+1
New Benghazi Hearings Could Be Explosive
- Thread starter pspr
- Start date
+1
Congrats. You have now shown a new level of crazy.
Didn't Obama refer to the incident as an instance of terrorism the very next morning?
No question mistakes were made. One of which was the GOP voting down more funding to protect the consulate. Oh but Faux News didn't mention that did they?
No question mistakes were made. One of which was the GOP voting down more funding to protect the consulate. Oh but Faux News didn't mention that did they?
Mistakes were made. Indeed. Funding being the least of them as funds can be reallocated in emergency situations, and Lybia was damn sure and emergency situation given the circumstance leading up to the event. Circumstances that were weeks in the making prior to the attack. Lack of proper security in a hot bed of terrorism? Yep, a mistake. Not sending in help when help was available? A tragic mistake. One might suggest grossly negligent. Sendng Rice out days after the event and saying it was all a result of a video. Days after they've had time to assess the situation. That's no mistake. That's a calculated cover up.
You have to start with the fact that the CIA is full of Mormons. Odd but true. Mormons do extremely well on the qualifying exams because they usually have lived overseas while on mission and have foreign language skills, plus they have never used drugs, alcohol, etc and usually have spotless records.
I have to wonder if the CIA did not use the Mormon backchannel to get to Romney and tell him something that caused him to drop this issue like a hot potato. Perhaps it was the Beck thesis, that Amb. Stevens was in charge of a weapons running operation, and the attack was blowback from a sour deal.
Maybe we had a deep undercover agent embedded with the terrorists and it was considered worth it to risk losing the Americans rather than kill the agent during a military response.
Who knows? The possibilities are endless. The one thing I am sure of is we haven't been given the whole truth, not even close. What we are still beng told, eg that the military couldn't respond, is ludicrous. They couldn't fly a freakin' plane over Libya without hours to prep it?
It's totally clear now that the administration's first line of defense, the video explanation, was a deliberate lie. The people who were responsible should be marched before congress or a grand jury and forced to explain themsleves. Will it happen? Probably not.
If this were a republican administration, journalists would be crawling all over this scandal and would have been from the getgo. Even if they smell a rat, they know it would be career suicide to go after obama. Few have the stones for that.
I have to wonder if the CIA did not use the Mormon backchannel to get to Romney and tell him something that caused him to drop this issue like a hot potato. Perhaps it was the Beck thesis, that Amb. Stevens was in charge of a weapons running operation, and the attack was blowback from a sour deal.
Maybe we had a deep undercover agent embedded with the terrorists and it was considered worth it to risk losing the Americans rather than kill the agent during a military response.
Who knows? The possibilities are endless. The one thing I am sure of is we haven't been given the whole truth, not even close. What we are still beng told, eg that the military couldn't respond, is ludicrous. They couldn't fly a freakin' plane over Libya without hours to prep it?
It's totally clear now that the administration's first line of defense, the video explanation, was a deliberate lie. The people who were responsible should be marched before congress or a grand jury and forced to explain themsleves. Will it happen? Probably not.
If this were a republican administration, journalists would be crawling all over this scandal and would have been from the getgo. Even if they smell a rat, they know it would be career suicide to go after obama. Few have the stones for that.
1) no, not really. he made some general comment about terrorist attacks, but he didn't specifically call benghazi a terror attack. But even if you want to believe he did, still TWO FUCKING WEEKS later at the UN, he blamed the video and didn't mention terrorism in reference to benghazi. If you believe the CiC still didn't know it was a terrorist attack, when we know for certain there was overwhelming evidence, including a live stream fed into the WH during the attack, after two weeks, you must be retarded.
oh and don't forget, the video excuse was that there was some protest going on that 'extremists' took advantage of. But the best part is the compound cameras have footage that there WAS NO DEMONSTRATION, just an attack that came out of nowhere. It was recorded for fucks sake, so it isn't even remotely possible that the president didn't know there wasn't a demonstration 2 weeks after the fact. it's impossible, yet he still blamed the film even though it was an established fact that it played no part in the attack. If that isn't a straight up lie, what is?
2) stop it, that had nothing to do with denying them support that they asked for at the consulate. If they couldn't afford to protect them (which is a bullshit excuse that 'surfaced' weeks later) then they should have pulled them out, especially since they were in a country that just went through a civil war. Ignoring that, why didn't they do anything to help during the attack? Every part of this was fucked up.. before, during, and after.
Republicans do know is going to win in 2016. But, it is important that Hillary does not win if she lied to us on such and important issue.
regarding this party of stupid crap...
you think a few professors and really wealthy guys who want a country of drones who cant save enough capital to compete are going to balance out all the leftists, societal dropouts, failures and haters of success and america in your party?
the democrats on average are far dumber that republicans.
you are comparing the ones who demand handouts vs the ones who are successful enough to pay for them.
regarding this party of stupid crap...
you think a few professors and really wealthy guys who want a country of drones who cant save enough capital to compete are going to balance out all the leftists, societal dropouts, failures and haters of success and america in your party?
the democrats on average are far dumber that republicans.
you are comparing the ones who demand handouts vs the ones who are successful enough to pay for them.
I think we have reached a point in this nation that a majority of people just don't give a shit (especially the youngsters, by which I mean 30s and under), or are not actually informed in any meaningful way by the MSM if there is the slightest chance it could harm a prez the media made too big to fail.
Here's what is sad:
If Obama was proven to be laughing and smoking dope during the Benghazi act of terrorism; a bit more than 50% of the people in this country would still vote for him for president for a third term.
When Hillary Clinton gets thrown under the bus tomorrow, the democrats will still put her on the ticket for 2016.
If Obama was proven to be laughing and smoking dope during the Benghazi act of terrorism; a bit more than 50% of the people in this country would still vote for him for president for a third term.
When Hillary Clinton gets thrown under the bus tomorrow, the democrats will still put her on the ticket for 2016.