"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

[Faun]

You scare me at times, Faun! Do you really not know that the revisions that were done removed a mention of Al Queda from the talking points? How can you NOT know that?
You're still running away from what I posted. In terms of the administration pushing the protest narrative, what difference does it make weather there were protests or not or what the IC first believed? As the report shows, the IC was informing the administration the attack was provoked by the video up until September 24th. Intel comes from the IC, not the administration. Obama, Clinton and Rice were echoing the IC. In terms of the rightwingnutty position that the administration lied about that, It doesn't matter what the IC thought according to you. What matters is what the IC conveyed to the administration. And what they conveyed, up until the 24th, was that the attack was a protest spurred by an anti-Islamic video.

Seven investigations into this have exonerated the administration of lying because their narrative of a protest came from the IC. But you Dreamers can't let go of your conspiracy theory. You're too invested.

It's obvious that only "approved" intel was being accepted by this Administration, Faun! This isn't a case of the CIA sending the White House it's best estimates of what took place...this was the CIA sending the White House a report stating what they thought took place and the White House saying..."You know what...we like the part about a protest that escalated...but we don't like the part about Al Queda...so take out the Al Queda parts and leave in the protest parts even though it looks like that was wrong to begin with!" Then the White House acts shocked when someone asks if they changed the talking points. "Who us? Gosh no...we only changed one word and that was "stylistic"."

Umm ... your evidence the administration told the CIA to omit Al-Qaeda from their intelligence estimate is ... ?

Here's an interesting fact you didn't know. The CIA works for the White House. You learn something every day, don't you? The White House pointing fingers while being normal for them is still pointing in a mirror when they point it at their subordinates.

I still see no evidence the administration dictated to the CIA to remove Al-Qaeda references from their intelligence estimate. And again, you're stuck with 7 investigations confirming the administration got their information from the CIA, not the other way around; and you're stuck with 7 investigations confirming the administration did not lie about the protest narrative because they got that information from the CIA, who, according to the 7th investigation, pushed that narrative until 9.24.2012.

Sucks for you Dreamers, but it is what it is ... another rightwingnut conspiracy debunked. You're now relegated to the heap pile with Truthers and Birthers.

Is there a response there?

 

[Faun]

[

LOL,horse hockey.

There weren't 500,000 attackers.

4 men indeed held them at bay for hours.

Well, they really didn't.

The two CIA Mercenaries were killed by a mortar attack and Steven's died from smoke inhalations.

So the notion that if we just had a couple more paid mercenaries on the ground would have made the difference is just- silly.

The two men that were killed on the roof at the Annex were just part of the force that withstood the attack there by the terrorists. There was more to that fight than just the mortar attacks there was a fierce fire fight on the ground as well and YES a small group of ex-special forces held those attackers at bay. The same exact thing COULD have happened at the Consulate that night but there was such a skeleton crew left to protect Stevens they never had a chance. That's a policy failure, Joey...a policy failure that falls squarely on Hillary Clinton.

Simply amazing. Let's say you're right that the Obama administration failed to provide adequate protection for the Ambassador. 7 investigations concluded differently even though you simply refuse to accept them, but let's say it happened anyway .... The Bush administration failed to prevent 9.11. Almost 3,000 people perished that day as we suffered the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Now I can easily look back to those days with a fine toothed comb and spell out many mistakes that were made that led up to the attack .... the administration blowing off Clarke ... ignoring warnings ... inept response by NORAD ... taking absolutely zero precautions against an attack ... rejecting an FBI budget increase for counter-terrorism .... I can go on and on and basically do the same Monday morning quarterbacking you're doing now. The difference ... ? 3,000 versus 4. The World Trade Center versus a consulate. A trillion dollar hit to our economy versus no hit to our economy. 1 investigation versus 9 investigations. Democrats getting behind the president over 3,000 deaths versus Republicans trying to politicize 4 deaths.

Point being .... your moral compass is broken.

 

[Antares]

[

LOL,horse hockey.

There weren't 500,000 attackers.

4 men indeed held them at bay for hours.

Well, they really didn't.

The two CIA Mercenaries were killed by a mortar attack and Steven's died from smoke inhalations.

So the notion that if we just had a couple more paid mercenaries on the ground would have made the difference is just- silly.

The two men that were killed on the roof at the Annex were just part of the force that withstood the attack there by the terrorists. There was more to that fight than just the mortar attacks there was a fierce fire fight on the ground as well and YES a small group of ex-special forces held those attackers at bay. The same exact thing COULD have happened at the Consulate that night but there was such a skeleton crew left to protect Stevens they never had a chance. That's a policy failure, Joey...a policy failure that falls squarely on Hillary Clinton.

Simply amazing. Let's say you're right that the Obama administration failed to provide adequate protection for the Ambassador. 7 investigations concluded differently even though you simply refuse to accept them, but let's say it happened anyway .... The Bush administration failed to prevent 9.11. Almost 3,000 people perished that day as we suffered the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Now I can easily look back to those days with a fine toothed comb and spell out many mistakes that were made that led up to the attack .... the administration blowing off Clarke ... ignoring warnings ... inept response by NORAD ... taking absolutely zero precautions against an attack ... rejecting an FBI budget increase for counter-terrorism .... I can go on and on and basically do the same Monday morning quarterbacking you're doing now. The difference ... ? 3,000 versus 4. The World Trade Center versus a consulate. A trillion dollar hit to our economy versus no hit to our economy. 1 investigation versus 9 investigations. Democrats getting behind the president over 3,000 deaths versus Republicans trying to politicize 4 deaths.

Point being .... your moral compass is broken.

I think Obama is involved in the sense that he was in charge at the top.

The security detail had been extended twice, but was allowed to expire on August 3...
It wasn't Obama's responsibility to ask for a third renewal, but it WAS the State Depts responsibility.

The burning question should be WHY didn't the State request that 3rd renewal?

It wasn't within Stevens purview to do ANYTHING except request it's continued presence (the security detail) up his OWN chain of command.

 

[Faun]

Okay...let's say that half of the security force stayed in Tripoli to guard the Embassy...that leaves 10 or 11 that would have accompanied Stevens to Benghazi. You can have your 100 to 150 terrorists, Joey...I'll take the 10 or 11 US ex-special forces guys! And if all of them accompanied the Ambassador then it wouldn't even be a contest. 20 guys is a full Seal Team platoon! They'd have kicked the tar out of those "extremists".

Yeah, okay, maybe you've been watching too many John Wayne movies.

If our guys are so much tougher than the terrorists, then why haven't we won the war yet? Seems to me that if you are war for 12 years, you should have won by now.

Their side attacks with IED's, car bombs and talks the naive into wearing suicide vests to blow themselves up. They fight from behind the cover of women and children using civilians as human shields. They cut the heads off helpless prisoners whose hands are tied behind their backs. Our guys do none of those things and yet we've defeated them in nearly every firefight we've ever gotten into with them despite their usually having the element of surprise to work with. If you don't know by now that the average Navy Seal is worth twenty of the enemy then you've got your head buried somewhere in your posterior, Joey.

As for why we haven't "won yet"? We've got a Commander in Chief that let's the enemy march troops and heavy arms across miles of open desert to seize city after city without lifting a finger to stop them but you wonder why we're now struggling against a bunch of cowardly thugs?

Bullshit ...

"I don’t think you can win [the war on terror]. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world." - George Bush, 8.29.2004

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The burning question is 'why did the cult use deceit and fraudulence as a means to influence the ignorant, wherein the claimed that an online video caused a RIOT... when everyone on earth BUT THEM, knew instantly that there had always been anti-islam videos on-line and that rioting over such had never occurred because the exercise is POINTLESS... even for the lowly ranks of the idiotic sub-humanity common to Islam.

 

[Faun]

The burning question is 'why did the cult use deceit and fraudulence as a means to influence the ignorant, wherein the claimed that an online video caused a RIOT... when everyone on earth BUT THEM, knew instantly that there had always been anti-islam videos on-line and that rioting over such had never occurred because the exercise is POINTLESS... even for the lowly ranks of the idiotic sub-humanity common to Islam.

Seven investigations concluded there was no deceit on the part of the administration. Dreamers clinging to that idiocy doesn't make it so. If there's a burning question, it's why are you Dreamers as dumb and stubborn as Birthers?

 

[Oldstyle]

[

LOL,horse hockey.

There weren't 500,000 attackers.

4 men indeed held them at bay for hours.

Well, they really didn't.

The two CIA Mercenaries were killed by a mortar attack and Steven's died from smoke inhalations.

So the notion that if we just had a couple more paid mercenaries on the ground would have made the difference is just- silly.

The two men that were killed on the roof at the Annex were just part of the force that withstood the attack there by the terrorists. There was more to that fight than just the mortar attacks there was a fierce fire fight on the ground as well and YES a small group of ex-special forces held those attackers at bay. The same exact thing COULD have happened at the Consulate that night but there was such a skeleton crew left to protect Stevens they never had a chance. That's a policy failure, Joey...a policy failure that falls squarely on Hillary Clinton.

Simply amazing. Let's say you're right that the Obama administration failed to provide adequate protection for the Ambassador. 7 investigations concluded differently even though you simply refuse to accept them, but let's say it happened anyway .... The Bush administration failed to prevent 9.11. Almost 3,000 people perished that day as we suffered the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Now I can easily look back to those days with a fine toothed comb and spell out many mistakes that were made that led up to the attack .... the administration blowing off Clarke ... ignoring warnings ... inept response by NORAD ... taking absolutely zero precautions against an attack ... rejecting an FBI budget increase for counter-terrorism .... I can go on and on and basically do the same Monday morning quarterbacking you're doing now. The difference ... ? 3,000 versus 4. The World Trade Center versus a consulate. A trillion dollar hit to our economy versus no hit to our economy. 1 investigation versus 9 investigations. Democrats getting behind the president over 3,000 deaths versus Republicans trying to politicize 4 deaths.

Point being .... your moral compass is broken.

Let's say I'm right about the Obama Administration failed to provide adequate protection the Ambassador? Faun...when you draw down a security detail from 30 to 9 when security concerns are getting more dire by the day...do so over the repeated protests of the Ambassador who understands the situation best...and then an attack kills the Ambassador and three others...yeah, I'd say that fits the definition of a 'failure' of policy!

Why do you people even bother trying to equate what happened on the first 9/11 with Hillary Clinton's naive policies towards diplomatic security? One was a sneak attack that nobody saw coming. The other was almost inevitable given the Clinton State Department policies. Nobody lied about what caused the first 9/11. Nobody tried to blame it on a "protest".

 

[Oldstyle]

Okay...let's say that half of the security force stayed in Tripoli to guard the Embassy...that leaves 10 or 11 that would have accompanied Stevens to Benghazi. You can have your 100 to 150 terrorists, Joey...I'll take the 10 or 11 US ex-special forces guys! And if all of them accompanied the Ambassador then it wouldn't even be a contest. 20 guys is a full Seal Team platoon! They'd have kicked the tar out of those "extremists".

Yeah, okay, maybe you've been watching too many John Wayne movies.

If our guys are so much tougher than the terrorists, then why haven't we won the war yet? Seems to me that if you are war for 12 years, you should have won by now.

Their side attacks with IED's, car bombs and talks the naive into wearing suicide vests to blow themselves up. They fight from behind the cover of women and children using civilians as human shields. They cut the heads off helpless prisoners whose hands are tied behind their backs. Our guys do none of those things and yet we've defeated them in nearly every firefight we've ever gotten into with them despite their usually having the element of surprise to work with. If you don't know by now that the average Navy Seal is worth twenty of the enemy then you've got your head buried somewhere in your posterior, Joey.

As for why we haven't "won yet"? We've got a Commander in Chief that let's the enemy march troops and heavy arms across miles of open desert to seize city after city without lifting a finger to stop them but you wonder why we're now struggling against a bunch of cowardly thugs?

Bullshit ...

"I don’t think you can win [the war on terror]. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world." - George Bush, 8.29.2004

I love "in depth" rebuttals like that one, Faun!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Essentially what the idiots are claiming is that multiple cover-ups have not produced any 'report' that speaks to that which they sought to cover up.

Such is the nature of evil.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for your claim that 7 investigations came to the conclusion that the Obama Administration didn't deliberately try to deceive the Congress and the American people? I'm sorry but I SO didn't see that in any of the investigations! What I have seen is a slowly revealed picture of an administration that hid information from Congress and the American people that shows that they did in fact attempt to deceive Congress and the public.

 

[JoeB131]

What country did we invade prior to 9/11 that prompted terrorists to hijack civilian airliners full of innocent people and fly them into buildings full of other innocent people? We are the country that provided Stinger missiles to Afghan fighters so that the Soviets would no longer be able to slaughter them from above and they repaid us with 9/11? But that's OUR fault? Really, Joe?

You mean other than...

Occupying Lebanon
Supporting the ZIonist presence in Afghanistan
Bombing Iraq and imposing crippling sanctions on it.

You dumb ***** on the right keep thinking that sticking our dicks in the MIddle East Hornet's nest is a good idea, and then you complain about getting stung.

Hey, one of those guys we gave Stinger Missiles to- Osama Bin Laden. Whew, good thing, too, them dirty stinking commies were about to teach some girls how to read!

The US has been the "World's Policeman" since the end of WWII. We're the country that places like Kuwait look to when they are invaded by people like Saddam Hussein.

But why should we be? Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass if Kuwait is ruled by Saddam or it's perverted old Emir who banged a virgin every night in a sham marriage. I'm not sure anyone else cared, eihter- other than the Oil Companies and the Zionists.

We're the guys who go in...fight for those who can't fight for themselves and then go back home. We're not an imperial power. We don't colonize like others do.

Well, since I doubt you've ever signed up for the armed forces, not sure why you are saying "we".

When the Soviets were slaughtering innocent Afghans it was the US that helped them and asked nothing in return.

And it was the stupidest thing we ever did. The Jihadists are a bigger threat to America than the Communists ever were.

I know that progressives like yourself are programmed to see America as being all about fighting for "Big Oil" or for "Zionism", Joey but the truth of the matter is that although we do make missteps from time to time with our foreign policy we overwhelmingly do what we do because we're trying to be the good guys in a world full of bad guys.

Yeah, then how come we never seem to care all that much about bad guys who aren't standing on top of a shitload of oil? I mean Rwanda. No Oil. Genocide the shit out of that place, we don't care.

And frankly, if you look at Iraq, what we did was replace a bad government with a worse one. Frankly, you talk about wanting to get involved in their war, but on whose side? The Sunni Terrorists who are so bad that Al Qaeda has denounced them, or the "Government' that is in cahoots with the Iranians.

 

[Oldstyle]

What country did we invade prior to 9/11 that prompted terrorists to hijack civilian airliners full of innocent people and fly them into buildings full of other innocent people? We are the country that provided Stinger missiles to Afghan fighters so that the Soviets would no longer be able to slaughter them from above and they repaid us with 9/11? But that's OUR fault? Really, Joe?

You mean other than...

Occupying Lebanon
Supporting the ZIonist presence in Afghanistan
Bombing Iraq and imposing crippling sanctions on it.

You dumb ***** on the right keep thinking that sticking our dicks in the MIddle East Hornet's nest is a good idea, and then you complain about getting stung.

Hey, one of those guys we gave Stinger Missiles to- Osama Bin Laden. Whew, good thing, too, them dirty stinking commies were about to teach some girls how to read!

The US has been the "World's Policeman" since the end of WWII. We're the country that places like Kuwait look to when they are invaded by people like Saddam Hussein.

But why should we be? Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass if Kuwait is ruled by Saddam or it's perverted old Emir who banged a virgin every night in a sham marriage. I'm not sure anyone else cared, eihter- other than the Oil Companies and the Zionists.

We're the guys who go in...fight for those who can't fight for themselves and then go back home. We're not an imperial power. We don't colonize like others do.

Well, since I doubt you've ever signed up for the armed forces, not sure why you are saying "we".

When the Soviets were slaughtering innocent Afghans it was the US that helped them and asked nothing in return.

And it was the stupidest thing we ever did. The Jihadists are a bigger threat to America than the Communists ever were.

I know that progressives like yourself are programmed to see America as being all about fighting for "Big Oil" or for "Zionism", Joey but the truth of the matter is that although we do make missteps from time to time with our foreign policy we overwhelmingly do what we do because we're trying to be the good guys in a world full of bad guys.

Yeah, then how come we never seem to care all that much about bad guys who aren't standing on top of a shitload of oil? I mean Rwanda. No Oil. Genocide the shit out of that place, we don't care.

And frankly, if you look at Iraq, what we did was replace a bad government with a worse one. Frankly, you talk about wanting to get involved in their war, but on whose side? The Sunni Terrorists who are so bad that Al Qaeda has denounced them, or the "Government' that is in cahoots with the Iranians.

Every time you post here, Joey...you display yet another layer of ignorance that's worse than the ones before.

We didn't "occupy" Lebanon...we were there as a peacekeeping force.

What "Zionist presence" in Afghanistan are you babbling about?

We bombed Iraq and put sanctions on it after Iraq attacked a peaceful neighbor, Kuwait and tried to seize it. You make it sound like we attacked Iraq on a whim.

 

[JoeB131]

Every time you post here, Joey...you display yet another layer of ignorance that's worse than the ones before.

We didn't "occupy" Lebanon...we were there as a peacekeeping force.

Oh, a "Peacekeeping" force. That was immediately attacked by the people who didn't want us keeping the "Peace" over there.

What "Zionist presence" in Afghanistan are you babbling about?

I meant Palestine. Frankly, we stick our dicks in so many holes over there it is hard to keep them straight.

We bombed Iraq and put sanctions on it after Iraq attacked a peaceful neighbor, Kuwait and tried to seize it. You make it sound like we attacked Iraq on a whim.

Okay, let's look at that. Saddam attacked Iran. We not only said nothing about it, but we actually supplied him weapons. Then he attacked Kuwait, not that this was our problem because the Kuwaitis had no one to blame but themselves. And suddenly, the oil companies and Zionists were all "We have to get Saddam!!!!!"

 

[Faun]

[

LOL,horse hockey.

There weren't 500,000 attackers.

4 men indeed held them at bay for hours.

Well, they really didn't.

The two CIA Mercenaries were killed by a mortar attack and Steven's died from smoke inhalations.

So the notion that if we just had a couple more paid mercenaries on the ground would have made the difference is just- silly.

The two men that were killed on the roof at the Annex were just part of the force that withstood the attack there by the terrorists. There was more to that fight than just the mortar attacks there was a fierce fire fight on the ground as well and YES a small group of ex-special forces held those attackers at bay. The same exact thing COULD have happened at the Consulate that night but there was such a skeleton crew left to protect Stevens they never had a chance. That's a policy failure, Joey...a policy failure that falls squarely on Hillary Clinton.

Simply amazing. Let's say you're right that the Obama administration failed to provide adequate protection for the Ambassador. 7 investigations concluded differently even though you simply refuse to accept them, but let's say it happened anyway .... The Bush administration failed to prevent 9.11. Almost 3,000 people perished that day as we suffered the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Now I can easily look back to those days with a fine toothed comb and spell out many mistakes that were made that led up to the attack .... the administration blowing off Clarke ... ignoring warnings ... inept response by NORAD ... taking absolutely zero precautions against an attack ... rejecting an FBI budget increase for counter-terrorism .... I can go on and on and basically do the same Monday morning quarterbacking you're doing now. The difference ... ? 3,000 versus 4. The World Trade Center versus a consulate. A trillion dollar hit to our economy versus no hit to our economy. 1 investigation versus 9 investigations. Democrats getting behind the president over 3,000 deaths versus Republicans trying to politicize 4 deaths.

Point being .... your moral compass is broken.

Let's say I'm right about the Obama Administration failed to provide adequate protection the Ambassador? Faun...when you draw down a security detail from 30 to 9 when security concerns are getting more dire by the day...do so over the repeated protests of the Ambassador who understands the situation best...and then an attack kills the Ambassador and three others...yeah, I'd say that fits the definition of a 'failure' of policy!

Why do you people even bother trying to equate what happened on the first 9/11 with Hillary Clinton's naive policies towards diplomatic security? One was a sneak attack that nobody saw coming. The other was almost inevitable given the Clinton State Department policies. Nobody lied about what caused the first 9/11. Nobody tried to blame it on a "protest".

Nobody saw 9.11 coming? Who you kidding? John Ashcroft saw it coming ... he stopped flying on commercial flights in the summer of 2001.

Your moral compass is broken.

 

[Antares]

[

LOL,horse hockey.

There weren't 500,000 attackers.

4 men indeed held them at bay for hours.

Well, they really didn't.

The two CIA Mercenaries were killed by a mortar attack and Steven's died from smoke inhalations.

So the notion that if we just had a couple more paid mercenaries on the ground would have made the difference is just- silly.

The two men that were killed on the roof at the Annex were just part of the force that withstood the attack there by the terrorists. There was more to that fight than just the mortar attacks there was a fierce fire fight on the ground as well and YES a small group of ex-special forces held those attackers at bay. The same exact thing COULD have happened at the Consulate that night but there was such a skeleton crew left to protect Stevens they never had a chance. That's a policy failure, Joey...a policy failure that falls squarely on Hillary Clinton.

Simply amazing. Let's say you're right that the Obama administration failed to provide adequate protection for the Ambassador. 7 investigations concluded differently even though you simply refuse to accept them, but let's say it happened anyway .... The Bush administration failed to prevent 9.11. Almost 3,000 people perished that day as we suffered the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Now I can easily look back to those days with a fine toothed comb and spell out many mistakes that were made that led up to the attack .... the administration blowing off Clarke ... ignoring warnings ... inept response by NORAD ... taking absolutely zero precautions against an attack ... rejecting an FBI budget increase for counter-terrorism .... I can go on and on and basically do the same Monday morning quarterbacking you're doing now. The difference ... ? 3,000 versus 4. The World Trade Center versus a consulate. A trillion dollar hit to our economy versus no hit to our economy. 1 investigation versus 9 investigations. Democrats getting behind the president over 3,000 deaths versus Republicans trying to politicize 4 deaths.

Point being .... your moral compass is broken.

Let's say I'm right about the Obama Administration failed to provide adequate protection the Ambassador? Faun...when you draw down a security detail from 30 to 9 when security concerns are getting more dire by the day...do so over the repeated protests of the Ambassador who understands the situation best...and then an attack kills the Ambassador and three others...yeah, I'd say that fits the definition of a 'failure' of policy!

Why do you people even bother trying to equate what happened on the first 9/11 with Hillary Clinton's naive policies towards diplomatic security? One was a sneak attack that nobody saw coming. The other was almost inevitable given the Clinton State Department policies. Nobody lied about what caused the first 9/11. Nobody tried to blame it on a "protest".

Nobody saw 9.11 coming? Who you kidding? John Ashcroft saw it coming ... he stopped flying on commercial flights in the summer of 2001.

Your moral compass is broken.

So of curse you would have supported the Profiling that would have been necessary.

 

[Faun]

Okay...let's say that half of the security force stayed in Tripoli to guard the Embassy...that leaves 10 or 11 that would have accompanied Stevens to Benghazi. You can have your 100 to 150 terrorists, Joey...I'll take the 10 or 11 US ex-special forces guys! And if all of them accompanied the Ambassador then it wouldn't even be a contest. 20 guys is a full Seal Team platoon! They'd have kicked the tar out of those "extremists".

Yeah, okay, maybe you've been watching too many John Wayne movies.

If our guys are so much tougher than the terrorists, then why haven't we won the war yet? Seems to me that if you are war for 12 years, you should have won by now.

Their side attacks with IED's, car bombs and talks the naive into wearing suicide vests to blow themselves up. They fight from behind the cover of women and children using civilians as human shields. They cut the heads off helpless prisoners whose hands are tied behind their backs. Our guys do none of those things and yet we've defeated them in nearly every firefight we've ever gotten into with them despite their usually having the element of surprise to work with. If you don't know by now that the average Navy Seal is worth twenty of the enemy then you've got your head buried somewhere in your posterior, Joey.

As for why we haven't "won yet"? We've got a Commander in Chief that let's the enemy march troops and heavy arms across miles of open desert to seize city after city without lifting a finger to stop them but you wonder why we're now struggling against a bunch of cowardly thugs?

Bullshit ...

"I don’t think you can win [the war on terror]. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world." - George Bush, 8.29.2004

I love "in depth" rebuttals like that one, Faun!

What else needs to be said? You guys are blaming Obama for not winning a war which was fought for 7 of Bush's 8 years on a battlefield the president you voted for said can't be won.

 

[Faun]

As for your claim that 7 investigations came to the conclusion that the Obama Administration didn't deliberately try to deceive the Congress and the American people? I'm sorry but I SO didn't see that in any of the investigations! What I have seen is a slowly revealed picture of an administration that hid information from Congress and the American people that shows that they did in fact attempt to deceive Congress and the public.

Believe me, I understand. Just like Birthers refused to accept the evidence which debunked their conpiracy,you Dreamers refuse the evidence which debunks yours.

 

[Faun]

Essentially what the idiots are claiming is that multiple cover-ups have not produced any 'report' that speaks to that which they sought to cover up.

Such is the nature of evil.

Imbecile ... 7 investigations (and counting) have concluded there was no cover up. G'head ... convince me the GOP is lying in all of these investigations to protect Obama and Clinton.

 

[Faun]

Well, they really didn't.

The two CIA Mercenaries were killed by a mortar attack and Steven's died from smoke inhalations.

So the notion that if we just had a couple more paid mercenaries on the ground would have made the difference is just- silly.

The two men that were killed on the roof at the Annex were just part of the force that withstood the attack there by the terrorists. There was more to that fight than just the mortar attacks there was a fierce fire fight on the ground as well and YES a small group of ex-special forces held those attackers at bay. The same exact thing COULD have happened at the Consulate that night but there was such a skeleton crew left to protect Stevens they never had a chance. That's a policy failure, Joey...a policy failure that falls squarely on Hillary Clinton.

Simply amazing. Let's say you're right that the Obama administration failed to provide adequate protection for the Ambassador. 7 investigations concluded differently even though you simply refuse to accept them, but let's say it happened anyway .... The Bush administration failed to prevent 9.11. Almost 3,000 people perished that day as we suffered the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Now I can easily look back to those days with a fine toothed comb and spell out many mistakes that were made that led up to the attack .... the administration blowing off Clarke ... ignoring warnings ... inept response by NORAD ... taking absolutely zero precautions against an attack ... rejecting an FBI budget increase for counter-terrorism .... I can go on and on and basically do the same Monday morning quarterbacking you're doing now. The difference ... ? 3,000 versus 4. The World Trade Center versus a consulate. A trillion dollar hit to our economy versus no hit to our economy. 1 investigation versus 9 investigations. Democrats getting behind the president over 3,000 deaths versus Republicans trying to politicize 4 deaths.

Point being .... your moral compass is broken.

Let's say I'm right about the Obama Administration failed to provide adequate protection the Ambassador? Faun...when you draw down a security detail from 30 to 9 when security concerns are getting more dire by the day...do so over the repeated protests of the Ambassador who understands the situation best...and then an attack kills the Ambassador and three others...yeah, I'd say that fits the definition of a 'failure' of policy!

Why do you people even bother trying to equate what happened on the first 9/11 with Hillary Clinton's naive policies towards diplomatic security? One was a sneak attack that nobody saw coming. The other was almost inevitable given the Clinton State Department policies. Nobody lied about what caused the first 9/11. Nobody tried to blame it on a "protest".

Nobody saw 9.11 coming? Who you kidding? John Ashcroft saw it coming ... he stopped flying on commercial flights in the summer of 2001.

Your moral compass is broken.

So of curse you would have supported the Profiling that would have been necessary.

There was a similar threat of Islamic terrorists highjacking a commercial flight in 1998. Clinton had airport security raised at some airports in the NE. 2 terrorists were arrested and a possible 9.11 type of attack may have been thwarted.

I don't recall anyone complaining about profiling. Is that the best you can do?

 

[Antares]

The two men that were killed on the roof at the Annex were just part of the force that withstood the attack there by the terrorists. There was more to that fight than just the mortar attacks there was a fierce fire fight on the ground as well and YES a small group of ex-special forces held those attackers at bay. The same exact thing COULD have happened at the Consulate that night but there was such a skeleton crew left to protect Stevens they never had a chance. That's a policy failure, Joey...a policy failure that falls squarely on Hillary Clinton.

Simply amazing. Let's say you're right that the Obama administration failed to provide adequate protection for the Ambassador. 7 investigations concluded differently even though you simply refuse to accept them, but let's say it happened anyway .... The Bush administration failed to prevent 9.11. Almost 3,000 people perished that day as we suffered the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Now I can easily look back to those days with a fine toothed comb and spell out many mistakes that were made that led up to the attack .... the administration blowing off Clarke ... ignoring warnings ... inept response by NORAD ... taking absolutely zero precautions against an attack ... rejecting an FBI budget increase for counter-terrorism .... I can go on and on and basically do the same Monday morning quarterbacking you're doing now. The difference ... ? 3,000 versus 4. The World Trade Center versus a consulate. A trillion dollar hit to our economy versus no hit to our economy. 1 investigation versus 9 investigations. Democrats getting behind the president over 3,000 deaths versus Republicans trying to politicize 4 deaths.

Point being .... your moral compass is broken.

Let's say I'm right about the Obama Administration failed to provide adequate protection the Ambassador? Faun...when you draw down a security detail from 30 to 9 when security concerns are getting more dire by the day...do so over the repeated protests of the Ambassador who understands the situation best...and then an attack kills the Ambassador and three others...yeah, I'd say that fits the definition of a 'failure' of policy!

Why do you people even bother trying to equate what happened on the first 9/11 with Hillary Clinton's naive policies towards diplomatic security? One was a sneak attack that nobody saw coming. The other was almost inevitable given the Clinton State Department policies. Nobody lied about what caused the first 9/11. Nobody tried to blame it on a "protest".

Nobody saw 9.11 coming? Who you kidding? John Ashcroft saw it coming ... he stopped flying on commercial flights in the summer of 2001.

Your moral compass is broken.

So of curse you would have supported the Profiling that would have been necessary.

There was a similar threat of Islamic terrorists highjacking a commercial flight in 1998. Clinton had airport security raised at some airports in the NE. 2 terrorists were arrested and a possible 9.11 type of attack may have been thwarted.

I don't recall anyone complaining about profiling. Is that the best you can do?

So you support profiling,correct?