"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

[kaz]

Yup Nixon was guilty of a coverup not a crime.

Barry has his people tell lies for two weeks. Kinda funny how the idiots on this board don't see anything wrong with that.

They definietly have their heads buried in that punch bowl. LOL

According to the GOP-led investigations, the liar is you, Dreamer, not them.

GOP lead investigations said anyone who thinks Obama covered up what happened in Benghazi is a "liar." You are delusional. Wow.

Hey, the Democrats investigated and found Obama is responsible for the explosion in the National Debt, they said anyone who denies that is a liar. Did you hear about that?

Your hysteria is noted, Dreamer.

My "hysteria is noted?" From the guy long in ridiculous assertion and devoid of evidence to back it up?

You're a funny Dreamer. Everything I've asserted regarding Benghazi comes from the GOP-led investigations. That's hardly ridiculous and despite your hysteria, loaded with evidence.

Yes, I hear you. I remember Republicans screaming into the microphone that anyone who questioned Obama on Benghazi is a L-I-A-R. You're delusional. Obama clearly did impede the investigation. You will believe what you want to believe.

 

[kaz]

There is no comparison to Nixon and the investigation into the crimes of Nixon and his administration. It was his own words that finally turned a few (enough) Republicans on the committee to vote in favor of impeachment. There was no crime and no cover up in or about Benghazi.

Baa

You said nixon committed a crime, other than the cover up? What crime? That's the central part of my point.

As for Obama not covering up Benghazi,

Take your head out of the kool-aid bowl.

Yup Nixon was guilty of a coverup not a crime.

Barry has his people tell lies for two weeks. Kinda funny how the idiots on this board don't see anything wrong with that.

They definietly have their heads buried in that punch bowl. LOL

Imbecile ... Covering up a crime IS itself a crime.

Which was my point, LOL. A standard you hold to Nixon and not Obama...

Since you can't demonstrate a cover up: and since a GOP-led investigation concluded there was no cover up, my standards are in check.

Repeating a claim isn't backing it up.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes, they only rioted one day a year. Then the spontaneously got 150 men who overran marines and seals. Spontaneously. Got it. So liberal politicians aren't lying to you and leading you by the nose. Again, seriously, don't take calls from telemarketers. That's going to go badly for you. Is it literally wet behind your ears? Just curious.

Whatever, guy. Seven Investigations- no wrongdoing. Why are you still wasting our time?

No investigation proved Nixon was behind the break in, why was Watergate and issue? Why did he have to resign?

The White House covered it up. You're their sycophant, you don't care, but covering up is a crime. And it should be.

There is no comparison to Nixon and the investigation into the crimes of Nixon and his administration. It was his own words that finally turned a few (enough) Republicans on the committee to vote in favor of impeachment. There was no crime and no cover up in or about Benghazi.

Baa

You said nixon committed a crime, other than the cover up? What crime? That's the central part of my point.

As for Obama not covering up Benghazi,

Take your head out of the kool-aid bowl.

The History Place - Impeachment Richard Nixon

Presidential Counsel John Dean testified there was an ongoing White House coverup and that Nixon had been personally involved in the payment of hush money to the five burglars and two other operatives involved in planning the Watergate break-in. Three weeks later, another Nixon aide revealed the President had ordered hidden microphones installed in the Oval Office in the spring of 1971 and had recorded most conversations since then on audio tape.

"We could get that. On the money, if you need the money you could get that. You could get a million dollars. You could get it in cash. I know where it could be gotten. It is not easy, but it could be done. But the question is, Who would handle it? Any ideas on that?" -- Nixon to John Dean, March 21, 1973.

Still waiting for the Crimes Obama covered up .............

 

[Faun]

According to the GOP-led investigations, the liar is you, Dreamer, not them.

GOP lead investigations said anyone who thinks Obama covered up what happened in Benghazi is a "liar." You are delusional. Wow.

Hey, the Democrats investigated and found Obama is responsible for the explosion in the National Debt, they said anyone who denies that is a liar. Did you hear about that?

Your hysteria is noted, Dreamer.

My "hysteria is noted?" From the guy long in ridiculous assertion and devoid of evidence to back it up?

You're a funny Dreamer. Everything I've asserted regarding Benghazi comes from the GOP-led investigations. That's hardly ridiculous and despite your hysteria, loaded with evidence.

Yes, I hear you. I remember Republicans screaming into the microphone that anyone who questioned Obama on Benghazi is a L-I-A-R. You're delusional. Obama clearly did impede the investigation. You will believe what you want to believe.

What I believe is when the political opposition is so determined to find dirt on Obama, they call for investigation after investigation, and then finally throw their hands up after seven investigations and admit there was no wrong-doing on the administration, they are being honest.

You Dreamers, on the other hand ....

 

[Faun]

Baa

You said nixon committed a crime, other than the cover up? What crime? That's the central part of my point.

As for Obama not covering up Benghazi,

Take your head out of the kool-aid bowl.

Yup Nixon was guilty of a coverup not a crime.

Barry has his people tell lies for two weeks. Kinda funny how the idiots on this board don't see anything wrong with that.

They definietly have their heads buried in that punch bowl. LOL

Imbecile ... Covering up a crime IS itself a crime.

Which was my point, LOL. A standard you hold to Nixon and not Obama...

Since you can't demonstrate a cover up: and since a GOP-led investigation concluded there was no cover up, my standards are in check.

Repeating a claim isn't backing it up.

I've already linked the report which backs up my claims. At this point, you Dreamers are making Birthers look sane.

 

[JoeB131]

"Normalization" is how the State Department described it, Notfooled. They wanted to show that things were getting so good in Libya that we were able to draw down the number of US security personnel there. It was something that was done for the "optics" of how that would be seen rather than as prudent policy. Stevens was repeatedly asking that the security detail NOT be shrunk and he was repeatedly rebuffed until it reached the point that he was ordered not to make the request anymore.

And then he went to Benghazi where it was dangerous rather than his nice safe embassy in Tripoli...

Hmmmmm.

you know, the problem with whacky conspiracy theories is that they have this problem with logic.

 

[JoeB131]

When did I ever accuse Christopher Stevens of "whining"? As far as I can tell Ambassador Stevens did everything exactly as he should have done. He understood that Libya was becoming more dangerous. He passed that view along to his superiors. He asked that his security detail not be drawn down. He made that request so many times he was ordered not to ask anymore. He told General Ham he couldn't accept Department of Defense security agents. Why? Because his superiors at the State Department didn't want them there because of appearances. Christopher Stevens was putting his life at daily risk for a bunch of idiots back in Washington that were so fucking clueless about the real situation in Libya that they thought a Libyan militia would provide the same level of security as the 21 highly trained US security operators that they were taking away.

And then he went to Benghazi which was supposedly so dangerous. which kind of undermines the rest of the whacky conspiracy theory.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL, Joe is always there to pick up the Democratic lie. The only measure that funding was cut was against proposed budgets. There were no actual cuts, in fact, spending is way up on embassy security. Sorry the facts have to get in the way of your lies, but they always do. Pesky little buggers facts are, aren't they? As if I'm telling you, who gets tripped up by facts more than you do?

Point was, they got 100 million less than they asked for. This is what government on the cheap looks like, guy , what you Libertardians always call for in your No Dressage Horse Left Behind policy.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Clau 10360709

Barry has his people tell lies for two weeks. Kinda funny how the idiots on this board don't see anything wrong with that.

The thing that is wrong is that you cannot provide any written quotes that can be considered 'lies' during the first weeks after the attack coming from the Obama Administration. Unless you consider calling the attacks an 'act of terror' or committed by 'extremists with heavy weapons with possible ties to al Qaeda' to be lies.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Bwahahahahaaaaaa.....

You airhead righties often post links to HotAir.com as fact.

Now what do you have to say? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal
Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal Hot Air Headlines


Oh, wait! Just to corroborate your beloved blog, your beloved Washington Examiner says it ain't so either, TOOLS.

House Benghazi report delivers mixed story of heroism, policy failures
"""A two-year congressional investigation into the deadly 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, found that while the State Department ignored warnings of terrorist threats, Obama administration appointees weren’t directly to blame.
The report, conducted by the Republican-run House Intelligence Committee and declassified Friday, debunks several conspiracies regarding the administration’s involvement in the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.""

House Benghazi report delivers mixed story of heroism policy failures WashingtonExaminer.com

What idiots, chasing shiny things that the GOP throws in your path.

Benghazi is a scandal. Four men killed because of inaction by a corrupt regime.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

This is not going to excuse ?hillary when she runs. She must answer the charges.

 

[kaz]

LOL, Joe is always there to pick up the Democratic lie. The only measure that funding was cut was against proposed budgets. There were no actual cuts, in fact, spending is way up on embassy security. Sorry the facts have to get in the way of your lies, but they always do. Pesky little buggers facts are, aren't they? As if I'm telling you, who gets tripped up by facts more than you do?

Point was, they got 100 million less than they asked for. This is what government on the cheap looks like, guy , what you Libertardians always call for in your No Dressage Horse Left Behind policy.

Yes, which is not a "cut," liar.

 

[JoeB131]

This is not going to excuse ?hillary when she runs. She must answer the charges.

Here's how she answers it. "While I still greive for my friend, Ambassador Stevens and the others, we've had seven investigations into this incident, and they all came to the conclusion there was no wrongdoing on the part of the State Department, the CIA Or the Department of Defense".

The end.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, which is not a "cut," liar.

If I tell you that I need $1100 to do a job right and you only pay me $1000, and I skimp on that $100, that's a cut. Something has to give.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This is not going to excuse ?hillary when she runs. She must answer the charges.

Here's how she answers it... .

"WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THE TRUTH MAKE!! ?"

 

[Dot Com]

Waaaaah, the Koch Brothers didn't get to buy all the politicians they wanted to!!!!

Here's a crazy idea. Instead of wasting more time investigating faux scandals, how about you guys actually pass legislation that is good for the country and will put people back to work. I mean, I know, this is like a crazy idea and stuff.

^ that Oldstyle

 

[kaz]

Yes, which is not a "cut," liar.

If I tell you that I need $1100 to do a job right and you only pay me $1000, and I skimp on that $100, that's a cut. Something has to give.

You have to add to that to make it apples to apples.

If you take care of my lawn and last year you charged me $900. This year you say you want $1,100, and I say I'll only pay you $1,000. I didn't cut what I paid you to any rational person. Which of course is why you don't grasp it. You you have serious mental issues. My favorite lie of yours if that they would not only enlist you into the military but give you access to all the guns you want. You say oh, a projectile, there is only one reason for that, to kill people. Not even during Vietnam would you pass the psych evaluation.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

kaz 10362307

Yes, which is not a "cut," liar.

It certainly was a budget constraint to have a request for additional funding denied since Benghazi was a new area for State Department operations. Since Republicans are complaining that the region surrounding Libya and inside Libya was becoming more dangerous, Republicans should have made sure all security related requests for funding were properly fulfilled.

 

[JoeB131]

You have to add to that to make it apples to apples.

If you take care of my lawn and last year you charged me $900. This year you say you want $1,100, and I say I'll only pay you $1,000. I didn't cut what I paid you to any rational person. Which of course is why you don't grasp it. You you have serious mental issues. My favorite lie of yours if that they would not only enlist you into the military but give you access to all the guns you want. You say oh, a projectile, there is only one reason for that, to kill people. Not even during Vietnam would you pass the psych evaluation.

So you have reading comprehension problems, then? Sorry, guy, I was in from 1981 to 1992, as both reservist and active duty, MOS 76y10- that's the MOS where you handle the weapons because you are in charge of locking them up and maintaining them.

Now, back to the illogic of your statement. I charged you $900 last year. Since then, you expanded the size of your lawn, and the cost of gasoline has gone up. So really, my request for $1100 was probably justified. If you only pay me $1000, then I'm probably not going to show up as often, I might skimp on the parts of the lawn that aren't easily visible.

THis is the point. State evaluated all of our commitments, and said, "We need X amount to secure all of our embassies, consulate and missions." and you twits said, "nope, you got to make due with less than that!"
And someone decided that a consulate in Benghazi was okay with the number of guards it had.

Not that more guards would have been a lot of help against hundreds of heavily armed fighters...

 

[Faun]

This is not going to excuse ?hillary when she runs. She must answer the charges.

Pssst ... there are no charges ... pass it along ...