Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by rightwinger, Dec 28, 2013.

  1. RoshawnMarkwees
    Offline

    RoshawnMarkwees Assimilationist

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    13,027
    Thanks Received:
    1,673
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Middle class, suburban ghetto.
    Ratings:
    +7,782
    You mean like the Watergate select committee. Oh, but that one had repubs asking the tough question of a repub admin. You won't see any dems do the same for this one. Because they are not Americans. They are subversives.
     
  2. Uncensored2008
    Offline

    Uncensored2008 Libertarian Radical Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    64,689
    Thanks Received:
    8,291
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Ratings:
    +28,728
    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,750
    Thanks Received:
    3,809
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle at large...Ballard lately
    Ratings:
    +6,300
    So what? Did anyone come to harm because there was some initial conflict over the first reports about the incident in Benghazi?

    FOX news intentionally lies to the public every single day. What is your point?
     
  4. srlip
    Offline

    srlip Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2014
    Messages:
    310
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +19
    Dems voted, to a man, for obamacare, not a single Republican voted for it. We KNOW clinton is all for it, and we know it sucks and can't be funded. We know clinton is a scumbag who should have been locked up 20years ago, for travelgate, insider trading, etc. Dems voted, to a man, to not convict the MALE clinton, even tho it was proven beyond a doubt that he'd lied to Congress (which is a FELONY) dems will vote for an old yeller dog if he's a Dem, for a fact.
     
  5. d_tyler
    Offline

    d_tyler Coffee Party 2016

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    91
    Thanks Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Southeast
    Ratings:
    +27
    Can you honestly ask that question with a straight face?

    Physical harm....the damage had already been done. Brave soldiers were dead...along with US Ambassador Stevens. What more harm do you need? It doesn't matter what the lie was ... it was the fact that the initial reports were FABRICATED!!!!

    Let's do it this way... Your son is killed in a gang fight at a club. He's stabbed over a dozen times. The owner of the club tells the two bouncer / security guys to NOT call the police officers that are just down the block. Your son and 3 of his friends are dead. In a search for answers, the investigators are not allowed to speak with the bouncers and witnesses. The owner of the club insists that the fight broke out because your son knows somebody who said something disrespectful about somebody that the guy with the knife knows. He even goes on TV the next day and says it happened due to somebody saying the wrong thing. No details...no accountability. But all appearances of the security camera video shows that 10 gang members methodically selected your son and 3 friends and killed them in a cold blooded attack.

    Are you gonna accept that?

    Now, let's say you get a call from NY Times and they tell you that they interviewed over 100 people who say that there was no gang related activity surrounding this event.

    Are you still ok with this?


    It's funny that you accuse FOX of lies when you believe the BS that comes out of the WH.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  6. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    71,849
    Thanks Received:
    12,990
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Wetwang With Fimber, Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +33,160
    Oh, so somebody has to die before it's a crime....

    Keep moving the goalposts.
     
  7. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,750
    Thanks Received:
    3,809
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle at large...Ballard lately
    Ratings:
    +6,300
    I believe the white house should have said "we will wait to comment until more facts have surfaced" before making any seemingly factual statements.

    There was no criminal intent nor intentional miss use of the events that occured in Benghazi. You people are so seperated from reality in an effort to make Obama look bad that you have lost all grip on what is important in our country. You are mentally ill. Seek help.
     
  8. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    47,388
    Thanks Received:
    11,302
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +30,262
    They couldn't let anyone know it was a terror attack. Obama had vanquished Al Qaeda after all.

    The Pentagon knew it was a terror attack immediately.

    Pentagon labeled Benghazi a terrorist attack as Obama administration wavered: newly declassified testimony

    Gen. Carter Ham’s newly declassified testimony before the House suggests the prospect of an out-of-control demonstration was not raised by Defense officials and that they immediately considered the incident an attack.

    BY Leslie Larson
    NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

    Published: Tuesday, January 14, 2014, 1:23 PM
    Updated: Tuesday, January 14, 2014, 1:23 PM


    From the testimony:

    "There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack," Panetta said of his early assessment of the situation on the ground in Benghazi.

    Pentagon labeled Benghazi a terrorist attack as Obama administration wavered: newly declassified testimony - NY Daily News
     
  9. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    47,388
    Thanks Received:
    11,302
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +30,262
    The interference is obvious in the Nuland emails. This has been already been out front and center. It was an election year after all and this was politics at its worst.

    Leaked emails show that then State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland suggested that a CIA memo on Benghazi not include any reference of links to al-Qaeda and the intelligence warnings in the months preceding the attack.

    Nuland wrote in protest to the CIA description, saying it "could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up on the State Department for not paying attention to warnings," in an email to the White House and the CIA, according to ABC.


    Pentagon labeled Benghazi a terrorist attack as Obama administration wavered: newly declassified testimony - NY Daily News
     
  10. d_tyler
    Offline

    d_tyler Coffee Party 2016

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    91
    Thanks Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Southeast
    Ratings:
    +27
    Anytime a federal agency takes steps to lie to the American people in an attempt to cover up something, there is criminal intent. Anytime false information is produced to shroud the truth, there is criminal intent.

    No one here is mentally ill...not even you. But you do need help recognizing a cover up when you stare at one.
     

Share This Page