New Benghazi E-mails Link White House to Doctoring of Talking Points

[mudwhistle]

Carbine, your sarcasm only shows how weak your argument is. In addition to learning how to speak English, I studied it in broader, deeper detail. Meaning I know how to discern the differences between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism."

Pick up a dictionary.

Um, sorry, Cleetus, you are using a distinction without a difference.

Any sensible person knew exactly what the president was talking about.

Your boy Romney didn't do his research, and he got bitchslapped.

Actually, he underestimated just how low Obama would stoop to prove a point, including lie and conspire with the moderator ahead of time to trip him up.

Romney didn't expect Obama to be such a sleaze.

 

[boedicca]

Bush rode Clinton's good management before he found ways to fuck it up.

Clinton had a congress that wasn't out to make him look bad. You had Newt and Lott, now you have a Boner and Do by Harry....

Are you fucking kidding me?

Newt tried to IMPEACH CLINTON OVER A BLOW JOB! That was before making public all sorts of lurid stuff about his sex life, accusing him of rape and murder.

Now, come on, even I wouldn't have tried to make that kind of claim when I was a Republican.

^^^ Deluded Moonbat ^^^

Clinton was impeached for LYING and ABUSE OF POWER.

 

[mudwhistle]

Clinton had a congress that wasn't out to make him look bad. You had Newt and Lott, now you have a Boner and Do by Harry....

Are you fucking kidding me?

Newt tried to IMPEACH CLINTON OVER A BLOW JOB! That was before making public all sorts of lurid stuff about his sex life, accusing him of rape and murder.

Now, come on, even I wouldn't have tried to make that kind of claim when I was a Republican.

^^^ Deluded Moonbat ^^^

Clinton was impeached for LYING.

Perjury to be exact.

 

[JoeB131]

Clinton had a congress that wasn't out to make him look bad. You had Newt and Lott, now you have a Boner and Do by Harry....

Are you fucking kidding me?

Newt tried to IMPEACH CLINTON OVER A BLOW JOB! That was before making public all sorts of lurid stuff about his sex life, accusing him of rape and murder.

Now, come on, even I wouldn't have tried to make that kind of claim when I was a Republican.

^^^ Deluded Moonbat ^^^

Clinton was impeached for LYING and ABUSE OF POWER.

Yes. About a BLOWJOB.

But Muddy was trying to claim that Newt wasn't trying to make Clinton look bad. That in fact, he was trying to save Clinton from himself.

 

[JoeB131]

Carbine, your sarcasm only shows how weak your argument is. In addition to learning how to speak English, I studied it in broader, deeper detail. Meaning I know how to discern the differences between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism."

Pick up a dictionary.

Um, sorry, Cleetus, you are using a distinction without a difference.

Any sensible person knew exactly what the president was talking about.

Your boy Romney didn't do his research, and he got bitchslapped.

Actually, he underestimated just how low Obama would stoop to prove a point, including lie and conspire with the moderator ahead of time to trip him up.

Romney didn't expect Obama to be such a sleaze.

Um, Crowley and Obama didn't make the Weird Mormon Robot claim that Obama refused to call it terrorism when he obviously had.

Romney did that all on his own.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you fucking kidding me?

Newt tried to IMPEACH CLINTON OVER A BLOW JOB! That was before making public all sorts of lurid stuff about his sex life, accusing him of rape and murder.

Now, come on, even I wouldn't have tried to make that kind of claim when I was a Republican.

^^^ Deluded Moonbat ^^^

Clinton was impeached for LYING and ABUSE OF POWER.

Yes. About a BLOWJOB.

But Muddy was trying to claim that Newt wasn't trying to make Clinton look bad. That in fact, he was trying to save Clinton from himself.

Clinton was impeached for perjury. They also had strong suspicions he had sold secrets to the Chinese. Clinton is the only president impeached in the 20th century. So of course he's a hero to the Left.

 

[mudwhistle]

Democrats left before the family members of the dead in Benghazi testified.

Why??????

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Guys, stop responding to Joe. He has tried every day for the four days to derail this thread. He hasn't. Let's keep it that way.

One can’t ‘derail’ something that was never on track to begin with.

 

[mudwhistle]

Um, sorry, Cleetus, you are using a distinction without a difference.

Any sensible person knew exactly what the president was talking about.

Your boy Romney didn't do his research, and he got bitchslapped.

Actually, he underestimated just how low Obama would stoop to prove a point, including lie and conspire with the moderator ahead of time to trip him up.

Romney didn't expect Obama to be such a sleaze.

Um, Crowley and Obama didn't make the Weird Mormon Robot claim that Obama refused to call it terrorism when he obviously had.

Romney did that all on his own.

After the debate Crowley admitted that Mitt was correct.

Obama said terrorism once in his speech in the Rose Garden, but didn't specifically say any of the protests were terrorism. He was speaking of terrorism in general of course. Obama set Mitt up by saying he did mention terrorism. Mitt, of course called him on it, and Crowley, who was in on it, told Mitt he did. Well, he did "mention" terror, but he also called it a spontaneous protest for weeks later. So it can't be both.

The truth is he did NOT call 'IT' (Benghazi) an act of terror. He said "NO ACT OF TERROR", not that Benghazi was an act of terror. The only reason Crowley was prepared to back him up was because Obama and Crowley set it up. I know that doesn't seem possible, but their you have it. Obama did so poorly in the first debate that he rigged the second one.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACBfEOA6Ul8]Pres. Obama fact checks Mitt Romney's Epic Libya Fail - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, he underestimated just how low Obama would stoop to prove a point, including lie and conspire with the moderator ahead of time to trip him up.

Romney didn't expect Obama to be such a sleaze.

Um, Crowley and Obama didn't make the Weird Mormon Robot claim that Obama refused to call it terrorism when he obviously had.

Romney did that all on his own.

After the debate Crowley admitted that Mitt was correct.

Obama said terrorism once in his speech in the Rose Garden, but didn't specifically say any of the protests were terrorism. He was speaking of terrorism in general of course. Obama set Mitt up by saying he did mention terrorism. Mitt, of course called him on it, and Crowley, who was in on it, told Mitt he did. Well, he did "mention" terror, but he also called it a spontaneous protest for weeks later. So it can't be both.

The truth is he did NOT call 'IT' (Benghazi) an act of terror. He said "NO ACT OF TERROR", not that Benghazi was an act of terror. The only reason Crowley was prepared to back him up was because Obama and Crowley set it up. I know that doesn't seem possible, but their you have it. Obama did so poorly in the first debate that he rigged the second one.
rl]

Oh, the "We Wuz Robbed" argument.

Guy, repeat after me.

The reason you lost in 2012 was because Romney was an awful candidate that most of your own party didn't really want.

The sooner you all stop making excuses and start understanding why you lost, you might even get to be a relevant party again.

 

[JoeB131]

[qu

Clinton was impeached for perjury. They also had strong suspicions he had sold secrets to the Chinese. Clinton is the only president impeached in the 20th century. So of course he's a hero to the Left.

If they thought he sold secrets to the Chinese, they should have impeached him for that.

But impeaching him for lying about an affair when half these guys had mistresses themselves, that just smacks of hypocrisy.

So let's get the logic straight here.

Lie about a blow job- Impeachable.

Lie about weapons of mass destruction, leading to a war that killed 5000 Americans and half a million Iraqis. Not impeachable.

Am I getting this right, Rabbid?

 

[mudwhistle]

Um, Crowley and Obama didn't make the Weird Mormon Robot claim that Obama refused to call it terrorism when he obviously had.

Romney did that all on his own.

After the debate Crowley admitted that Mitt was correct.

Obama said terrorism once in his speech in the Rose Garden, but didn't specifically say any of the protests were terrorism. He was speaking of terrorism in general of course. Obama set Mitt up by saying he did mention terrorism. Mitt, of course called him on it, and Crowley, who was in on it, told Mitt he did. Well, he did "mention" terror, but he also called it a spontaneous protest for weeks later. So it can't be both.

The truth is he did NOT call 'IT' (Benghazi) an act of terror. He said "NO ACT OF TERROR", not that Benghazi was an act of terror. The only reason Crowley was prepared to back him up was because Obama and Crowley set it up. I know that doesn't seem possible, but their you have it. Obama did so poorly in the first debate that he rigged the second one.
rl]

Oh, the "We Wuz Robbed" argument.

Guy, repeat after me.

The reason you lost in 2012 was because Romney was an awful candidate that most of your own party didn't really want.

The sooner you all stop making excuses and start understanding why you lost, you might even get to be a relevant party again.

Romney wasn't a lousy candidate, because he cleaned Obama's clock in the first debate.


Kicked his fucken ass badly, so badly that it was an embarrassment.

 

[mudwhistle]

[qu

Clinton was impeached for perjury. They also had strong suspicions he had sold secrets to the Chinese. Clinton is the only president impeached in the 20th century. So of course he's a hero to the Left.

If they thought he sold secrets to the Chinese, they should have impeached him for that.

But impeaching him for lying about an affair when half these guys had mistresses themselves, that just smacks of hypocrisy.

So let's get the logic straight here.

Lie about a blow job- Impeachable.

Lie about weapons of mass destruction, leading to a war that killed 5000 Americans and half a million Iraqis. Not impeachable.

Am I getting this right, Rabbid?

First : Clinton was impeached for perjury.

Second : You can't prove he lied about WMDs when you refuse to look at the evidence they did find.

Third : It's up to you to prove that he knew before we went in that they weren't there. Otherwise you're pulling that shit out of your backside.

 

[mudwhistle]

If Romney sucked why is Obama looking like the fool when it comes to the Russia?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwQqNdkyZZo]Romney was right about Russia - Obama was clueless. - YouTube[/ame]

The stuttering fool really needs to eat crow for all of this Bull Shit.

 

[boedicca]

Democrats left before the family members of the dead in Benghazi testified.

Why??????

I doubt it was due to them having a sense of SHAME..so I'll have to file this one under COWARDS.

 

[1776]

If the POTUS will lie about a terrorist attack, downplaying the event even allowing the Americans under attack to die in order to downplay the event.....that piece of shit should be impeached for manslaughter and high treason, nevermind perjury.

If the public is lied to about a terrorist attack in order to win an election, then anything is fair game for him.

 

[tinydancer]

Are you fucking kidding me?

Newt tried to IMPEACH CLINTON OVER A BLOW JOB! That was before making public all sorts of lurid stuff about his sex life, accusing him of rape and murder.

Now, come on, even I wouldn't have tried to make that kind of claim when I was a Republican.

^^^ Deluded Moonbat ^^^

Clinton was impeached for LYING and ABUSE OF POWER.

Yes. About a BLOWJOB.

But Muddy was trying to claim that Newt wasn't trying to make Clinton look bad. That in fact, he was trying to save Clinton from himself.

What are you talking about? Perjury in the Paula Jones case. It's a big freaking deal. You really need to smack yourself upside the head if you think this boils down to a blow job.

Nice drum you are beating, but you are a tin soldier to try this bullshit on anyone with any semblance of intelligence.

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh wait.

Bush's Wars Of Choice:

Number of American service personal who have died in Afghanistan: 2313
Number of American service personal who have died in Iraq: 4487

That figure doesn't include contractors or other US citizens.

Benghazi: 4

Please neocon whiney fucks - don't start. You look silly

What's gonna make you look even more stupid is the fact more soldiers have died under Obama's watch in Afghanistan than under Bush. You really oughtta stop calling us neocons now.

It not about how it's ended up, it's about who started it. Johnson and Kennedy were responsible for Vietnam, not Nixon. Know your history before spouting off...

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh wait.

Bush's Wars Of Choice:

Number of American service personal who have died in Afghanistan: 2313
Number of American service personal who have died in Iraq: 4487

That figure doesn't include contractors or other US citizens.

Benghazi: 4

Please neocon whiney fucks - don't start. You look silly

Comparing two wars vs Benghazi is as whacked out as comparing Vietnam to 9/11.

War vs terrorist attack is apples vs oranges.

Not when looking at cause and effect it's not...
Plus Afghanistan was all about terrorism - remember Bin Laden and AQ?

 

[tinydancer]

Perjury. Obstruction of Justice. This is all on the record.