazis that happened under Bush's watch" never happened. Perhaps people should do research. And as far as GOP lying goes, perhaps you should go after the liberal talking heads who polluted your minds with this nonsense.

Curious. Are you saying al Qaeda attacks don't count unless Americans are killed?

Did we care who else died when those 4 Americans were killed in Benghazi? Yeah, didn't think so. So for this to in any way remotely resemble Benghazi, A) At least four Americans (no other nationalities count, given that) need to die, and B) an Ambassador must die in each instance.

 

[Lumpy 1]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n679r1IAiT8]Flashback: Hillary Lies About Anti-Islamic Video at Benghazi State Funeral - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JoeB131]

[

First off, you obviously don't know me since I've been saying (like many other conservatives/republicans) that Obama's drone policy is one of the few things I agree with Obama on. Of course, many people who dislike Obama's drone program are from his own party. I would also point out that there are other ways to kill terrorists than drone attacks. Why not have agents pose as reporters to find the Benghazi terrorists? It certainly worked for the reporters.
As far as the republicans-slashed-100-million-from-embassy-budget talking point. Well, that talking point fell on its face long ago when Obama's own state department said that was nonsense. I might also point out that Obama's own state department spent a lot of money on recharging stations for electric cars for the embassy in Vienna. So apparently money wasn't too much of an obstacle to begin with.
So let us re-examine your last post. It was wrong. It was completely, factually, horribly wrong. Your rebuttal wasn't even regular wrong. It was a kind of wrong that makes other wrongs look true by comparison. It was almost spiritually wrong in the sense that it's transcending the borders of time and space. It was Buddha wrong.

Guy, I do know you.

You are one of these assholes who would cheer for Cancer if Obama cured Cancer.

And somehow, I doubt recharging stations for an electric car (retail cost less than $1000) is what blotted out the hundreds of millions Republicans cut from the Embassy Security Budget.

GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security | ThinkProgress

Republicans and their allies have been trying to politicize the attack — which killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya — suggesting, without evidence, the Obama administration may have ignored intelligence that the attack was imminent, didn’t properly secure the Benghazi compound and is now trying to cover it up.

But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“:

Oh, wait, there's more.

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

 

[Wildman]

Whoda thunk the First Lady had so much power over the networks?

Whoda thunk the First **** had so much power over the networks?

fixed it fer ya, fella, that bitch ain't no lady..., but to answer the Q. I 4 1

 

[beagle9]

[

First off, you obviously don't know me since I've been saying (like many other conservatives/republicans) that Obama's drone policy is one of the few things I agree with Obama on. Of course, many people who dislike Obama's drone program are from his own party. I would also point out that there are other ways to kill terrorists than drone attacks. Why not have agents pose as reporters to find the Benghazi terrorists? It certainly worked for the reporters.
As far as the republicans-slashed-100-million-from-embassy-budget talking point. Well, that talking point fell on its face long ago when Obama's own state department said that was nonsense. I might also point out that Obama's own state department spent a lot of money on recharging stations for electric cars for the embassy in Vienna. So apparently money wasn't too much of an obstacle to begin with.
So let us re-examine your last post. It was wrong. It was completely, factually, horribly wrong. Your rebuttal wasn't even regular wrong. It was a kind of wrong that makes other wrongs look true by comparison. It was almost spiritually wrong in the sense that it's transcending the borders of time and space. It was Buddha wrong.

Guy, I do know you.

You are one of these assholes who would cheer for Cancer if Obama cured Cancer.

And somehow, I doubt recharging stations for an electric car (retail cost less than $1000) is what blotted out the hundreds of millions Republicans cut from the Embassy Security Budget.

GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security | ThinkProgress

Republicans and their allies have been trying to politicize the attack — which killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya — suggesting, without evidence, the Obama administration may have ignored intelligence that the attack was imminent, didn’t properly secure the Benghazi compound and is now trying to cover it up.

But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“:

Oh, wait, there's more.

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Regardless, does any of these distractions that you keep laying out or on thick here, take away from the fact that Benghazi was a cover up or was attempted to be covered up by the Obama administration ? Otherwise explain the video push, and you all might be cleared finally. Can't do it can you? I didn't think so.

So far I haven't seen anyone clear up the reasoning for the video claim, in which was later found to be false, thus laying the grounds for an investigation into the cover up, and why a cover up was mounted by this administration after the consulate was attacked, and after Americans died in the attack. Now if the video was a propaganda tool that was quickly put out there by shady sources who wanted the state department, and then the American people to eat it all up in that way, then who were these shady sources, and why did the state department use such shady sources as a means to quickly give excuses as to why the attack took place in Benghazi ? Is our Intel so weak that we would gobble up some story that a video was the cause of the attack, and then our weak government took such a story and ran with it regardless of the story being found to be so far fetched that our supposed to be the best in the world Intel was caught totally off guard with a story like that, and it being a story in which was next being used in such a direct way by our own government mouth pieces like it was quickly afterwards ? The thing that makes it look so bad on the administration, is how many times they used it over and over again, as if they were trying to convince us that this was exactly what happened, and that we would believe them if they repeated it long and hard enough in the way that they did. The actions right after the attack happened by our government, is what has thrown up the red flags, and therefore has sparked the intense investigation into the accusation that a video caused this, when Americans know that it wasn't caused by a video at all now.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

[

First off, you obviously don't know me since I've been saying (like many other conservatives/republicans) that Obama's drone policy is one of the few things I agree with Obama on. Of course, many people who dislike Obama's drone program are from his own party. I would also point out that there are other ways to kill terrorists than drone attacks. Why not have agents pose as reporters to find the Benghazi terrorists? It certainly worked for the reporters.
As far as the republicans-slashed-100-million-from-embassy-budget talking point. Well, that talking point fell on its face long ago when Obama's own state department said that was nonsense. I might also point out that Obama's own state department spent a lot of money on recharging stations for electric cars for the embassy in Vienna. So apparently money wasn't too much of an obstacle to begin with.
So let us re-examine your last post. It was wrong. It was completely, factually, horribly wrong. Your rebuttal wasn't even regular wrong. It was a kind of wrong that makes other wrongs look true by comparison. It was almost spiritually wrong in the sense that it's transcending the borders of time and space. It was Buddha wrong.

Guy, I do know you.

You are one of these assholes who would cheer for Cancer if Obama cured Cancer.

And somehow, I doubt recharging stations for an electric car (retail cost less than $1000) is what blotted out the hundreds of millions Republicans cut from the Embassy Security Budget.

GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security | ThinkProgress



Oh, wait, there's more.

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Regardless, does any of these distractions that you keep laying out or on thick here, take away from the fact that Benghazi was a cover up or was attempted to be covered up by the Obama administration ? Otherwise explain the video push, and you all might be cleared finally. Can't do it can you? I didn't think so.

So far I haven't seen anyone clear up the reasoning for the video claim, in which was later found to be false, thus laying the grounds for an investigation into the cover up, and why a cover up was mounted by this administration after the consulate was attacked, and after Americans died in the attack. Now if the video was a propaganda tool that was quickly put out there by shady sources who wanted the state department, and then the American people to eat it all up in that way, then who were these shady sources, and why did the state department use such shady sources as a means to quickly give excuses as to why the attack took place in Benghazi ? Is our Intel so weak that we would gobble up some story that a video was the cause of the attack, and then our weak government took such a story and ran with it regardless of the story being found to be so far fetched that our supposed to be the best in the world Intel was caught totally off guard with a story like that in which was next being used in such a direct way by our own government mouth pieces ? The thing that makes it look so bad on the administration, is how many times they used it over and over again, as if they were trying to convince us that this was exactly what happened, and that we would believe them if they repeated it long and hard enough in the way that they did. The actions right after the attack of our government, is what has thrown up the red flags, and therefore has sparked the intense investigation into the accusation that a video caused this, when Americans know that it wasn't caused by a video at all.

Obama's... own... state... department... said... that... budget... cuts... had... nothing... to...do... with... security... decisions... in... Benghazi....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meIL1QaOt1s]Lack of Budget Not a Factor in Benghazi Security Decisions - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTnB9xFnqcI]State Dept Shocking Claim: 'We Had the Correct Number of Assets in Benghazi' - YouTube[/ame]

Also, 108,000 dollars went to the Vienna embassy for charging stations for electric cars as part of an energy efficiency program in the same pay cycle that ambassador Stevens asked for more security. Vienna, by the way, is considered one of the safest embassies in the world.

Now, back to your lack of factual information and long ago disproved stale talking points. Uhmmmmm.... they suck.

 

[JimH52]

Bottom line, the GOP is so afraid of Hillary, they have tried to keep this incident in the news as long as they can. They know there is no one in their camp that can defeat Hillary, so this is what they have.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Bottom line, the GOP is so afraid of Hillary, they have tried to keep this incident in the news as long as they can. They know there is no one in their camp that can defeat Hillary, so this is what they have.

I'm more than happy to skip Benghazi and talk about Hillarycare if you'd rather.
We could also talk about all her accomplishments as secretary of state. Oh wait, that gets us back to Benghazi.

 

[birddog]

Bottom line, the GOP is so afraid of Hillary, they have tried to keep this incident in the news as long as they can. They know there is no one in their camp that can defeat Hillary, so this is what they have.

I'm more than happy to skip Benghazi and talk about Hillarycare if you'd rather.
We could also talk about all her accomplishments as secretary of state. Oh wait, that gets us back to Benghazi.

And to Vince Foster and the "lost" records, the mysterious deaths in Arkansas, her lesbianism, her carpetbagging etc, etc!