Obfuscation and Deflection mode [ON]

[Clementine]

Quite honestly, GMU, I still don't understand exactly what the Republican allegations amount to. It is utterly ridiculous to believe that President Obama was micromanaging the security of a remote outpost in Benghazi at the time. It was impossible to predict the event. You cannot send "air support" into such a place in a foreign country, in a populated area.

Your faction seemed fixated on rhetoric, but that's a stupid focus. Why should anyone give a shit about how often the much-abused tag "terrorist" is used? You guys are only wanting another big enemy to blame so that you can spend more trillions on aimless wars.

Hillary was responsible imo. It is her job to assign protection at our embassies. Obama imo is responsible for the mucked up response both here at home after the fact and during the attack. Even a simple low fly over by a couple jets could have stalled or even prevented the final attack. Then to lie to us about why it happened is just sad and a slap in the face of those that died and their families.

You know as well as I do that practically EVERY U.S. embassy or diplomatic property in the world is in some form of vague or more defined danger from a "terrorist" attack, since the U.S. decided to bomb the shit out of foreign countries to wage war on "terrorists."

It's sort of inevitable. You can't guard the shit out of every fucking building (we have limited spending, you know), and the ones left least guarded are the most targetted. Get it? It's actually inevitable.

Your argument would only hold up if this had been a surprise attack. It wasn't. For months, there had been incidents involving attacks and there was a public threat directed at Ambassador Stevens. Any idiot could have predicted that an attack was far more likely on the anniversary of 9/11. Additional security was requested- to make them less of a target. It was denied. Not only that, but they were turned into sitting ducks when security was removed just before the 9/11 attack. Other countries removed their people amid the previous threats. Why didn't we do that instead of taking away security and increasing the risk for the people there?

Hillary and Obama can't play total ignorance of what had been happening there. They outright lied about the protesters. It wasn't intel and they came up with that lie all on their own. Why the deliberate attempt to mislead on the cause of the attacks? You don't lie without reason and the reason is always to cover up something.

Not one lib has addressed the lying about the protesters. Why is that? Afraid of why they did it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

A total shitstorm is goin on with this administration and all we get from the posters on the left here is........

Bush's man is running the IRS (this AFTER they denied that there was a problem to begin with) But as soon as they found a republican scapegoat to blame it on they admitted it was a problem.

Republicans made Obama change the Benghazi talking points out of fear of news coverage.

Republicans cut consulate funding (despite testimony that it had 0 impact)

Republicans cheered for green loan failures (either way the end results are all that mattered)

Fast n Furious was a Bush program even though it wasn't (but they knew the public didn't know the facts)

ETC...

Who said there was no problem with the IRS after the IRS story broke until they found out the IRS was run by a Bush appointee?

Can you give us a short list of those people? With proof?

I'm not going to dig through the last 2 days of posts. I've read them. If you choose to ignore them that is your choice.

So your answer is 'ZERO'.

That's what I thought.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Who said there was no problem with the IRS after the IRS story broke until they found out the IRS was run by a Bush appointee?

Can you give us a short list of those people? With proof?

I'm not going to dig through the last 2 days of posts. I've read them. If you choose to ignore them that is your choice.

So your answer is 'ZERO'.

That's what I thought.

Yeah, umm This: I'm not going to dig through the last 2 days of posts. I've read them. If you choose to ignore them that is your choice

Does not equal this:So your answer is 'ZERO'


But thanks for showing your lack of: thought

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Quite honestly, GMU, I still don't understand exactly what the Republican allegations amount to. It is utterly ridiculous to believe that President Obama was micromanaging the security of a remote outpost in Benghazi at the time. It was impossible to predict the event. You cannot send "air support" into such a place in a foreign country, in a populated area.

Your faction seemed fixated on rhetoric, but that's a stupid focus. Why should anyone give a shit about how often the much-abused tag "terrorist" is used? You guys are only wanting another big enemy to blame so that you can spend more trillions on aimless wars.

Issa could't even come up with a reason for their "inquiry" when he was on David Gregory's Sunday show. Issa ran interference for Bush, hiding facts from the American peope. They can't argue certain current facts - that it was pubs who cut security funding and cut security at Benghazi, that there was no military near enough to help, that they now refuse to look for those who did the attack and, worst of all, that they won't increase security now.

Its obvious that they are not looking for facts. Just as obvious is that they can't hurt Obama now. This is about 2016. They don't have a candidate who can win. All they have are a bunch of clowns for the Clown Car.

IRS - It was a Bush appointee who did it. And, besides, since when is the "tea party" NOT political. Really? Of course they are and as such, should have been investigated because they wanted tax-free status. Nonetheless, I'd like to see the IRS brought down along with the damn Repub BUSH creep who runs it. Right now, it looks like it was a low level staffer in Cincinnati who made the decision. BFD.

Its killing the rw's and GObP that Obama is so damn squeaky clean.