Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[Plasmaball]

You didn't slap down shit.

You still can't even back up your first assertion.

Who be the Yemeni dudes? You find that out yet?

Oh, my gracious. Every time I turn around, he's claiming pwnage.

He is becoming rabbi lite

 

[BDBoop]

You didn't slap down shit.

You still can't even back up your first assertion.

Who be the Yemeni dudes? You find that out yet?

Oh, my gracious. Every time I turn around, he's claiming pwnage.

He is becoming rabbi lite

I hadn't noticed the resemblance - but you are correct.

 

[paperview]

Ok...they still can be merged into the same thread

Because we had a discussion in the thread started by then progressive fluffer known here as Rightwinger... I believe I was told and asked to comment on the topic at hand, now I'm wondering if all the people that put stock in the NYT story will do as they asked of me...

I didn't read the NYT story and I don't give a fuck about this story. What I'm wondering is now that the NYT story is being challenged, will the fluffers disappear into the night, or will they pretend to be objective and looking for truth, you know, get to the bottom of this and hold Obama accountable.

So what will it be plaz, fluffer or realizing Obama has been a total waste of your time to get behind?

I don't care about this story. It's fake outrage is just that. Fake.

Benghazi has become their Vince Foster, and now they just can't handle what fools they've made themselves out to be.

Quick! Someone give Issa a watermelon to shoot.

 

[Plasmaball]

It's fake because this happened 50+ times with only 3 to 4 going to congress for hearings. The right said jack fucking shit then. Yet in typically whining can't fashion they needed to take something and push it to the extreme because they lost.

Had this been Romney or McCain, like bush they would have remained silent as the left pushed this issue. The OP doesn't really give a shit, the American people certainly don't give a shit.

This won't affect Hillary should she run for office. This didn't even put a dent in Obama 2012 run. These people are living in a bubble where the air is slowly starting to be used up.

But they are literally to fucking stupid to understand this because their hatred ( not I didn't say racist,because it's not), hatred of loosing to the other team.

It's as big a joke as the Foxfire thread on intolerance. They are literally too fucking stupid to get it.

 

[Plasmaball]

Oh, my gracious. Every time I turn around, he's claiming pwnage.

He is becoming rabbi lite

I hadn't noticed the resemblance - but you are correct.

Ah remember that thread where he wanted to reach across the Isle because of mendalas words?

Yeah so do I....it should have been in satire because it was a good joke.

 

[NoNukes]

After hearing about and reading the investigative report by the New York Times blaming a video for the attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012; which killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens, sources and eyewitnesses on the ground that night slammed the report as 'completely false.'

Doesn't pay to contradict people who were actually there as it happened, now does it. I gather the NYT and the Obama Administration should be ashamed of themselves for turning this into a farce. Those four men who died that night deserve better than this.



'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report | Fox News

Who are these "forces on the ground"?

That's "sources" not "forces", milady. And those sources would dare not reveal their identities for fear of retaliation by their own government.

Sorry about the mistake, and I do not know where miladay comes from. In other words though, none of these sources are identified. I could say people who were there said, and follow it with anything that I wanted.

 

[Kosh]

Ok...they still can be merged into the same thread

Because we had a discussion in the thread started by then progressive fluffer known here as Rightwinger... I believe I was told and asked to comment on the topic at hand, now I'm wondering if all the people that put stock in the NYT story will do as they asked of me...

I didn't read the NYT story and I don't give a fuck about this story. What I'm wondering is now that the NYT story is being challenged, will the fluffers disappear into the night, or will they pretend to be objective and looking for truth, you know, get to the bottom of this and hold Obama accountable.

So what will it be plaz, fluffer or realizing Obama has been a total waste of your time to get behind?

I don't care about this story. It's fake outrage is just that. Fake.

Being a far left Obama drone you should know about fake outrage.

 

[bayoubill]

sorry, guys...

this issue has been ignored, buried and forgotten just much as Bush's Iraq fuck-up and Clinton's blowjobs...

 

[S.J.]

Are you serious? That was thoroughly discussed on the thousand Benghazi threads started by the right....

Oh, that's right, Faux News wouldn't have covered it.....

Funny how the rw always seems to miss all the stories outing their deceitfulness.....

One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.
Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims

White House: GOP fabricated leaked Benghazi email | TheHill

"White House alleges". That's all we need to hear. A proven liar (who got "lie of the year") accuses his enemies of lying? I think that requires proof, don't you?

It's not Bush (liar) we're talking about.....

It's a fact that the e-mails were altered....deny, deny, deny, that's all the rw knows to do...

Read your own quote, stupid.

One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.

The key word here is ALLEGED. Obama "alleges" a lot of things, but being a proven liar, nothing he says means shit unless it's verified. So, until you provide some proof you've got nothing but accusations from a known liar. Saying it's fact doesn't make it fact.

 

[Plasmaball]

Because we had a discussion in the thread started by then progressive fluffer known here as Rightwinger... I believe I was told and asked to comment on the topic at hand, now I'm wondering if all the people that put stock in the NYT story will do as they asked of me...

I didn't read the NYT story and I don't give a fuck about this story. What I'm wondering is now that the NYT story is being challenged, will the fluffers disappear into the night, or will they pretend to be objective and looking for truth, you know, get to the bottom of this and hold Obama accountable.

So what will it be plaz, fluffer or realizing Obama has been a total waste of your time to get behind?

I don't care about this story. It's fake outrage is just that. Fake.

Being a far left Obama drone you should know about fake outrage.

Thank you for adding nothing to this already fake story.

 

[BDBoop]

Who are these "forces on the ground"?

That's "sources" not "forces", milady. And those sources would dare not reveal their identities for fear of retaliation by their own government.

Sorry about the mistake, and I do not know where miladay comes from. In other words though, none of these sources are identified. I could say people who were there said, and follow it with anything that I wanted.

Reminds me of the Fox news "Some people say," - you know. Like there's any kind of legitimacy there.

 

[Claudette]

Nothing fake about four dead men.

Nothing fake about all those warning they got.

Nothing fake about the Brits and the Red Cross pulling out because of those warning.

Nothing fake about Barry jetting off to his Vegas fundraiser.

Nothing fake about Hillary's State Department fucking the pooch on Benghazi.

Nothing fake about no one getting fired for their abject incompetence.

The only fake thing I see is that bs story in the NYSlimes.

Oh wait. I forgot. The NYT is the mouthpiece for the DNC. Never mind.

 

[JoeB131]

And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.


A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

You just believe anything, don't you?

Tell me something, did you read the part of the story where it says that no one in Libya even mentioned the video until the day after the attack? Did they use a time machine to express their outrage?

You really need to start taking your meds.

There was rioting all across the middle east for days before the attack, over this video.

Which they discussed in length on Page 4 of the article

 

[candycorn]

seriously, your hatred is showing

Some out of work loser in Georgia knows more than the NYT...what you don't believe him?

Darlin, anyone who thinks the New York Times is a stand alone reliable source that can look at an event like Benghazi "objectively" has got issues.

Okay stack up the qualifications. Who has been to Lybia? The out of work loser in GA or the NYT. I win.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Nothing fake about four dead men.

Nothing fake about all those warning they got.

Nothing fake about the Brits and the Red Cross pulling out because of those warning.

Nothing fake about Barry jetting off to his Vegas fundraiser.

Nothing fake about Hillary's State Department fucking the pooch on Benghazi.

Nothing fake about no one getting fired for their abject incompetence.

The only fake thing I see is that bs story in the NYSlimes.

Oh wait. I forgot. The NYT is the mouthpiece for the DNC. Never mind.

Did you mean "screwing the pooch?"

Obama flew off to Nevada the next day - on the 12th of September.

The warning??? What warning? Someone KNEW that there was going to be an attack, or are you talking about a general warning?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Anyone who reaches a conclusion after one story from one source is either terribly naïve or hyper-partisan.

Predictably, most of the networks have jumped on this, "the New York times says it, so case closed", but no doubt there's more to come.

.

 

[candycorn]

And you're a moron

Poor baby, nobody likes you.

Clinton/Warren 2016 ?

Wow, really Candy ? I do expect to see Hillary win the White House, but not with Warren as her running mate.

I would say not a chance in hell, but after this country elected Obama twice nothing would surprise me.

It's a long shot. A really long shot. But if you think about it from the viewpoints of what it takes to be POTUS:

Money-Hillary-Check
Name Recognition-Hillary-Check
Heavy Weight Credentials-Hillary-Check
Good in all time zones-Hillary-Check
Wants the Job-Hillary-Check

Now add in what you want from the VPOUTS candidate:

Energize the base-Warren-Check+++
No significant baggage-Warren-Check
Geographically balance the ticket-Warren-wiff

Then you get into the "like to haves" such as ethnicity (no bump from Warren), "rockstar" credentials (moderate bump), and ready to take over just in case (no bump from Warren but there is likely no great bump from any other DEM out there so it's a wash).

The pieces fit. Again, it's a long shot but there is some "there" there.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That's "sources" not "forces", milady. And those sources would dare not reveal their identities for fear of retaliation by their own government.

IOW, FOX/RNC made them up out of thin air and has to feed gullible SUCKERS a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory morons would easily believe.

Why does everything have to be about Fox? Why can't you debate the OP?

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), also a member of the intelligence committee, said on "Fox News Sunday" said the New York Times report added value, but that the newspaper did not have the level of information the intelligence committee had.

"I don't think the New York Times report is designed to exonerate the security lapses within the State Department that left our people vulnerable," Schiff said. "I do think it adds some valuable insights. I agree with Mike [Rogers] that, however, the intelligence indicates that al-Qaeda was involved. But there are also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that were involved."

"I think the intelligence paints a portrait that some people came to murder, some came to destroy property, some merely came to loot, and some came in part motivated by those videos," Schiff continued. "So it is a complex picture."

Mike Rogers: New York Times Benghazi Report 'Just Not Accurate' (UPDATE)

Satisfied?

You just derailed "your" thread.

By the way....there is no such thing as "your thread". You are weird to think there is. Nobody cares who starts a thread. Really. Nobody cares.

 

[candycorn]

Can you provide some definitions and then the polls that support your claim ?

It would be really nice to know that you are not talking out your backside.

People lie all the time. Like remember that time you lied about leaving the board if Romney lost?

AHA!! But s/h/it didn't say they wouldn't come back!!!

Got me there...

 

[JoeB131]

I guess the blatant attempt to rehabilitate Hillary is an epic failure. Benghazi will hang around her neck for the rest of her political life. No amount of lies or spin by the NY Times are other corrupt rags will change that. Might as well deal with it Libs.

Again, you've been trying for over a year to get traction on Benghazi, and other than your crazy birther bubble, you really haven't made any gains.

Can you point to one person who has said, "Man, I voted for Obama in 2012, but I'm going to totally vote for whatever Teabagger the GOP Puts up because I'm so angry that they said it was a video!"

Didn't think so.