Benghazi: A Desperate GOP Attack

Yes, I know. I voice my opinion. I opt to not participated in your tangent. You win and somehow you are more of a man. I understand perfectly. Petty insults score points amongst the right wing cliques.

- - - Updated - - -

That is sweet, sweet irony right there.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I know. Can't actually come up with a rebuttal so invent a position for me, assign it to me, and then wonder why I don't argue it.

 

Thank you.

 

Conservative Republicans didn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about 4500 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis dying in Iraq. Glad to see you guys starting to develop some feelings.

 

And the tragically moronic continue to cover for the POS is chief.

 

And the unbelievably gullible fools continue to barf up RW propaganda.

 

You are half right.

I don't give a damn about the dead Iraqi's because most of them were killed by other muslims.

But only conservatives care about the 4 dead Americans in Libya.

 

PPP Poll....

of those GOP voters who consider Benghazi one of the worst scandals in US history?


39% of them.....don't know what country Benghazi is located in.

http://wonkette.com/516074/gop-to-impeach-obama-for-benghazi-just-as-soon-as-they-can-find-it-on-map

- - - Updated - - -

You didn't care about over 200 US Marines who died in Beirut and "holding accountable" the President in office in 1983, did you?

 

Oh yeah?

I'll see your 200 dead Marines in Beirut and raise you 3,000 dead Americans on 9/11.

See how silly you sound?

The topic is about what happened 8 months ago in Libya not ancient events that have long since been debated and consigned to the history books.

Your messiah and his mistress Hillary are a pair of screw ups that only libs could support.

 

Ha ha - Barbara Boxer?

Seriously?

 

The ones who are saying that this is nothing but a GOP political attack have to be some of the stupidest people around. Their are those who wish to exploit this case no doubt but their are many who legitamitly want to know what happened and why certain things were done. It's difficult to tell if these people have their head up their ass or are just simply talking out of it.

 

The simple fact is there was never any demonstration in Benghazi.

There wasn't one.

It never existed.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a little of both, I'm sure.

 

I considered that possibility.

 

Yet that was what the initial CIA assessment memo told happened. That it was a spontaneous event inspired by the demonstrations in Cairo that evolved into an assault.

 

That was not the initial CIA assessment.

That was the cooked CIA assessment, after Victoria Nuland's input.

 

Obama and Hillary were still telling the video lie weeks after the CIA and others knew it was wrong.

 

What a croc of (*)(*)(*)(*). The only thing most conservatives care about is using this for their political advantage.

- - - Updated - - -

Prove it.

 

I second the motion.
Moreover, the voters are aware of the partisan deceit the cons are pushing and they ain't buying.

 

Why are you so afraid of the truth?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...t-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

 

Hillary and Obama both went to the memorial of the dead Americans and apologized to the family for a video that they knew was a lie.

 

No, that was in the initial CIA assessment.

From the initial CIA memo, before any revisions were made:

We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were intsaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi Talking Points Timeline.pdf

The core thing the administration is accused of lying about as part of some bizarre notion of a "cover-up" -- that Benganzi was a spontaneous event motivated by the video -- is right there in black and whit in the CIA assessment memo that they received, *before* any edits were made.

They administration reports the core of what the CIA told them, noting while they did that there was an ongoing investigation that would give a clearer picture.

There was no "cover-up". The whole notion that there would be some big conspiracy to lie about this being a spontaneous event to cover up, what? That an attack was made on a diplomatic mission like had happened 13 times in the past? Everyone knew there was an attack. No one denied it. The whole notion that this was some kind of "cover up" is almost bizarre to contemplate, and could only have been derived from the imaginations of the RW propaganda media that spew this kind of distortion.

 

That was the CIA's first guess that turned out to be wrong very quickly.

Certainly the truth was known long before Obama went to the UN and Susan Rice made the Sunday morning talk show rounds.

 

I'm wondering why you are so invested in falsity. Except I know the answer.

And how exactly does that prove that "Obama and Hillary were still telling the video lie weeks after the CIA and others knew it was wrong."

- - - Updated - - -

The initial CIA memo was dated September 14. The Friday before the weekend news shows.

 

Actually this thing took off when CBS reported that the "minor change of one word" turned out to be 12 major revisions and none of them mentioned the video that the WH blamed the attack on.

It was known from day one that it was not the video.

 

The initial CIA memo did not say that the video was the cause of the attack only that it could have been a contributing factor.

But obama, Rice and Hillary chose to call it the only reason for the disturbance.

 

Gregory Hicks may not have "anything to do with Fox News", but his "attorney" sure does!!!!!