Clinton to testify AGAIN on Benghazi...

[TooTall]

How many of those protesters brought heavy mortors and AK-47's to their protests?

Benghazi was already a site of resistance to Ghaddafi, and had plenty of weapons on hand.

Why haven't the Republicans called the maker of the video to testify?

Weapons need people to shoot them, and the security the State Department hired all bugged out. What could the maker of a video possibly contribute to a hearing about a terrorist attack?

 

[TooTall]

Why hasn't the wingnuts called to testify the producer of the YouTube video that caused the whole thing?

What are they afraid of?

He is in jail the last time I heard about him, and the video didn't cause a damned thing.

Of course it did. Accepting that fact destroys your narrative about Obama and Clinton.

Obscure Film Mocking Muslim Prophet Sparks Anti-U.S. Protests in Egypt and Libya - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rked-by-anti-muslim-video.html?ref=middleeast

It's ridiculous on the face of it to claim that the video had nothing to do with it.

How many of those protesters brought heavy mortors and AK-47's to their protests? Those that were at Benghazi and survived clearly stated it was a terrorist attack and there was no protest. So, you can shove your attempted re-write up your ass!

You said the video didn't cause a thing.

It didn't. The video was used as an excuse in some cases. It wasn't the reason, especially in Benghazi.

"On September 16, Libyan PresidentMohamed Magariafsaid that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance, and further stated that "[t]he idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate."

 

[BlindBoo]

Why hasn't the wingnuts called to testify the producer of the YouTube video that caused the whole thing?

What are they afraid of?

He is in jail the last time I heard about him, and the video didn't cause a damned thing.

Of course it did. Accepting that fact destroys your narrative about Obama and Clinton.

Obscure Film Mocking Muslim Prophet Sparks Anti-U.S. Protests in Egypt and Libya - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rked-by-anti-muslim-video.html?ref=middleeast

It's ridiculous on the face of it to claim that the video had nothing to do with it.

How many of those protesters brought heavy mortors and AK-47's to their protests? Those that were at Benghazi and survived clearly stated it was a terrorist attack and there was no protest. So, you can shove your attempted re-write up your ass!

You said the video didn't cause a thing.

It didn't. The video was used as an excuse in some cases. It wasn't the reason, especially in Benghazi.

"On September 16, Libyan PresidentMohamed Magariafsaid that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance, and further stated that "[t]he idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate."

If it was an excuse for violence (and I believe it and the cartoons were), that is still a thing. Where is the evidence that it was planned months in advance like the Libyan President claimed?

 

[Synthaholic]

Weapons need people to shoot them, and the security the State Department hired all bugged out. What could the maker of a video possibly contribute to a hearing about a terrorist attack?

Why isn't all your anger directed toward them? Because it's a private security company, not a government one?

 

[Synthaholic]

Why hasn't the wingnuts called to testify the producer of the YouTube video that caused the whole thing?

What are they afraid of?

He is in jail the last time I heard about him, and the video didn't cause a damned thing.

Of course it did. Accepting that fact destroys your narrative about Obama and Clinton.

Obscure Film Mocking Muslim Prophet Sparks Anti-U.S. Protests in Egypt and Libya - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rked-by-anti-muslim-video.html?ref=middleeast

It's ridiculous on the face of it to claim that the video had nothing to do with it.

How many of those protesters brought heavy mortors and AK-47's to their protests? Those that were at Benghazi and survived clearly stated it was a terrorist attack and there was no protest. So, you can shove your attempted re-write up your ass!

You said the video didn't cause a thing.

It didn't. The video was used as an excuse in some cases. It wasn't the reason, especially in Benghazi.

"On September 16, Libyan PresidentMohamed Magariafsaid that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance, and further stated that "[t]he idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate."

Yes, because Libyan presidents have always been so trustworthy and truthful.

You just can't accept the real reason for the Benghazi attack. It destroys your narrative that it's all Obama's fault.

 

[peach174]

Well something is not right about it, or else the administration would not be stalling on the information that they are asking for.
We still don't have answers to several questions and the reasons they are giving is just a run around of excuses and using the blame game.

 

[TooTall]

He is in jail the last time I heard about him, and the video didn't cause a damned thing.

Of course it did. Accepting that fact destroys your narrative about Obama and Clinton.

Obscure Film Mocking Muslim Prophet Sparks Anti-U.S. Protests in Egypt and Libya - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rked-by-anti-muslim-video.html?ref=middleeast

It's ridiculous on the face of it to claim that the video had nothing to do with it.

How many of those protesters brought heavy mortors and AK-47's to their protests? Those that were at Benghazi and survived clearly stated it was a terrorist attack and there was no protest. So, you can shove your attempted re-write up your ass!

You said the video didn't cause a thing.

It didn't. The video was used as an excuse in some cases. It wasn't the reason, especially in Benghazi.

"On September 16, Libyan PresidentMohamed Magariafsaid that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance, and further stated that "[t]he idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate."

Yes, because Libyan presidents have always been so trustworthy and truthful.

You just can't accept the real reason for the Benghazi attack. It destroys your narrative that it's all Obama's fault.

"If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, period."

 

[TooTall]

Weapons need people to shoot them, and the security the State Department hired all bugged out. What could the maker of a video possibly contribute to a hearing about a terrorist attack?

Why isn't all your anger directed toward them? Because it's a private security company, not a government one?

My anger is aimed at the decisions made by State and Hillary to NOT close the Consulate after the British and the Red Cross had determined it to be to dangerous to stay in Benghazi. The very least State could have done was send in a reasonable number of US Marine Ebassy guards, since everyone but the State Department knew that 911 was a special day for the jihadists to attack Americans.

The Consulate had been attacked several months earlier, and it wasn't because of a video that nobody saw then either.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Weapons need people to shoot them, and the security the State Department hired all bugged out. What could the maker of a video possibly contribute to a hearing about a terrorist attack?

Why isn't all your anger directed toward them? Because it's a private security company, not a government one?

My anger is aimed at the decisions made by State and Hillary to NOT close the Consulate after the British and the Red Cross had determined it to be to dangerous to stay in Benghazi. The very least State could have done was send in a reasonable number of US Marine Ebassy guards, since everyone but the State Department knew that 911 was a special day for the jihadists to attack Americans.

The Consulate had been attacked several months earlier, and it wasn't because of a video that nobody saw then either.

One, Stevens turned down the Marines, twice, at the actual Embassy no less, and two, it was his call to be in Benghazi that day. And three, the guys who killed him are ultimately responsible for his death and somehow you keep missing that little fact.

Stevens didn't want a big security presence there, he felt it would show a lack of faith. He made a bad call, it happens.

 

[Antares]

Weapons need people to shoot them, and the security the State Department hired all bugged out. What could the maker of a video possibly contribute to a hearing about a terrorist attack?

Why isn't all your anger directed toward them? Because it's a private security company, not a government one?

My anger is aimed at the decisions made by State and Hillary to NOT close the Consulate after the British and the Red Cross had determined it to be to dangerous to stay in Benghazi. The very least State could have done was send in a reasonable number of US Marine Ebassy guards, since everyone but the State Department knew that 911 was a special day for the jihadists to attack Americans.

The Consulate had been attacked several months earlier, and it wasn't because of a video that nobody saw then either.

One, Stevens turned down the Marines, twice, at the actual Embassy no less, and two, it was his call to be in Benghazi that day. And three, the guys who killed him are ultimately responsible for his death and somehow you keep missing that little fact.

Stevens didn't want a big security presence there, he felt it would show a lack of faith. He made a bad call, it happens.

This is a lie but then PMH is a well known liar.

Stevens did not have the authority to accept or decline the offer for more security.

As General Ham stated it was a Defense Dept /State Dept issue.

The State Dept had already extended the security team twice before and nobody knows why hey did not extend it again.

 

[Antares]

Weapons need people to shoot them, and the security the State Department hired all bugged out. What could the maker of a video possibly contribute to a hearing about a terrorist attack?

Why isn't all your anger directed toward them? Because it's a private security company, not a government one?

Why did the State Dept hire Lybian's this time?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Weapons need people to shoot them, and the security the State Department hired all bugged out. What could the maker of a video possibly contribute to a hearing about a terrorist attack?

Why isn't all your anger directed toward them? Because it's a private security company, not a government one?

Why did the State Dept hire Lybian's this time?

Because they wanted to use locals instead of looking like we lacked faith or were invading the damn country. It's in the reports, read them.

 

[Antares]

Why hasn't the wingnuts called to testify the producer of the YouTube video that caused the whole thing?

What are they afraid of?

He is in jail the last time I heard about him, and the video didn't cause a damned thing.

Of course it did. Accepting that fact destroys your narrative about Obama and Clinton.

Obscure Film Mocking Muslim Prophet Sparks Anti-U.S. Protests in Egypt and Libya - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rked-by-anti-muslim-video.html?ref=middleeast

It's ridiculous on the face of it to claim that the video had nothing to do with it.

Just another lie.

General Ham testified that there was NO "spontaneous demonstration" going on.

It's ridiculous that you Bammy Droids keep perpetuating this lie.

 

[Antares]

Weapons need people to shoot them, and the security the State Department hired all bugged out. What could the maker of a video possibly contribute to a hearing about a terrorist attack?

Why isn't all your anger directed toward them? Because it's a private security company, not a government one?

Why did the State Dept hire Lybian's this time?

Because they wanted to use locals instead of looking like we lacked faith or were invading the damn country. It's in the reports, read them.

I've read them all PMH...the point is Stevens did not participate in that decisions, those above him did.

Quit blaming a dead man for Hillary's failings.

 

[Antares]

Everyone knows that the GOP's only answer to stop Hillary is Benghazi. They have all the facts, all the e-mails, all the documentation, and yet they still want to drag this on. These people are wasting more money on their lame investigations than Trump wastes on hair jell for his comb over......

Yeah there's no way other Democrats will bring that up or her husbands affinity for ***** sex slaves

Please knock it off already. Try not being such a partisan ALL THE TIME.

It's the role he plays here: hyper-partisan, always wrong.

Pure projection Mr. Hyper Partisan.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I've read them all PMH...the point is Stevens did not participate in that decisions, those above him did.

The hell he didn't. He was an Ambassador, not a Puppet. That was his show there friend.

And place the blame fairly where it belongs. It happened on her watch, that's about all.

 

[Antares]

I've read them all PMH...the point is Stevens did not participate in that decisions, those above him did.

The hell he didn't. He was an Ambassador, not a Puppet. That was his show there friend.

Not according to General Ham in his testimony before Congress....and frankly he has much more knowledge of how this works than you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I've read them all PMH...the point is Stevens did not participate in that decisions, those above him did.

The hell he didn't. He was an Ambassador, not a Puppet. That was his show there friend.

Not according to General Ham in his testimony before Congress....and frankly he has much more knowledge of how this works than you.

No, he doesn't actually. He has his side of the story. The reports have all sides of the story, including why Stevens was there that day, which was his choice. No one died at the Embassy 400 miles away.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Clinton to testify AGAIN on Benghazi..."

For no valid reason whatsoever.

 

[Antares]

I've read them all PMH...the point is Stevens did not participate in that decisions, those above him did.

The hell he didn't. He was an Ambassador, not a Puppet. That was his show there friend.

Not according to General Ham in his testimony before Congress....and frankly he has much more knowledge of how this works than you.

No, he doesn't actually. He has his side of the story. The reports have all sides of the story, including why Stevens was there that day, which was his choice. No one died at the Embassy 400 miles away.

It was his Theater PMH, you need to educate yourself.

He was the Commander there so yes he knows everything that went on.

In fact he was the one reporting to Panetta everything that was happening.



You look very foolish crying NUH-UH!!!!