Lyndsey Graham Who Was Directly Lied To Says House Benghazi Report Full of C R A P

[Oldstyle]

'Cause right now terrorists control an area of the Middle East that's awfully large and they didn't have that territory when Barry made those claims...just sayin'...

 

[Oldstyle]

The truth of the matter is that the "love" that Bill Clinton engenders from most Democrats does not carry over to Hillary. She has a history of conflicts with other Democrats that Bill simply doesn't have.

I think you may be talking about Republicans hating Hillary. I voted for her and so did 18,000,000 other voters in her primaries. She and Barack Obama were virtually tied. The result came down to delegates, if you can recall that race. That was the one where Rush Limpballs thought up Operation Chaos I and II but to no avail because he was convinced Republican McCain could beat her in the General.

You guys have some weird ideas about things. You're very lucky Democratic voters were also upset with their candidates this time and didn't show up to vote. It won't be the same scenario in 2016. Hillary will win.

Your claim that "luck" had something to do with Democratic voters not showing up at the polls this election is rather amusing, Sarah. It wasn't luck...it was a total lack of enthusiasm for the liberal agenda of Barack Obama. The voters (Democrats, Independents and Republicans) are underwhelmed by what Progressives have done with the country. The economy continues to tread water six years after the end of the recession...our foreign policy is so discombobulated I don't think it exists any more...and we're far more divided now then when Barack Obama took office.

Wrong again. Boy, I've never seen anyone who could be wrong so many times, not even here.

What am I wrong on, Sarah? You got very "general" all of a sudden. Is the economy not treading water? Is our foreign policy not in tatters at the moment? Are we not more divided now than at any time you can remember?

I guess I'm just bored with you and your talking points. You're boring, guy.

Am I "boring" because you don't have a response to what I've said, Sarah? 'Cause it kind of looks that way from where I'm sitting...

 

[Sarah G]

I think you may be talking about Republicans hating Hillary. I voted for her and so did 18,000,000 other voters in her primaries. She and Barack Obama were virtually tied. The result came down to delegates, if you can recall that race. That was the one where Rush Limpballs thought up Operation Chaos I and II but to no avail because he was convinced Republican McCain could beat her in the General.

You guys have some weird ideas about things. You're very lucky Democratic voters were also upset with their candidates this time and didn't show up to vote. It won't be the same scenario in 2016. Hillary will win.

Your claim that "luck" had something to do with Democratic voters not showing up at the polls this election is rather amusing, Sarah. It wasn't luck...it was a total lack of enthusiasm for the liberal agenda of Barack Obama. The voters (Democrats, Independents and Republicans) are underwhelmed by what Progressives have done with the country. The economy continues to tread water six years after the end of the recession...our foreign policy is so discombobulated I don't think it exists any more...and we're far more divided now then when Barack Obama took office.

Wrong again. Boy, I've never seen anyone who could be wrong so many times, not even here.

What am I wrong on, Sarah? You got very "general" all of a sudden. Is the economy not treading water? Is our foreign policy not in tatters at the moment? Are we not more divided now than at any time you can remember?

I guess I'm just bored with you and your talking points. You're boring, guy.

Am I "boring" because you don't have a response to what I've said, Sarah? 'Cause it kind of looks that way from where I'm sitting...

Nooo, I'm not even reading your shit at this point.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm the kind of conservative that liberal ideologues HATE, Sarah...I don't make over the top charges...I don't throw tantrums and rant racist things about Barack Obama...all I do is point out what I see happening in front of me.

 

[Oldstyle]

Maybe you'd be better off getting in an argument with someone who doesn't make thoughtful responses?

 

[Claudette]

Maybe you'd be better off getting in an argument with someone who doesn't make thoughtful responses?

You got that right.

Sarah sounds like someone who would vote for Jack the Ripper as long as he were a Dem and she would rather you rant and rave than make intelligent responses to her posts.

I don't have a clue who the Reps are going to field in 2016 but I have a feeling if the Dems try to go with HRC they are gonna lose big time.

 

[BlindBoo]

att

Yes there were protest all over the Middle East that week

Timeline Protests over anti-Islam video - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Did they or did they not say that they would have to wait for the investigation to be complete before we would know conclusively what happened?

For there to be a cover-up, there needs to be some crime to cover up. You know like Nixon's covering up the activities of CREEP.

You don't have to have a crime to have a cover-up. What you need is something harmful to you. Nixon covered-up the Watergate break-in not because he was guilty of a crime but because what occurred would have been embarrassing to him politically. Clinton tried to cover up the Monica Lewinsky scandal because that was embarrassing to him politically. Obama attempted to cover-up what happened in Benghazi not because it was criminal...he did so because it was embarrassing that as he was running for re-election with a message of Osama bin is dead and Al Queda is on the run that Al Queda murdered a US Ambassador at our Consulate.

That must be the worst cover up in History because the entire world knew about the deaths of the four Americans almost as it happened. That they speculated that the extremist used a protest, (like had been springing up across the region in response to an anti-Mohammad trailer on you tube) as a pretext to attack is not a cover-up.

The cover-up wasn't about the deaths of the four Americans, Blind...the cover-up was done to protect a political narrative that Barack Obama was running for reelection on...namely that he had Al Queda "on the run". When the group that you supposedly have on the run attacks one of your consulates and kills one of your Ambassadors then it's rather obvious that your claim that they are "on the run" is a bit overstated!

The group of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9-11, or the USS Cole in 2000, or our Embassies in Africa in 1998, is not the same group that assaulted the consulate in Benghazi. They usually went for large truck bombs or worse, to kill large numbers of innocent people. Even still President Obama warned us on the night he announced Osama's killing: "Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us." So there really was no overstatement.

So when Obama made the statement that Al Queda was on the run you don't think he overstated the situation just a "bit", Boo?

It was part and parcel of his stump speeches. Name me a politician who doesn't over simply situations and embellish their own records.

 

[Dot Com]

so, to sum things up:

Repubs have found there to be "no there there" in their exhaustive & EXPENSIVE hearings but the USMB eXtreme rw don't accept it.

 

[BlindBoo]

'Cause right now terrorists control an area of the Middle East that's awfully large and they didn't have that territory when Barry made those claims...just sayin'...

The former al Qaeda in Iraq and their old partners, the Iraqi Sunnis?

Sounds like another incarnation of the Iraq Civil War. Not much to do with Libya.

 

[Siete]

so, to sum things up:

Repubs have found there to be "no there there" in their exhaustive & EXPENSIVE hearings but the USMB eXtreme rw don't accept it.

yeah, that's about it .. but who knows, 13 investigations, 25,000 pages of documents, and over 50 briefings later, they might find the TRUTH .. next time

 

[Oldstyle]

att

You don't have to have a crime to have a cover-up. What you need is something harmful to you. Nixon covered-up the Watergate break-in not because he was guilty of a crime but because what occurred would have been embarrassing to him politically. Clinton tried to cover up the Monica Lewinsky scandal because that was embarrassing to him politically. Obama attempted to cover-up what happened in Benghazi not because it was criminal...he did so because it was embarrassing that as he was running for re-election with a message of Osama bin is dead and Al Queda is on the run that Al Queda murdered a US Ambassador at our Consulate.

That must be the worst cover up in History because the entire world knew about the deaths of the four Americans almost as it happened. That they speculated that the extremist used a protest, (like had been springing up across the region in response to an anti-Mohammad trailer on you tube) as a pretext to attack is not a cover-up.

The cover-up wasn't about the deaths of the four Americans, Blind...the cover-up was done to protect a political narrative that Barack Obama was running for reelection on...namely that he had Al Queda "on the run". When the group that you supposedly have on the run attacks one of your consulates and kills one of your Ambassadors then it's rather obvious that your claim that they are "on the run" is a bit overstated!

The group of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9-11, or the USS Cole in 2000, or our Embassies in Africa in 1998, is not the same group that assaulted the consulate in Benghazi. They usually went for large truck bombs or worse, to kill large numbers of innocent people. Even still President Obama warned us on the night he announced Osama's killing: "Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us." So there really was no overstatement.

So when Obama made the statement that Al Queda was on the run you don't think he overstated the situation just a "bit", Boo?

It was part and parcel of his stump speeches. Name me a politician who doesn't over simply situations and embellish their own records.

I know it was "part and parcel" of his stump speech! That was why he was so reluctant to give it up and admit that he DIDN'T have Al Queda on the run! It was why Ben Rhodes sent Susan Rice out to those Sunday morning talk shows to push a false narrative.

 

[Oldstyle]

so, to sum things up:

Repubs have found there to be "no there there" in their exhaustive & EXPENSIVE hearings but the USMB eXtreme rw don't accept it.

yeah, that's about it .. but who knows, 13 investigations, 25,000 pages of documents, and over 50 briefings later, they might find the TRUTH .. next time

Maybe next time, the most transparent Administration ever will simply tell the American people the truth without having to go through all of the above!

 

[Siete]

so, to sum things up:

Repubs have found there to be "no there there" in their exhaustive & EXPENSIVE hearings but the USMB eXtreme rw don't accept it.

yeah, that's about it .. but who knows, 13 investigations, 25,000 pages of documents, and over 50 briefings later, they might find the TRUTH .. next time

Maybe next time, the most transparent Administration ever will simply tell the American people the truth without having to go through all of the above!

I bet somewhere in the world this admin is relevant to the House Intelligence Report on Benghazi .... IF YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

 

[BlindBoo]

att

That must be the worst cover up in History because the entire world knew about the deaths of the four Americans almost as it happened. That they speculated that the extremist used a protest, (like had been springing up across the region in response to an anti-Mohammad trailer on you tube) as a pretext to attack is not a cover-up.

The cover-up wasn't about the deaths of the four Americans, Blind...the cover-up was done to protect a political narrative that Barack Obama was running for reelection on...namely that he had Al Queda "on the run". When the group that you supposedly have on the run attacks one of your consulates and kills one of your Ambassadors then it's rather obvious that your claim that they are "on the run" is a bit overstated!

The group of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9-11, or the USS Cole in 2000, or our Embassies in Africa in 1998, is not the same group that assaulted the consulate in Benghazi. They usually went for large truck bombs or worse, to kill large numbers of innocent people. Even still President Obama warned us on the night he announced Osama's killing: "Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us." So there really was no overstatement.

So when Obama made the statement that Al Queda was on the run you don't think he overstated the situation just a "bit", Boo?

It was part and parcel of his stump speeches. Name me a politician who doesn't over simply situations and embellish their own records.

I know it was "part and parcel" of his stump speech! That was why he was so reluctant to give it up and admit that he DIDN'T have Al Queda on the run! It was why Ben Rhodes sent Susan Rice out to those Sunday morning talk shows to push a false narrative.

If al Qaeda goes from attacking the worlds remaining superpower at the heart of our military in our capital, and our financial center in New York City , killing 3000+ people, to attacking and torching a Consulate Building in Benghazi Libya, yeah that would be on the run. Especially when you consider the militants in Libya were very loosely connected to the al Qaeda of bin Laden.

Still no scandalous cover up.

 

[Sarah G]

Maybe you'd be better off getting in an argument with someone who doesn't make thoughtful responses?

Uhm no. Thoughtful isn't the word..

 

[Mojo2]

If Clinton really was as intelligent as her hubby she would have simply admitted to misjudging the situation and that would have been the end of it. Yes, she would have been taken over the coals for a period of time and then the controversy would have died a natural death under the weight of all the OTHER Obama scandals. Instead they made the call to try and stonewall the thing. Now it's years later and it's STILL news!

Sure it would have been the end of it. Don't try to advise Mrs. Clinton or president Obama, you aren't near ready.

I would be very surprised if Hillary Clinton wouldn't now ruefully admit that the decisions made back then were probably not in her best interest now, Sarah. I'm a history major...history tells us that the cover-up almost always gets you in bigger trouble than the initial problem.

I would agree with this in part. What I don't believe is that the matter would have been done with if the administration had done things differently. The Republican congress has nothing better to do than spend their days obstructing. Can't wait to see what they do over the next two years when they don't have Democrats to blame.

It's a pretty easy call actually, Sarah. You've got a main stream media that is sympathetic to you. Use it! Admit that you miscalculated, take full blame for what happened and promise to fix the issue. That sympathetic media is going to hold it against you for a brief amount of time and then it would just be one more mountain that became a molehill. It's literally YEARS later now and the scandal still is an issue BECAUSE of the cover-up!

What coverup. You have to stop pulling this stuff out of thin air.

"What coverup. You have to stop pulling this stuff out of thin air."

OF COURSE it's a cover up!

Try answering this question:

Senator Lindsey Graham: Was there any airplane launched anywhere in the world before the attack was concluded?

General Martin Dempsey: If you’re talking about a strike aircraft, no, Senator.

Why the fizzuck NOT???

If you can't answer that question then shut up until you can...

I believe that will be AFTER the Gowdy Committee issues it's findings.

AND NOT BEFORE!

 

[Siete]

HoHo believes ..

well then, that's settles THAT !

BBBAAAAWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Siete]

South Carolina Republican congressman Trey Gowdy claimed he has evidence of “a systematic, intentional decision to withhold certain documents from Congress” about the Benghazi attacks and alleged White House cover-up.

Gowdy had this intel before The House Intelligence Committee released their findings on Benghazi. FACT !

so why didn't he come forward with that intel and inform The House Intelligence Committee with the damning evidence and seal the fate of Clinton and Obama ?


because Gowdy is full of shit and dopes like HoHo believe him systematically ,and intentionally

 

[Sarah G]

Sure it would have been the end of it. Don't try to advise Mrs. Clinton or president Obama, you aren't near ready.

I would be very surprised if Hillary Clinton wouldn't now ruefully admit that the decisions made back then were probably not in her best interest now, Sarah. I'm a history major...history tells us that the cover-up almost always gets you in bigger trouble than the initial problem.

I would agree with this in part. What I don't believe is that the matter would have been done with if the administration had done things differently. The Republican congress has nothing better to do than spend their days obstructing. Can't wait to see what they do over the next two years when they don't have Democrats to blame.

It's a pretty easy call actually, Sarah. You've got a main stream media that is sympathetic to you. Use it! Admit that you miscalculated, take full blame for what happened and promise to fix the issue. That sympathetic media is going to hold it against you for a brief amount of time and then it would just be one more mountain that became a molehill. It's literally YEARS later now and the scandal still is an issue BECAUSE of the cover-up!

What coverup. You have to stop pulling this stuff out of thin air.

"What coverup. You have to stop pulling this stuff out of thin air."

OF COURSE it's a cover up!

Try answering this question:

Senator Lindsey Graham: Was there any airplane launched anywhere in the world before the attack was concluded?

General Martin Dempsey: If you’re talking about a strike aircraft, no, Senator.

Why the fizzuck NOT???

If you can't answer that question then shut up until you can...

I believe that will be AFTER the Gowdy Committee issues it's findings.

AND NOT BEFORE!

Ooo keyboard commando. I doubt you'd ever tell anyone IRL to shut up, especially not your wife or any woman. Old man.

 

[Mojo2]

I would be very surprised if Hillary Clinton wouldn't now ruefully admit that the decisions made back then were probably not in her best interest now, Sarah. I'm a history major...history tells us that the cover-up almost always gets you in bigger trouble than the initial problem.

I would agree with this in part. What I don't believe is that the matter would have been done with if the administration had done things differently. The Republican congress has nothing better to do than spend their days obstructing. Can't wait to see what they do over the next two years when they don't have Democrats to blame.

It's a pretty easy call actually, Sarah. You've got a main stream media that is sympathetic to you. Use it! Admit that you miscalculated, take full blame for what happened and promise to fix the issue. That sympathetic media is going to hold it against you for a brief amount of time and then it would just be one more mountain that became a molehill. It's literally YEARS later now and the scandal still is an issue BECAUSE of the cover-up!

What coverup. You have to stop pulling this stuff out of thin air.

"What coverup. You have to stop pulling this stuff out of thin air."

OF COURSE it's a cover up!

Try answering this question:

Senator Lindsey Graham: Was there any airplane launched anywhere in the world before the attack was concluded?

General Martin Dempsey: If you’re talking about a strike aircraft, no, Senator.

Why the fizzuck NOT???

If you can't answer that question then shut up until you can...

I believe that will be AFTER the Gowdy Committee issues it's findings.

AND NOT BEFORE!

Ooo keyboard commando. I doubt you'd ever tell anyone IRL to shut up, especially not your wife or any woman. Old man.

The emphasis is not on ME.

But you.

And the focus should not be on the STFU as much as it should be on not speaking any more ignorant nonsense until after you have the facts.

Young Fluke.