State Offers Reward For Benghazi Terrorists

[g5000]

I watched the Benghazi hearings, and the IRS hearings.

There's no there there. There's really not.

The Fast and furious one would be way more fruitful to pursue.

GT...why is the IRS thing not an issue?

Here is one of those IRS BOLO lists: http://democrats.waysandmeans.house...ber 2010 BOLO IRS0000001349-IRS0000001364.pdf

Notice it also targets progressive groups. See line 16 on page 6.

There is also a pro-ObamaCare group targeted on the BOLO list:

So the question none of the fake scandalizers can answer is whether the number of "tea party" groups seeking tax exempt status that were targeted is out of proportion to the total number seeking tax exempt status.

For example, if 75 percent of the political groups which asked for tax exemptions were tea party affiliated groups, and 75 percent of all groups which were given special examination were tea party affiliated groups, then there is no "there" there.

 

[kaz]

Besides, they're dead and who cares anymore?

Right, Hil?

I know you won't admit it, but you know that's not what she said.

She said "What difference does it make" as to why they died. Sounds like Henry got it pretty right.

 

[g5000]

Besides, they're dead and who cares anymore?

Right, Hil?

I bet you hacks cannot tell us how many Americans were killed in the ten attacks on our diplomatic missions while Bush was President without looking it up.

Because you don't really give a shit about the dead or the truth. You are standing on their bodies to score political points.

Pretty sick shit.

 

[BlindBoo]

Wait, didn’t the NY Times recently claim there were no terrorists involved?

No actually I don't believe they did. They claimed that it was local Islamic militias hostile to the US including members of the same militia that was hired to protect the Consulate, and that it was not a well planned al Qaeda terror operation.

 

[kaz]

Besides, they're dead and who cares anymore?

Right, Hil?

I bet you hacks cannot tell us how many Americans were killed in the ten attacks on our diplomatic missions while Bush was President without looking it up.

Because you don't really give a shit about the dead or the truth. You are standing on their bodies to score political points.

Pretty sick shit.

What a pathetic liberal shill you are. No one's issue is that anyone on a diplomatic mission got killed. It's that the Administration ignored their calls for help and buried what happened. Give a comparable situation that happened under W.

 

[g5000]

Besides, they're dead and who cares anymore?

Right, Hil?

I bet you hacks cannot tell us how many Americans were killed in the ten attacks on our diplomatic missions while Bush was President without looking it up.

Because you don't really give a shit about the dead or the truth. You are standing on their bodies to score political points.

Pretty sick shit.

What a pathetic liberal shill you are. No one's issue is that anyone on a diplomatic mission got killed. It's that the Administration ignored their calls for help and buried what happened. Give a comparable situation that happened under W.

No one gave a shit when our missions were attacked under W. That's the whole point. No one asked what Bush was doing before, during, or after any of them. No one manufactured "stand down orders" or "he was watching while they died". That's the whole giveaway, see. That mountain of manufactured bullshit gives the whole game away. It reveals the hacks are not after TRUTH. Not when they are making shit up on the fly.

To this day, none of you know fuck-all about any of the events surrounding those attacks. You don't know if Bush called them attacks by "terrorists" the next day or not.

Because you never gave a shit as long as the Red Team occupied the White House.

As for 9/11/12, you have no idea how many of our overseas missions requested extra protection during the uprisings over the film. Are you stupid enough to believe a small CIA outpost in Benghazi was the only one asking for more protection? It wasn't even one of our embassies! You think our government should not have been more focused on protecting our embassies? None of your hack outlets whose piss you drink have never even bothered to "investigate" this. Again, because they are not after any TRUTH.

I think you are that stupid. Because your partisan actions and statements indicate it.

 

[G.T.]

The Administration isn't the NYT.

The Administration has called it a terrorist attack. For quite some time now, so your comment "This is the administration admitting there were terrorists involved.

IOW, they're admitting that everything they've told us to this point has been a lie."

is just partisanship. You can find quotes of Obama on video calling it an act of terror. Mighta shoulda googled that.

GT...

Lets just say for arguments sake that it was the film...

Obama would have most certainly referred to it as an act of terror...because a group of people attacking another group of people unprovoked is an act of terror.

So if you recall, he spoke of the film; talked about how it incited people; and then referred to the attack on Benghazi as an act of terror.

It was well played by him. He did not admit that it was a "terrorist attack"....but at the same time had some parsed words to fall back on if it came back to bite him.

and yes, there is a big difference between an act of terror and a terrorist attack.

An act of terror defines the act itself.....one who commits an act of terror is not necessarily a terrorist by layman definition. A drunk driver is committing an act of terror....but is not a terrorist as we use the term.

A terrorist attack defines the person committing the act....

Sounds to me like being a busy body to care about the way it was parsed.

Death is death, extremists are extremists.

 

[G.T.]

I watched the Benghazi hearings, and the IRS hearings.

There's no there there. There's really not.

The Fast and furious one would be way more fruitful to pursue.

GT...why is the IRS thing not an issue?

Well, I'm sure it's an issue for the people who were effected by it.

What I meant to say - was that it's pretty clear after having watched like 12 hours of Issa getting his facts corrected for him by the people who were directly involved - while they were under oath - that the Whitehouse didn't have dickall to do with it.

 

[Jarhead]

I watched the Benghazi hearings, and the IRS hearings.

There's no there there. There's really not.

The Fast and furious one would be way more fruitful to pursue.

GT...why is the IRS thing not an issue?

Here is one of those IRS BOLO lists: http://democrats.waysandmeans.house...ber 2010 BOLO IRS0000001349-IRS0000001364.pdf

Notice it also targets progressive groups. See line 16 on page 6.

There is also a pro-ObamaCare group targeted on the BOLO list:

So the question none of the fake scandalizers can answer is whether the number of "tea party" groups seeking tax exempt status that were targeted is out of proportion to the total number seeking tax exempt status.

For example, if 75 percent of the political groups which asked for tax exemptions were tea party affiliated groups, and 75 percent of all groups which were given special examination were tea party affiliated groups, then there is no "there" there.

See how that works?

And it bothers the crap out of me.

The complaint was never about conservative groups being targeted by that department whole progressive groups weren't. Heck, the role of that department was to review ALL applications....and they did.

The complaint all along was that the conservative groups were put on the long track. Many would wait months if not years for a final approval or denial.

The progressive groups received an answer within 90 days....

Why is that relevant?

If you get denied, you can re-apply with the necessary adjustments.

If you get NO answer, you can do nothing but sit there and wait.....and as was shown, most had to wait until AFTER the election...some as long as 2 years.

But the administration changed the topic. They made it about "targeting for evaluation"...and then showed how progressive groups were targeted as well.

And people like you fell for it.

And it sux.

 

[g5000]

The complaint all along was that the conservative groups were put on the long track. Many would wait months if not years for a final approval or denial.

The progressive groups received an answer within 90 days....

Link?

Something more than anecdotal evidence. There needs to be aggregate evidence. Pointing to one group which was delayed and one group that was not is evidence of nothing. But if you can show progressive groups which are in the same parameters as right wing groups, and that the right wing groups in aggregate were inordinately delayed when compared to the progressive groups in the aggregate, then you have a case.

I have not seen anyone ever establish this.

 

[Jarhead]

The Administration isn't the NYT.

The Administration has called it a terrorist attack. For quite some time now, so your comment "This is the administration admitting there were terrorists involved.

IOW, they're admitting that everything they've told us to this point has been a lie."

is just partisanship. You can find quotes of Obama on video calling it an act of terror. Mighta shoulda googled that.

GT...

Lets just say for arguments sake that it was the film...

Obama would have most certainly referred to it as an act of terror...because a group of people attacking another group of people unprovoked is an act of terror.

So if you recall, he spoke of the film; talked about how it incited people; and then referred to the attack on Benghazi as an act of terror.

It was well played by him. He did not admit that it was a "terrorist attack"....but at the same time had some parsed words to fall back on if it came back to bite him.

and yes, there is a big difference between an act of terror and a terrorist attack.

An act of terror defines the act itself.....one who commits an act of terror is not necessarily a terrorist by layman definition. A drunk driver is committing an act of terror....but is not a terrorist as we use the term.

A terrorist attack defines the person committing the act....

Sounds to me like being a busy body to care about the way it was parsed.

Death is death, extremists are extremists.

But a presidential decision during a crisis may have been made for political expediency....and THAT is something we, the electorate, need to know.

I ask again...how did the military know how long those folks would hold off the attackers?

How did they know that it was impossible to get there on time?

Tell me they left and turned around....fine.

But didn't get the ball rolling in the hopes that they would hold them off in the meantime?

How does that make sense?

 

[Jarhead]

The complaint all along was that the conservative groups were put on the long track. Many would wait months if not years for a final approval or denial.

The progressive groups received an answer within 90 days....

Link?

Something more than anecdotal evidence. There needs to be aggregate evidence. Pointing to one group which was delayed and another group that was not is evidence of nothing.

I am not playing that game.

In the hearings it was revealed.

That was when the dialogue changed.

If you wish to remain naïve about it.....so be it.

But then don't tell me you watched the hearings...for if you did, you would not need a link.

 

[g5000]

The complaint all along was that the conservative groups were put on the long track. Many would wait months if not years for a final approval or denial.

The progressive groups received an answer within 90 days....

Link?

Something more than anecdotal evidence. There needs to be aggregate evidence. Pointing to one group which was delayed and another group that was not is evidence of nothing.

I am not playing that game.

In the hearings it was revealed.

That was when the dialogue changed.

If you wish to remain naïve about it.....so be it.

But then don't tell me you watched the hearings...for if you did, you would not need a link.

Copout. You don't have proof for your claim.

You say the hearings said one thing, someone else has said the hearings proved there was no there there. This is why anecdotal evidence is useless.

 

[G.T.]

GT...

Lets just say for arguments sake that it was the film...

Obama would have most certainly referred to it as an act of terror...because a group of people attacking another group of people unprovoked is an act of terror.

So if you recall, he spoke of the film; talked about how it incited people; and then referred to the attack on Benghazi as an act of terror.

It was well played by him. He did not admit that it was a "terrorist attack"....but at the same time had some parsed words to fall back on if it came back to bite him.

and yes, there is a big difference between an act of terror and a terrorist attack.

An act of terror defines the act itself.....one who commits an act of terror is not necessarily a terrorist by layman definition. A drunk driver is committing an act of terror....but is not a terrorist as we use the term.

A terrorist attack defines the person committing the act....

Sounds to me like being a busy body to care about the way it was parsed.

Death is death, extremists are extremists.

But a presidential decision during a crisis may have been made for political expediency....and THAT is something we, the electorate, need to know.

I ask again...how did the military know how long those folks would hold off the attackers?

How did they know that it was impossible to get there on time?

Tell me they left and turned around....fine.

But didn't get the ball rolling in the hopes that they would hold them off in the meantime?

How does that make sense?

You must not trust the General whom was in charge, because he testified under oath about all of this, already.

Might want to watch it, it's hours long. I don't question his honesty or valor one bit.

There is no there there, with Benghazi either.

There WERE mass protests because of the Video. It may not have led to the attack, sure. But minutes after the attack I'd have called it a valid assumption, being that extremists seek death of anyone who so much as looks at a Mohammad doll the wrong way.

 

[G.T.]

When Obama was mourning the losses in the Rose Garden, his partisan opponents were skipping over the "tragic loss of life" parts and holding onto the edge of their seats to see if he said "terrorist!!!" or not.

Small minded.

 

[kaz]

I bet you hacks cannot tell us how many Americans were killed in the ten attacks on our diplomatic missions while Bush was President without looking it up.

Because you don't really give a shit about the dead or the truth. You are standing on their bodies to score political points.

Pretty sick shit.

What a pathetic liberal shill you are. No one's issue is that anyone on a diplomatic mission got killed. It's that the Administration ignored their calls for help and buried what happened. Give a comparable situation that happened under W.

No one gave a shit when our missions were attacked under W. That's the whole point. No one asked what Bush was doing before, during, or after any of them. No one manufactured "stand down orders" or "he was watching while they died". That's the whole giveaway, see. That mountain of manufactured bullshit gives the whole game away. It reveals the hacks are not after TRUTH. Not when they are making shit up on the fly.

To this day, none of you know fuck-all about any of the events surrounding those attacks. You don't know if Bush called them attacks by "terrorists" the next day or not.

Because you never gave a shit as long as the Red Team occupied the White House.

As for 9/11/12, you have no idea how many of our overseas missions requested extra protection during the uprisings over the film. Are you stupid enough to believe a small CIA outpost in Benghazi was the only one asking for more protection? It wasn't even one of our embassies! You think our government should not have been more focused on protecting our embassies? None of your hack outlets whose piss you drink have never even bothered to "investigate" this. Again, because they are not after any TRUTH.

I think you are that stupid. Because your partisan actions and statements indicate it.

Repeating your unsubstantiated Democratic Party talking points is meaningless. Answer the question.