Why no apology from FOX about Benghazi lies?

[rightwinger]

jkno 10247521

Your story he said it was an act of terror.

Its not 'my story' its 'my point of fact' based on the transcript that I provided.

Your interpretation is false. Mine is correct. Obama actually did refer to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror.

Then he lied when he stated he decimated Al-Qaida?

How many foreign attacks since 2009? How many Al Qaida leaders have been killed? What ever happened to that guy OBL?

Probably about as many Al-Qaida leaders as Obama freed from gitmo.

Link?

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Or, perhaps we are still waiting to hear the rest of the story. Unlike the Democrat voting block, we like to find out the entire story before we "burn this bitch down".

What exactly do you think Fox should "apologize for"? Reporting the disaster? Reporting what the four security contractors (who were there) said?

On a tangental note, did you call for NBC to apologize when they selectively edited Zimmerman's phone call?

Ahhh the old "waiting for the whole story" dodge...

Well, if you're not smart enough to wait for the whole story, you do stupid shit like burn down your neighborhood.

 

[jknowgood]

jkno 10247521

Your story he said it was an act of terror.

Its not 'my story' its 'my point of fact' based on the transcript that I provided.

Your interpretation is false. Mine is correct. Obama actually did refer to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror.

Then he lied when he stated he decimated Al-Qaida?

How many foreign attacks since 2009? How many Al Qaida leaders have been killed? What ever happened to that guy OBL?

Probably about as many Al-Qaida leaders as Obama freed from gitmo.

Link?

He did let 5 al-Qaeda leaders free for a deserter.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

jkno 10247941

He successfully ended the Iraq war, he said it

Of course he ended Bush's war (OIF) to find WMD hidden from UN inspectors in 2003. There wasn't any. What's going on now is a new war that has nothing to do with WMD. It has to do with terrorists that have attacked Iraq Sunni regions from Syria.

And to Bush's credit - he negotiated the end of his war (to find WMD) before leaving office in 2008.

 

[jknowgood]

jkno 10247941

He successfully ended the Iraq war, he said it

Of course he ended Bush's war (OIF) to find WMD hidden from UN inspectors in 2003. There wasn't any. What's going on now is a new war that has nothing to do with WMD. It has to do with terrorists that have attacked Iraq Sunni regions from Syria.

And to Bush's credit - he negotiated the end of his war (to find WMD) before leaving office in 2008.

Bush also wanted to leave some ground troops to make sure what has happened, didn't. Obama is the one that made the decision to remove the troops.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

jkno 10247941

He didn't listen to his generals in keeping Iraq intact

It was not up to US Generals to keep Iraq intact. That was entirely the decision for Iraqis to make. The Iraqis decided that Bush's deadline for complete withdrawal by the end of 2011 was to be held.

Obama listened to the Iraqis and the deal Bush made in 2008 with the sovereign nation of Iraq.

And your point is ridiculous because although one part of Iraq is under attack, Iraq is still intact and reversing the IS terrorist gains of last summer.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

jkno 10248239

Bush also wanted to leave some ground troops to make sure what has happened, didn't.

Republican's and my favorite recent US General recently said that we cannot know if keeping ground troops in Iraq after 2011 would have stopped the IS terrorist rampage this year. I'll take his judgment over yours every time.

And it matters not what Bush wanted. We know what Bush did. He negotiated the deal for US troops to be gone by 2012. If he wanted to keep ground troops for ten years he should have negotiated a ten year deal like Obama did for Afghanistan.

Why do you put Bush negotiations that you consider to be a failure on Obama. Obama did not shorten Bush timeline,

 

[rdean]

Lol what a terrible comparison.

Yeah from your perspective, a lane is closed on a bridge. You piss yourself, 4 America's die, and lies were made to cover incompetence. Nothing to see here.

Why cant republicans find those lies? Are they secret lies that only republicans can see but cannot present?

Bengazi happened, because of a protest. That is a lie, just like the one that was told saying. Fort hood shooting, by a muslim with terrorists ties is considered work place violence. I'm seeing a pattern of stupidity from the left.

Prove its a lie...thats all you have to do. Then tell the republicans you have some ground breaking information they should know about

At least they finally admit at least one protest happened. The reality is that protests happened all over the Arab world with hundreds being injured and over 50 deaths. In fact, Arab leaders tell us the reason for protests in every major Muslim city was because of that damn video. The one Republicans say didn't cause any protests. How can Republicans be so fucking stupid? I don't get it. Just a determined ignorance.

What I said previously:
The reality is that protests happened all over the Arab world with hundreds being injured and over 50 deaths. In fact, Arab leaders tell us the reason for protests in every major Muslim city was because of that damn video. The one Republicans say didn't cause any protests.

Even when you post the truth, and I've provided links, video and quotes, including a map of where all the protests happened and showing the locations of each of the deaths in previous posts, these right wingernut fuckers without a shred of evidence will still say the tape had nothing to do with the riots. What is wrong with these people. They have no facts. They can't debate on a feeling. There has to be evidence.

 

[August West]

There isn`t a talking point in the world that would have kept Romney from losing by 126 electoral votes. Terrorism was not the focal point in the 2012 campaign. After all, there were 3,000 less Americans that died on American soil than there were during the last guy`s presidency.

jkno 10247941

He successfully ended the Iraq war, he said it

Of course he ended Bush's war (OIF) to find WMD hidden from UN inspectors in 2003. There wasn't any. What's going on now is a new war that has nothing to do with WMD. It has to do with terrorists that have attacked Iraq Sunni regions from Syria.

And to Bush's credit - he negotiated the end of his war (to find WMD) before leaving office in 2008.

Bush also wanted to leave some ground troops to make sure what has happened, didn't. Obama is the one that made the decision to remove the troops.

As long as it isn`t your kid that`s getting his legs blown off ...correct? Nobody likes living under occupation from foreign troops no matter what bullshit excuse you use.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

jkno 10246783

She said the attack was because of a video that only about a handful of people saw.

Show me in an actual transcript where Susan Rice actually said that the 'attack was because of a video'. In every appearance Susan Rice made she said very clearly that that attack that ended in the deaths of two Americans at the Consulate including Ambassador Stevens was the result of extremists that brought heavy weapons to an existing demonstration In Susan Rice's clear words, It is the 'extremists' that committed the deadly attack - not the demonstrators that the CIA first reported were present.

Woods and Dougherty were never claimed to have been killed because of a video. They were killed by extremists using a mortar fire.

Wrong. She insisted repeatedly that this was not a pre-planned terrorist attack. Once it became clear that it was Obama pretended he said it was terrorism on day two. One or both of those are blatant lies. They have to be if you consider logic.
Odds are they both are and were designed and stated as such.
Creepy president, creepy obama apologists. Nixon lovers of Nixon on steroids.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You lying sacks of shit! Nixon on steroids apologists. Dishonest obama lovers..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Rosh 10248634

Wrong. She insisted repeatedly that this was not a pre-planned terrorist attack. Once it became clear that it was Obama pretended he said it was terrorism on day two. One or both of those are blatant lies. They have to be if you consider logic.

No you are lying. She insisted repeatedly that it was not yet determined if it was a pre-planned attack a or not. She said it was certain that heavily armed extremists possibly linked to al Qaeda were responsible for the attack. She said exactly what the CIA talking points said to say. No you are lying. Obama called it an act of terror on September 12, 2012 in the Rose Garden. He was not pretending anything later. What a bogus lie you are telling. The White House transcript does not lie.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Then he lied when he stated he decimated Al-Qaida?

No he didn't lie. Saying al Qaeda was decimated did not negate the possibility that al Qaeda remnants or other terrorists could pull off an attack. He has decimated al Qaeda.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

jkno 10247521

Whatever either way it went down Obama lied.

There you have it. What ever way something happens - Obama is lying according to jknowgood.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Rosh 10248634

Wrong. She insisted repeatedly that this was not a pre-planned terrorist attack. Once it became clear that it was Obama pretended he said it was terrorism on day two. One or both of those are blatant lies. They have to be if you consider logic.

No you are lying. She insisted repeatedly that it was not yet determined if it was a pre-planned attack a or not. She said it was certain that heavily armed extremists possibly linked to al Qaeda were responsible for the attack. She said exactly what the CIA talking points said to say. No you are lying. Obama called it an act of terror on September 12, 2012 in the Rose Garden. He was not pretending anything later. What a bogus lie you are telling. The White House transcript does not lie.

She said it was not pre-planned. And then you have to take your own assertion and juxtapose it with obama later saying he called it terrorism on day two. Neither scenario can possibly be accurate.
You and your ilk are dishonest partisans. Nixon apologists.

 

[idb]

jkno 10247521 Its not 'my story' its 'my point of fact' based on the transcript that I provided.

Your interpretation is false. Mine is correct. Obama actually did refer to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror.

Then he lied when he stated he decimated Al-Qaida?

How many foreign attacks since 2009? How many Al Qaida leaders have been killed? What ever happened to that guy OBL?

Probably about as many Al-Qaida leaders as Obama freed from gitmo.

Link?

He did let 5 al-Qaeda leaders free for a deserter.

They were Taliban leaders...not Al Qaeda.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Then he lied when he stated he decimated Al-Qaida?

How many foreign attacks since 2009? How many Al Qaida leaders have been killed? What ever happened to that guy OBL?

Probably about as many Al-Qaida leaders as Obama freed from gitmo.

Link?

He did let 5 al-Qaeda leaders free for a deserter.

They were Taliban leaders...not Al Qaeda.

They were terrorists, not muslim rioters. The king had not defeated terrorism as he had claimed and that would hurt his reelection. He is a political whore and the politics is everything behind his criminal dishonesty.

 

[idb]

How many foreign attacks since 2009? How many Al Qaida leaders have been killed? What ever happened to that guy OBL?

Probably about as many Al-Qaida leaders as Obama freed from gitmo.

Link?

He did let 5 al-Qaeda leaders free for a deserter.

They were Taliban leaders...not Al Qaeda.

They were terrorists, not muslim rioters. The king had not defeated terrorism as he had claimed and that would hurt his reelection. He is a political whore and the politics is everything behind his criminal dishonesty.

They were Taliban leaders...not Al Qaeda.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Probably about as many Al-Qaida leaders as Obama freed from gitmo.

Link?

He did let 5 al-Qaeda leaders free for a deserter.

They were Taliban leaders...not Al Qaeda.

They were terrorists, not muslim rioters. The king had not defeated terrorism as he had claimed and that would hurt his reelection. He is a political whore and the politics is everything behind his criminal dishonesty.

They were Taliban leaders...not Al Qaeda.

They were terrorists, not spontaneous rioters. You are a Nixon lover.

 

[idb]

Link?

He did let 5 al-Qaeda leaders free for a deserter.

They were Taliban leaders...not Al Qaeda.

They were terrorists, not muslim rioters. The king had not defeated terrorism as he had claimed and that would hurt his reelection. He is a political whore and the politics is everything behind his criminal dishonesty.

They were Taliban leaders...not Al Qaeda.

They were terrorists, not spontaneous rioters. You are a Nixon lover.

They were Taliban leaders...not Al Qaeda.