"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

[nodoginnafight]

and "4 pieces of evidence" isn't a "scandal"
You tried your best to whip it into one.
You failed.
Move on or continue to look stupid. Your choice.

Usually the cover-up is the scandal. This is no different.

This only proves what incompetent boobs these dummy craps are and that their primary function is to win elections, not run the country ethically, rationally, or legally.

If focusing on re-election rather than good government was a crime - we couldn't build enough prisons. And "investigating" these instances would be the only function Congress would be able to maintain.

No scandal here - as has been demonstrated in about 200 "investigations." At this point, the investigations themselves are an exercise in re-election rather than good government.

Lying sack.

There has not been 200 separate investigations.

At this point the cover-up after Benghazi pales in comparison to recent events. Obama has been up to even worse criminal activities. Human-Trafficking, misappropriation of federal funds, criminal conspiracy to commit fraud.

Benghazi compared to recent revelations will seem like the Clap is to AIDs.

Good - you'll have a whole lot to occupy your time with.
Hope those turn out better for you than this one.

 

[mudwhistle]

^^Blaming the victim. Hillary-approved.

There is plenty of blame to go around, and it was his call to be there. If a man falls off a cliff, and he knew it was there and dangerous, do I only blame the cliff? True personal responsibility means when the dead guy screwed up, you get to say just that. Keep your PC never speak ill of the dead to yourself.

If a man was sent to the edge of a cliff by his bosses and he cautioned them repeatedly how dangerous it was and how he would REALLY like a safety harness but they repeatedly turned down that request...only to have the man fall to his death...would you blame the cliff...or would you blame the man's bosses who wouldn't give him the safety harness?

I'd argue THAT lawsuit against the bosses in civil court six days a week and twice on Sunday!

In this case the man knew the dangers and made the choice to be there anyway, on that particular day, and it was his decision not theirs. Now what?

The man you're speaking of DID know the dangers which is why he repeatedly asked his superiors not to draw down his security force. THAT was not his decision

^^Blaming the victim. Hillary-approved.

There is plenty of blame to go around, and it was his call to be there. If a man falls off a cliff, and he knew it was there and dangerous, do I only blame the cliff? True personal responsibility means when the dead guy screwed up, you get to say just that. Keep your PC never speak ill of the dead to yourself.

If a man was sent to the edge of a cliff by his bosses and he cautioned them repeatedly how dangerous it was and how he would REALLY like a safety harness but they repeatedly turned down that request...only to have the man fall to his death...would you blame the cliff...or would you blame the man's bosses who wouldn't give him the safety harness?

I'd argue THAT lawsuit against the bosses in civil court six days a week and twice on Sunday!

In this case the man knew the dangers and made the choice to be there anyway, on that particular day, and it was his decision not theirs. Now what?

Blaming Chris Stevens for doing his job is about as low as it gets...he is not the person to blame for security not being what it should have been in Libya. He told the State Department that the situation was getting worse...he asked that they not draw down his security detail...blaming HIM for the State Department's failure to grasp the reality of how dangerous it was in Libya borders on the absurd.

they didn't draw down his security detail, they offered him more security

Sure they did, and he foolishly refused it. Or the Republicans cut funding. Or Martians attacked the compound and anally probed them, forced them to wear dresses, and made them perform showtunes.

 

[Dot Com]

Save your breath South.

Four dead men mean nothing to these idiots.

The fact that Benghazi didn't have to happen means nothing either.

They can't see the forrest for the trees because they are idiiots.

and your outrage for the Repub Admin diverting this nation's resources to invading another country based on lies/1/2 truths resulting in 4,000+ servicemen dead and being asleep at the switch when the REAL 9/11 occurred w/ 3,000+ deaths occurred?

Save it Sugar Shorts.

BTW "idiot" is spelled w/ one "i" between the d & the o Claudette you hack

 

[mudwhistle]

and "4 pieces of evidence" isn't a "scandal"
You tried your best to whip it into one.
You failed.
Move on or continue to look stupid. Your choice.

Usually the cover-up is the scandal. This is no different.

This only proves what incompetent boobs these dummy craps are and that their primary function is to win elections, not run the country ethically, rationally, or legally.

If focusing on re-election rather than good government was a crime - we couldn't build enough prisons. And "investigating" these instances would be the only function Congress would be able to maintain.

No scandal here - as has been demonstrated in about 200 "investigations." At this point, the investigations themselves are an exercise in re-election rather than good government.

Lying sack.

There has not been 200 separate investigations.

At this point the cover-up after Benghazi pales in comparison to recent events. Obama has been up to even worse criminal activities. Human-Trafficking, misappropriation of federal funds, criminal conspiracy to commit fraud.

Benghazi compared to recent revelations will seem like the Clap is to AIDs.

Good - you'll have a whole lot to occupy your time with.
Hope those turn out better for you than this one.

Already on it fuckwad....

 

[TooTall]

I heard the Select Committee met today to investigate Benghazi. It ain't over 'til it's over.

Two totally different investigations by different committees.
One by the committee responsible for oversight in the House and another by a Senate Select committee.

Am I correct?

Negative. The one I was referring to, and I should have been more specific is here:

Gowdy Opening Statement at Benghazi Select Committee Hearing 2

December 10, 2014 Press Release

Select Committee on Benghazi

 

[nodoginnafight]

and "4 pieces of evidence" isn't a "scandal"
You tried your best to whip it into one.
You failed.
Move on or continue to look stupid. Your choice.

Usually the cover-up is the scandal. This is no different.

This only proves what incompetent boobs these dummy craps are and that their primary function is to win elections, not run the country ethically, rationally, or legally.

If focusing on re-election rather than good government was a crime - we couldn't build enough prisons. And "investigating" these instances would be the only function Congress would be able to maintain.

No scandal here - as has been demonstrated in about 200 "investigations." At this point, the investigations themselves are an exercise in re-election rather than good government.

Lying sack.

There has not been 200 separate investigations.

At this point the cover-up after Benghazi pales in comparison to recent events. Obama has been up to even worse criminal activities. Human-Trafficking, misappropriation of federal funds, criminal conspiracy to commit fraud.

Benghazi compared to recent revelations will seem like the Clap is to AIDs.

Good - you'll have a whole lot to occupy your time with.
Hope those turn out better for you than this one.

Already on it fuckwad....

So glad they have such an intelligent and eloquent person on the job. Bound to be every bit as successful as the last 200 "investigations."

 

[mudwhistle]

Usually the cover-up is the scandal. This is no different.

This only proves what incompetent boobs these dummy craps are and that their primary function is to win elections, not run the country ethically, rationally, or legally.

If focusing on re-election rather than good government was a crime - we couldn't build enough prisons. And "investigating" these instances would be the only function Congress would be able to maintain.

No scandal here - as has been demonstrated in about 200 "investigations." At this point, the investigations themselves are an exercise in re-election rather than good government.

Lying sack.

There has not been 200 separate investigations.

At this point the cover-up after Benghazi pales in comparison to recent events. Obama has been up to even worse criminal activities. Human-Trafficking, misappropriation of federal funds, criminal conspiracy to commit fraud.

Benghazi compared to recent revelations will seem like the Clap is to AIDs.

Good - you'll have a whole lot to occupy your time with.
Hope those turn out better for you than this one.

Already on it fuckwad....

So glad they have such an intelligent and eloquent person on the job. Bound to be every bit as successful as the last 200 "investigations."

Yeah, and go **** yourself lying piece of shit.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Moonie Times admits that there were deep cuts.

Benghazi attack followed deep cuts in State Department security budget - Washington Times

The gop cut the embassy budgets by more than 400 million dollars. If the gop had not done that maybe there would have been funding for extra security.

That bullshit has been debunked so many times.

The administraion spokesperson came out the next day and said money wasn't an issue.

It was the total incompetance of the State Department that cost the lives of four good men.

Actually no.

The gop congress cut 465 million from the security budget for the embassies.

That money could have gone to more security.

No, you're lying. There have been something like 6 investigations and reports. Every single one of them said that the state department wasn't incompetent. That all the accusations by the gop is nothing but lies.

These are reports and investigations done by the gop. So if you want to say the gop is a bunch of liars that's your choice.

Gowdy, Gowdy, he's our man, if he can't make it a scandal no one.......well there's always talk radio and the rest of the echo-chamber to carry the torch.....

Gowdy is going after pre-attack lack of sufficient security. All the post-attack nonsense has been shot down by the facts.

This Gowdy search for the smoking gun will also be a waste of time.

Well, when they're frog marching the brown clown out of the Whitehouse, you cling to that. It could provide you with some potential comfort.

But the bad news for you idiots, is that such profound whitewashes, such as that horse-shit 'report', aren't produced to cover up nothing. That is the product of 'many skeletons rattling'; meaning that it is an obvious cover-up and those doing the covering don't care who knows it, because they've got too much to lose.

Benghazi was treason of the Constitutional variety... treachery of unprecedented proportions.

 

[Siete]

Save your breath South.

Four dead men mean nothing to these idiots.

The fact that Benghazi didn't have to happen means nothing either.

They can't see the forrest for the trees because they are idiiots.

and your outrage for the Repub Admin diverting this nation's resources to invading another country based on lies/1/2 truths resulting in 4,000+ servicemen dead and being asleep at the switch when the REAL 9/11 occurred w/ 3,000+ deaths occurred?

Save it Sugar Shorts.

BTW "idiot" is spelled w/ one "i" between the d & the o Claudette you hack

an idiot calling others an idot ...

 

[Siete]

If focusing on re-election rather than good government was a crime - we couldn't build enough prisons. And "investigating" these instances would be the only function Congress would be able to maintain.

No scandal here - as has been demonstrated in about 200 "investigations." At this point, the investigations themselves are an exercise in re-election rather than good government.

Lying sack.

There has not been 200 separate investigations.

At this point the cover-up after Benghazi pales in comparison to recent events. Obama has been up to even worse criminal activities. Human-Trafficking, misappropriation of federal funds, criminal conspiracy to commit fraud.

Benghazi compared to recent revelations will seem like the Clap is to AIDs.

Good - you'll have a whole lot to occupy your time with.
Hope those turn out better for you than this one.

Already on it fuckwad....

So glad they have such an intelligent and eloquent person on the job. Bound to be every bit as successful as the last 200 "investigations."

Yeah, and go **** yourself lying piece of shit.

classy !

for a prison con ..

 

[nodoginnafight]

If focusing on re-election rather than good government was a crime - we couldn't build enough prisons. And "investigating" these instances would be the only function Congress would be able to maintain.

No scandal here - as has been demonstrated in about 200 "investigations." At this point, the investigations themselves are an exercise in re-election rather than good government.

Lying sack.

There has not been 200 separate investigations.

At this point the cover-up after Benghazi pales in comparison to recent events. Obama has been up to even worse criminal activities. Human-Trafficking, misappropriation of federal funds, criminal conspiracy to commit fraud.

Benghazi compared to recent revelations will seem like the Clap is to AIDs.

Good - you'll have a whole lot to occupy your time with.
Hope those turn out better for you than this one.

Already on it fuckwad....

So glad they have such an intelligent and eloquent person on the job. Bound to be every bit as successful as the last 200 "investigations."

Yeah, and go **** yourself lying piece of shit.

Obviously I struck a nerve ... sorry to have offended you so much.

 

[koshergrl]

Because this investigation should be investigated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's just a bad joke now.

The loved ones of the guys who died don't think it's a joke at all.

And neither do I. And the difference between normal, decent, non-criminal people, and the people of the admin, and the people who support that admin...is that normal, decent, non-criminal people would never call such a situation a *joke*. Not even to make a vacuous political point.

 

[Oldstyle]

^^Blaming the victim. Hillary-approved.

There is plenty of blame to go around, and it was his call to be there. If a man falls off a cliff, and he knew it was there and dangerous, do I only blame the cliff? True personal responsibility means when the dead guy screwed up, you get to say just that. Keep your PC never speak ill of the dead to yourself.

If a man was sent to the edge of a cliff by his bosses and he cautioned them repeatedly how dangerous it was and how he would REALLY like a safety harness but they repeatedly turned down that request...only to have the man fall to his death...would you blame the cliff...or would you blame the man's bosses who wouldn't give him the safety harness?

I'd argue THAT lawsuit against the bosses in civil court six days a week and twice on Sunday!

In this case the man knew the dangers and made the choice to be there anyway, on that particular day, and it was his decision not theirs. Now what?

The man you're speaking of DID know the dangers which is why he repeatedly asked his superiors not to draw down his security force. THAT was not his decision

^^Blaming the victim. Hillary-approved.

There is plenty of blame to go around, and it was his call to be there. If a man falls off a cliff, and he knew it was there and dangerous, do I only blame the cliff? True personal responsibility means when the dead guy screwed up, you get to say just that. Keep your PC never speak ill of the dead to yourself.

If a man was sent to the edge of a cliff by his bosses and he cautioned them repeatedly how dangerous it was and how he would REALLY like a safety harness but they repeatedly turned down that request...only to have the man fall to his death...would you blame the cliff...or would you blame the man's bosses who wouldn't give him the safety harness?

I'd argue THAT lawsuit against the bosses in civil court six days a week and twice on Sunday!

In this case the man knew the dangers and made the choice to be there anyway, on that particular day, and it was his decision not theirs. Now what?

Blaming Chris Stevens for doing his job is about as low as it gets...he is not the person to blame for security not being what it should have been in Libya. He told the State Department that the situation was getting worse...he asked that they not draw down his security detail...blaming HIM for the State Department's failure to grasp the reality of how dangerous it was in Libya borders on the absurd.

they didn't draw down his security detail, they offered him more security


Official Amb. Stevens Refused Additional Security Military.com


A spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, indicated some lawmakers may have known about the Stevens-Ham discussions before last week's hearing.
"There were certainly robust debates between State and Defense officials over the mission and controlling authority of such forces," Frederick Hill told McClatchy in an email. "The lack of discussion by the public [Accountability Review Board] report about the role interagency tension played in a lack of security resources remains a significant concern of the Oversight Committee..

and Issa found NOTHING .

end of story.

I've heard this same talking point repeated by Clinton apologists and it completely misrepresents what took place, Siete. Yes, General Ham did in fact offer Stevens a military detachment twice and yes, Stevens in fact did turn him down twice. What you conveniently ignore however is the REASON why Stevens had no choice but to turn Ham down.

The security force that had just been pulled out of Libya at the order of the State Department was from the Department of Defense but it was under the command of the State Department and as such had the same diplomatic immunity that diplomats would have. The security detachment that Ham offered twice would not have had that same immunity since it was not under State Department command but rather under the DoD's command. With no status of forces agreement in place with Libya then those DoD troops that Ham was offering would have been subject to arrest and being put on trial by the Libyans simply for doing their jobs. That was why Stevens had to turn down Ham's offer...not because he didn't want security. The State Department didn't want the security Stevens requested for Libya because of the image it created...so the State Department was telling Stevens to literally stop asking for it because it wasn't going to be granted. Stevens couldn't take Ham up on his offer because the State Department wouldn't let him do so.

To say that Stevens "turned down security" is a complete misrepresentation of what actually took place. Right up until the end, Stevens was asking the State Department for additional security and right up to the end, the State Department was turning him down.

 

[Dot Com]

Yoo hoo!!! The 3, or is it 2?, Repubs on this board still beating the Benghazi drum

Republicans turn on each other over Benghazi conspiracy theories MSNBC

Once the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee issued its report on the deadly 2012 attack in Benghazi, there was a sense of finality to the process. GOP lawmakers on the panel themselves described the findings as “definitive.”
Every possible question has been answered. Every conspiracy theory has been discredited. Every wild-eyed allegation has been proven false. Every House committee, every Senate committee, every State Department investigator, and every inquiry launched by independent news organizations have reached the exact same conclusion. There’s a general feeling, even among many Republicans, that it’s time to just move on.

 

[Nyvin]

Because this investigation should be investigated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's just a bad joke now.

The loved ones of the guys who died don't think it's a joke at all.

And neither do I. And the difference between normal, decent, non-criminal people, and the people of the admin, and the people who support that admin...is that normal, decent, non-criminal people would never call such a situation a *joke*. Not even to make a vacuous political point.

Decent, normal people wouldn't capitalize on 4 murdered people for political gain...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is plenty of blame to go around, and it was his call to be there. If a man falls off a cliff, and he knew it was there and dangerous, do I only blame the cliff? True personal responsibility means when the dead guy screwed up, you get to say just that. Keep your PC never speak ill of the dead to yourself.

If a man was sent to the edge of a cliff by his bosses and he cautioned them repeatedly how dangerous it was and how he would REALLY like a safety harness but they repeatedly turned down that request...only to have the man fall to his death...would you blame the cliff...or would you blame the man's bosses who wouldn't give him the safety harness?

I'd argue THAT lawsuit against the bosses in civil court six days a week and twice on Sunday!

In this case the man knew the dangers and made the choice to be there anyway, on that particular day, and it was his decision not theirs. Now what?

The man you're speaking of DID know the dangers which is why he repeatedly asked his superiors not to draw down his security force. THAT was not his decision

There is plenty of blame to go around, and it was his call to be there. If a man falls off a cliff, and he knew it was there and dangerous, do I only blame the cliff? True personal responsibility means when the dead guy screwed up, you get to say just that. Keep your PC never speak ill of the dead to yourself.

If a man was sent to the edge of a cliff by his bosses and he cautioned them repeatedly how dangerous it was and how he would REALLY like a safety harness but they repeatedly turned down that request...only to have the man fall to his death...would you blame the cliff...or would you blame the man's bosses who wouldn't give him the safety harness?

I'd argue THAT lawsuit against the bosses in civil court six days a week and twice on Sunday!

In this case the man knew the dangers and made the choice to be there anyway, on that particular day, and it was his decision not theirs. Now what?

Blaming Chris Stevens for doing his job is about as low as it gets...he is not the person to blame for security not being what it should have been in Libya. He told the State Department that the situation was getting worse...he asked that they not draw down his security detail...blaming HIM for the State Department's failure to grasp the reality of how dangerous it was in Libya borders on the absurd.

they didn't draw down his security detail, they offered him more security


Official Amb. Stevens Refused Additional Security Military.com


A spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, indicated some lawmakers may have known about the Stevens-Ham discussions before last week's hearing.
"There were certainly robust debates between State and Defense officials over the mission and controlling authority of such forces," Frederick Hill told McClatchy in an email. "The lack of discussion by the public [Accountability Review Board] report about the role interagency tension played in a lack of security resources remains a significant concern of the Oversight Committee..

and Issa found NOTHING .

end of story.

I've heard this same talking point repeated by Clinton apologists and it completely misrepresents what took place, Siete. Yes, General Ham did in fact offer Stevens a military detachment twice and yes, Stevens in fact did turn him down twice. What you conveniently ignore however is the REASON why Stevens had no choice but to turn Ham down.

The security force that had just been pulled out of Libya at the order of the State Department was from the Department of Defense but it was under the command of the State Department and as such had the same diplomatic immunity that diplomats would have. The security detachment that Ham offered twice would not have had that same immunity since it was not under State Department command but rather under the DoD's command. With no status of forces agreement in place with Libya then those DoD troops that Ham was offering would have been subject to arrest and being put on trial by the Libyans simply for doing their jobs. That was why Stevens had to turn down Ham's offer...not because he didn't want security. The State Department didn't want the security Stevens requested for Libya because of the image it created...so the State Department was telling Stevens to literally stop asking for it because it wasn't going to be granted. Stevens couldn't take Ham up on his offer because the State Department wouldn't let him do so.

To say that Stevens "turned down security" is a complete misrepresentation of what actually took place. Right up until the end, Stevens was asking the State Department for additional security and right up to the end, the State Department was turning him down.

You should list the times and dates Stevens asked for more security? That will surprise you. Go on...

 

[koshergrl]

Because this investigation should be investigated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's just a bad joke now.

The loved ones of the guys who died don't think it's a joke at all.

And neither do I. And the difference between normal, decent, non-criminal people, and the people of the admin, and the people who support that admin...is that normal, decent, non-criminal people would never call such a situation a *joke*. Not even to make a vacuous political point.

Decent, normal people wouldn't capitalize on 4 murdered people for political gain...

Decent, normal people wouldn't refuse to look into a very bad situation because it might make them look bad politically..you're right.

 

[JoeB131]

Joey claiming that the attacks were only made possible because of GOP "cuts" when the person in charge for State testified under oath that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with the decision to draw down security personnel is my getting punted around? That's amusing...seriously...

Guy, you are getting seriously punted around.

The fact you are still beating this very dead horse just shows how sad you fellows are.

Hey, here's a novel idea. Instead of telling me why I shouldn't vote for Hillary, tell me why I should vote for _______. (Fill in the blank.)

 

[Nyvin]

Because this investigation should be investigated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's just a bad joke now.

The loved ones of the guys who died don't think it's a joke at all.

And neither do I. And the difference between normal, decent, non-criminal people, and the people of the admin, and the people who support that admin...is that normal, decent, non-criminal people would never call such a situation a *joke*. Not even to make a vacuous political point.

Decent, normal people wouldn't capitalize on 4 murdered people for political gain...

Decent, normal people wouldn't refuse to look into a very bad situation because it might make them look bad politically..you're right.

Refuse to look into it???? We've had 8 investigations including a Select Committee investigation that went on for two years! How much more "looking into" do you want???

 

[whutTHEYsay]

But the bad news for you idiots, is that such profound whitewashes, such as that horse-shit 'report', aren't produced to cover up nothing.

When Republican lawmakers in control of the House investigate for 2 years and find nothing at all approaching 'unprecedented treason' from anyone from the White House, it is proof to Lost_keys that 'unprecedented treason' has been committed and even Republicans are involved in the cover up. What a world Lost_keys lives in.