Lyndsey Graham Who Was Directly Lied To Says House Benghazi Report Full of C R A P

[ClosedCaption]

It is like watching Kosmo Kramer on Seinfeld. The "pigman" episode comes to mind.

So you agree with Closed that it was a "Republican report", Candy?

No...I'm pretty sure I didn't mention that. Musta been during the pigman video.

So you don't agree with Closed that it was a Republican report.

This is about the report not me you little Alinsky

I'm an "Alinsky" for pointing out that it isn't a Republican report? I'm curious, Closed...in an "Alinsky" another word for a liar? I ask that because that's the way you're making it sound.

Then who decided Benghazi needed to be investigated? Is Issa in another party perhaps?

 

[Mojo2]

In 1998, according to the Congressional daily newspaper The Hill, Graham was describing himself on his website as an Operation Desert Shield andDesert Storm veteran. In reality, he never left South Carolina.

Bob Somerby notes that Lindsey Graham escaped from the incident relatively unscathed. In 2002, when Graham was running for his Senate seat, Joe Conason discovered that Graham’s website still had the misleading biography. And it was still leading people to write stories claiming Graham served overseas. But Graham was elected anyway.

Since then, everyone seems to have completely forgotten that Lindsey Graham lied about being a war veteran.

lindsey graham the hill desert storm veteran - Google Search

Another Republican hero. A GOP leader made up of nothing but lies. Why am I not surprised? Anyone surprised? Anyone?

You know how you guys LOVE going in your time machines to 2001 - 2008 to try and indict Bush Co.?

Well, hop in your hoopty and tell us what you dug up about Obama that everyone needs to know to make an informed choice in the 2008 Presidential election, okay?

Oh, you mean you learned investigative journalism as a result of the Obama regime?

Chalk up one positive for Obozo.

 

[Mojo2]

So you agree with Closed that it was a "Republican report", Candy?

No...I'm pretty sure I didn't mention that. Musta been during the pigman video.

So you don't agree with Closed that it was a Republican report.

This is about the report not me you little Alinsky

I'm an "Alinsky" for pointing out that it isn't a Republican report? I'm curious, Closed...in an "Alinsky" another word for a liar? I ask that because that's the way you're making it sound.

Then who decided Benghazi needed to be investigated? Is Issa in another party perhaps?

THE AMERICANS DECIDED.

 

[Oldstyle]

How does anything that Clinton did in regards to Benghazi possibly make her look "strong", Candy? She misread the situation on the ground in Libya. She disregarded what was happening there because it didn't jibe with the narrative of what the Obama White House was putting out and then when the whole thing blew up on her she went in front of the American people and asked "What difference does it really make?" That isn't something that makes her look "strong". That's something that makes her look out of touch with reality.

When trying to protect a building from attack, what difference does the reason they are being attacked make?

Ah, because an attack by "protesters" isn't going to be the same as an attack by "terrorists"?

Being attacked by protesters in Egypt isn't going to be the same because they don't have militia's with heavy weapons running around in control of territory. Besides which we know that for some of the attackers in Benghazi it was about the video. But that has little to do with how to fortify a building to prevent attacks does it? That was the discussion that day when she said that wasn't it, not the motivation for the attack? But I know the Faux machine wants people to believe she was being callous about the lives lost but...........

So what you're saying is that Libya was much more dangerous for our diplomats than Egypt...yet Hillary Clinton decided that putting the bulk of security of those diplomats in the care of Libyan militias would be a wise move because we didn't want to give the impression that we didn't "trust" the Libyans? Ignoring the escalation of violence against Western targets by terrorists in Libya was also a wise decisiing I'm sayon? Really, Boo?

Nope what I'm saying is when she made that statement the discussion was about how to defend our people from an attack with RPG's and other heavy weapons. It matters not if they are piss about some cartoon, a movie, or they simply hate Americans.

Actually when Clinton made that remark the discussion was about how we'd screwed up the security of our diplomats so badly and who was to blame for it. Hillary desperately WANTED it to be about something else...ANYTHING ELSE...hence her little rant.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Keep the personal stuff out of the thread, please.

 

[BlindBoo]

When trying to protect a building from attack, what difference does the reason they are being attacked make?

Ah, because an attack by "protesters" isn't going to be the same as an attack by "terrorists"?

Being attacked by protesters in Egypt isn't going to be the same because they don't have militia's with heavy weapons running around in control of territory. Besides which we know that for some of the attackers in Benghazi it was about the video. But that has little to do with how to fortify a building to prevent attacks does it? That was the discussion that day when she said that wasn't it, not the motivation for the attack? But I know the Faux machine wants people to believe she was being callous about the lives lost but...........

So what you're saying is that Libya was much more dangerous for our diplomats than Egypt...yet Hillary Clinton decided that putting the bulk of security of those diplomats in the care of Libyan militias would be a wise move because we didn't want to give the impression that we didn't "trust" the Libyans? Ignoring the escalation of violence against Western targets by terrorists in Libya was also a wise decisiing I'm sayon? Really, Boo?

Nope what I'm saying is when she made that statement the discussion was about how to defend our people from an attack with RPG's and other heavy weapons. It matters not if they are piss about some cartoon, a movie, or they simply hate Americans.

Actually when Clinton made that remark the discussion was about how we'd screwed up the security of our diplomats so badly and who was to blame for it. Hillary desperately WANTED it to be about something else...ANYTHING ELSE...hence her little rant.

In Context Hillary Clinton s What difference does it make comment PolitiFact Wisconsin

 

[Sarah G]

If Clinton really was as intelligent as her hubby she would have simply admitted to misjudging the situation and that would have been the end of it. Yes, she would have been taken over the coals for a period of time and then the controversy would have died a natural death under the weight of all the OTHER Obama scandals. Instead they made the call to try and stonewall the thing. Now it's years later and it's STILL news!

Sure it would have been the end of it. Don't try to advise Mrs. Clinton or president Obama, you aren't near ready.

I would be very surprised if Hillary Clinton wouldn't now ruefully admit that the decisions made back then were probably not in her best interest now, Sarah. I'm a history major...history tells us that the cover-up almost always gets you in bigger trouble than the initial problem.

I would agree with this in part. What I don't believe is that the matter would have been done with if the administration had done things differently. The Republican congress has nothing better to do than spend their days obstructing. Can't wait to see what they do over the next two years when they don't have Democrats to blame.

 

[Oldstyle]

If Clinton really was as intelligent as her hubby she would have simply admitted to misjudging the situation and that would have been the end of it. Yes, she would have been taken over the coals for a period of time and then the controversy would have died a natural death under the weight of all the OTHER Obama scandals. Instead they made the call to try and stonewall the thing. Now it's years later and it's STILL news!

Sure it would have been the end of it. Don't try to advise Mrs. Clinton or president Obama, you aren't near ready.

I would be very surprised if Hillary Clinton wouldn't now ruefully admit that the decisions made back then were probably not in her best interest now, Sarah. I'm a history major...history tells us that the cover-up almost always gets you in bigger trouble than the initial problem.

I would agree with this in part. What I don't believe is that the matter would have been done with if the administration had done things differently. The Republican congress has nothing better to do than spend their days obstructing. Can't wait to see what they do over the next two years when they don't have Democrats to blame.

It's a pretty easy call actually, Sarah. You've got a main stream media that is sympathetic to you. Use it! Admit that you miscalculated, take full blame for what happened and promise to fix the issue. That sympathetic media is going to hold it against you for a brief amount of time and then it would just be one more mountain that became a molehill. It's literally YEARS later now and the scandal still is an issue BECAUSE of the cover-up!

 

[francoHFW]

This is not same thread as the one claiming Benghazi completely debunked.

In fact, since it came out, many of us who know the report is FULL OF SHIT and that the House Committee was too stove piped to even properly investigate it have been refuting the FULL OF HOLES REPORT. But now people who were directly lied to or lied about are coming out of the woodwork and SLAMMING THE REPORT SO BADLY that the dancing in the end zones by Democrats will soon turn to more defeat and depression once Trey Gowdy sets them straight in December with the SENATE REPORT.

The Benghazi Report, for example, exonerates the CIA, yet Lyndsey Graham was personally lied to by the CIA on Benghazi. By the time Graham is done in coming days, Rogers won't want to show his face.

Trust me, this is about to boomerang in Democrats' faces, just like Gruber and Obamacare has.

We'll obviously need a Senate Bengazi hearing

 

[Unkotare]

The Republican congress has nothing better to do than spend their days obstructing. .

= not meekly submitting to everything the ******* democrats want regardless of the interests of elected officials' constituents?

 

[Sarah G]

The Republican congress has nothing better to do than spend their days obstructing. .

= not meekly submitting to everything the ******* democrats want regardless of the interests of elected officials' constituents?

In congress you negotiate, not just say no to everything. Rs no longer know how to get things done so they do nothing. The next two years will be wasted yet again. We'll see if the Ds can make a case to win some seats in 2016.

 

[Sarah G]

If Clinton really was as intelligent as her hubby she would have simply admitted to misjudging the situation and that would have been the end of it. Yes, she would have been taken over the coals for a period of time and then the controversy would have died a natural death under the weight of all the OTHER Obama scandals. Instead they made the call to try and stonewall the thing. Now it's years later and it's STILL news!

Sure it would have been the end of it. Don't try to advise Mrs. Clinton or president Obama, you aren't near ready.

I would be very surprised if Hillary Clinton wouldn't now ruefully admit that the decisions made back then were probably not in her best interest now, Sarah. I'm a history major...history tells us that the cover-up almost always gets you in bigger trouble than the initial problem.

I would agree with this in part. What I don't believe is that the matter would have been done with if the administration had done things differently. The Republican congress has nothing better to do than spend their days obstructing. Can't wait to see what they do over the next two years when they don't have Democrats to blame.

It's a pretty easy call actually, Sarah. You've got a main stream media that is sympathetic to you. Use it! Admit that you miscalculated, take full blame for what happened and promise to fix the issue. That sympathetic media is going to hold it against you for a brief amount of time and then it would just be one more mountain that became a molehill. It's literally YEARS later now and the scandal still is an issue BECAUSE of the cover-up!

What coverup. You have to stop pulling this stuff out of thin air.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm referring to how the Obama White House "managed" the Benghazi story as it broke. The effort that was expended to paint it as just another protest about the YouTube video? The protracted fight between the Clinton State Department and the intelligence community over the talking points? The re-write that was done by the White House? The dispatching of Susan Rice to all those Sunday morning talk shows with marching orders from Ben Rhodes to make sure that it wasn't portrayed as a "failure of policy"? The insistence of Jay Carney that only one word in the intelligence reports were changed by the White House? If you don't want to call it a cover-up, Sarah...feel free to assign it a different label. Call it "spin" if that makes you feel better...

 

[Oldstyle]

The Republican congress has nothing better to do than spend their days obstructing. .

= not meekly submitting to everything the ******* democrats want regardless of the interests of elected officials' constituents?

In congress you negotiate, not just say no to everything. Rs no longer know how to get things done so they do nothing. The next two years will be wasted yet again. We'll see if the Ds can make a case to win some seats in 2016.

I'm curious, Sarah...you say that in Congress "you negotiate" yet before the GOP took control of the House in the 2010 mid-terms, their views were essentially ignored by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and then after they DID take control of the House, Harry Reid tabled over three hundred and fifty GOP House bills sent over to the Senate. So where was the "negotiation" by Democrats in Congress?

 

[Oldstyle]

We went from being told that "elections have consequences...I won! by Barack Obama in 2009..." to being essentially told by Harry Reid that elections don't have consequences and we don't care if you won!...following the 2010 mid-terms.

 

[Sarah G]

I'm referring to how the Obama White House "managed" the Benghazi story as it broke. The effort that was expended to paint it as just another protest about the YouTube video? The protracted fight between the Clinton State Department and the intelligence community over the talking points? The re-write that was done by the White House? The dispatching of Susan Rice to all those Sunday morning talk shows with marching orders from Ben Rhodes to make sure that it wasn't portrayed as a "failure of policy"? If you don't want to call it a cover-up, Sarah...you'll have to assign it a different label. Call it "spin" if that makes you feel better...

Oh ffs lol. They were in defense mode after dipshit Daryl waged an attack based on nothing more than his own trumped up charges. You just lap that up too. The reason the Teaparty charge died in its tracks was because of Daryl's lies not Clintons.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm referring to how the Obama White House "managed" the Benghazi story as it broke. The effort that was expended to paint it as just another protest about the YouTube video? The protracted fight between the Clinton State Department and the intelligence community over the talking points? The re-write that was done by the White House? The dispatching of Susan Rice to all those Sunday morning talk shows with marching orders from Ben Rhodes to make sure that it wasn't portrayed as a "failure of policy"? If you don't want to call it a cover-up, Sarah...you'll have to assign it a different label. Call it "spin" if that makes you feel better...

Oh ffs lol. They were in defense mode after dipshit Daryl waged an attack based on nothing more than his own trumped up charges. You just lap that up too. The reason the Teaparty charge died in its tracks was because of Daryl's lies not Clintons.

You're saying that the battle between the Clinton State Department and the intelligence services over the wording of the talking points took place because of Daryl Issa? Is that "really" what you want to go with, Sarah?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Benghazi was a manufactured scandal from the start, and now it's been dismantled.

Maybe you RWnuts can use the scrap heap from it as salvage to manufacture your next scandal.

 

[Oldstyle]

The time line on this doesn't back up your contention unfortunately. Issa doesn't go after them

Benghazi was a manufactured scandal from the start, and now it's been dismantled.

Maybe you RWnuts can use the scrap heap from it as salvage to manufacture your next scandal.

Just an observation, Carbineer...

It hasn't been especially "hard" to come up with scandals with this White House. It's been more difficult to keep them all straight...

 

[Sarah G]

The time line on this doesn't back up your contention unfortunately. Issa doesn't go after them

Benghazi was a manufactured scandal from the start, and now it's been dismantled.

Maybe you RWnuts can use the scrap heap from it as salvage to manufacture your next scandal.

Just an observation, Carbineer...

It hasn't been especially "hard" to come up with scandals with this White House. It's been more difficult to keep them all straight...

Of course it isn't hard for the Teaparty to come up with the scandal du jour.