Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Whoda thunk the First Lady had so much power over the networks?
And her so lacking in any sort of grace or class or elegance.
[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.
[
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........................
[
Obama's... own... state... department... said... that... budget... cuts... had... nothing... to...do... with... security... decisions... in... Benghazi....
[
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.
How many Americans died after W boasted this?
[
Obama's... own... state... department... said... that... budget... cuts... had... nothing... to...do... with... security... decisions... in... Benghazi....
Politicians...usually...do...not...air...their...dirty...laundry...in...public....
Point is, you guys slashed the budget, and then whine when a diplomat gets killed.
[
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.
108K wouldn't have paid the salary of one more security guard. Seriously, how much do you think these Mercenaries are making?
(Psst. Also- electric car charging stations aren't part of the money that was slashed from Security by Republicans.)
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.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.
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.
Ok. lets say we would insist that it was a flying saucer that crashed at Roswell says you, and so how do you explain Obama and his minions insisting it was a video that started a riot when it is proven later that it wasn't ? Isn't that the same thing ? Now doesn't that make them even bigger nutters or worse than that huge liars on such an important issue ?[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.
The problem here is that you start off from a faulty premise... that the video was blamed when EVERYONE knew it had nothing to do with the riot.
In fact, the oppossite was true. At the same time this riot was going on, there were riots in 20 other Islamic Countries, including Egypt, over this video that was deliberately intended to insult Muslims.
And it probably did play a factor. Since we haven't caught the guys who did it, we just don't know how much.
But here's the problem, you guys are kind of like the nutbags who insist a flying saucer crashed at Roswell...
No matter how much of evidence you are shown that it was a weather balloon, you will STILL insist it was a flying saucer.
No problem... thanksDude sorry for the mistake.
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.
You haven't "owned" anyone....a quick search here will give you all the information you want. Do that, then come back and talk about it, okey dokey?
[
Politicians are lying because they don't like airing dirty laundry? If what you are saying is that Obama and Hillary were lying to cover their own butts then I tend to agree with you.
Of course the real point is that the state department refused to provide the security the folks at Benghazi asked for. Money had nothing to do with it according to the state department and who the hell pushed the video lie to begin with? I would also like to know why the Benghazi terrorists are running free with apparent immunity.
(Psst. Saying the charging stations aren't part of the embassy's security money is ignoring the fact that money is fungible.)
It takes a certain kind of religious fervor to blame republicans for Barrack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's state department.
108K wouldn't have paid the salary of one more security guard? You don't really believe that do you? Of course you don't.
[
Ok. lets say we would insist that it was a flying saucer that crashed at Roswell says you, and so how do you explain Obama and his minions insisting it was a video that started a riot when it is proven later that it wasn't ? Isn't that the same thing ? Now doesn't that make them even bigger nutters or worse than that huge liars on such an important issue ?
[
Politicians are lying because they don't like airing dirty laundry? If what you are saying is that Obama and Hillary were lying to cover their own butts then I tend to agree with you.
Of course the real point is that the state department refused to provide the security the folks at Benghazi asked for. Money had nothing to do with it according to the state department and who the hell pushed the video lie to begin with? I would also like to know why the Benghazi terrorists are running free with apparent immunity.
(Psst. Saying the charging stations aren't part of the embassy's security money is ignoring the fact that money is fungible.)
It takes a certain kind of religious fervor to blame republicans for Barrack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's state department.
108K wouldn't have paid the salary of one more security guard? You don't really believe that do you? Of course you don't.
Gee, guy, do you know how much Blackwater and other Mercenary companies charge the government to put one fat military washout into an embassy?
Biggest ripoff ever, what these private contractors have been ripping the government off for.
Oh, were you this concerned with 7 years of Bush letting Bin Laden run around with apparent immunity... it would seem getting him was a bigger deal.
[
There are other ways of defending an embassy than using private contractors. The marines come to mind. Plus they are already payed for.
Let's now ignore the fact that the left's only defense of Obama is by talking about Bush. I understand it's just a knee jerk reaction void of any rational thinking process. I could just as easily bring up Clinton's lack of initiative when it came to capturing or killing Bin Laden.
I would also add that Bin Laden was hardly running around with apparent immunity. I think it is the consensus that Bid Laden was hiding, If Bin Laden were giving interviews to reporters at coffee shops like the leader of the Benghazi attack then you might have a point.
[
There are other ways of defending an embassy than using private contractors. The marines come to mind. Plus they are already payed for.
Let's now ignore the fact that the left's only defense of Obama is by talking about Bush. I understand it's just a knee jerk reaction void of any rational thinking process. I could just as easily bring up Clinton's lack of initiative when it came to capturing or killing Bin Laden.
I would also add that Bin Laden was hardly running around with apparent immunity. I think it is the consensus that Bid Laden was hiding, If Bin Laden were giving interviews to reporters at coffee shops like the leader of the Benghazi attack then you might have a point.
Bin Laden released regular tapes taunting Bush until Bush left office.
Oh, yeah, and here's part of the probelm. Benghazi wasn't an "embassy", it was a consulate.
No Marines.
That's why they were useing the Blackwater Washouts, until we finally fired blackwater.
[
There are other ways of defending an embassy than using private contractors. The marines come to mind. Plus they are already payed for.
Let's now ignore the fact that the left's only defense of Obama is by talking about Bush. I understand it's just a knee jerk reaction void of any rational thinking process. I could just as easily bring up Clinton's lack of initiative when it came to capturing or killing Bin Laden.
I would also add that Bin Laden was hardly running around with apparent immunity. I think it is the consensus that Bid Laden was hiding, If Bin Laden were giving interviews to reporters at coffee shops like the leader of the Benghazi attack then you might have a point.
Bin Laden released regular tapes taunting Bush until Bush left office.
Oh, yeah, and here's part of the probelm. Benghazi wasn't an "embassy", it was a consulate.
No Marines.
That's why they were useing the Blackwater Washouts, until we finally fired blackwater.
Bin Laden did not release tapes from the corner coffee shop surrounded by reporters.
Indeed, Benghazi wasn't an "embassy" but it also wasn't a "consulate". It was technically called a "diplomatic facility". I generally just use the word 'embassy" because I don't feel like splitting hairs when the topic is bigger than what we call a building that holds american workers and a diplomat in a foreign land.
Contrary to what you may believe, it is not illegal to have Marines defend a "diplomatic facility" while it's being attacked. Especially when there was warning that the "diplomatic facility" was going to be attacked on 9/11.
The "security" of the Benghazi "diplomatic facility" was done by a local Lybian militia who ran away as soon as the attacks started. I WISH the facility was secured by Blackwater "washouts". I'm sure the families of the four people murdered in Benghazi wish the Blackwater "washouts" were there as well.
Bin Laden released regular tapes taunting Bush until Bush left office.
Oh, yeah, and here's part of the probelm. Benghazi wasn't an "embassy", it was a consulate.
No Marines.
That's why they were useing the Blackwater Washouts, until we finally fired blackwater.
Bin Laden did not release tapes from the corner coffee shop surrounded by reporters.
Indeed, Benghazi wasn't an "embassy" but it also wasn't a "consulate". It was technically called a "diplomatic facility". I generally just use the word 'embassy" because I don't feel like splitting hairs when the topic is bigger than what we call a building that holds american workers and a diplomat in a foreign land.
Contrary to what you may believe, it is not illegal to have Marines defend a "diplomatic facility" while it's being attacked. Especially when there was warning that the "diplomatic facility" was going to be attacked on 9/11.
The "security" of the Benghazi "diplomatic facility" was done by a local Lybian militia who ran away as soon as the attacks started. I WISH the facility was secured by Blackwater "washouts". I'm sure the families of the four people murdered in Benghazi wish the Blackwater "washouts" were there as well.
Two of them were washouts, and it's their families who are doing most of the whining.
Like they didn't know their family members went off to be mercenaries for some Soldier for Hire outfit. (Something we need to seriously put an end to.)
No, the topic isn't "bigger" than the hairs you want to split. Because frankly, it's all about hating Obama no matter what, no matter who you got to embrace.
[
I don't really know what you mean by "washouts" but they were certainly heroic "washouts" for trying to save the americans who were being attacked after the Lybian militia "security" force ran away.
This is probably a futile attempt but I want you to understand what position Obama has put you into. Instead of condemning the terrorists, you are attacking the murdered. You even went so far as to blame Stevens for being murdered instead of blaming the murderers. Attempting to support Obama has become an exercise in defending the indefensible. Instead of asking questions about what went wrong in Benghazi you attack the family members of the dead instead. You accuse the families of the fallen of "whining".
In a last gasp of frayed indignation in a deteriorating argument you now say this entire conversation is only a byproduct of hatred for Obama. Your defense of Obama is apparently a form of religious zealotry where condemning the murdered is part of the ritual. I don't envy your position. However,I envy the widows and children of the fallen heroes of Benghazi even less.
