Why Benghazi Matters

[Uncensored2008]

I think Americans are more concerned about Mitt lying about jobs. Benghazi may make good talking points, but in the end, it's the economy, stupid.

I doubt it, but you can pray.

Oh, and Mitt in no way lied.

I corrected you earlier, but you care about party, not fact.

 

[Uncensored2008]

 

[tinydancer]

Great cartoon!

 

[candycorn]

1. It demonstrates the failure of our appeasement towards hostile Muslim countries.

2. It demonstrates the unconscionable elevation of politics over protection of American citizens.

3. It demonstrates pervasive corruption/coverup throughout the Executive Branch of our government.

4. It demonstrates the pervasive corruption of journalism in our mainstream media.

5. It demonstrates the corruption of political partisans who support their candidate no matter what harm is done to their country.

It demonstrates right wing desperation. That is the net result.

 

[Si modo]

1. It demonstrates the failure of our appeasement towards hostile Muslim countries.

2. It demonstrates the unconscionable elevation of politics over protection of American citizens.

3. It demonstrates pervasive corruption/coverup throughout the Executive Branch of our government.

4. It demonstrates the pervasive corruption of journalism in our mainstream media.

5. It demonstrates the corruption of political partisans who support their candidate no matter what harm is done to their country.

It demonstrates right wing desperation. That is the net result.

It demonstrates that, even after four years of much-needed on-the-job training, the POTUS STILL can't do the job.

And, Americans still die because of his incompetence.

 

[tinydancer]

1. It demonstrates the failure of our appeasement towards hostile Muslim countries.

2. It demonstrates the unconscionable elevation of politics over protection of American citizens.

3. It demonstrates pervasive corruption/coverup throughout the Executive Branch of our government.

4. It demonstrates the pervasive corruption of journalism in our mainstream media.

5. It demonstrates the corruption of political partisans who support their candidate no matter what harm is done to their country.

It demonstrates right wing desperation. That is the net result.

Desperation? To want answers and not lies? To want to know why the Ambassador and the Consulate's only security were two Libyan militias?

To want to know why this Administration allowed the Consulate to be under attack for 7 hours and not attempt a rescue?

To want to know why the Administration in effect left these men to die?

Really?

 

[Freemason9]

It's also possible that a nation can't just send attack helicopters into other sovereign nations whenever they feel like it. Funny how the right wing hasn't figured that out yet. For some reason, they seem to think that is an OK thing to do.

Ok, let's give you that.

Why did obama lie about the attacks?

Why? Because he's a politician.

Next question . . .

 

[Claudette]

The Barry worshipers don't want to know those answers.

They prefer to say that anyone who disagrees with Barry and his administratioins tale is a hater, a racist or a nut.

Just goes to show what blind idiots they are.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Well it seems we're at an empasse here. I don't think there's enough information available to make an intelligent evaluation of the situation nor do I see a reason to attack the President over this. You people are jumping up and down in outrage on the latest right wing anti-Obama trend that'll be replaced in a few weeks by some new outrage.

Did you ever think that outrages are caused by the outrageous?

Well at least Pres. Carter tried to save those Embassy employees kidnapped by the Iranians, even though the attempt was disastrous. In this case Obama just left the people to die. It took the deaths of four, the wounding of others and sheer heroism of the survivors to escape with no help from Obama or his cronies, thank you.
The claim has been made that there's not enough evidence to place culpablity on the President. Why then is he denying, deflecting and lying about the issue? Why hasn't he opened the whole thing and be honest. Why was Gen. Carter Ham fired on the spot?

 

[Freemason9]

If Obama is guilty of a crime for failing to act to prevent the deaths of four Americans--given the lead time of a couple of hours--

Is George W. Bush guilty for the deaths of 3,000 Americans, given a lead time of many months?

And, if so, why isn't this right wing bunch of zealots raising holy hell about THAT?

 

[tinydancer]

If Obama is guilty of a crime for failing to act to prevent the deaths of four Americans--given the lead time of a couple of hours--

Is George W. Bush guilty for the deaths of 3,000 Americans, given a lead time of many months?

And, if so, why isn't this right wing bunch of zealots raising holy hell about THAT?

Oh we have over the years. Many of us have trying to piece together the lead up to 9/11.

Herein lies the difference.

None of you left wing zealots want to ask one question about Obama's fuck ups.

You're just Obamabots protecting your Messiah. Pathetic pukes you are. And all you can ever do is go "Booooooooooooooooooooosh" or "Ronnnnnnnnnnnie Reagan".

You can never seriously debate.

 

[Againsheila]

If Obama is guilty of a crime for failing to act to prevent the deaths of four Americans--given the lead time of a couple of hours--

Is George W. Bush guilty for the deaths of 3,000 Americans, given a lead time of many months?

And, if so, why isn't this right wing bunch of zealots raising holy hell about THAT?

I think you'll have to be more specific on that "lead time" for the 3,000. If you are talking about 9/11, where's your proof that there were several months "lead time"?

I don't even know how you can compare the two. Well, if Bush had told the fire department and the police department not to respond when the WTC was hit by the first plane, you might have a point...otherwise it's just garbage.

 

[Freemason9]

If Obama is guilty of a crime for failing to act to prevent the deaths of four Americans--given the lead time of a couple of hours--

Is George W. Bush guilty for the deaths of 3,000 Americans, given a lead time of many months?

And, if so, why isn't this right wing bunch of zealots raising holy hell about THAT?

I think you'll have to be more specific on that "lead time" for the 3,000. If you are talking about 9/11, where's your proof that there were several months "lead time"?

I don't even know how you can compare the two. Well, if Bush had told the fire department and the police department not to respond when the WTC was hit by the first plane, you might have a point...otherwise it's just garbage.

For fuck's sake, are you really that stupid?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

The Benghazi Coverup: Are Reporters Embarrassed?​

John Hinderaker
October 30, 2012



The media formerly known as mainstream have largely failed to cover the Benghazi scandal. For the most part, they haven’t covered the most explosive aspects of the scandal–those most threatening to Obama’s re-election hopes–at all. If they had any pride, this devastating Michael Ramirez cartoon would shame them:

Read more:
The Benghazi Coverup: Are Reporters Embarrassed? | Power Line

 

[Againsheila]

If Obama is guilty of a crime for failing to act to prevent the deaths of four Americans--given the lead time of a couple of hours--

Is George W. Bush guilty for the deaths of 3,000 Americans, given a lead time of many months?

And, if so, why isn't this right wing bunch of zealots raising holy hell about THAT?

I think you'll have to be more specific on that "lead time" for the 3,000. If you are talking about 9/11, where's your proof that there were several months "lead time"?

I don't even know how you can compare the two. Well, if Bush had told the fire department and the police department not to respond when the WTC was hit by the first plane, you might have a point...otherwise it's just garbage.

For fuck's sake, are you really that stupid?

I'll compare my IQ to yours anytime....

 

[Freemason9]

I think you'll have to be more specific on that "lead time" for the 3,000. If you are talking about 9/11, where's your proof that there were several months "lead time"?

I don't even know how you can compare the two. Well, if Bush had told the fire department and the police department not to respond when the WTC was hit by the first plane, you might have a point...otherwise it's just garbage.

For fuck's sake, are you really that stupid?

I'll compare my IQ to yours anytime....

You should not do that.

 

[tinydancer]

If Obama is guilty of a crime for failing to act to prevent the deaths of four Americans--given the lead time of a couple of hours--

Is George W. Bush guilty for the deaths of 3,000 Americans, given a lead time of many months?

And, if so, why isn't this right wing bunch of zealots raising holy hell about THAT?

I think you'll have to be more specific on that "lead time" for the 3,000. If you are talking about 9/11, where's your proof that there were several months "lead time"?

I don't even know how you can compare the two. Well, if Bush had told the fire department and the police department not to respond when the WTC was hit by the first plane, you might have a point...otherwise it's just garbage.

And I do believe many of us, without being crazy 9/11 truthers wanted answers. Demanded answers.

And we got as much as we could hope for considering the absolutely insane plot. And truly that's what it was. Who would ever believe crazy Islamists were going to go kamikaze into the WTC towers?

What was Bush to do?

Ground all air traffic?

Liberals on the other hand don't want to know the truth about Benghazi and appear to be perfectly fine with the "video spontaneous attack" lie.

We had to learn the truth that this was an organized attack from the freaking Libyan President for crying out loud.

 

[Sallow]

You put up a post about Reagan's reaction to terrorism after I had one about Obama's and Lockerbie.

Dude, you claimed that REAGAN, not BUSH, but Reagan, did nothing to respond to terrorism. "Cut and Run," was your claim, right?

So I corrected your lie.

Now..after I pointed it out..you realize that Reagan's bombings had nothing to do with Lockerbie at all.

Really?

Cool, so you'll retract the claim that Lockerbie was a response? "Blew up in his face" I believe was the bullshit you floated?

Believe you me..this is amusing.

Oh, I agree.

Another backflip jim.

Because Reagan didn't respond to Lockerbie?

ROFL...

Reagan was pretty weak when it came to terrorism.

Which..kind of makes sense..since he was creating many future ones. Like his funding of Osama Bin Laden and his band of happy muj warriors. Or making secret deals with the Iranians that took American hostages. Or helping the nun raping Contras.

But all one has to do is look at his response to the bombing which killed 250 marines.

Yessiree bob..you are some stable ground..

 

[Freemason9]

This is nothing but stupid partisan trash. If a Republican were president under identical circumstances, I guarantee you their arguments would be exactly reversed.

This is why America is retarded.

 

[Againsheila]

For fuck's sake, are you really that stupid?

I'll compare my IQ to yours anytime....

You should not do that.

I understand your fear.