PDA

View Full Version : Benghazi Redux



patrickt
05-05-2013, 05:43 AM
"Even as the White House strove last week to move beyond questions about the Benghazi attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2012, fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults. The Weekly Standard has obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html

I know we were told it was just bumps in the road and Jay Carney says it all happened a long time ago.

"Normal people would say the Benghazi attacks only happened half a year ago, but to the political mind it’s another epoch, because that was one Presidential election ago. Barack Obama escaped accountability for the Benghazi debacle and secured re-election, with plenty of help from his friends in the media. (Hopefully he remembered to send Candy Crowley of CNN a thank-you note for her invaluable services (http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/17/candy-crowley-admits-romney-was-right-on-libya/).) Those “bumps in the road” already look very small in the White House’s post-election rear-view mirror. To quote Hillary Clinton’s infamously callous dismissal, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”"
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/01/white-house-spokesman-benghazi-happened-a-long-time-ago/

To revisit a quote from the McCarthy hearings:
Joseph Welch: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Of course not. No sense of shame. No sense of responsibility. It was so long ago. Last September, before the re-election of the Appointed One was, well, a different age. So, there were a few bumps in the road in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. As Sec. of State Clinton said, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" To her and hers, none.

As the hearings progress we'll see if it makes a difference to Americans.

Peter1469
05-05-2013, 07:13 AM
What is most interesting about this scandal is just how hard the MSM tried to cover it up for the administration. During the election cycle!

Greenridgeman
05-05-2013, 07:20 AM
What is most interesting about this scandal is just how hard the MSM tried to cover it up for the administration. During the election cycle!



Except, of course "Faux" News.

Greenridgeman
05-05-2013, 07:25 AM
"Even as the White House strove last week to move beyond questions about the Benghazi attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2012, fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults. The Weekly Standard has obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html

I know we were told it was just bumps in the road and Jay Carney says it all happened a long time ago.

"Normal people would say the Benghazi attacks only happened half a year ago, but to the political mind it’s another epoch, because that was one Presidential election ago. Barack Obama escaped accountability for the Benghazi debacle and secured re-election, with plenty of help from his friends in the media. (Hopefully he remembered to send Candy Crowley of CNN a thank-you note for her invaluable services (http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/17/candy-crowley-admits-romney-was-right-on-libya/).) Those “bumps in the road” already look very small in the White House’s post-election rear-view mirror. To quote Hillary Clinton’s infamously callous dismissal, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”"
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/01/white-house-spokesman-benghazi-happened-a-long-time-ago/

To revisit a quote from the McCarthy hearings:
Joseph Welch: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Of course not. No sense of shame. No sense of responsibility. It was so long ago. Last September, before the re-election of the Appointed One was, well, a different age. So, there were a few bumps in the road in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. As Sec. of State Clinton said, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" To her and hers, none.

As the hearings progress we'll see if it makes a difference to Americans.



American Idol Nation cares more about the Jodie Arias trial.

Obama bin Lyin' will most likely come out unscathed.

If the incompetence was not enough, the cover-up would be grounds for impeachment, but, nothing is going to happen.

The whole country is too damned stubborn to admit it elected and re-elected a charlatan and a fraud.

jillian
05-05-2013, 07:46 AM
when 9/11 happened, and 3000 people died, baby bush and cheney gave their "testimony" in the same room, with no court reporter and not under oath...

good to know darryl issa is still shilling for the top.

Peter1469
05-05-2013, 07:51 AM
Why would the president and his team testify under oath?

keymanjim
05-05-2013, 07:55 AM
when 9/11 happened, and 3000 people died, baby bush and cheney gave their "testimony" in the same room, with no court reporter and not under oath...

good to know darryl issa is still shilling for the top.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/keymanjim/BUTBUSH.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/keymanjim/media/BUTBUSH.jpg.html)

Tell us, what video did President Bush try to blame the 9/11/01 attacks on?
Please feel free to use the shift button on your keyboard as appropriate.

Greenridgeman
05-05-2013, 08:00 AM
What is most interesting about this scandal is just how hard the MSM tried to cover it up for the administration. During the election cycle!



CNN has lots on Michael Jackson trial this am.

Haven't heard much else yet.

Greenridgeman
05-05-2013, 08:01 AM
Why would the president and his team testify under oath?



You can bet your sweet ass Obama will never testify under oath.

Peter1469
05-05-2013, 08:06 AM
You can bet your sweet ass Obama will never testify under oath.

Of course not.

jillian
05-05-2013, 08:08 AM
Tell us, what video did President Bush try to blame the 9/11/01 attacks on?
Please feel free to use the shift button on your keyboard as appropriate.

no one whined. it was a statement of fact.

thanks for the thoughtful response one can expect from you.

jillian
05-05-2013, 08:08 AM
Of course not.

riiiiiiiight...

like bill clinton wasn't the only president in history to be required to testify under oath in a civil matter during the course of his presidency.

we can pretend that, i guess.

except we all know that this is about trying to get hillary... because the wingers know if she runs in 2016, they're done.

i love the smell of desperation in the morning

Peter1469
05-05-2013, 08:11 AM
riiiiiiiight...

like bill clinton wasn't the only president in history to be required to testify under oath in a civil matter during the course of his presidency.

we can pretend that, i guess.

Bill Clinton was being deposed in a civil law suit about a subject that had nothing to do with his actions as President. You understand that, don't you?

Greenridgeman
05-05-2013, 08:11 AM
riiiiiiiight...

like bill clinton wasn't the only president in history to be required to testify under oath in a civil matter during the course of his presidency.

we can pretend that, i guess.

except we all know that this is about trying to get hillary... because the wingers know if she runs in 2016, they're done.

i love the smell of desperation in the morning


What does that have to do with Benghazi hearings, which are not a civil matter?

Greenridgeman
05-05-2013, 08:11 AM
Bill Clinton was being deposed in a civil law suit about a subject that had nothing to do with his actions as President. You understand that, don't you?


It has no bearing on Behghazi hearings either.

jillian
05-05-2013, 08:15 AM
What does that have to do with Benghazi hearings, which are not a civil matter?

it illustrates the difference in the way the wingers treat dems and republicans.

the fauxrage about benghazi and everything else over the past five years fails to be compelling to anyone who isn't already obama-deranged.

jillian
05-05-2013, 08:16 AM
Bill Clinton was being deposed in a civil law suit about a subject that had nothing to do with his actions as President. You understand that, don't you?

right...and in every other instance in history, such cases were always put on hold while the president was in office.

you understand *that*, right?

Peter1469
05-05-2013, 08:23 AM
it illustrates the difference in the way the wingers treat dems and republicans.

the fauxrage about benghazi and everything else over the past five years fails to be compelling to anyone who isn't already obama-deranged.

Had Benghazi occurred outside of the election cycle, I imagine that the Obama regime would have acted responsibly and our ambassador would still be alive.

Chris
05-05-2013, 08:24 AM
You can bet your sweet ass Obama will never testify under oath.

But we have it on record jillian thinks he ought to.

jillian
05-05-2013, 08:25 AM
But we have it on record jillian thinks he ought to.

no. i don't.

and it's smacks of pathetic for you to distort my words.

don't do it.


i know... it must bother you that it's a relatively interesting conversation.

please, do your think and incite nastiness.

we'll wait.

Greenridgeman
05-05-2013, 08:29 AM
no. i don't.

and it's smacks of pathetic for you to distort my words.

don't do it.


i know... it must bother you that it's a relatively interesting conversation.

please, do your think and incite nastiness.

we'll wait.




Chris would not distort anything.

No, not ever.

keymanjim
05-05-2013, 08:30 AM
no one whined. it was a statement of fact.

thanks for the thoughtful response one can expect from you.
How about a response to the question that I asked you?

Greenridgeman
05-05-2013, 08:31 AM
How about a response to the question that I asked you?


But that might focus the thread back on the topic, the Benghazi hearings.

Chris
05-05-2013, 08:33 AM
no. i don't.

and it's smacks of pathetic for you to distort my words.

don't do it.


i know... it must bother you that it's a relatively interesting conversation.

please, do your think and incite nastiness.

we'll wait.


no. i don't.

These are your words:


when 9/11 happened, and 3000 people died, baby bush and cheney gave their "testimony" in the same room, with no court reporter and not under oath...

The implication is presidents should testify under oath. Obama is President.

I love the smell of self-contradiction in the morning.

jillian
05-05-2013, 08:33 AM
How about a response to the question that I asked you?

your "question" was an irrelevancy.

thanks.

keymanjim
05-05-2013, 08:38 AM
your "question" was an irrelevancy.

thanks.
You made it relevant when you attempted to compare the 9/11/01 attacks to the 9/11/12 attacks.

So, now you get to explain how President Bush tried to make everyone think the 9/11/01 attacks were anything but a terrorist attack. Like obama did with the 9/11/12 attacks.

Chris
05-05-2013, 08:38 AM
Chris would not distort anything.

No, not ever.

There's no need, people do that themselves.

Greenridgeman
05-05-2013, 08:39 AM
These are your words:



The implication is presidents should testify under oath. Obama is President.

I love the smell of self-contradiction in the morning.




You love agitating in the morning.

Be honest for once.

Chris
05-05-2013, 08:40 AM
You love agitating in the morning.

Be honest for once.

How many points you want for that ad hom?

jillian
05-05-2013, 08:41 AM
You love agitating in the morning.

Be honest for once.

cute isn't it?

Greenridgeman
05-05-2013, 08:42 AM
How many points you want for that ad hom?


I don't know, I guess the same number you give yourself for yours.

Greenridgeman
05-05-2013, 08:42 AM
cute isn't it?


Not really, no.

Chris
05-05-2013, 08:43 AM
cute isn't it?

Why is pointing out your self-contradiction agitating? I understand it must be irritating to find you've contradicted yourself, by why blame me for that? Try and be more consistent.

jillian
05-05-2013, 08:44 AM
Why is pointing out your self-contradiction agitating? I understand it must be irritating to find you've contradicted yourself, by why blame me for that? Try and be more consistent.

because i wasn't self-contradictory and you lied about what i said.

thanks for playing.

keymanjim
05-05-2013, 08:46 AM
cute isn't it?
You know what's really cute? Obama's speech before the UN two weeks after the attacks where he was still blaming the video:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-president-obama-delivers-remarks-united-nations-invokes/story?id=17319652&page=3#.UYZifrVORbE



That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

Greenridgeman
05-05-2013, 08:47 AM
You know what's really cute? Obama's speech before the UN two weeks after the attacks where he was still blaming the video:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-president-obama-delivers-remarks-united-nations-invokes/story?id=17319652&page=3#.UYZifrVORbE




I hope this all comes out in the hearings.

I am sick of this president having his ass covered by the MSM.

Chris
05-05-2013, 08:48 AM
because i wasn't self-contradictory and you lied about what i said.

thanks for playing.

I quoted what you said, jillian, was that a lie?

You contradicted yourself, plain and simple, you criticized Bush and Cheney form not testifying under oath but you don't want to apply the same standard to Obama.


Here's another self-contradiction. You demand others answer your questions but slough off keyman's question.


Like I said, I love the smell of self-contradiction in the morning.

Greenridgeman
05-05-2013, 08:48 AM
because i wasn't self-contradictory and you lied about what i said.

thanks for playing.


Chris, twist, surely you jest?

Chris
05-05-2013, 08:50 AM
You know what's really cute? Obama's speech before the UN two weeks after the attacks where he was still blaming the video:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-president-obama-delivers-remarks-united-nations-invokes/story?id=17319652&page=3#.UYZifrVORbE

Blame anyone and everyone else rather than take criticism of his own administration's ineptness.

keymanjim
05-05-2013, 08:54 AM
Blame anyone and everyone else rather than take criticism of his own administration's ineptness.
Well, after he got osama (lol), alqueda was supposedly "on the run". They must have run to Benghazi so they could kill our ambassador.

Greenridgeman
05-05-2013, 08:57 AM
Well, after he got osama (lol), alqueda was supposedly "on the run". They must have run to Benghazi so they could kill our ambassador.



They are on the run, they are running circles around Obama, DHS, FBI, CIA et al.

Chris
05-05-2013, 09:00 AM
Well, after he got osama (lol), alqueda was supposedly "on the run". They must have run to Benghazi so they could kill our ambassador.

But "What difference, at this point, does it make?!"

Greenridgeman
05-05-2013, 09:02 AM
But "What difference, at this point, does it make?!"


That should be the campaign slogan for Hillary 2016.

simpsonofpg
05-05-2013, 11:33 AM
What is most interesting about this scandal is just how hard the MSM tried to cover it up for the administration. During the election cycle!

And they are pretty darned good at it. I wish that the conservative media was as good but then we are out numbered. What bothers me is that the voters don't care.

patrickt
05-05-2013, 12:41 PM
when 9/11 happened, and 3000 people died, baby bush and cheney gave their "testimony" in the same room, with no court reporter and not under oath...


Jillian is a one-trick pony. Quick, quick, change the subject and distract.

Little Jillian can't deal with the issues but, "thanks for the thoughtful response one can expect from you", he seems to think he can identify a thoughtful post although he can't make one.

patrickt
05-05-2013, 12:46 PM
riiiiiiiight...

like bill clinton wasn't the only president in history to be required to testify under oath in a civil matter during the course of his presidency.

we can pretend that, i guess.

except we all know that this is about trying to get hillary... because the wingers know if she runs in 2016, they're done.

i love the smell of desperation in the morning

President Clinton is the only president who has been sued, repeatedly, for sexual assault. Sadly, his testimony had nothing to do with his presidency and neither did his blatant perjury.

If you smell desperation in your attempts to change the subject, Little Jillian, you should take your underwear off your head. Flop sweat does stink.