Was it over a video or not? Liberals need to pick a story and stick to it.

[easyt65]

Yeah, let's talk about Bush's illegal war!

Actually, partly thanks to Hillary, Bush had authorization to go to war...UNLIKE how Hillary and Obama - the Nobel Peace Prize recipient, who dragged the US into not 1 but 2 un-sabctioned, un-authorized wars, into the middle of 2 civil wars btween dictators and terrorists, allying themselves with the terrorists both times.

Let's talk about THOSE illegal wars...

 

[imawhosure]

Reactions to Innocence of Muslims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chronology of the reactions to Innocence of Muslims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anti-Muslim Video Sparks More Violent Demonstrations Across Muslim World

Deadly violent protests all over the world. Are Republicans actually denying that happened? Could they be that determined to stay ignorant?
What is it?

Worldwide violent protests over a stupid YouTube.
And not a peep about the atrocities committed in the name of their religion every single day.

Thanks for validating Islam should be outlawed worldwide as a terrorist organization.

Liberals don't like facts, because what then happens, is their whole ideology falls apart. Rderp is the poster child for why NOT to send your kids to public school. If for no other reason besides the Supreme Court, and school vouchers, it has to be Trump or people like Rderp will teach young people, that Marxism is a wonderful idea to govern by.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

What difference does it make? Dredging up old, tired stories isn't going to save Trump from free-fall.

Copied right from the Hellary comment to the House Oversight committee. Democrats are so good at falling in line like good little soldiers....just check your brain at the door.

If the Hillary bashers had a brain, they'd realize this topic had already been beat to death

Yeah, let's talk about Bush's illegal war!

Ok, as soon as he declares himself a canidate for president we will......oops he can't. Can you really not see the fallacy in your comment?

 

[rdean]

Well, since they were already dead - what difference does it make?

Regarding Hillary and her zombie liberal followers, 'NUFF SAID!

Dead is dead. Video or not won't change that fact. Would they still be alive if Hillary had not said it was because of a video? Please explain...

So you're okay with hillary lying to cover the fact it was a terrorist attack so it wouldnt reflect badly on barry and herself right before an election?
Of course you are..

Who even knows what you are talking about? Lying about what? To cover what? For what reason?

Right wingers are so fucking ignorant, they believe in conspiracies for the sake of conspiracies. They just have to believe that something is behind something.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Well, since they were already dead - what difference does it make?

Regarding Hillary and her zombie liberal followers, 'NUFF SAID!

Dead is dead. Video or not won't change that fact. Would they still be alive if Hillary had not said it was because of a video? Please explain...

So you're okay with hillary lying to cover the fact it was a terrorist attack so it wouldnt reflect badly on barry and herself right before an election?
Of course you are..

Who even knows what you are talking about? Lying about what? To cover what? For what reason?

Right wingers are so fucking ignorant, they believe in conspiracies for the sake of conspiracies. They just have to believe that something is behind something.

You stupid fuck! I answered all your questions in the post you responded to.

 

[hadit]

I keep asking how does any winger say it was not because of the video? How do you know that?

Because government sources are saying it was not. Have you not been paying attention?

Lets pretend that you're telling the truth. How do we know that Hillary knew it was NOT because of the video?

Because of what she wrote the night of the attack. Are you seriously not aware of this, or are you just trolling?

"We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest,"

 

[BlindBoo]

The next morning Rice and Hillary told the world that Benghazi had been a protest over a video gone wrong

According to the transcripts they thought the terrorist had joined in a copy-cat protest of the one in Cairo, and by weeks end, like the ones breaking out all over the Muslim world, and used that as cover for staging their attack. They were wrong, there was no protest.

Recent history shows that Muslim mobs will riot over Cartoons, and books. Did they riot over a video?

Per Hillarys email to her daughter it was a terrorist attack.....

Here is the relevant portion of the email.

“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow. Let's try again later.”

Does not conflict with the Talking Points that extremists were the one responsible for the deaths.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yeah, let's talk about Bush's illegal war!

Actually, partly thanks to Hillary, Bush had authorization to go to war...UNLIKE how Hillary and Obama - the Nobel Peace Prize recipient, who dragged the US into not 1 but 2 un-sabctioned, un-authorized wars, into the middle of 2 civil wars btween dictators and terrorists, allying themselves with the terrorists both times.

Let's talk about THOSE illegal wars...

In reality there were two conditions Congress set for President Bush to use military force against Iraq. Neither one was met.

Your often repeated wars President Obama has allegedly dragged us into is ridiculous.

 

[easyt65]

In reality there were two conditions Congress set for President Bush to use military force against Iraq. Neither one was met.

Your often repeated wars President Obama has allegedly dragged us into is ridiculous.

BB, you're just pissed that your hypocritical lying lil' bitch is stuck in between a rock and a hard place - she argued for and voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war.

Under Obama she aided him in allying the country with not only Al Qaeida but ISIS as well, helped him inject this country into the middle of 2 civil wars between terrorists and dictators, and helped drag the country into 2 UN-Sanctioned wars by themselves.

Despite his Nobel Peace Prize Obama drug us into 2 Illegal, Un-Sanctioned wars and started his own drone assassination program.

Despite his promise that we would have no boots on the ground there are American soldiers fighting...and DYING...on the ground in Iraq again.

Despite Al Qaeida being responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01 and countless in Iraq and Afghanistan due to hiring Jihadists to go there and kill Americans, Hillary and Obama injected themselves - and thus this country - in the middle of Libya's civil war to help Al Qaeida kill Qadaffi and take over the country as their own.

Obama and Hillary set up a gun-running operation in Libya to provide weapons to none other than ISIS who promised to help overthrow Assad after Obama's embarrassing Red Line debacle. He financed them, supplied them, armed them , protected them, apologized for them ('JV Team'), and even trained them. He let them walk into Iraq un-opposed to take over much of the country our military had already liberated at great cost. he declared from France he had them contained right before ISIS perpetrated the largest attack on France (Paris) since WWII...then he warned ISIS that French and Russian planes were coming to bomb them.

Obama has spent much of his time as President working outside of the law, the Constitution, and Congress. he has spent much of his time as President financing/supplying/arming/aiding Mexican Drug Cartels, Human Traffickers, Illegals, Criminal Sanctuary Cities, Terrorists (Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Al Qaeida, ISIS, the Taliban...), and 'refugees'...without Congressional, legal, and / or constitutional authority / approval to do so.

 

[BlindBoo]

BB, you're just pissed that your hypocritical lying lil' bitch is stuck in between a rock and a hard place - she argued for and voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war.

About that vote.

The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.

“So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”


Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote

 

[Weatherman2020]

Yeah, let's talk about Bush's illegal war!

Actually, partly thanks to Hillary, Bush had authorization to go to war...UNLIKE how Hillary and Obama - the Nobel Peace Prize recipient, who dragged the US into not 1 but 2 un-sabctioned, un-authorized wars, into the middle of 2 civil wars btween dictators and terrorists, allying themselves with the terrorists both times.

Let's talk about THOSE illegal wars...

In reality there were two conditions Congress set for President Bush to use military force against Iraq. Neither one was met.

Your often repeated wars President Obama has allegedly dragged us into is ridiculous.

What was the Congressional bill that authorized Obama to invade two sovereign nations?
Oh yeah, he and Hillary just decided to declare war on two sovereign nations that were no threat to America without Congressional involvement.

 

[hadit]

You keep saying you est it wasnt because of a protest and everytime someone asked where this was established you change the subject

YOU LIE:

"Hillary Told the Egyptian Prime Minister at 3:04 PM ET the day after the attacks that they “had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack – not a protest. … Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

-- CIA Head: 'Analysts Never Said the Video was a Factor in the Benghazi Attacks'

Now go away, liar.

So again I ask you. How do "we know" it was not because of the video? She told the PM that but is that the facts?

Can we take the Secretary of State's word on it or not? The thread is about the liberal narrative on what happened and how that shifts depending on who can gain political advantage from which version. As is usual when talking about what liberals say, you pick a version, knowing it won't last long.

 

[Weatherman2020]

BB, you're just pissed that your hypocritical lying lil' bitch is stuck in between a rock and a hard place - she argued for and voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war.

About that vote.

The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.

“So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”


Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote

Oh hum.

 

[easyt65]

So Hillary did or did NOT vote to g to war? Yeah, that would be a 'YES!' Thank you.

Weatherman, I wish I could give you multiple 'Winner' votes post #91!

 

[BlindBoo]

What was the Congressional bill that authorized Obama to invade two sovereign nations?

There were no 2 US invasions. Why isn't congress using the War Powers Act to force the president to withdraw all our soldiers in those two countries you allege he invaded?

That is not to say we are not, or have not intervened in the area, but that has been the bipartisan policy since the end of WW 2 hasn't it?

 

[rdean]

These right wingers bounce from one conspiracy to another. Who knows what they are talking about. The different conspiracies contradict or they are a mish mash of pieces from other conspiracies. And once thrown together, they are so illogical they pass into delusion. They become angry we don't respond to talking points that only make sense to those who hear voices that aren't there.

If they want answers, perhaps they need to do a better job of explaining the conspiracy and post some links that back up their assertions. Even though Trump calls the Enquirer a publication too long denied a Pulitzer Prize, for most Americans that paper is on the same level as MAD Magazine or the National Lampoon.

We generally need more than a single article from some obscure website that insists Obama was born in Kenya. Many of these right wing conspiracies have been turned down by the Onion for being too far out there. People would believe it's fantasy and not satire.

 

[easyt65]

[QUOTE="BlindBoo, post: 14921669, member: 25197There were no 2 US invasions. Why isn't congress using the War Powers Act to force the president to withdraw all our soldiers in those two countries you allege he invaded?
[/QUOTE]

BB is absolutely correct - there weren't 2 'invasions'. There were, however, 2 UN-authorized, UN-sanctioned wars (1 still going on) in which Obama and Hillary allied themselves with terrorists in civil wars between terrorists and dictators to help the terrorists overthrow the dictators and thus win their own country. Obama was successful in Libya, but he hasn't been so in Syria yet.

The repercussions of their actions have been felt world-wide.
- Obama allowed ISIS to freely enter Iraq, taking over territory our military had already liberated at great cost. despite his promise of 'no boots on the ground' there are not only boots on the ground but also body bags once again coming home from Iraq.

- Al Qaeida successfully took over Libya, which is evidently ok - even though it cost us 4 Americans, to include the 1st Ambassador to be murdered in over 30 years. (Small price to pay to help Al Qaeida - who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01 - get their own nation / safe haven, right?!)

- ISIS hits targets all over the world, none probably greater than the attack on Paris - the worst attack on France since WWII, occurring right after Obama bragged from France that he had ISIS contained. (Obama's protecting ISIS' Black Market Oil business helped ISIS finance the attack, and when France and Russia sent bombers to attack the production sites Obama dropped leaflets warning the enemy the attack was coming. 'Treason' anyone?)

Oh, there's more, but why bother?! Libs don't care.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[QUOTE="BlindBoo, post: 14921669, member: 25197There were no 2 US invasions. Why isn't congress using the War Powers Act to force the president to withdraw all our soldiers in those two countries you allege he invaded?

BB is absolutely correct - there weren't 2 'invasions'. There were, however, 2 UN-authorized, UN-sanctioned wars (1 still going on) in which Obama and Hillary allied themselves with terrorists in civil wars between terrorists and dictators to help the terrorists overthrow the dictators and thus win their own country. Obama was successful in Libya, but he hasn't been so in Syria yet.

The repercussions of their actions have been felt world-wide.
- Obama allowed ISIS to freely enter Iraq, taking over territory our military had already liberated at great cost. despite his promise of 'no boots on the ground' there are not only boots on the ground but also body bags once again coming home from Iraq.

- Al Qaeida successfully took over Libya, which is evidently ok - even though it cost us 4 Americans, to include the 1st Ambassador to be murdered in over 30 years. (Small price to pay to help Al Qaeida - who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01 - get their own nation / safe haven, right?!)

- ISIS hits targets all over the world, none probably greater than the attack on Paris - the worst attack on France since WWII, occurring right after Obama bragged from France that he had ISIS contained. (Obama's protecting ISIS' Black Market Oil business helped ISIS finance the attack, and when France and Russia sent bombers to attack the production sites Obama dropped leaflets warning the enemy the attack was coming. 'Treason' anyone?)

Oh, there's more, but why bother?! Libs don't care.[/QUOTE]

Fractured Fairy Tales are not history.

 

[easyt65]

These right wingers bounce from one conspiracy to another.

Au Contraire, Mon 'ami. It is not 'RW's who bounce around, it is the Lefties, thus the thread.

It was a protest, it wasn't a protest...The Benghazi mom is a liar because it was never a protest....except that it was.....Hillary tells the Egyptian Rep and her daughter it was a terrorist attack and the video had nothing to do with it then the next day she declares, I did not have sex with....er,...It was a Protest!"

Just pick one and defend it. Stay with it. Hillary now says it was a terrorist attack, as does Obama, but libs claim it was a protest. (Don't look now but your leaders have left you behind...get on board the train, fellas!)

 

[Weatherman2020]

What was the Congressional bill that authorized Obama to invade two sovereign nations?

There were no 2 US invasions. Why isn't congress using the War Powers Act to force the president to withdraw all our soldiers in those two countries you allege he invaded?

That is not to say we are not, or have not intervened in the area, but that has been the bipartisan policy since the end of WW 2 hasn't it?

Obama started wars with Libya and Syria, dufus.