Hidden Tapes & Secret Emails: Right Wing Now Throwing Kitchen Sink At Obama On Libya

[tinydancer]

Mitt's whole campaign strategy now hangs by a thread on making Benghazi into something it isn't. Fucking sad people. This is for the Office of President of the United States of America not some mud slinging contest for four year olds.

Romney's not talking about it at all. We're driving the narrative on every board we can Romney is staying focused on the economy.

And what do you mean "making Benghazi is something it isn't". Panetta has admitted they made the decision to let the men die.

Don't you get it?

They let them die. Truth.

Oh and then the Adminstration lied their asses off that this was a "spontaneous attack because of a video". Liars.

This isn't going away.

No it's not but it isn't going the rabid right wingers way, not by a long shot. You've cried "Wolfe" too many time for any normal person to take serious.

Panetta on Benghazi attack: 'Could not put forces at risk' – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

He said it was not enough to discern exactly what was happening.

"We didn't have good eyes on the situation. There were security forces there on the ground, but they're in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).

The official could not reveal the specific reaction times for the military's Fleet Anti Terrorism Security Teams, which are classified, but said "it would be physically impossible for them to get there in time to intervene in that attack from say, Rota, Spain."

He cited the time it takes just to get their transportation in the air. The official said "these situations normally deteriorate over time ... but usually in a few days, not two hours." He explained that even quick-reaction teams are often positioned for places where intelligence shows a "deteriorating situation" near an embassy.

The official also provided context for Panetta's and Gen. Martin Dempsey's remarks about criticism on the response.

"It's not helpful to provide partial answers," Dempsey said. And Panetta criticized what he called "Monday morning quarterbacking."

The defense official said it was directed at criticism coming from pundits and Capitol Hill.

"In perfect hindsight, yes - we'd do it differently. But how it looks weeks later is not how it looked at the time.

"You had the movie, the 9/11 anniversary and unrest in various countries in that region. All that factored into the decision to put troops on a heightened state of alert. But that doesn't mean forces are positioned everywhere in the world, ready to run to the rescue. We're not the fire department. And there was no actionable intelligence that Benghazi was going to be attacked on 9/11."

Bullshit. 7 hours and there wasn't enough time?

Pitiful that you defend this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By Hayes Brown

In the closing days of the election, Republicans are throwing everything they can think of at President Obama to rattle his position on national security. Though a CBS poll taken immediately after the final Presidential debate had 64 percent of undecided voters believing Obama would be better on national security than Mitt Romney, the right remains convinced that Libya will be Obama’s undoing.

Despite former Bush administration Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice imploring that attacks be held off until an investigation is complete, more partisan Republicans refuse to heed her advice.

As varying and disparate as they are, these right-wing claims all focus more on attacking the Obama administration than any desire to seek the truth on Benghazi. For the last month and a half, after Ambassador Susan Rice’s Sept. 16 appearance on several news shows, the right has taken every opportunity to try to politicize the attacks. So far all of their attempts and claims have gone down in flames.

In comparison, the State Department’s investigation is set to be completed in the coming weeks, which will lay out in full any security failures. Likewise, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will be convening hearings after the election to determine what intelligence failures actually happened on Sept. 11.

More: Hidden Tapes & Secret Emails: Right Wing Now Throwing Kitchen Sink At Obama On Libya | ThinkProgress

Fakhota is dropping in with Think Regress links it probably believes.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Romney's not talking about it at all. We're driving the narrative on every board we can Romney is staying focused on the economy.

And what do you mean "making Benghazi is something it isn't". Panetta has admitted they made the decision to let the men die.

Don't you get it?

They let them die. Truth.

Oh and then the Adminstration lied their asses off that this was a "spontaneous attack because of a video". Liars.

This isn't going away.

No it's not but it isn't going the rabid right wingers way, not by a long shot. You've cried "Wolfe" too many time for any normal person to take serious.

Panetta on Benghazi attack: 'Could not put forces at risk' – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

He said it was not enough to discern exactly what was happening.

"We didn't have good eyes on the situation. There were security forces there on the ground, but they're in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).

The official could not reveal the specific reaction times for the military's Fleet Anti Terrorism Security Teams, which are classified, but said "it would be physically impossible for them to get there in time to intervene in that attack from say, Rota, Spain."

He cited the time it takes just to get their transportation in the air. The official said "these situations normally deteriorate over time ... but usually in a few days, not two hours." He explained that even quick-reaction teams are often positioned for places where intelligence shows a "deteriorating situation" near an embassy.

The official also provided context for Panetta's and Gen. Martin Dempsey's remarks about criticism on the response.

"It's not helpful to provide partial answers," Dempsey said. And Panetta criticized what he called "Monday morning quarterbacking."

The defense official said it was directed at criticism coming from pundits and Capitol Hill.

"In perfect hindsight, yes - we'd do it differently. But how it looks weeks later is not how it looked at the time.

"You had the movie, the 9/11 anniversary and unrest in various countries in that region. All that factored into the decision to put troops on a heightened state of alert. But that doesn't mean forces are positioned everywhere in the world, ready to run to the rescue. We're not the fire department. And there was no actionable intelligence that Benghazi was going to be attacked on 9/11."

See? I knew someone had the answer. It just wasn't you tinydancer.

Until next time.......

That's not an answer, that's CYA in spades. The attacks lasted 7 HOURS, are you telling me that a Delta Force team from Italy (480 miles away) couldn't be there in 2 hours?

 

[tinydancer]

Romney's not talking about it at all. We're driving the narrative on every board we can Romney is staying focused on the economy.

And what do you mean "making Benghazi is something it isn't". Panetta has admitted they made the decision to let the men die.

Don't you get it?

They let them die. Truth.

Oh and then the Adminstration lied their asses off that this was a "spontaneous attack because of a video". Liars.

This isn't going away.

No it's not but it isn't going the rabid right wingers way, not by a long shot. You've cried "Wolfe" too many time for any normal person to take serious.

Panetta on Benghazi attack: 'Could not put forces at risk' – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

He said it was not enough to discern exactly what was happening.

"We didn't have good eyes on the situation. There were security forces there on the ground, but they're in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).

The official could not reveal the specific reaction times for the military's Fleet Anti Terrorism Security Teams, which are classified, but said "it would be physically impossible for them to get there in time to intervene in that attack from say, Rota, Spain."

He cited the time it takes just to get their transportation in the air. The official said "these situations normally deteriorate over time ... but usually in a few days, not two hours." He explained that even quick-reaction teams are often positioned for places where intelligence shows a "deteriorating situation" near an embassy.

The official also provided context for Panetta's and Gen. Martin Dempsey's remarks about criticism on the response.

"It's not helpful to provide partial answers," Dempsey said. And Panetta criticized what he called "Monday morning quarterbacking."

The defense official said it was directed at criticism coming from pundits and Capitol Hill.

"In perfect hindsight, yes - we'd do it differently. But how it looks weeks later is not how it looked at the time.

"You had the movie, the 9/11 anniversary and unrest in various countries in that region. All that factored into the decision to put troops on a heightened state of alert. But that doesn't mean forces are positioned everywhere in the world, ready to run to the rescue. We're not the fire department. And there was no actionable intelligence that Benghazi was going to be attacked on 9/11."

See? I knew someone had the answer. It just wasn't you tinydancer.

Until next time.......

Panetta chose not to rescue these men. He let them die.

You can't run away from this fact.

 

[Cammmpbell]

LOL....If I'se You Hoss I Wouldn't Even Touch That Shit!!!

The entire Republican party, the FBI, the CIA, the RFD, the WPA, the CCC, the DOE, the TVA and Ken Starr spent $70,000,000 trying to remove Bill Clinton from office for getting a blow job. Guess what? When Larry Flynt gave a couple of mil and gathered evidence that the Republican assholes who impeached him had been doing the same thing or worse it failed. Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating. Keep something in mind......just because you think something doesn't make it the truth.

Actually, it was for lying under oath, but I'm not surprised that THAT little detail escaped your pea brain...

Clinton was accused of crimes, and found not guilty.

The story is that Bill Clinton was guilty. After the Republican house impeached him the publisher of the Hustler magazine, Larry Flynt offered millions of dollars for anyone who could produce facts about Republicans who were just as guilty of the same things. It cost him five or six million dollars but Flynt revealed stories about Bob Livingston and Henry Hyde having dalliences of the same nature. It resulted in both of them effectively resigning but the main part is that when the case went to the senate for trial half of those pricks knew they were just as guilty so guess what.....they didn't dare find Bill Clinton guilty of the same things they were either doing or had done before. Flynt told them he had plenty of other stuff to reveal if it came to that. I laughed my ass off.

Final Story.....the Republicans used every tactic they could muster for Clinton's two terms trying to remove him from office and they failed.

 

[GuyPinestra]

If you think that we should have sent military forces in to defend Benghazi consulate, then you would have to agree that it's O.K. to foreign powers to send military forces into the U.S. to defend any perceived threats to their embassies and consulates.

Guess what!? It's the host country's responsibility to provide anything beyond routine security for embassies and consulates. Otherwise all principals of diplomacy fall a part, and any nation could launch an invasion of another under the pretext of their embassy being threatened.

Wingnuts - Try thinking just a little for a change!

You are a FUCKING idiot!! OUR EMBASSY WASN'T THREATENED, IT WAS ATTACKED BY MORTARS AND RPGs.

Another fucking HACK!!

 

[whitehall]

The tapes aren't really hidden. It's just that the mainstream media has circled the wagons around O-blame-a's criminal negligence and they don't dare investigate. For some perspective for the whining left, imagine a "secret informant" the media creates within the administration and imagine unverified "news" printed every day which is intended to bring down the administration and imagine the identity of the "informant" kept secret for three decades until he dies and can't verify the information.

 

[tinydancer]

No it's not but it isn't going the rabid right wingers way, not by a long shot. You've cried "Wolfe" too many time for any normal person to take serious.

Panetta on Benghazi attack: 'Could not put forces at risk' – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

He said it was not enough to discern exactly what was happening.

"We didn't have good eyes on the situation. There were security forces there on the ground, but they're in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).

The official could not reveal the specific reaction times for the military's Fleet Anti Terrorism Security Teams, which are classified, but said "it would be physically impossible for them to get there in time to intervene in that attack from say, Rota, Spain."

He cited the time it takes just to get their transportation in the air. The official said "these situations normally deteriorate over time ... but usually in a few days, not two hours." He explained that even quick-reaction teams are often positioned for places where intelligence shows a "deteriorating situation" near an embassy.

The official also provided context for Panetta's and Gen. Martin Dempsey's remarks about criticism on the response.

"It's not helpful to provide partial answers," Dempsey said. And Panetta criticized what he called "Monday morning quarterbacking."

The defense official said it was directed at criticism coming from pundits and Capitol Hill.

"In perfect hindsight, yes - we'd do it differently. But how it looks weeks later is not how it looked at the time.

"You had the movie, the 9/11 anniversary and unrest in various countries in that region. All that factored into the decision to put troops on a heightened state of alert. But that doesn't mean forces are positioned everywhere in the world, ready to run to the rescue. We're not the fire department. And there was no actionable intelligence that Benghazi was going to be attacked on 9/11."

See? I knew someone had the answer. It just wasn't you tinydancer.

Until next time.......

That's not an answer, that's CYA in spades. The attacks lasted 7 HOURS, are you telling me that a Delta Force team from Italy (480 miles away) couldn't be there in 2 hours?

Exactly. I think the base was in Sigonella. And from what I've read Special Ops could have been there in less than 3 hours.

Hell's bells there were drones capturing this battle on camera.

They let them die.

 

[Liability]

Actually, it was for lying under oath, but I'm not surprised that THAT little detail escaped your pea brain...

Clinton was accused of crimes, and found not guilty.

The story is that Bill Clinton was guilty. After the Republican house impeached him the publisher of the Hustler magazine, Larry Flynt offered millions of dollars for anyone who could produce facts about Republicans who were just as guilty of the same things. It cost him five or six million dollars but Flynt revealed stories about Bob Livingston and Henry Hyde having dalliences of the same nature. It resulted in both of them effectively resigning but the main part is that when the case went to the senate for trial half of those pricks knew they were just as guilty so guess what.....they didn't dare find Bill Clinton guilty of the same things they were either doing or had done before. Flynt told them he had plenty of other stuff to reveal if it came to that. I laughed my ass off.

Final Story.....the Republicans used every tactic they could muster for Clinton's two terms trying to remove him from office and they failed.

The actual story is that Bubba LIED under oath.

Short story.

Pathetic Story.

He was properly impeached and the only reason -- the ONLY reason -- the fucker didn't get convicted in the Senate trial is that cheap ass politics reigned supreme.

 

[tinydancer]

Even President Carter ordered a rescue attempt for the Iranian hostages. It failed, but at least he tried.

Did he do it during the attack on the embassy?

No.

The attempt was FIVE MONTHS LATER.

Nice try.

.

So what? Carter still tried to rescue hostages. It was still a dangerous mission.

Are you like Panetta and worried that Special Ops couldn't handle a fire fight?

That Special Ops part of the best trained and the best equipped fighting force on the planet might get a boo boo trying to rescue fellow Americans?

Give me a break.

 

[BlindBoo]

Romney's not talking about it at all. We're driving the narrative on every board we can Romney is staying focused on the economy.

And what do you mean "making Benghazi is something it isn't". Panetta has admitted they made the decision to let the men die.

Don't you get it?

They let them die. Truth.

Oh and then the Adminstration lied their asses off that this was a "spontaneous attack because of a video". Liars.

This isn't going away.

No it's not but it isn't going the rabid right wingers way, not by a long shot. You've cried "Wolfe" too many time for any normal person to take serious.

Panetta on Benghazi attack: 'Could not put forces at risk' – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

He said it was not enough to discern exactly what was happening.

"We didn't have good eyes on the situation. There were security forces there on the ground, but they're in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).

The official could not reveal the specific reaction times for the military's Fleet Anti Terrorism Security Teams, which are classified, but said "it would be physically impossible for them to get there in time to intervene in that attack from say, Rota, Spain."

He cited the time it takes just to get their transportation in the air. The official said "these situations normally deteriorate over time ... but usually in a few days, not two hours." He explained that even quick-reaction teams are often positioned for places where intelligence shows a "deteriorating situation" near an embassy.

The official also provided context for Panetta's and Gen. Martin Dempsey's remarks about criticism on the response.

"It's not helpful to provide partial answers," Dempsey said. And Panetta criticized what he called "Monday morning quarterbacking."

The defense official said it was directed at criticism coming from pundits and Capitol Hill.

"In perfect hindsight, yes - we'd do it differently. But how it looks weeks later is not how it looked at the time.

"You had the movie, the 9/11 anniversary and unrest in various countries in that region. All that factored into the decision to put troops on a heightened state of alert. But that doesn't mean forces are positioned everywhere in the world, ready to run to the rescue. We're not the fire department. And there was no actionable intelligence that Benghazi was going to be attacked on 9/11."

Bullshit. 7 hours and there wasn't enough time?

Pitiful that you defend this.

Defend what? That the president shouldn't be impeached on bullshit information because the right wing fear mongering echo chamber has it's panties in a tight wad over his looming re-election.

At a Pentagon news briefing, Panetta said there was no "real-time information" to be able to act on

A defense official provided more context on Panetta's comments about the decision-making involved in not sending U.S. troops

"It's not helpful to provide partial answers," Dempsey said. And Panetta criticized what he called "Monday morning quarterbacking."

The defense official said it was directed at criticism coming from pundits and Capitol Hill.

"In perfect hindsight, yes - we'd do it differently. But how it looks weeks later is not how it looked at the time.

 

[buckeye45_73]

No it's not but it isn't going the rabid right wingers way, not by a long shot. You've cried "Wolfe" too many time for any normal person to take serious.

Panetta on Benghazi attack: 'Could not put forces at risk' – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

He said it was not enough to discern exactly what was happening.

"We didn't have good eyes on the situation. There were security forces there on the ground, but they're in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).

The official could not reveal the specific reaction times for the military's Fleet Anti Terrorism Security Teams, which are classified, but said "it would be physically impossible for them to get there in time to intervene in that attack from say, Rota, Spain."

He cited the time it takes just to get their transportation in the air. The official said "these situations normally deteriorate over time ... but usually in a few days, not two hours." He explained that even quick-reaction teams are often positioned for places where intelligence shows a "deteriorating situation" near an embassy.

The official also provided context for Panetta's and Gen. Martin Dempsey's remarks about criticism on the response.

"It's not helpful to provide partial answers," Dempsey said. And Panetta criticized what he called "Monday morning quarterbacking."

The defense official said it was directed at criticism coming from pundits and Capitol Hill.

"In perfect hindsight, yes - we'd do it differently. But how it looks weeks later is not how it looked at the time.

"You had the movie, the 9/11 anniversary and unrest in various countries in that region. All that factored into the decision to put troops on a heightened state of alert. But that doesn't mean forces are positioned everywhere in the world, ready to run to the rescue. We're not the fire department. And there was no actionable intelligence that Benghazi was going to be attacked on 9/11."

Bullshit. 7 hours and there wasn't enough time?

Pitiful that you defend this.

Defend what? That the president shouldn't be impeached on bullshit information because the right wing fear mongering echo chamber has it's panties in a tight wad over his looming re-election.

At a Pentagon news briefing, Panetta said there was no "real-time information" to be able to act on

A defense official provided more context on Panetta's comments about the decision-making involved in not sending U.S. troops

"It's not helpful to provide partial answers," Dempsey said. And Panetta criticized what he called "Monday morning quarterbacking."

The defense official said it was directed at criticism coming from pundits and Capitol Hill.

"In perfect hindsight, yes - we'd do it differently. But how it looks weeks later is not how it looked at the time.

When have liberals given republicans this calm, wait and see approach? Jesus you retards blame Bush for a hurricane.....in a state ran by democrats that was not READY.....

 

[BlindBoo]

No it's not but it isn't going the rabid right wingers way, not by a long shot. You've cried "Wolfe" too many time for any normal person to take serious.

Panetta on Benghazi attack: 'Could not put forces at risk' – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

He said it was not enough to discern exactly what was happening.

"We didn't have good eyes on the situation. There were security forces there on the ground, but they're in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).

The official could not reveal the specific reaction times for the military's Fleet Anti Terrorism Security Teams, which are classified, but said "it would be physically impossible for them to get there in time to intervene in that attack from say, Rota, Spain."

He cited the time it takes just to get their transportation in the air. The official said "these situations normally deteriorate over time ... but usually in a few days, not two hours." He explained that even quick-reaction teams are often positioned for places where intelligence shows a "deteriorating situation" near an embassy.

The official also provided context for Panetta's and Gen. Martin Dempsey's remarks about criticism on the response.

"It's not helpful to provide partial answers," Dempsey said. And Panetta criticized what he called "Monday morning quarterbacking."

The defense official said it was directed at criticism coming from pundits and Capitol Hill.

"In perfect hindsight, yes - we'd do it differently. But how it looks weeks later is not how it looked at the time.

"You had the movie, the 9/11 anniversary and unrest in various countries in that region. All that factored into the decision to put troops on a heightened state of alert. But that doesn't mean forces are positioned everywhere in the world, ready to run to the rescue. We're not the fire department. And there was no actionable intelligence that Benghazi was going to be attacked on 9/11."

See? I knew someone had the answer. It just wasn't you tinydancer.

Until next time.......

That's not an answer, that's CYA in spades. The attacks lasted 7 HOURS, are you telling me that a Delta Force team from Italy (480 miles away) couldn't be there in 2 hours?

Yeah why didn't that quarterback throw the pass to the wide recievier on the last play of the game, man, he was wide fucking open. Fire the mutha........

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No it's not but it isn't going the rabid right wingers way, not by a long shot. You've cried "Wolfe" too many time for any normal person to take serious.

Panetta on Benghazi attack: 'Could not put forces at risk' – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

He said it was not enough to discern exactly what was happening.

"We didn't have good eyes on the situation. There were security forces there on the ground, but they're in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).

The official could not reveal the specific reaction times for the military's Fleet Anti Terrorism Security Teams, which are classified, but said "it would be physically impossible for them to get there in time to intervene in that attack from say, Rota, Spain."

He cited the time it takes just to get their transportation in the air. The official said "these situations normally deteriorate over time ... but usually in a few days, not two hours." He explained that even quick-reaction teams are often positioned for places where intelligence shows a "deteriorating situation" near an embassy.

The official also provided context for Panetta's and Gen. Martin Dempsey's remarks about criticism on the response.

"It's not helpful to provide partial answers," Dempsey said. And Panetta criticized what he called "Monday morning quarterbacking."

The defense official said it was directed at criticism coming from pundits and Capitol Hill.

"In perfect hindsight, yes - we'd do it differently. But how it looks weeks later is not how it looked at the time.

"You had the movie, the 9/11 anniversary and unrest in various countries in that region. All that factored into the decision to put troops on a heightened state of alert. But that doesn't mean forces are positioned everywhere in the world, ready to run to the rescue. We're not the fire department. And there was no actionable intelligence that Benghazi was going to be attacked on 9/11."

Bullshit. 7 hours and there wasn't enough time?

Pitiful that you defend this.

Defend what? That the president shouldn't be impeached on bullshit information because the right wing fear mongering echo chamber has it's panties in a tight wad over his looming re-election.

At a Pentagon news briefing, Panetta said there was no "real-time information" to be able to act on

A defense official provided more context on Panetta's comments about the decision-making involved in not sending U.S. troops

"It's not helpful to provide partial answers," Dempsey said. And Panetta criticized what he called "Monday morning quarterbacking."

The defense official said it was directed at criticism coming from pundits and Capitol Hill.

"In perfect hindsight, yes - we'd do it differently. But how it looks weeks later is not how it looked at the time.

A team that is specially trained to go into situations where intelligence is sketchy was prepositioned in Italy in case it was need, but not sent into Libya. Why?

The State Department said it had real time information, and the FBI used recordings from that feed to debrief the security staff, but Panetta insists the military did not have real time information. Why?

Obama says he gave a very clear directive to secure our personnel, but we didn't. Why?

You insist that asking these questions is nothing but partisanship. Why?

 

[BlindBoo]

Bullshit. 7 hours and there wasn't enough time?

Pitiful that you defend this.

Defend what? That the president shouldn't be impeached on bullshit information because the right wing fear mongering echo chamber has it's panties in a tight wad over his looming re-election.

At a Pentagon news briefing, Panetta said there was no "real-time information" to be able to act on

A defense official provided more context on Panetta's comments about the decision-making involved in not sending U.S. troops

"It's not helpful to provide partial answers," Dempsey said. And Panetta criticized what he called "Monday morning quarterbacking."

The defense official said it was directed at criticism coming from pundits and Capitol Hill.

"In perfect hindsight, yes - we'd do it differently. But how it looks weeks later is not how it looked at the time.

When have liberals given republicans this calm, wait and see approach? Jesus you retards blame Bush for a hurricane.....in a state ran by democrats that was not READY.....

10-23-83, 9-12-2001. I never blamed President Bush for any hurricane.

 

[Rinata]

For Hannity, Benghazi Seven Weeks Later Is A Bigger News Story Than Sandy's Epic Devastation | Blog | Media Matters for America

That figures. They are the only ones talking about this. If anybody thought it was true it would be all over the news.

 

[Rinata]

Chris Stevens is the Right's New Vince Foster.

wow...

Funny, Hillary was involved in both........

Just saying.......

I wouldn't lie about Hillary as well. She'll most likely win the presidency in 2016. The way things are going, the GOP will win it again next never.

 

[BlindBoo]

Bullshit. 7 hours and there wasn't enough time?

Pitiful that you defend this.

Defend what? That the president shouldn't be impeached on bullshit information because the right wing fear mongering echo chamber has it's panties in a tight wad over his looming re-election.

At a Pentagon news briefing, Panetta said there was no "real-time information" to be able to act on

A defense official provided more context on Panetta's comments about the decision-making involved in not sending U.S. troops

"It's not helpful to provide partial answers," Dempsey said. And Panetta criticized what he called "Monday morning quarterbacking."

The defense official said it was directed at criticism coming from pundits and Capitol Hill.

"In perfect hindsight, yes - we'd do it differently. But how it looks weeks later is not how it looked at the time.

A team that is specially trained to go into situations where intelligence is sketchy was prepositioned in Italy in case it was need, but not sent into Libya. Why?

The State Department said it had real time information, and the FBI used recordings from that feed to debrief the security staff, but Panetta insists the military did not have real time information. Why?

Obama says he gave a very clear directive to secure our personnel, but we didn't. Why?

You insist that asking these questions is nothing but partisanship. Why?

It's been a disgusting display of hyperpartisanship from the day of, no, during the assault, proving that the rabid right will stoop to any low to diminish this presidents chances of re-election.

 

[Rinata]

Clinton was accused of crimes, and found not guilty.

The story is that Bill Clinton was guilty. After the Republican house impeached him the publisher of the Hustler magazine, Larry Flynt offered millions of dollars for anyone who could produce facts about Republicans who were just as guilty of the same things. It cost him five or six million dollars but Flynt revealed stories about Bob Livingston and Henry Hyde having dalliences of the same nature. It resulted in both of them effectively resigning but the main part is that when the case went to the senate for trial half of those pricks knew they were just as guilty so guess what.....they didn't dare find Bill Clinton guilty of the same things they were either doing or had done before. Flynt told them he had plenty of other stuff to reveal if it came to that. I laughed my ass off.

Final Story.....the Republicans used every tactic they could muster for Clinton's two terms trying to remove him from office and they failed.

The actual story is that Bubba LIED under oath.

Short story.

Pathetic Story.

He was properly impeached and the only reason -- the ONLY reason -- the fucker didn't get convicted in the Senate trial is that cheap ass politics reigned supreme.

Clinton was not impeached because he lied about having sex with Monica. The Washington leadership was furious with him for cheating Bush 41 out of a second term. They were just waiting for something to crucify Clinton with. Do you think it was a secret?? They couldn't care less about Clinton's affair or his lying about it. They just wanted to destroy him. But it didn't work. HA!!!!

 

[Claudette]

Well you can bet your boots that if Bush were POTUS right now the LSM would have Benghazi plasters on the news 24/7. The NY slimes would have 8 inch front page headings and they would run it for weeks.

Oh wait. I forgot. This is Barry a Dem and they sure wouldn't want a story like Benghazi to upset his run for that second term. Never mind.