If you as a voter knew then that Benghazi was NOT caused by a video would you have voted for Obama?

[Little-Acorn]

The attack on the facility at Benghazi could not and would not have occurred the way it did without the video. Simple fact.

Liberals often make statements like this... and provide no facts or evidence to back them up. Because they have none.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If you as a voter knew then that Benghazi was NOT caused by a video would you have voted for Obama?

If you as a voter knew in 2012 that the Obama administration had deliberately cut back on security in several embassies and consulates in troubled areas in the middle East and north Africa, at a time when terrorist attacks were actually being carried out week after week at some of those places and getting progressively worse, even as he spent lavishly on swimming pools and ornate furniture at other similar embassies and consulates, just so he could pretend before a major election that he had actually defeated al Qaeda when the opposite was true, and the result was three Americans killed (including a U.S. Ambassador) and a consulate completely destroyed by a long-planned attack.....

....would you have voted for Obama in that major election?

 

[Flipper]

The attack on the facility at Benghazi could not and would not have occurred the way it did without the video. Simple fact. If nothing else, it was used as a distraction and diversion used to keep US security forces bogged down in preparedness for attacks at other facilities in the region.

Really?

Prove it.

 

[Flipper]

Did Hillary have more than 700 FBU files on her "enemies"?

 

[Camp]

The attack on the facility at Benghazi could not and would not have occurred the way it did without the video. Simple fact. If nothing else, it was used as a distraction and diversion used to keep US security forces bogged down in preparedness for attacks at other facilities in the region.

Really?

Prove it.

It is proof in and of itself. You conspiracy folks have been trying to prove otherwise for years. Congressional investigation after investigation. All the nonsense about a conspiracy in this thread has been repeatedly refuted, debunked and showed to be bullshit. So you go ahead and keep trying and failing to prove your dopey ideas and theories. Meantime, my theory stands unopposed.

 

[Flipper]

The attack on the facility at Benghazi could not and would not have occurred the way it did without the video. Simple fact. If nothing else, it was used as a distraction and diversion used to keep US security forces bogged down in preparedness for attacks at other facilities in the region.

Really?

Prove it.

It is proof in and of itself. You conspiracy folks have been trying to prove otherwise for years. Congressional investigation after investigation. All the nonsense about a conspiracy in this thread has been repeatedly refuted, debunked and showed to be bullshit. So you go ahead and keep trying and failing to prove your dopey ideas and theories. Meantime, my theory stands unopposed.

Sure t does, because YOU say so.

You are quite the legend in your own mind.

Fact Hillary and Obama lied about Benghazi, just because you say they didn't mean nothing to anyone but you.

I've already posted the CIA document that proves I'm right.

I've alsoa Generals testimony before Congress again proving my point.

You?
You've got nothing but your words, so no you have nothing and your point has been shown to be complete bullshit.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The attack on the facility at Benghazi could not and would not have occurred the way it did without the video. Simple fact.

Prove it.

It is proof in and of itself.

TRANSLATION: I can't prove it at all.

 

[Camp]

The attack on the facility at Benghazi could not and would not have occurred the way it did without the video. Simple fact.

Prove it.

It is proof in and of itself.

TRANSLATION: I can't prove it at all.

All the known facts back up my version. No one has ever been able to disprove it. Your version has been repeatedly shown to be false and distorted by Republican led Congressional investigations. Your own people tell you that you are dopey. What makes you so special that you have to be convinced of things already proven to the mass's in the public, the media and Congressional Committees over and over. Why should you expect a message board poster to convince you of something if you can't be convinced by the professional investigators and researchers? Only you can prevent yourself from continuing down your path of stubborn and stupid.

 

[Little-Acorn]

TRANSLATION: I can't prove it at all.

All the known facts back up my version.

TRANSLATION: I can't cite any facts to back up what I say.

 

[rdean]

I guess the whole Benghazi thing is just to appeal to the right wing crazy base- because it has never resonated with the public in general.

It was obvious from the beginning that the Republicans were far more interested in blaming Obama and blaming Clinton- than on what actually happened.

Far more interested in blame- rather than finding out what happened and then using that to improve the security of our diplomats.

Its not going to resonate now either.

Benghazi is the Republican response to 9-11
See? Obama gives up attacks too

Unlike Bush, who Democrats rallied around, Republicans used Benghazi for political gain

Bush did not LIE about 9/11, do you get the difference? dingleberry

When he said Iraq was involved, he lied dipshit. What is wrong with you?

 

[Syriusly]

If you as a voter knew then that Benghazi was NOT caused by a video would you have voted for Obama?

Why on earth would anyone other than a rabid right wing fanatic care?

Like I said before- when the Marine barracks were bombed in Beirut and 200 American Marines died, Democrats joined together with the Republicans in support of Reagan- and to find out what happened and what we could learn from it.

Benghazi? Republicans first and foremost concern has been how to blame Obama and Clinton.

You folks just are doing their dirty work.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If you as a voter knew then that Benghazi was NOT caused by a video would you have voted for Obama?

If you as a voter knew in 2012 that the Obama administration had deliberately cut back on security in several embassies and consulates in troubled areas in the middle East and north Africa, at a time when terrorist attacks were actually being carried out week after week at some of those places and getting progressively worse, even as he spent lavishly on swimming pools and ornate furniture at other similar embassies and consulates, just so he could pretend before a major election that he had actually defeated al Qaeda when the opposite was true, and the result was three Americans killed (including a U.S. Ambassador) and a consulate completely destroyed by a long-planned attack.....

....would you have voted for Obama in that major election?

 

[Syriusly]

If you as a voter knew then that Benghazi was NOT caused by a video would you have voted for Obama?

If you as a voter knew in 2012 that the Obama administration had deliberately cut back on security in several embassies and consulates in troubled areas in the middle East and north Africa, at a time when terrorist attacks were actually being carried out week after week at some of those places and getting progressively worse, even as he spent lavishly on swimming pools and ornate furniture at other similar embassies and consulates, just so he could pretend before a major election that he had actually defeated al Qaeda when the opposite was true, and the result was three Americans killed (including a U.S. Ambassador) and a consulate completely destroyed by a long-planned attack.....

....would you have voted for Obama in that major election?

You mean would I have voted for Obama if I believed the lies told by the far right Republicans?

Well no- if I was stupid enough to believe what you say, I would have been so stupid I wouldn't have voted for Obama.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If you as a voter knew then that Benghazi was NOT caused by a video would you have voted for Obama?

If you as a voter knew in 2012 that the Obama administration had deliberately cut back on security in several embassies and consulates in troubled areas in the middle East and north Africa, at a time when terrorist attacks were actually being carried out week after week at some of those places and getting progressively worse, even as he spent lavishly on swimming pools and ornate furniture at other similar embassies and consulates, just so he could pretend before a major election that he had actually defeated al Qaeda when the opposite was true, and the result was three Americans killed (including a U.S. Ambassador) and a consulate completely destroyed by a long-planned attack.....

....would you have voted for Obama in that major election?

You mean would I have voted for Obama if I believed the lies told by the far right Republicans?

Well no- if I was stupid enough to believe what you say, I would have been so stupid I wouldn't have voted for Obama.

As usual, the desperate liberals scream "LIES! LIES!" ..... but never get around to identifying which statements are false.

Because they can't.

Can these people possibly be more futile and silly?

Back to the subject:
If you as a voter knew in 2012 that the Obama administration had deliberately cut back on security in several embassies and consulates in troubled areas in the middle East and north Africa, at a time when terrorist attacks were actually being carried out week after week at some of those places and getting progressively worse, even as he spent lavishly on swimming pools and ornate furniture at other similar embassies and consulates, just so he could pretend before a major election that he had actually defeated al Qaeda when the opposite was true, and the result was three Americans killed (including a U.S. Ambassador) and a consulate completely destroyed by a long-planned attack.....

....would you have voted for Obama in that major election?

 

[edthecynic]

If you as a voter knew in 2012 that the Obama administration had deliberately cut back on security in several embassies and consulates in troubled areas in the middle East and north Africa, at a time when terrorist attacks were actually being carried out week after week at some of those places and getting progressively worse

The Right keep telling us that the GOP House controls the purse strings.

 

[healthmyths]

I guess the whole Benghazi thing is just to appeal to the right wing crazy base- because it has never resonated with the public in general.

It was obvious from the beginning that the Republicans were far more interested in blaming Obama and blaming Clinton- than on what actually happened.

Far more interested in blame- rather than finding out what happened and then using that to improve the security of our diplomats.

Its not going to resonate now either.

Benghazi is the Republican response to 9-11
See? Obama gives up attacks too

Unlike Bush, who Democrats rallied around, Republicans used Benghazi for political gain

Bush did not LIE about 9/11, do you get the difference? dingleberry

When he said Iraq was involved, he lied dipshit. What is wrong with you?

AND YOU ARE A F>>>KING liar when you wrote:" HE(Bush) said Iraq was involved"!
Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.
"And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."
Bush No Iraq link to 9 11 found - seattlepi.com

Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
Meet the Press, September 16, 2001
I can’t remember who it was now, but a commenter on another blog posed a challenge to me that echoed what I have already been pondering upon: If Bush didn’t lie, why do (or did) so many Americans think that Saddam is linked to the events of 9/11?
I ran a quick Google search, and found this Washington Post article by Dana Milbank, dated from September 6, 2003.
This is months after the Invasion (and a year before I even knew what a blog was). The piece is fascinating to me, as I find disagreement with some of the facts, a perpetuation of some of the media distortions regarding Administration statements, and a few points that do make sense to me.

NOTE for ALL YOU IDIOT LIPs...
The “link” the Administration drew early on in regards to Saddam and 9/11, wasn’t about fabricating a belief that Saddam had a role in plotting 9/11.
It was about preventing the next terror attack that might come in the form of a wmd attack, supplied by a state-sponsor of terrorism, known also for its love for acquiring wmd capabilities.
Of course, given what we did know about Saddam, the Bush Administration would have been derelict in its duty to protect the American public had it not examined that possibility.
Did President Bush Link Saddam Hussein to 9 11 Flopping Aces

BUT NO WHERE has there been shown ANY PROOF that Bush LIED by saying Iraq/Saddam was behind 9/11!

NO WHERE!!!

FIND ME PROOF that Bush literally SAID "he(Bush) said Iraq was involved,"
YOU can't !

 

[Faun]

Huh? You what?

Did Hillary's emails prove that she knew about the Benghazi attack 2 weeks in advance? That's what you said earlier.

So you cannot read?

Wow! That's gotta be the epitome in lack of self-awareness.

How many times did post about how Hillary's email reveal she knew about the attack two weeks in advance because YOU cannot read?

LOL, you kids just can't bring yourselves to admit that Hillary and Obama have lied to you about virtually everything.

Your tactic is deflect away from that and pounce on my admission that I misread the article...sucks to be you because no matter HOW much you try to deflect you cannot change the fact they ran guns and got 4 men killed.

Interesting

Nah, they didn't lie. But you sure showed what an imbecile you are claiming that Hillary's email revealed she knew about the attack two weeks in advance, huh?

Of course they lied that's all they do.

You think I'm an imbecile

Look in the mirror you aren't a bright individual and you could never admit a mistake, you aren't woman enough ,bforeit's over you'll have me on ignore like the coward you are young lady.

What a dumb ass reply. None of which resembles reality.

___________________________________​

U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days AFTER Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

___________________________________​

Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi attack - Washington Post

In addition, there were intelligence reports in the days following the Benghazi attacks that al-Qa'ida-associated terrorists hoped to take advantage of global protests for further attacks. As a result of evidence from closed circuit videos and other reports, the IC changed its assessment about a protest in classified intelligence reports on September 24, 2012, to state there were no demonstrations or protests at the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks. This slow change in the official assessment affected the public statements of government officials, who continued to state in press interviews that there were protests outside the Mission compound.

 

[Faun]

I guess the whole Benghazi thing is just to appeal to the right wing crazy base- because it has never resonated with the public in general.

It was obvious from the beginning that the Republicans were far more interested in blaming Obama and blaming Clinton- than on what actually happened.

Far more interested in blame- rather than finding out what happened and then using that to improve the security of our diplomats.

Its not going to resonate now either.

Benghazi is the Republican response to 9-11
See? Obama gives up attacks too

Unlike Bush, who Democrats rallied around, Republicans used Benghazi for political gain

Bush did not LIE about 9/11, do you get the difference? dingleberry

When he said Iraq was involved, he lied dipshit. What is wrong with you?

AND YOU ARE A F>>>KING liar when you wrote:" HE(Bush) said Iraq was involved"!
Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.
"And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."
Bush No Iraq link to 9 11 found - seattlepi.com

Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
Meet the Press, September 16, 2001
I can’t remember who it was now, but a commenter on another blog posed a challenge to me that echoed what I have already been pondering upon: If Bush didn’t lie, why do (or did) so many Americans think that Saddam is linked to the events of 9/11?
I ran a quick Google search, and found this Washington Post article by Dana Milbank, dated from September 6, 2003.
This is months after the Invasion (and a year before I even knew what a blog was). The piece is fascinating to me, as I find disagreement with some of the facts, a perpetuation of some of the media distortions regarding Administration statements, and a few points that do make sense to me.

NOTE for ALL YOU IDIOT LIPs...
The “link” the Administration drew early on in regards to Saddam and 9/11, wasn’t about fabricating a belief that Saddam had a role in plotting 9/11.
It was about preventing the next terror attack that might come in the form of a wmd attack, supplied by a state-sponsor of terrorism, known also for its love for acquiring wmd capabilities.
Of course, given what we did know about Saddam, the Bush Administration would have been derelict in its duty to protect the American public had it not examined that possibility.
Did President Bush Link Saddam Hussein to 9 11 Flopping Aces

BUT NO WHERE has there been shown ANY PROOF that Bush LIED by saying Iraq/Saddam was behind 9/11!

NO WHERE!!!

FIND ME PROOF that Bush literally SAID "he(Bus) said Iraq was involved,"
YOU can't !

How about Cheney? Does he count?

Meet The Press, 12.9.2001

Tim Russert: "Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"

Dick Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."​

 

[healthmyths]

I guess the whole Benghazi thing is just to appeal to the right wing crazy base- because it has never resonated with the public in general.

It was obvious from the beginning that the Republicans were far more interested in blaming Obama and blaming Clinton- than on what actually happened.

Far more interested in blame- rather than finding out what happened and then using that to improve the security of our diplomats.

Its not going to resonate now either.

Benghazi is the Republican response to 9-11
See? Obama gives up attacks too

Unlike Bush, who Democrats rallied around, Republicans used Benghazi for political gain

Bush did not LIE about 9/11, do you get the difference? dingleberry

When he said Iraq was involved, he lied dipshit. What is wrong with you?

AND YOU ARE A F>>>KING liar when you wrote:" HE(Bush) said Iraq was involved"!
Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.
"And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."
Bush No Iraq link to 9 11 found - seattlepi.com

Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
Meet the Press, September 16, 2001
I can’t remember who it was now, but a commenter on another blog posed a challenge to me that echoed what I have already been pondering upon: If Bush didn’t lie, why do (or did) so many Americans think that Saddam is linked to the events of 9/11?
I ran a quick Google search, and found this Washington Post article by Dana Milbank, dated from September 6, 2003.
This is months after the Invasion (and a year before I even knew what a blog was). The piece is fascinating to me, as I find disagreement with some of the facts, a perpetuation of some of the media distortions regarding Administration statements, and a few points that do make sense to me.

NOTE for ALL YOU IDIOT LIPs...
The “link” the Administration drew early on in regards to Saddam and 9/11, wasn’t about fabricating a belief that Saddam had a role in plotting 9/11.
It was about preventing the next terror attack that might come in the form of a wmd attack, supplied by a state-sponsor of terrorism, known also for its love for acquiring wmd capabilities.
Of course, given what we did know about Saddam, the Bush Administration would have been derelict in its duty to protect the American public had it not examined that possibility.
Did President Bush Link Saddam Hussein to 9 11 Flopping Aces

BUT NO WHERE has there been shown ANY PROOF that Bush LIED by saying Iraq/Saddam was behind 9/11!

NO WHERE!!!

FIND ME PROOF that Bush literally SAID "he(Bus) said Iraq was involved,"
YOU can't !

How about Cheney? Does he count?

Meet The Press, 12.9.2001

Tim Russert: "Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"

Dick Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."​

A) NO you said Bush LIED and that's a FACT!
B) NO Cheney would have LIED if HE knew that TRUTH that Atta DIDN"T go to Prague and yet he would have said the above!

YOU seem to forget what a LIE is!
YOU are a LIAR when you state something that YOU KNOW is not TRUE!
NONE of which you are calling Bush,et.al. as LIARS were TRUTHS that Bush, et.al. KNEW were not true but insisted on saying were true!

Finally today... Bob Woodward said on Chris Wallace Fox News..."Bush never lied"!

Again a LIE is when YOU KNOW what you are saying is NOT TRUE!
Furthermore Bush never ever said Iraq/Saddam involved in 9/11.

 

[Flipper]

So you cannot read?

Wow! That's gotta be the epitome in lack of self-awareness.

How many times did post about how Hillary's email reveal she knew about the attack two weeks in advance because YOU cannot read?

LOL, you kids just can't bring yourselves to admit that Hillary and Obama have lied to you about virtually everything.

Your tactic is deflect away from that and pounce on my admission that I misread the article...sucks to be you because no matter HOW much you try to deflect you cannot change the fact they ran guns and got 4 men killed.

Interesting

Nah, they didn't lie. But you sure showed what an imbecile you are claiming that Hillary's email revealed she knew about the attack two weeks in advance, huh?

Of course they lied that's all they do.

You think I'm an imbecile

Look in the mirror you aren't a bright individual and you could never admit a mistake, you aren't woman enough ,bforeit's over you'll have me on ignore like the coward you are young lady.

What a dumb ass reply. None of which resembles reality.

___________________________________​

U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days AFTER Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

___________________________________​

Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi attack - Washington Post

In addition, there were intelligence reports in the days following the Benghazi attacks that al-Qa'ida-associated terrorists hoped to take advantage of global protests for further attacks. As a result of evidence from closed circuit videos and other reports, the IC changed its assessment about a protest in classified intelligence reports on September 24, 2012, to state there were no demonstrations or protests at the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks. This slow change in the official assessment affected the public statements of government officials, who continued to state in press interviews that there were protests outside the Mission compound.

Sorry ma'am I already posed a CIA memo that was received on 9/12 showing that they knew that Al Qaeda had been planning the attack for almost two weeks.

You appear to revel in the fact that you are clueless my friend.