it's simple, if you want to prove you're an adult, you can answer some pretty basic questions.so to be clear, you are incapable of framing what you believe is being lied about in regards to benghazi, and you are incapable of telling us what new information was disclosed in the clip from hannity.You mean like the "I didn't have sex with that woman" type of lie you libs are famous for? Or how about Schiff's lies that even Congressman Smith backpedaled from.
Look shit-for-brains, you have no credibility OR integrity. You're just slime; why do you expect any of us to take anything you say OR ask seriously? You're a diversion agent - fine. That's cool. You're allowed.
As for the wining about name-calling.....LMAO....anyone can see you idiot libs started THAT little game on this thread. You can be found doing it yourself. So spare me the hypocrisy AND the crying.
and it was never in doubt that you weren't capable of behaving as an adult, if only just for one post.
so what is it you bring to the table, other than a foul mouth, a truck load of insecurity, and posts devoid of logic, reasoning, or even a point?
Oh it was framed for you alright, shithead -- in the video, in this thread, by multiple people, numerous times.
So to be clear, your listening comprehension is just as bad as your reading comprehension. No surprise.
So what is it you bring to the table, other than the same old stale Dummie-crat talking points, absolutely no integrity, a truck load of stupidity, and shit-for-brains? I think you suffer from mental instability as well.
Yawn
what do you think is still being hidden about benghazi, and what new information do you believe was presented in the clip?
these are your claims, i'm just asking you to do more than make vague allusions to things and actually form a coherent thought that you can share with the rest of us.
It's real simple. Your problem is you're a petulant child who has to be told to behave over and over and over...or to listen to what is actually being said in the video...over and over and over. And over.
Your little temper tantrums serve my purses too. Keep em up!what 'light' does it shed? what new information is presented?
exactly. however they're wanting to push their order to wait for more support as a 'stand down' order, hence their media blitz to sell the book to the ignorant, like econchick.
It's real simple. Your problem is you're a petulant child who has to be told to behave over and over and over...or to listen to what is actually being said in the video...over and over and over. And over.
Your little temper tantrums serve my purses too. Keep em up!what 'light' does it shed? what new information is presented?
New? There the nub. Nothing new in these guys story. It was published. Jan 15, 2014.
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf
They are heroes for counter attacking and rescuing the personal at the Consulate. The tactical decision to delay while gathering more weapons and men came from their commanding officer.
"The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex.
Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party." l3
exactly. however they're wanting to push their order to wait for more support as a 'stand down' order, hence their media blitz to sell the book to the ignorant, like econchick.
It's real simple. Your problem is you're a petulant child who has to be told to behave over and over and over...or to listen to what is actually being said in the video...over and over and over. And over.
Your little temper tantrums serve my purses too. Keep em up!what 'light' does it shed? what new information is presented?
New? There the nub. Nothing new in these guys story. It was published. Jan 15, 2014.
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf
They are heroes for counter attacking and rescuing the personal at the Consulate. The tactical decision to delay while gathering more weapons and men came from their commanding officer.
"The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex.
Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party." l3
but then, as mercenaries, they've already proven they'll do anything for a buck.
it's impossible to arm chair quaterback what could have or would have happened had they gone 25 minutes earlier. that isn't stopping them from doing so to sell a book though.exactly. however they're wanting to push their order to wait for more support as a 'stand down' order, hence their media blitz to sell the book to the ignorant, like econchick.
It's real simple. Your problem is you're a petulant child who has to be told to behave over and over and over...or to listen to what is actually being said in the video...over and over and over. And over.
Your little temper tantrums serve my purses too. Keep em up!what 'light' does it shed? what new information is presented?
New? There the nub. Nothing new in these guys story. It was published. Jan 15, 2014.
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf
They are heroes for counter attacking and rescuing the personal at the Consulate. The tactical decision to delay while gathering more weapons and men came from their commanding officer.
"The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex.
Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party." l3
but then, as mercenaries, they've already proven they'll do anything for a buck.
I also think their commander saved their lives by making them wait for reinforcements too.
So he's had time to dick around with something more believable? That's nice. But it doesn't rank up there with sweeping dead American bodies under the carpet for political gain. That could have cast doubt on his whole talk nice to Muslim bullshit and cost him.
It's real simple. Your problem is you're a petulant child who has to be told to behave over and over and over...or to listen to what is actually being said in the video...over and over and over. And over.
Your little temper tantrums serve my purses too. Keep em up!what 'light' does it shed? what new information is presented?
New? There the nub. Nothing new in these guys story. It was published. Jan 15, 2014.
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf
They are heroes for counter attacking and rescuing the personal at the Consulate. The tactical decision to delay while gathering more weapons and men came from their commanding officer.
"The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex.
Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party." l3
exactly. however they're wanting to push their order to wait for more support as a 'stand down' order, hence their media blitz to sell the book to the ignorant, like econchick.
It's real simple. Your problem is you're a petulant child who has to be told to behave over and over and over...or to listen to what is actually being said in the video...over and over and over. And over.
Your little temper tantrums serve my purses too. Keep em up!what 'light' does it shed? what new information is presented?
New? There the nub. Nothing new in these guys story. It was published. Jan 15, 2014.
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf
They are heroes for counter attacking and rescuing the personal at the Consulate. The tactical decision to delay while gathering more weapons and men came from their commanding officer.
"The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex.
Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party." l3
but then, as mercenaries, they've already proven they'll do anything for a buck.
exactly. however they're wanting to push their order to wait for more support as a 'stand down' order, hence their media blitz to sell the book to the ignorant, like econchick.
It's real simple. Your problem is you're a petulant child who has to be told to behave over and over and over...or to listen to what is actually being said in the video...over and over and over. And over.
Your little temper tantrums serve my purses too. Keep em up!what 'light' does it shed? what new information is presented?
New? There the nub. Nothing new in these guys story. It was published. Jan 15, 2014.
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf
They are heroes for counter attacking and rescuing the personal at the Consulate. The tactical decision to delay while gathering more weapons and men came from their commanding officer.
"The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex.
Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party." l3
but then, as mercenaries, they've already proven they'll do anything for a buck.
I also think their commander saved their lives by making them wait for reinforcements too.
it's impossible to arm chair quaterback what could have or would have happened had they gone 25 minutes earlier. that isn't stopping them from doing so to sell a book though.exactly. however they're wanting to push their order to wait for more support as a 'stand down' order, hence their media blitz to sell the book to the ignorant, like econchick.It's real simple. Your problem is you're a petulant child who has to be told to behave over and over and over...or to listen to what is actually being said in the video...over and over and over. And over.
Your little temper tantrums serve my purses too. Keep em up!what 'light' does it shed? what new information is presented?
New? There the nub. Nothing new in these guys story. It was published. Jan 15, 2014.
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf
They are heroes for counter attacking and rescuing the personal at the Consulate. The tactical decision to delay while gathering more weapons and men came from their commanding officer.
"The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex.
Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party." l3
but then, as mercenaries, they've already proven they'll do anything for a buck.
I also think their commander saved their lives by making them wait for reinforcements too.
...
Why didn't Fox News care about embassy/consulate attacks on Bush's watch?
13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News - Bob Cesca
Prior to Benghazi were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush - PolitiFact
Oh, look it's dumb (Lakky) and dumber (dotcommie) pretending they can even find Benghazi on a map, LOL.
To answer your question, nit wit, no other president that's had embassy or consulate attacks on their watch engaged in cover ups.
All other presidents have turned the investigations over to whatever independent organization was tasked with the investigation, and the WH at those times were supportive of those investigations.
You want me to repeat that very important distinction for you dumbasses again?
It's obvious it wouldn't help. You're little flakes. Really gullible ones. The whole board knows it; even your buddies.
How low are your IQs? Maybe 30? 40 tops?
so to be clear, you are incapable of framing what you believe is being lied about in regards to benghazi, and you are incapable of telling us what new information was disclosed in the clip from hannity.Awwww, running out of other things to say, ding bat? Awww, I imagine it's hard to be a lib these days. You're getting your asses nailed to the wall.
When you can't offer TRUTH about yet another situation Obama got ya in, diversion is all ya got, hun.
You mean like the "I didn't have sex with that woman" type of lie you libs are famous for? Or how about Schiff's lies that even Congressman Smith backpedaled from.
Look shit-for-brains, you have no credibility OR integrity. You're just slime; why do you expect any of us to take anything you say OR ask seriously? You're a diversion agent - fine. That's cool. You're allowed.
As for the wining about name-calling.....LMAO....anyone can see you idiot libs started THAT little game on this thread. You can be found doing it yourself. So spare me the hypocrisy AND the crying.
and it was never in doubt that you weren't capable of behaving as an adult, if only just for one post.
so what is it you bring to the table, other than a foul mouth, a truck load of insecurity, and posts devoid of logic, reasoning, or even a point?
Oh it was framed for you alright, shithead -- in the video, in this thread, by multiple people, numerous times.
So to be clear, your listening comprehension is just as bad as your reading comprehension. No surprise.
So what is it you bring to the table, other than the same old stale Dummie-crat talking points, absolutely no integrity, a truck load of stupidity, and shit-for-brains? I think you suffer from mental instability as well.
Yawn
I see EconChick still hasn't attempted to accept my challenge as stated in Post 256.
This all goes to show that EC has greatly exaggerated who she is and what she has done.
EconChick, you are one of the lamest posters here. There are some very excellent conservative posters on these boards and baby, you aren't one of them and it's not even close. You are nothing but a phony.
Yo, dumbass. What part of "I've followed every single aspect of the Benghazi debacle since day one" did you not get?
And what part of "they weren't on the ground did you not comprehend?" I actually sat and watched the testimony live, shit for brains. You need to have that testimony explained to you?
Did you even watch the video, BABE?
I think you're one of the many idiot libs on here who've said it's not worth their time. Great, who cares. You low lives are not the ones I'm disseminating this information to. You low lives on this thread are just useful idiots to my end goal of getting past the corrupt press.
Capeche?
But thanks for bumping the thread. Can't thank you enough.
so to be clear, you are incapable of framing what you believe is being lied about in regards to benghazi, and you are incapable of telling us what new information was disclosed in the clip from hannity.You mean like the "I didn't have sex with that woman" type of lie you libs are famous for? Or how about Schiff's lies that even Congressman Smith backpedaled from.
Look shit-for-brains, you have no credibility OR integrity. You're just slime; why do you expect any of us to take anything you say OR ask seriously? You're a diversion agent - fine. That's cool. You're allowed.
As for the wining about name-calling.....LMAO....anyone can see you idiot libs started THAT little game on this thread. You can be found doing it yourself. So spare me the hypocrisy AND the crying.
and it was never in doubt that you weren't capable of behaving as an adult, if only just for one post.
so what is it you bring to the table, other than a foul mouth, a truck load of insecurity, and posts devoid of logic, reasoning, or even a point?
Oh it was framed for you alright, shithead -- in the video, in this thread, by multiple people, numerous times.
So to be clear, your listening comprehension is just as bad as your reading comprehension. No surprise.
So what is it you bring to the table, other than the same old stale Dummie-crat talking points, absolutely no integrity, a truck load of stupidity, and shit-for-brains? I think you suffer from mental instability as well.
Yawn
I see EconChick still hasn't attempted to accept my challenge as stated in Post 256.
This all goes to show that EC has greatly exaggerated who she is and what she has done.
EconChick, you are one of the lamest posters here. There are some very excellent conservative posters on these boards and baby, you aren't one of them and it's not even close. You are nothing but a phony.
Yo, dumbass. What part of "I've followed every single aspect of the Benghazi debacle since day one" did you not get?
And what part of "they weren't on the ground did you not comprehend?" I actually sat and watched the testimony live, shit for brains. You need to have that testimony explained to you?
Did you even watch the video, BABE?
I think you're one of the many idiot libs on here who've said it's not worth their time. Great, who cares. You low lives are not the ones I'm disseminating this information to. You low lives on this thread are just useful idiots to my end goal of getting past the corrupt press.
Capeche?
But thanks for bumping the thread. Can't thank you enough.
Look EC, I issued a challenge to you. I figured as you spent a ton of time bragging about yourself and how much you were involved with the pulse of the State Department, it would be a no-brainer for you. I was wrong, it would have involved a little work on your part and of course you'd have to take apart the testimonies of nine military officers who were directly involved with Libya and Benghazi. Your lack of willingness to take the challenge speaks volumes. Enough said.
Secondly, it should be noted that early in this thread I noted that I do think the Obama Administrations made mistakes. But then so did Reagan with the Marine Barracks attack and so did Clinton with the attack on the USS Cole and so did "W" with the dozen or so attacks on various US foreign diplomatic sites. The difference with Obama is that he has been put through two years of investigations after investigations. Yet the death toll for Benghazi was less than the incidents that happened under Reagan, Clinton and GWB! Why is that? The multiple investigations haven't answered that question.
It's clear one has an objective approach and one of us completely is incapable of objectivity.
