ABC News: Emails Show White House LIED About Benghazi Story "Revisions"

Backpedal, retreat? That's what you keep advocating--not me.... I'll make no excuses for the stupidity of you folks on the left.

Oh, nailed you on that one, eh?

Projecting again.... geez.

 

it's what you did

 

No, you're just advocating class envy and you want to use the government to steal and take from others who have the success that eludes you. Ms. Charlene lamb already testified that the lack of security in Benghazi was not due to lack of funding, so you'll have to create another crisis from which to rob those who are the target of your jealousy.

- - - Updated - - -

IMPOSSIBLE...I am not a liberal.

 

the fact is that washington retreated so that he and his men could live to fight another day

then you made idiotic excuses and backpedaled

 

I am still willing to confide in the sincerity of Jesus the Christ regarding the wealthiest.

Are we burdening the wealthiest with wartime tax rates, even for a war on drugs? If not, then why do you believe money may have not been the problem? Or do you believe reducing social spending for the least wealthy is a real solution to all of the right's problems.

 

I can't be responsible for your lack of intelligence. You're just going to have to ask mom and dad if it gets too togh for you.

And why did GW have to retreat? NOW HERE COMES WHAT IS CALLED CONTEXT..... Because he didn't have additional troops to send in like we had waiting to be called in to Benghazi......Now...the irrelevance, phony factoids, idiocy and excuses are all yours.

 

So, what strategic or tactical value did that non-firebase have, to require holding it at any cost?

Since we are not burdening the wealthiest with wartime tax rates even for a war on drugs, we must be able to prioritize potential materiel losses.

 

Let me know if you get tired of waiting... I'm a VIP member.

Don't worry about it. It's all none of your business. What other people make or what other people pay in taxes is of no concern to you...and if it is, then get off you deadbeat asp and do something productive with the great opporutinity you have been give by living in this country.

Um...it's not about what I believe.... how about paying attention to the testimony given to Congress. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security, Charlene Lamb, told Congress that funding was not an issue for Benghazi security. That's your almighty government (who you want to take care of you from cradle to grave) speaking so you know they are right, right?

The only problem that I see that the right has is .... the idiocy of the left.

 

Better yet, why is it that you think that the embassy was of no value (tactical or otherwise) and not worth saving the lives of our people?

What is it with you and your "we are not burdening the wealthiest with wartime tax rates even for a war on drugs" BS. I already get it that you are jealous and hateful of those who are successful and you want to get back at them. At least me man enough to go up against them yourself instead of taking the spinless route of getting government to do the stealing for you.
If your so conserned about burdens, then quit being one.

 

"CBS: It was congressional GOP who faked Benghazi email"

http://americablog.com/2013/05/gop-faked-benghazi-emails-cbs.html

 

Hey, look over there...... BALL, BALL, BALL....

 

lol, they can try, but it wont work, ironic really that the GOPs own talking points were inaccurate

 

Special pleading is just that; would we have had the same response if we were prosecuting a real war and taxing the wealthiest at wartime tax rates. In my opinion, we would not since wartime tax rates on the wealthiest may better ensure modern replacements for any materiel losses.

Only the Right is fiscally irresponsible enough to lower taxes during alleged times of war.

 

Why cover for a strategic failure on the part of the senior officer present? A more correct response should have been evacuation knowing he had an understrength garrison and a more volatile situation. Making do with what he had should have been part of any considerations regarding that non-firebase. It may have been possible to evacuate with no losses, had that been more of a priority, with existing personnel.

 

That he went there in the first place was the mistake. Whether Stevens decided it or the State Department approved it, he was putting himself in a very dangerous situation. More oversight and restrictions should be implemented to avoid these situations.

 

you're projecting your own situation again

just admit you were wrong and stop making excuses for it

 

Typical leftist.... using words that aren't in your vocabulary. Projection is not a situation either.

Ah... here it is.... the surrender of the delusional idiot . GOT IT!

 

first of all, i'm a moderate and a business owner

and psychological projections are all about the the projector's situation

your lies are ridiculous

 

Nothing moderate about your position here.

No it isn't. It's about expelling your own thoughts adn behaviors on to others. Situation has nothing to do with it. And you shouldn't go I wouldn't go around calling a newspaper route a business.

I repeat... the surrender of the delusional idiot . GOT IT!

If you ever want to make yourself relevant, you might try posting something that proves your position instead of trying to use my words when clearly your extremely economical vocabulary precludes you from doing so and not looking the fool.

 

you don't know what you're talking about

thoughts and situation are related

your ignorant remarks make no sense

 

I'm ignorant because you can't make any sense of my remarks? Is it because I use full sentences?

 

you said:

retreat isn't really a strategy, it's something you do to survive, in order to win later

which is exactly what washington, and countless other warriors have done, over thousands of years

rushing into an unknown situation is operating on ignorance, until you know what's happening

the fact is, your statement is just bs from an ignorant kid that has little experience or knowledge of military protocols

 

i believe a strategic withdrawal should have been a first priority.

 

True, but that is the idiocy of he left.

Yep, that is alwasy first and foremost to cowards. That's why my statement holds true. Thanks or proving it for me.

But to win later means, at some time, you have to be willing to go back and fight, but in your own words, you won't go back unless you know everything about a battle befrore you enter it and that is something that is only possible AFTER the battle. That is just cover up for cowardace, which is exactly why there is this discussion today...this administration's cowadace to do what was right so they are covering it up.

George Washington, nor a warrior would have stood by and let our people die when they could have done somthing about it. This administration is no George Washinton or a warrior.

There is no such thing as "rushing" in to battle when you have been attacked. Even the best laid battle plan ends at the first shot, but you'd never know that because that is reality. Our special forces like FEST are trained to enter in to unknown situations, improvise, overcome and adapt. We KNEW the embassy was under attack and that is all we needed to know...but not you and this administration who'd put his re-election over the lives of Americans under attack. When you are under attack, there is no such thing as "rushing" in to battle... you're already there.

You have no fact--and that's a FACT. Your sad excuses to cover up cowardice has already been noted. No need to beat a dead horse.

 

you might want to proofread your comments when you're calling people idiots