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

[The T]

Yes we do.

Suspects? Charged?

And when were they proven guilty? And when did they testify the video had nothing to do with it?

Sorry, bud, but Obama isn't interested in catching anyone. It's been like 2 years Dude. Who cares now.

What Difference Will It Make?

 

[Vigilante]

550 tons of Yellowcake shipped to Canada after the war says you lie!

U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News

You were shown in other threads that this was simply not the case. The inspectors already knew about this stuff and it was contained. Furthermore, it was NOT the correct grade to make weapons.

LIAR!!!

You're simply WRONG as usual! But I do like the extra large LIAR.... I know when I get to piss off 2 digit IQ clowns!

The U.N. knew the yellowcake was there, and they were guarding it...why? Do I need to spell it out for you that the yellowcake, was what is needed to ENRICH to nuclear weapons grade, and the U.N. was afraid of that happening....and do you still think (I use the term loosely with you) that the U.N. Inspectors that were GUARDING the yellowcake, stayed in Iraq during the war? Of course the FACT that all U.N. personnel were withdrawn from Iraq before the war started, leaving that 550 TONS of yellowcake unguarded, and the fact that nearby villagers DID PILFER some of the containers, didn't mean shit!

You subversives try with all your might to spin shit, but logic catches you every time!

 

[Dr Grump]

Here's the real problem with Afghanistan that no one wants to discuss. If you had a fair and free election, the Taliban would win. Yes, they are backwards assholes from the 12th century, but that's kind of where those folks are at. Instead, we kept trying to prop up Karzai, who was corrupt and incompentent.

I recently did a resume for a fellow who had just returned from there, and he had an interesting observation. People who live in mountains, whether it be inthis country or over there, live in mountains because they DON'T want to be around other people.

I agree with a lot of what you say Joe, but this one I don't - to a degree. It's a fait accompli. The only reason the Taliban would win is because the people are ignorant and uneducated (and even then, I'm not sure they would win). Now, if the Taliban would win, then people not only would continue to be ignorant and uneducated, but women wouldn't even get to vote.

 

[Dr Grump]

[


Anyway, the guy has been bashed over the head with facts for 109 pages in this thread.

It's pretty hard to take a guy seriously who talks about a 109-page thread when with one click of a button for most of us it is only a 43 page thread. Yeah, that's right, you can actually show 40 posts per page. Only an idiot would want to click on more pages than they need to...

 

[TemplarKormac]

The only question here is why arent you outraged?

No, the question is, why are you only just now outraged?

It is offensively disingenuous that those currently twisting themselves into knots over Benghazi would have us believe they're motivated by justice for dead Americans. This story exists as a chew toy for people who hate Obama, and no other reason.

Say what now? Liberals have a propensity to label anyone people looking for answers as people who "hate Obama." Let's get one thing straight here. Not all of us hate the man Obama is. We hate the president he is. We hate what he exemplifies as a leader. We despise him for what he and his pals in the Democratic Party have done to this Country. He's a good father and a family man, granted. But to continue labeling people who want answers as those who "hate Obama" is intellectually bankrupt in and of itself. It's disingenuous and quite frankly equally as offensive.

I could also say likewise of you. Were you guys motivated with a false sense of justice when you accuse Bush of all the so-called 'crimes against humanity'? What about Dick Cheney and Halliburton? Don't sit there and tell me that wasn't motivated by hatred of Bush.

The story exists now because the Obama Administration lied and took control of the narrative over the death of four people. That is morally reprehensible, and in my case it is not motivated by a hatred of anyone. Seriously, politics should not invoke such strong emotion out of anybody. Politics are nothing but a simple waste of passion.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes we do.

Suspects? Charged?

And when were they proven guilty? And when did they testify the video had nothing to do with it?

Sorry, bud, but Obama isn't interested in catching anyone. It's been like 2 years Dude. Who cares now.

Dude, it's been like two years now!

Dude, like what difference does it make!"

Dude, like where's my car?

 

[Oldstyle]

Entirely true. Every talk show they went on they qualified their statement with the fact that they needed to wait for the investigation to be complete. It's recorded and I know damn well the transcript prove it.

Then post it. Post Rice's statements in their entirety. She, Clinton, and Obama all said, with no reservations, that the video was the cause.

please stop lying about this.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSooz2wXpes]Obama and Hillary Blame Youtube Video for Benghazi Terrorist Attack as Coffins Arrive - YouTube[/ame]

Read this carefully:

Nobody has proven that the video wasn't the cause and since even if the video was the cause it was still terrorism so it served no political purpose to say the video was the cause, or part of the cause, or a little bit of the cause, or no cause whatsoever.

The insignificance of this issue of 'spin' is even bigger than the hysteria of the Right.

And yet the Obama White House classified documents to hide them from the American people over what you now label insignificant. Their own actions illustrate quite clearly that THEY didn't think what happened was insignificant. You don't hide things if you have nothing to hide...duh?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, are people mentioning Bush and Reagan out of some sense of justice? Or are they simply doing so to make some sordid tu quoque argument? I'd say it's the latter.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Entirely true. Every talk show they went on they qualified their statement with the fact that they needed to wait for the investigation to be complete. It's recorded and I know damn well the transcript prove it.

Then post it. Post Rice's statements in their entirety. She, Clinton, and Obama all said, with no reservations, that the video was the cause.

please stop lying about this.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSooz2wXpes"]Obama and Hillary Blame Youtube Video for Benghazi Terrorist Attack as Coffins Arrive - YouTube[/ame]

Read this carefully:

Nobody has proven that the video wasn't the cause and since even if the video was the cause it was still terrorism so it served no political purpose to say the video was the cause, or part of the cause, or a little bit of the cause, or no cause whatsoever.

The insignificance of this issue of 'spin' is even bigger than the hysteria of the Right.

I think I see what's going on here. If this issue was so 'insignificant' as you claim, why make such a big deal out of what Obama said in the Rose Garden? Why continually blame the video? Why keep saying it was a protest? It's insignificant because it has more pull on the American people than you realize. Like it or not, it is an election issue. In typical fashion, the narrative for you is to downplay its significance to the populous.

Read this carefully:

Libyan President Al-Magariaf plainly stated on national television that the attack was preplanned. He said the terrorists responsible for this attack had been planning it for months prior. It is basic strategy to exploit instability, and use the most insignificant thing as a source of propaganda to carry out an attack. The video played no part in the attack. It is well known that an Al-Qaeda leader was killed not long before the attack, and as such it would make sense to say this attack was retaliatory.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Here we are some 1700 responses in to this OP, and I have yet to see even ONE document or official administration report that has been 'doctored' (changed without attribution).

Consequently, this thread falls under the heading of Epic Fail. Perhaps the Mods might create a special place for threads like this. It can come right between the one that claims to document proof of the existence Sasquatch and the one that documents alien (beings from other planets, not other countries) abductions and the experiments conducted on humans by extraterrestrials.

Patience.

After the investigation is complete you may or may not have a point. Until then all you have is Marx-o-Crat talking points.

This was already investigated. Republicans themselves, found no wrong doing.

And that's the biggest lie I've ever read. If they didn't find any wrongdoing, why did John Boehner just form a special committee to further investigate it, almost a year and a half after the attack happened?

 

[francoHFW]

Because he and you are totally FOS LOL....

 

[thanatos144]

Patience.

After the investigation is complete you may or may not have a point. Until then all you have is Marx-o-Crat talking points.

This was already investigated. Republicans themselves, found no wrong doing.

And that's the biggest lie I've ever read. If they didn't find any wrongdoing, why did John Boehner just form a special committee to further investigate it, almost a year and a half after the attack happened?

because they didnt interview anyone that mattered.

 

[jon_berzerk]

This was already investigated. Republicans themselves, found no wrong doing.

And that's the biggest lie I've ever read. If they didn't find any wrongdoing, why did John Boehner just form a special committee to further investigate it, almost a year and a half after the attack happened?

because they didnt interview anyone that mattered.

lots of people have not been interviewed as of yet

because the admin obscured whos who

blotted out names on emails

blocked out information on emails

with held emails

changed their stories

 

[NYcarbineer]

Patience.

After the investigation is complete you may or may not have a point. Until then all you have is Marx-o-Crat talking points.

This was already investigated. Republicans themselves, found no wrong doing.

And that's the biggest lie I've ever read. If they didn't find any wrongdoing, why did John Boehner just form a special committee to further investigate it, almost a year and a half after the attack happened?

Because they're still making money off it. The nuts in the base get whooped up over this shit and send in contributions.

 

[JoeB131]

The public doesn't care. They re-elected him anyway.

The people who care are right wing nutjobs like you who are still freaking out there's a negro in the White House. Frankly, nothing he was going to do was going to make you happy, so there's no good reason why he should have tried.

That said, he didn't know that it wasn't the video. We still don't know it wasn't the video. And frankly, given that the rest of the middle east was completely freaking out over this video, he'd have been negligent not to address it.

If he had come out and said we don't know who is responsible, but we will get to the bottom of it, it would have been much better than trying to blame the video on Benghazi, particularly since he knew it wasn't. I think the public would have accepted that much easier, rather than the lies.

Simple, if Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a "terrible act," a "brutal" act, "senseless violence," and called the attackers "killers," not terrorists. So, Carbine, your argument has been laid to rest. The language of his speech does not suggest he EVER called Benghazi an "act of terror."

Nice try.

Why would he need to specify the specific act that occurred the previous day?

I mean, Jesus, guy you're trying too hard.

 

[JoeB131]

[q

LOL. Still blaming it on the video. When I have cited multiple sources saying this attack was preplanned, in retaliation for the death of one of their leaders.

Hopeless.

Really, "multiple sources'.

How many of them were the guys who actually did it?

And frankly, you guys keep changing your "not the video" story. It was the death of one of their leaders. No, wait, it was a planned event because of the anniversary. No, wait, it was because they knew Obama was weak.

All of the above....

Jesus Dude, you can't see outside of your little crib to save your life.

All of the above except for the video, right.

Because it couldn't possibly be that video.

No, no, it can't be the video, because you guys just love that video. It tells the "Truth" about those nasty Muslims.

 

[JoeB131]

The only question here is why arent you outraged?

No, the question is, why are you only just now outraged?

It is offensively disingenuous that those currently twisting themselves into knots over Benghazi would have us believe they're motivated by justice for dead Americans. This story exists as a chew toy for people who hate Obama, and no other reason.

Say what now? Liberals have a propensity to label anyone people looking for answers as people who "hate Obama." Let's get one thing straight here. Not all of us hate the man Obama is. We hate the president he is. We hate what he exemplifies as a leader. We despise him for what he and his pals in the Democratic Party have done to this Country. He's a good father and a family man, granted. But to continue labeling people who want answers as those who "hate Obama" is intellectually bankrupt in and of itself. It's disingenuous and quite frankly equally as offensive.

So after telling us you don't hate Obama, you go into a whole paragraph about how much you hate Obama. Sweet, Chief Runs With Scissors. We can always count on you.

So you don't want answers because you want to get to the truth. You want answers because you hate ObamaCare and the IRS and a lot of other things.

I could also say likewise of you. Were you guys motivated with a false sense of justice when you accuse Bush of all the so-called 'crimes against humanity'? What about Dick Cheney and Halliburton? Don't sit there and tell me that wasn't motivated by hatred of Bush.

There's a major difference. Obama didn't attack Benghazi. Libyans did.

Bush did invade Iraq. And he did it in a ham-fisted way that caused more misery than needed to be caused.

The story exists now because the Obama Administration lied and took control of the narrative over the death of four people. That is morally reprehensible, and in my case it is not motivated by a hatred of anyone. Seriously, politics should not invoke such strong emotion out of anybody. Politics are nothing but a simple waste of passion.

And yet here you are. Spending 100 pages screaming "It can't be a video, it can't be a video"... a minor point in sad event, but man, you are going to get all worked up about it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Really, "multiple sources'.

How many of them were the guys who actually did it?

And frankly, you guys keep changing your "not the video" story. It was the death of one of their leaders. No, wait, it was a planned event because of the anniversary. No, wait, it was because they knew Obama was weak.

All of the above....

Jesus Dude, you can't see outside of your little crib to save your life.

All of the above except for the video, right.

Because it couldn't possibly be that video.

No, no, it can't be the video, because you guys just love that video. It tells the "Truth" about those nasty Muslims.

I remember all the way back to Abu Ghraib, and the outrage that was causing...

...the warmonger right's response then was, who cares what they think about us?

Okay...you don't care that a video might incite certain Muslims to violence. You don't care that it might get Americans killed. That's just the 'cost of freedom', so to speak, right?

Fine. Just stick to your principles and accept the consequences when the shit hits.

 

[JoeB131]

So, are people mentioning Bush and Reagan out of some sense of justice? Or are they simply doing so to make some sordid tu quoque argument? I'd say it's the latter.

um, no, we are mentioning it to point out your hypocrisy.

You wouldn't care that Terrorists killed some gay ambassador if it had happened on Bush or Reagan's watch. far worse things happened on their watches, and in those cases, you put the blame where it belonged, on the terrorists.

But boy, oh boy, when it happens on the Black Guy's watch.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, it’s hard work to keep propping up lies.

Summary: the President talks about an act of terror the day after an act of terror and yet somehow, the ODS'ers like Kormac manage to cobble together a Rube Goldberg argument that the act of terror that the President was talking about was not the act of terror that happened the day before,

because for some reason the President is supposedly imagining that the American people are going to turn their back on the Osama Slayer just because another terrorist attack killing Americans,

the kind of attacks that have been happening for a decade, has happened in the Middle East.

But he tried to convince everyone these weren't the terrorists he claimed he had decimated. In fact, they were. Matter of fact, he helped arm and train them.

Obama never claimed al qaeda was gone. In fact, he claimed just the opposite.