Question Re: Benghazi

[whitehall]

You want to talk about it CC or do you want to play pop culture trivia? The cover up used to be worse than the crime during republican administrations. Tricky Dick Nixon was forced out of office over a 3rd rate black bag operation that was common back then. Today we have an obvious cover up of negligent homicide and the alleged effort by the administration to threaten potential witnesses. Nobody thinks an obscure you-tube video sparked the demonstration so the question is where did the talking points originate?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I should stay here a while. Pops is kicking CC's ass in his own OP. That is fucking hilarious.

Pops is Chuck D and you're Flava Flav I take it

Uh...what?

Stop being a hype man...its unbecoming

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why don't you post the video of Stewart asking this question during his comedy routine?

 

[bendog]

I don't pretend to know all the details of what is going on with this story and that makes me just like everyone else. No one knows the details but FOX and Repubs have already determined that SOMETHING...ANYTHING is wrong

During the Bush administration there were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets that killed 13 Americans yet garnered only three hearings on embassy security total and zero outrage on Fox. So why is this attack so different for Republicans?

Here's a quote that puts it in perspective:

“I think I see the problem here. You can’t understand why everyone else isn’t as outraged as you, when it is because the rest of us aren’t sure if what you’re saying is true. And to be quite frank, you do have somewhat of a history of hysteria, You may be right, but the denizens of Bullshit Mountain have cried wolf before and after 18 months of intensive investigations you should be able to better state your case.”

So what do Cons know that no one else does?

That neither Fox News or Bush sent a high level official to spread the word that a Video sparked the violence that ended in the deaths?

Just guessing.

they were looking for the womd.

 

[BlindBoo]

I answered your question in my original post. I understand completely why you don't like it.

So its all because someone said the attack happened because of a youtube video. And this is worthy of 9 hearings because...?

Because it didn't happen as a result of a YouTube video. It happened because of willful incompetence by the Administration.

Actually it was fighters armed with RPGs and mortars that made it happen. Furthermore, the NYT reported that several of the men involved did claim that they were angered by the YouTube video.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You want to talk about it CC or do you want to play pop culture trivia? The cover up used to be worse than the crime during republican administrations. Tricky Dick Nixon was forced out of office over a 3rd rate black bag operation that was common back then. Today we have an obvious cover up of negligent homicide and the alleged effort by the administration to threaten potential witnesses. Nobody thinks an obscure you-tube video sparked the demonstration so the question is where did the talking points originate?

Even if the talking points were handed to someone from Obama himself what difference does that make? You wanna slap someones wrist go head but 9 hearings tho?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Democrat yokels have my sympathy. Blaming Bush just isn't going to fly on this one, rubes. If democrat bumpkins had any brains, a truly questionable assumption, they'd be running up to Andrew Cuomo, yanking his pants down and kissing him square on the ass. He's the only hope they have in 2016.

Maybe they could get the plumper from New Jersey to jump the fence. He'd need to use a trampoline to do it, but that's a possibility.

The Obama administration has broken faith with the American people. The house of lies they've built is crashing down on them. I'd almost feel sorry for democrats, but they sooooo richly deserve it.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

So its all because someone said the attack happened because of a youtube video. And this is worthy of 9 hearings because...?

Because it didn't happen as a result of a YouTube video. It happened because of willful incompetence by the Administration.

Actually it was fighters armed with RPGs and mortars that made it happen. Furthermore, the NYT reported that several of the men involved did claim that they were angered by the YouTube video.

So the New York Times interviewed the attackers in Benghazi to get their feelings on the Youtube video?

Gee, I didn't know that.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

You want to talk about it CC or do you want to play pop culture trivia? The cover up used to be worse than the crime during republican administrations. Tricky Dick Nixon was forced out of office over a 3rd rate black bag operation that was common back then. Today we have an obvious cover up of negligent homicide and the alleged effort by the administration to threaten potential witnesses. Nobody thinks an obscure you-tube video sparked the demonstration so the question is where did the talking points originate?

Even if the talking points were handed to someone from Obama himself what difference does that make? You wanna slap someones wrist go head but 9 hearings tho?

It means that Obama purposely misled the American people on a matter of national security to cover his ass in an election.

That's what it means. Evidently, that makes no difference to the democrat zombies who still support the soon-to-be ex-president.

 

[BlindBoo]

Democrat yokels have my sympathy. Blaming Bush just isn't going to fly on this one, rubes. If democrat bumpkins had any brains, a truly questionable assumption, they'd be running up to Andrew Cuomo, yanking his pants down and kissing him square on the ass. He's the only hope they have in 2016.

Maybe they could get the plumper from New Jersey to jump the fence. He'd need to use a trampoline to do it, but that's a possibility.

The Obama administration has broken faith with the American people. The house of lies they've built is crashing down on them. I'd almost feel sorry for democrats, but they sooooo richly deserve it.

Don't you cons get tired of crying Wolf?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

I don't pretend to know all the details of what is going on with this story and that makes me just like everyone else. No one knows the details but FOX and Repubs have already determined that SOMETHING...ANYTHING is wrong

During the Bush administration there were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets that killed 13 Americans yet garnered only three hearings on embassy security total and zero outrage on Fox. So why is this attack so different for Republicans?

Here's a quote that puts it in perspective:



So what do Cons know that no one else does?

That neither Fox News or Bush sent a high level official to spread the word that a Video sparked the violence that ended in the deaths?

Just guessing.

If incorrect and misleading media talking points were impeachable offenses, the whoppers that came from the Bush adminstration during the propaganda phase of the Iraq invasion and occupation would have had him impeached. At least with President Clinton they did get him to lie under oath about his affair with Monica. This is nothing more than trying to submarine Hillary chances for the Whitehouse in 2016. I believe it will backfire on the Republican beginning next year.

Ah, the old Bush did it, so Obama can do it, too argument.

Gets old, dude.

 

[BlindBoo]

Because it didn't happen as a result of a YouTube video. It happened because of willful incompetence by the Administration.

Actually it was fighters armed with RPGs and mortars that made it happen. Furthermore, the NYT reported that several of the men involved did claim that they were angered by the YouTube video.

So the New York Times interviewed the attackers in Benghazi to get their feelings on the Youtube video?

Gee, I didn't know that.

Now you know then.

"To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/w...nghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You're welcome.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Obama ran true to form with Benghazi.
His performance record before becoming president was abysmal. It was abysmal even before he began voting 'Present' in the Illinois Legislature.

Aftre graduation from Harvard he took a $100,000 stipend from a Chicago area University to teach, write and lecture on Constitutional Law. he used the money to write his autobiography instead. He later partnered with his 'Goombah' Bill Ayers to distribute millions of dollars from the Annenburg Foundation under the Chicago Annenburg Challenge to use improving the Chicago Schools. The money dissappeared, nothing happened in the Chicago schools. 9/11/2012 was the first day this slug, Obama, has had to work during his presidency in between the golf outings and vacations, and he either couldn't perform or didn't want to. All we have to look forward to are four more years of his unwillingness to perform his job to protect this nation and its people.

 

[freedombecki]

I don't pretend to know all the details of what is going on with this story and that makes me just like everyone else. No one knows the details but FOX and Repubs have already determined that SOMETHING...ANYTHING is wrong

During the Bush administration there were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets that killed 13 Americans yet garnered only three hearings on embassy security total and zero outrage on Fox. So why is this attack so different for Republicans?

Here's a quote that puts it in perspective:

“I think I see the problem here. You can’t understand why everyone else isn’t as outraged as you, when it is because the rest of us aren’t sure if what you’re saying is true. And to be quite frank, you do have somewhat of a history of hysteria, You may be right, but the denizens of Bullshit Mountain have cried wolf before and after 18 months of intensive investigations you should be able to better state your case.”

So what do Cons know that no one else does?

The roots of Benghazi are in whitewater, CC. And the American people ignored it. The price for failure to quell evil when it is first noticed is its multiplication later on.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You want to talk about it CC or do you want to play pop culture trivia? The cover up used to be worse than the crime during republican administrations. Tricky Dick Nixon was forced out of office over a 3rd rate black bag operation that was common back then. Today we have an obvious cover up of negligent homicide and the alleged effort by the administration to threaten potential witnesses. Nobody thinks an obscure you-tube video sparked the demonstration so the question is where did the talking points originate?

Even if the talking points were handed to someone from Obama himself what difference does that make? You wanna slap someones wrist go head but 9 hearings tho?

It means that Obama purposely misled the American people on a matter of national security to cover his ass in an election.

That's what it means. Evidently, that makes no difference to the democrat zombies who still support the soon-to-be ex-president.

I don't think it's "national security" but I see your point. Ok, so if that happened what should or will be the penalty. Why do we need 9 hearings to find that out? Obviously its a witch hunt but the payoff seems too small for all this hype

 

[BlindBoo]

That neither Fox News or Bush sent a high level official to spread the word that a Video sparked the violence that ended in the deaths?

Just guessing.

If incorrect and misleading media talking points were impeachable offenses, the whoppers that came from the Bush adminstration during the propaganda phase of the Iraq invasion and occupation would have had him impeached. At least with President Clinton they did get him to lie under oath about his affair with Monica. This is nothing more than trying to submarine Hillary chances for the Whitehouse in 2016. I believe it will backfire on the Republican beginning next year.

Ah, the old Bush did it, so Obama can do it, too argument.

Gets old, dude.

Got it. It's okay for a republican administration to have incorrect and misleading media talking points that led to an invasion and occupation of a country that was not an immediate theat to us (nor did they participate in 9-11), but when a democratic amdminstration puts out incorrect talking points for a few days over what caused a deadly attack, the nutters cry IMPEACH, IMPEACH.

Too funny.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pops is Chuck D and you're Flava Flav I take it

Uh...what?

Stop being a hype man...its unbecoming

Stop being an idiot, it's unbecoming.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If incorrect and misleading media talking points were impeachable offenses, the whoppers that came from the Bush adminstration during the propaganda phase of the Iraq invasion and occupation would have had him impeached. At least with President Clinton they did get him to lie under oath about his affair with Monica. This is nothing more than trying to submarine Hillary chances for the Whitehouse in 2016. I believe it will backfire on the Republican beginning next year.

Ah, the old Bush did it, so Obama can do it, too argument.

Gets old, dude.

Got it. It's okay for a republican administration to have incorrect and misleading media talking points that led to an invasion and occupation of a country that was not an immediate theat to us (nor did they participate in 9-11), but when a democratic amdminstration puts out incorrect talking points for a few days over what caused a deadly attack, the nutters cry IMPEACH, IMPEACH.

Too funny.

of course but Bush didnt mislead because of an election and no Obama wont get impeached over this. Like posters have pointed out no one wants to see crazy Joe become POTUS.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If incorrect and misleading media talking points were impeachable offenses, the whoppers that came from the Bush adminstration during the propaganda phase of the Iraq invasion and occupation would have had him impeached. At least with President Clinton they did get him to lie under oath about his affair with Monica. This is nothing more than trying to submarine Hillary chances for the Whitehouse in 2016. I believe it will backfire on the Republican beginning next year.

Ah, the old Bush did it, so Obama can do it, too argument.

Gets old, dude.

Got it. It's okay for a republican administration to have incorrect and misleading media talking points that led to an invasion and occupation of a country that was not an immediate theat to us (nor did they participate in 9-11), but when a democratic amdminstration puts out incorrect talking points for a few days over what caused a deadly attack, the nutters cry IMPEACH, IMPEACH.

Too funny.

Nope. You are making excuses for your own administration as you speak. Justifying why it is okay for them and not for us. Frankly, it should be wrong for both.

Yeah this is funny.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Uh...what?

Stop being a hype man...its unbecoming

Stop being an idiot, it's unbecoming.

Be original...it's cooler