He did not say we did not know, he said we were still investigating, which we were. Where is this big lie you guys keep orgasming over?
False Benghazi outrage?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
He did not say we did not know, he said we were still investigating, which we were. Where is this big lie you guys keep orgasming over?
I have provided no information, I have only asked for information. What are the allegations?
And as to the one allegation I keep hearing, where is the quote that contains a lie?
Even if true, why is this worse than the lie about Pat Tillman's death, and the fake Jessica Lynch "rescue"? We did not have congressional hearings or impeachment talk over those things....?
You guys are breathlessly screaming impeachment, that would require a crime...
IT happens when you chase your tail.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I'm wondering how confused democrats will be after the midterms and suddenly republicans control both Houses?
How many will be asking, 'how did that happen?'
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I suppose those Dems who are clueless about the history of mid-term elections might be surprised...
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Of course, that's what was said the last time the roof caved in.
Don't worry, it's just normal for the roof to collapse this time of year. :0)
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
:0) It's going to be brutal .. and well-deserved.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
the question is did you want impeachment?
Screw you, he knew when he said it was about a video two weeks after it happened, and when they changed the talking points to preserve his re election, he knew when susan rice said it was about a video 5 times in one day, he knew when he gave the stand down orders.
He said it was an "act of terror" the next day and seeing how there were over thirty mass protests throughout the middle east over the video why would it not be considered?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Ron Paul get it right about Benghazi.
What No One Wants to Hear About Benghazi
Congressional hearings, White House damage control, endless op-eds, accusations, and defensive denials. Controversy over the events in Benghazi last September took center stage in Washington and elsewhere last week. However, the whole discussion is again more of a sideshow. Each side seeks to score political points instead of asking the real questions about the attack on the US facility, which resulted in the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Republicans smell a political opportunity over evidence that the Administration heavily edited initial intelligence community talking points about the attack to remove or soften anything that might reflect badly on the president or the State Department.
Are we are supposed to be shocked by such behavior? Are we supposed to forget that this kind of whitewashing of facts is standard operating procedure when it comes to the US government?
Democrats in Congress have offered the even less convincing explanation for Benghazi, that somehow the attack occurred due to Republican sponsored cuts in the security budget at facilities overseas. With a one trillion dollar military budget, it is hard to take this seriously.
It appears that the Administration scrubbed initial intelligence reports of references to extremist Islamist involvement in the attacks, preferring to craft a lie that the demonstrations were a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic video that developed into a full-out attack on the US outpost.
Who can blame he administration for wanting to shift the focus? The Islamic radicals who attacked Benghazi were the same people let loose by the US-led attack on Libya. They were the rebels on whose behalf the US overthrew the Libyan government. Ambassador Stevens was slain by the same Islamic radicals he personally assisted just over one year earlier.
But the Republicans in Congress also want to shift the blame. They supported the Obama Administration’s policy of bombing Libya and overthrowing its government. They also repeated the same manufactured claims that Gaddafi was “killing his own people” and was about to commit mass genocide if he were not stopped. Republicans want to draw attention to the President’s editing talking points in hopes no one will notice that if the attack on Libya they supported had not taken place, Ambassador Stevens would be alive today.
Neither side wants to talk about the real lesson of Benghazi: interventionism always carries with it unintended consequences. The US attack on Libya led to the unleashing of Islamist radicals in Libya. These radicals have destroyed the country, murdered thousands, and killed the US ambassador. Some of these then turned their attention to Mali which required another intervention by the US and France.
Previously secure weapons in Libya flooded the region after the US attack, with many of them going to Islamist radicals who make up the majority of those fighting to overthrow the government in Syria. The US government has intervened in the Syrian conflict on behalf of the same rebels it assisted in the Libya conflict, likely helping with the weapons transfers. With word out that these rebels are mostly affiliated with al Qaeda, the US is now intervening to persuade some factions of the Syrian rebels to kill other factions before completing the task of ousting the Syrian government. It is the dizzying cycle of interventionism.
The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it. But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.
http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2013/05/13/what-no-one-wants-to-hear-about-benghazi/
It makes absolutely NO difference which party is in power. The failed cowboy foreign policy remains the same.
What No One Wants to Hear About Benghazi
Congressional hearings, White House damage control, endless op-eds, accusations, and defensive denials. Controversy over the events in Benghazi last September took center stage in Washington and elsewhere last week. However, the whole discussion is again more of a sideshow. Each side seeks to score political points instead of asking the real questions about the attack on the US facility, which resulted in the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Republicans smell a political opportunity over evidence that the Administration heavily edited initial intelligence community talking points about the attack to remove or soften anything that might reflect badly on the president or the State Department.
Are we are supposed to be shocked by such behavior? Are we supposed to forget that this kind of whitewashing of facts is standard operating procedure when it comes to the US government?
Democrats in Congress have offered the even less convincing explanation for Benghazi, that somehow the attack occurred due to Republican sponsored cuts in the security budget at facilities overseas. With a one trillion dollar military budget, it is hard to take this seriously.
It appears that the Administration scrubbed initial intelligence reports of references to extremist Islamist involvement in the attacks, preferring to craft a lie that the demonstrations were a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic video that developed into a full-out attack on the US outpost.
Who can blame he administration for wanting to shift the focus? The Islamic radicals who attacked Benghazi were the same people let loose by the US-led attack on Libya. They were the rebels on whose behalf the US overthrew the Libyan government. Ambassador Stevens was slain by the same Islamic radicals he personally assisted just over one year earlier.
But the Republicans in Congress also want to shift the blame. They supported the Obama Administration’s policy of bombing Libya and overthrowing its government. They also repeated the same manufactured claims that Gaddafi was “killing his own people” and was about to commit mass genocide if he were not stopped. Republicans want to draw attention to the President’s editing talking points in hopes no one will notice that if the attack on Libya they supported had not taken place, Ambassador Stevens would be alive today.
Neither side wants to talk about the real lesson of Benghazi: interventionism always carries with it unintended consequences. The US attack on Libya led to the unleashing of Islamist radicals in Libya. These radicals have destroyed the country, murdered thousands, and killed the US ambassador. Some of these then turned their attention to Mali which required another intervention by the US and France.
Previously secure weapons in Libya flooded the region after the US attack, with many of them going to Islamist radicals who make up the majority of those fighting to overthrow the government in Syria. The US government has intervened in the Syrian conflict on behalf of the same rebels it assisted in the Libya conflict, likely helping with the weapons transfers. With word out that these rebels are mostly affiliated with al Qaeda, the US is now intervening to persuade some factions of the Syrian rebels to kill other factions before completing the task of ousting the Syrian government. It is the dizzying cycle of interventionism.
The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it. But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.
http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2013/05/13/what-no-one-wants-to-hear-about-benghazi/
It makes absolutely NO difference which party is in power. The failed cowboy foreign policy remains the same.
"Cognitive Dissonance is a powerful mindfuck. It transfixes it's host with the terror of inconvenient truth .. the brain becomes motionless .. and all avenues to critical thought are blocked. "
Yeah bac.....us (meaning me) call it BDS for short.....a mental illness for sure...the inconvenient facts we post about events are like pissing into a black hole.
Yeah bac.....us (meaning me) call it BDS for short.....a mental illness for sure...the inconvenient facts we post about events are like pissing into a black hole.
The only problem, Vanilla is he wants it investigated for the right reasons, you just want to get the black guy Democrat.