Benghazi - The Nightmare Is Over!

maineman said:
so Howey... I see by your signature that patriot66 asked you for a blow job. I assume you turned him down, right?
Click to expand...

Naturally he left out the entire post where I said no thanks queer boy, and I certainly wasn't asking for one you intellectually dishonest, treasonous, liberal piece of garbage.
 
maineman said:
so Howey... I see by your signature that patriot66 asked you for a blow job. I assume you turned him down, right?
Click to expand...


He did...absolutely. He got a bad load last night and his stomach just can't take the chance......you can relate to that can't you?
 
Last edited:
Thing1 said:
That's funny - none of those quotes calls for war, or invasion, or anything.

Do you know what the word "warmonger" means?
Click to expand...


Yet in the end, they voted for war.....thats why the resolution passed, it couldn't have otherwise....

Actions speak louder than words.....

Ignoring history won't change it.
 
NOVA said:
Yet in the end, they voted for war.....thats why the resolution passed, it couldn't have otherwise....

Actions speak louder than words.....

Ignoring history won't change it.
Click to expand...

They voted to give Bush the authority to use force, if necessary.

Bush made the decision to go to war, unnecessarily. It's his war. He's the warmonger.

I realize you'll never accept this, but it hardly matters. It is the history of it.
 
NOVA said:
But of course you will forget some of the original war mongers:

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." ..:
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), 2001

and

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

and

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." .
Democratic Senator Carl Levin,
Democratic Senator Tom Daschle,
Democratic Senator John Kerry

Schooling you pinheads is like shooting fish in a barrel...
Click to expand...


programs ain't stockpiles. Lying about absolute certainty is still lying about absolute certainty, and, to the best of MY knowledge, no democrat in elected office has ever lied about the certainty of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's... just republicans. liars. you must be so proud.
 
maineman said:
programs ain't stockpiles. Lying about absolute certainty is still lying about absolute certainty, and, to the best of MY knowledge, no democrat in elected office has ever lied about the certainty of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's... just republicans. liars. you must be so proud.
Click to expand...

But Obama lied about his failure to perform his duty as c in c and his oath as such to provide reasonable protection.

Stop changing the subject, Obama is a criminal, he will be impeached for his criminal negligence over Benghazi.
 
007 said:
But Obama lied about his failure to perform his duty as c in c and his oath as such to provide reasonable protection.

Stop changing the subject, Obama is a criminal, he will be impeached for his criminal negligence over Benghazi.
Click to expand...

wanna bet? let's bet a lot of money. I say Obama leaves office without ever getting impeached for Benghazi or anything else. You say he gets impeached before leaving office. Let's bet four figures. $1000? $2000? How high do you wanna go? I'll cover any bet you make up to five figures. How sure ARE you of your impeachment prediction, or is it just meaningless internet bluster? I'm guessing the latter.
 
and I ain't changing any subject sonny... bravo and I are having a side discussion. If you don't want to contribute, please, by all means, shut the fuck up. It won't bother either of us, I promise you.
 
Ranting liberal mm getting his sailor boy panties in a twist, again!!

Obama is well qualified for impeachment, if he gets away with his criminal lies we might as well do away with impeachment.
Anyway, must hit the gonk sack!!
Busy day delivering my newborn!!
 
maineman said:
cuz being truthful and saying, "We THINK Saddam has WMD's and we actually THINK we MIGHT know where they MIGHT BE!" just doesn't get the old blood pumping like absolute certainty does, does it?
Click to expand...

Same as Jay Carney saying that they only changed one word for another, to be more precise. :rolleyes: :

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/why-was-benghazi-press-conference-record/65113/

Carney: 'We Did Not Hide' Role of Terrorism in Benghazi Talking Points

Update: White House press secretary Jay Carney reaffirmed his previous statement that the only edits the White House made to the Benghazi talking points was "a matter of non-substantive factual correction." ABC News had reported Friday morning that 12 revisions were made to the initial CIA talking points about the Benghazi attacks, but Carney maintained that the White House's only directive was that the word "consulate" was changed to "diplomatic post," he said. There was no attempt to make it look like it wasn't a terror attack, as some Republicans allege, Carney said. "This is an effort to accuse the administration of hiding something that we did not hide," he said, pointing to instances when administration officials had said extremists were involved in the attack.

Carney said the emails showing the 12 revisions to the talking points were provided to Congress months ago, and that at the time Republicans were satisfied. Carney called the controversy over Benghazi part of "ongoing attempts to politicize a tragedy that took four American lives." Republicans are ignoring "the basic facts," Carney said, which is that at the time the "intelligence community provided the information it felt comfortable providing to the public." The revisions reflect an attempt at accuracy, Carney said: "The concern was the points not provide information that was speculative." Carney repeatedly said that it was only speculation that Ansar al Sharia was involved -- the administration did not know that "concretely."

"Hours after the attack," Carney said, Mitt Romney issued a press release "to take advantage of the attacks... From that day forward there has been an effort to politicize these attacks." Accusations that Susan Rice and other administration officials did not say the attacks were committed by an al Qaeda-affiliated group in order to downplay that it was an terror ring "hollow," he said. "The president has always said this was an act of terror."

Original post:

White House press secretary Jay Carney's press conference on Friday is going to be really interesting, if it ever happens. Not only were there new revelations about how the White House crafted its talking points on Benghazi immediately after the attack, but Carney himself was sure to be asked about his previous assertion that the White House had only made "stylistic" changes to the talking points that came from intelligence agencies. But Friday's press conference was delayed multiple times, and the White House held an off-the-record briefing with reporters about the Benghazi investigation, Politico's Dylan Byers reports. We don't know what as said.

On Wednesday, Carney said the edits to Benghazi talking points were "stylistic and non-substantive," but the 12 revisions to the CIA's initial draft include removing references to terrorist activity in Libya in the months before the September 11 attack. In particular, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in the emails between bureaucracies that references to al Qaeda-linked groups should be deleted, because they "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings."

It's likely the off-the-record meeting was the White House explaining its version of the story behind the emails. What would that be? That this wasn't about election politics, but bureaucratic infighting. That's a theory floated by The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler, who writes, "the final version of the talking points may have been so wan because officials simply deleted everything that upset the two sides. So they were left with nothing." ABC News posted an update to its article about the 12 revisions earlier Friday, saying:

UPDATE: A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.

Watch Carney's press conference here:

...
Click to expand...
 
maineman said:
no. I've known you on other boards for years... I remember how you used to come on to me then... you were queer as a three dollar bill then, and clearly, you haven't changed a bit since
Click to expand...

amazing.....you lacked perception even then?......to be honest, even if you were a woman I would still find you distasteful so you obviously misunderstood the come on......perhaps it was just because I was the only person on the board that didn't demand you be banned......
 
what is the big crime the right claims took place here?


is it editing talking points to avoid bad press?

IS that the Big claimed crime?


how come none of you were mad when the Bush admin lied about the death of Pat Tiller?



How about the lies promoted about Jessica Lynch?


you saw no crime back then
 
The crime is many fold.
Criminal negligence for starters, malicious endangerment, dereliction of duty, lying to the American people, lying to congress, tampering with evidence, treason.
 
007 said:
Ranting liberal mm getting his sailor boy panties in a twist, again!!

Obama is well qualified for impeachment, if he gets away with his criminal lies we might as well do away with impeachment.
Anyway, must hit the gonk sack!!
Busy day delivering my newborn!!
Click to expand...

my panties in a twist? hardly. you make grand predictions as if they are a surefire bet to come true. I merely said... put your fucking money where your fucking mouth is. I've got the disposable income available to make a four figure wager that Obama will not be impeached for Benghazi or for anything else... so IF you are so certain of your prediction, this would be a way to make some pretty substantial and easy money off of the ill-informed, dottering old liberal... IF you were really that certain, that is, and IF you weren't instead just another rightwing blowhard who didn't know shit from fat meat. So... which is it? Newborn coming along... a few grand could buy a lot of diapers.... IF you're so sure that Obama is impeachable... go for it, big boy.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
amazing.....you lacked perception even then?......to be honest, even if you were a woman I would still find you distasteful so you obviously misunderstood the come on......perhaps it was just because I was the only person on the board that didn't demand you be banned......
Click to expand...
once you were rebuffed, it was expected that you would act like it didn't happen....homoboy. ;)
 
maineman said:
my panties in a twist? hardly. you make grand predictions as if they are a surefire bet to come true. I merely said... put your fucking money where your fucking mouth is. I've got the disposable income available to make a four figure wager that Obama will not be impeached for Benghazi or for anything else... so IF you are so certain of your prediction, this would be a way to make some pretty substantial and easy money off of the ill-informed, dottering old liberal... IF you were really that certain, that is, and IF you weren't instead just another rightwing blowhard who didn't know shit from fat meat. So... which is it? Newborn coming along... a few grand could buy a lot of diapers.... IF you're so sure that Obama is impeachable... go for it, big boy.
Click to expand...

Don't fall for it. The baby is imaginary.
 
maineman said:
my panties in a twist? hardly. you make grand predictions as if they are a surefire bet to come true. I merely said... put your fucking money where your fucking mouth is. I've got the disposable income available to make a four figure wager that Obama will not be impeached for Benghazi or for anything else... so IF you are so certain of your prediction, this would be a way to make some pretty substantial and easy money off of the ill-informed, dottering old liberal... IF you were really that certain, that is, and IF you weren't instead just another rightwing blowhard who didn't know shit from fat meat. So... which is it? Newborn coming along... a few grand could buy a lot of diapers.... IF you're so sure that Obama is impeachable... go for it, big boy.
Click to expand...
You you have anger issues and are a compulsive gambler.
Have you considered professional help?
And note well, I don't need your money.
I am fully self sufficient and more than capable of providing for my children.

You seem to be of the opinion that money to raise families must come from someone else?
You raised your family on food stamps?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top