Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    When the news broke about the Benghazi attack, the coverup theory was that Obama was making up a story about a video and connecting Benghazi to it for political gain.

    When Petraeus first testified on 9/14 that the administration was speaking consistently with the current assessment, it got zero attention from the right.

    When Fox News issued a report fraught with inaccuracies that there were cries to "stand down" and "cries for help", the CIA refuted that report with a detailed and specific timeline, the right decided the CIA could not be trusted.

    When Petraeus's extra-marital affair came to light days after the election, the right decided he had been blackmailed into giving the testimony on 9/14 that they had up to that point ignored.

    When it was discovered that Glen Doherty, one of the ex-Navy seals killed in Benghazi, was in Tripoli at the time the consulate was attacked, there was no reversal of the "cries for help" narrative.  No mea culpa.  No sign of integrity at any level.

    When Petraeus testified a second time that the administration had been speaking consistently with the intelligence assessments of the time, the right turned it's attention to some minutia within the talking points about whether it was "terrorists" or a specific terrorist group, or "extremists" as in the final version.  "Who edited the talking points!" they all shouted.  Coverup! Coverup!

    And now that it is being reported that the talking points were in fact edited within the intelligence community, the right insists that it is a lie to protect Obama's coverup.

    So basically, the only time the right believed anthing said by the intelligence community was the idea that their talking points had been edited.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    Hey FREAK-show,..................Drudge only posts articles written by other sources.  He doesn`t write anything himself.  He doesn`t spin anything.  How`s that lobotomy FREAK?




    Hey, ya racist fcuk, how's tricks after the black man was re-elected?

     

    Get your sheets back from the cleaners yet?

     

    So I guess his headlines just write themselves....

     

     

     

    BWAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

     

    Gawd you fvcking racist bigots are too freakin easy.

    Thanks for proving racists like you are truly fvcking ignorant. 

     

     



    Just for kicks,  Iwent and checked out Huffpo.  The only thing they have on Bengazi is a strange cartoon showing Ginngrich standing on Petraeus's back and screaming.  

     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to jmel's comment:

    He posted the EXACT same article I did. He`s so f vcking dumb or drugged up he can`t read. Mine from Drudge was bad cuz he didn`t like the source.  His (CBS) is the same one. Must be nice to take a lithium tab, toke the  bong, sip the Mad-Dog 20-20, and bang away at the keyboard in the cellar insulting folks.......huh?



    BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

     

    This from the racist a55hat that refused to believe the polls because of their 'source'!

     

    Oh gawd you fvcking racists are HILARIOUS!!!!

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to jmel's comment:

    Still waiting for you to prove the "racism" charge FREAK?   I however can prove the booze-drug-shock treatment charges I have against you.   All the nice folks here have to do is read any of your posts. 



    Hey Racist, your dear leader was spotted outside a filling station in AZ, on his way to his cult compound.

    Tell us again why all those polls were wrong but you racists knew what the 'real' polls were.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/mitt-romney-surfaces-at-a-gas-station-looking-very

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    Still waiting for you to prove the "racism" charge FREAK?   I however can prove the booze-drug-shock treatment charges I have against you.   All the nice folks here have to do is read any of your posts. 




    Hey Racist, your dear leader was spotted outside a filling station in AZ, on his way to his cult compound.

     

    Tell us again why all those polls were wrong but you racists knew what the 'real' polls were.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/mitt-romney-surfaces-at-a-gas-station-looking-very



    Jesus Mitt....pull yourself together.  Your starting to look like a 47%er

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Now Mitt is reduced to blaming Christie for his loss. Apparently, millions of people who would have voted for Romney were convinced to vote for Obama when Christie behaved like a decent human being post-hurricane.



    Apparently behaving like "decent human being post-hurricane" is what really po'd the wingnuts.

    The nerve of Christie...doing what's in the best interest of his constituents instead of towing the political partisan line.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    When the news broke about the Benghazi attack, the coverup theory was that Obama was making up a story about a video and connecting Benghazi to it for political gain.

    When Petraeus first testified on 9/14 that the administration was speaking consistently with the current assessment, it got zero attention from the right.

    When Fox News issued a report fraught with inaccuracies that there were cries to "stand down" and "cries for help", the CIA refuted that report with a detailed and specific timeline, the right decided the CIA could not be trusted.

    When Petraeus's extra-marital affair came to light days after the election, the right decided he had been blackmailed into giving the testimony on 9/14 that they had up to that point ignored.

    When it was discovered that Glen Doherty, one of the ex-Navy seals killed in Benghazi, was in Tripoli at the time the consulate was attacked, there was no reversal of the "cries for help" narrative.  No mea culpa.  No sign of integrity at any level.

    When Petraeus testified a second time that the administration had been speaking consistently with the intelligence assessments of the time, the right turned it's attention to some minutia within the talking points about whether it was "terrorists" or a specific terrorist group, or "extremists" as in the final version.  "Who edited the talking points!" they all shouted.  Coverup! Coverup!

    And now that it is being reported that the talking points were in fact edited within the intelligence community, the right insists that it is a lie to protect Obama's coverup.

    So basically, the only time the right believed anthing said by the intelligence community was the idea that their talking points had been edited.




    Um.........Patreaus spoke on the 12th (not the 14th) and he said exactly what CIA on the ground and the  Libyan officials said..................."terrorist attack, al Qaeda, affiliates of al Qaeda".  Put it in his report, swore to it under oath, and sticks to it today.  Don`t understand why you don`t get this?

     



    ABC News’ John R. Parkinson and Sunlen Miller report:

    The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/al-qaeda-took-advantage-of-libyan-protest-cia-chief-says/

    published 9/14

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    The whacko wingnut 'gotcha' is looking more like a circular firing squad.

    And the nose-to-rectum crowd here keep clinging to old, echo chamber bullet points, blissfully ignorant of the info coming from the wingnut led investigations.

    If it doesn't align with their ignorant ideology then they will dismiss it out of hand.

     

    ...Petraeus laid out "a chronological order exactly what we felt happened, how it happened, and where we're going in the future."

    "In the Benghazi area, in the beginning we feel that it was spontaneous - the protest- because it went on for two or three hours, which is very relevant because if it was something that was planned, then they could have come and attacked right away," ..... "At this point it looks as if there was a spontaneous situation that occurred and that as a result of that, the extreme groups that were probably connected to al Qaeda took advantage of that situation and then the attack started."

     

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to jmel's comment:

     Gallup, Rasmussen, Suffolk, UNH, and many other pollsters had it wrong.  It wasn`t just your drug-addicted brain f a r t opinion that "right wing" polls were all wrong.  Many polls got it wrong. Before mama calls you for your nap, and she bends over for the guys draining your cess-pool, could you try and get back to the thread topic and add something of value?




    Gawd you're such a fvcking racist coward it's pathetic.

     

    ALL the wingnut polls you cited were absolutely WRONG!

    You kept up haranguing us about how any poll that showed Obama up was wrong and you kept throwing around the Razzie and Gallup polls.

    Just like your racist bigoted self, those were all WRONG!!

    Climb out of your cesspool of racist, bigoted thinking and stop regurgitating whacko wingnut diarhea.

     

    The only thing worse than a fvcking racist like you is a coward who is a lying sack-of-shiit and tries to run from their statements.

    Racist pieces-of-crap like you are pathetic poltroons.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    jmel have a nice Thanksgiving ! I'll be back on Friday so be ready my friend !

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    When the news broke about the Benghazi attack, the coverup theory was that Obama was making up a story about a video and connecting Benghazi to it for political gain.

    When Petraeus first testified on 9/14 that the administration was speaking consistently with the current assessment, it got zero attention from the right.

    When Fox News issued a report fraught with inaccuracies that there were cries to "stand down" and "cries for help", the CIA refuted that report with a detailed and specific timeline, the right decided the CIA could not be trusted.

    When Petraeus's extra-marital affair came to light days after the election, the right decided he had been blackmailed into giving the testimony on 9/14 that they had up to that point ignored.

    When it was discovered that Glen Doherty, one of the ex-Navy seals killed in Benghazi, was in Tripoli at the time the consulate was attacked, there was no reversal of the "cries for help" narrative.  No mea culpa.  No sign of integrity at any level.

    When Petraeus testified a second time that the administration had been speaking consistently with the intelligence assessments of the time, the right turned it's attention to some minutia within the talking points about whether it was "terrorists" or a specific terrorist group, or "extremists" as in the final version.  "Who edited the talking points!" they all shouted.  Coverup! Coverup!

    And now that it is being reported that the talking points were in fact edited within the intelligence community, the right insists that it is a lie to protect Obama's coverup.

    So basically, the only time the right believed anthing said by the intelligence community was the idea that their talking points had been edited.




    Um.........Patreaus spoke on the 12th (not the 14th) and he said exactly what CIA on the ground and the  Libyan officials said..................."terrorist attack, al Qaeda, affiliates of al Qaeda".  Put it in his report, swore to it under oath, and sticks to it today.  Don`t understand why you don`t get this?

     



    ABC News’ John R. Parkinson and Sunlen Miller report:

    The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film â€ÂÂœThe Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/al-qaeda-took-advantage-of-libyan-protest-cia-chief-says/

    published 9/14

     




    So, to be clear, his under oath testimony, his day after (SEP 12th) written talking points, mean nothing.  You`ve found a statement fromsep 14th and that trumps all?

    "The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.

     

    An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

     

    Slomag, you`re a good person.  Thank you for a nice back and forth.  I`m dropping from this one.  Hope I didn`t get too carried away and name-call.  If I did, it was probaly some of my later-night posts when I was just being a d ick.  When this a s s hole Angry FREAK jumps in and destroys a good thread, it just ruins it for everyone.  This FREAK show kills more good conversations than anyone I`ve seen here since 2005.  I can`t post without insulting back cuz the FREAK is so bad.

    I still think this one will be investigated and people will be called to testify.  Things will come out eventually.




    September 14th was a House intelligence hearing - just like last week's testimony.  But he's been saying the same thing all along - terrorism yes, but sparked by the protests in Cairo over the video.  Susan Rice is privy to a lot of classified information, but when she goes on talk shows, she'd better stick to the talking points.

    All right jmel - have a good Thanksgiving.  I'll leave you with some of Susan Rice's original comments to see she was faithful to everything the intelligency community had given her.

    SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

     

    SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

     

    SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    When the news broke about the Benghazi attack, the coverup theory was that Obama was making up a story about a video and connecting Benghazi to it for political gain.

    When Petraeus first testified on 9/14 that the administration was speaking consistently with the current assessment, it got zero attention from the right.

    When Fox News issued a report fraught with inaccuracies that there were cries to "stand down" and "cries for help", the CIA refuted that report with a detailed and specific timeline, the right decided the CIA could not be trusted.

    When Petraeus's extra-marital affair came to light days after the election, the right decided he had been blackmailed into giving the testimony on 9/14 that they had up to that point ignored.

    When it was discovered that Glen Doherty, one of the ex-Navy seals killed in Benghazi, was in Tripoli at the time the consulate was attacked, there was no reversal of the "cries for help" narrative.  No mea culpa.  No sign of integrity at any level.

    When Petraeus testified a second time that the administration had been speaking consistently with the intelligence assessments of the time, the right turned it's attention to some minutia within the talking points about whether it was "terrorists" or a specific terrorist group, or "extremists" as in the final version.  "Who edited the talking points!" they all shouted.  Coverup! Coverup!

    And now that it is being reported that the talking points were in fact edited within the intelligence community, the right insists that it is a lie to protect Obama's coverup.

    So basically, the only time the right believed anthing said by the intelligence community was the idea that their talking points had been edited.




    Um.........Patreaus spoke on the 12th (not the 14th) and he said exactly what CIA on the ground and the  Libyan officials said..................."terrorist attack, al Qaeda, affiliates of al Qaeda".  Put it in his report, swore to it under oath, and sticks to it today.  Don`t understand why you don`t get this?

     



    ABC News’ John R. Parkinson and Sunlen Miller report:

    The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film â€ÂÂÂœThe Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/al-qaeda-took-advantage-of-libyan-protest-cia-chief-says/

    published 9/14

     




    So, to be clear, his under oath testimony, his day after (SEP 12th) written talking points, mean nothing.  You`ve found a statement fromsep 14th and that trumps all?

    "The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.

     

    An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

     

    Slomag, you`re a good person.  Thank you for a nice back and forth.  I`m dropping from this one.  Hope I didn`t get too carried away and name-call.  If I did, it was probaly some of my later-night posts when I was just being a d ick.  When this a s s hole Angry FREAK jumps in and destroys a good thread, it just ruins it for everyone.  This FREAK show kills more good conversations than anyone I`ve seen here since 2005.  I can`t post without insulting back cuz the FREAK is so bad.

    I still think this one will be investigated and people will be called to testify.  Things will come out eventually.




    September 14th was a House intelligence hearing - just like last week's testimony.  But he's been saying the same thing all along - terrorism yes, but sparked by the protests in Cairo over the video.  Susan Rice is privy to a lot of classified information, but when she goes on talk shows, she'd better stick to the talking points.

    All right jmel - have a good Thanksgiving.  I'll leave you with some of Susan Rice's original comments to see she was faithful to everything the intelligency community had given her.

    SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

     

    SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

     

    SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.



    There was no spontaneous protest.  Has that not been disproven at this point?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    When the news broke about the Benghazi attack, the coverup theory was that Obama was making up a story about a video and connecting Benghazi to it for political gain.

    When Petraeus first testified on 9/14 that the administration was speaking consistently with the current assessment, it got zero attention from the right.

    When Fox News issued a report fraught with inaccuracies that there were cries to "stand down" and "cries for help", the CIA refuted that report with a detailed and specific timeline, the right decided the CIA could not be trusted.

    When Petraeus's extra-marital affair came to light days after the election, the right decided he had been blackmailed into giving the testimony on 9/14 that they had up to that point ignored.

    When it was discovered that Glen Doherty, one of the ex-Navy seals killed in Benghazi, was in Tripoli at the time the consulate was attacked, there was no reversal of the "cries for help" narrative.  No mea culpa.  No sign of integrity at any level.

    When Petraeus testified a second time that the administration had been speaking consistently with the intelligence assessments of the time, the right turned it's attention to some minutia within the talking points about whether it was "terrorists" or a specific terrorist group, or "extremists" as in the final version.  "Who edited the talking points!" they all shouted.  Coverup! Coverup!

    And now that it is being reported that the talking points were in fact edited within the intelligence community, the right insists that it is a lie to protect Obama's coverup.

    So basically, the only time the right believed anthing said by the intelligence community was the idea that their talking points had been edited.




    Um.........Patreaus spoke on the 12th (not the 14th) and he said exactly what CIA on the ground and the  Libyan officials said..................."terrorist attack, al Qaeda, affiliates of al Qaeda".  Put it in his report, swore to it under oath, and sticks to it today.  Don`t understand why you don`t get this?

     



    ABC News’ John R. Parkinson and Sunlen Miller report:

    The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film â€ÂÂÂÂÂÂœThe Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/al-qaeda-took-advantage-of-libyan-protest-cia-chief-says/

    published 9/14

     




    So, to be clear, his under oath testimony, his day after (SEP 12th) written talking points, mean nothing.  You`ve found a statement fromsep 14th and that trumps all?

    "The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.

     

    An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

     

    Slomag, you`re a good person.  Thank you for a nice back and forth.  I`m dropping from this one.  Hope I didn`t get too carried away and name-call.  If I did, it was probaly some of my later-night posts when I was just being a d ick.  When this a s s hole Angry FREAK jumps in and destroys a good thread, it just ruins it for everyone.  This FREAK show kills more good conversations than anyone I`ve seen here since 2005.  I can`t post without insulting back cuz the FREAK is so bad.

    I still think this one will be investigated and people will be called to testify.  Things will come out eventually.




    September 14th was a House intelligence hearing - just like last week's testimony.  But he's been saying the same thing all along - terrorism yes, but sparked by the protests in Cairo over the video.  Susan Rice is privy to a lot of classified information, but when she goes on talk shows, she'd better stick to the talking points.

    All right jmel - have a good Thanksgiving.  I'll leave you with some of Susan Rice's original comments to see she was faithful to everything the intelligency community had given her.

    SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

     

    SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

     

    SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.



    There was no spontaneous protest.  Has that not been disproven at this point.



    Who cares? Thurston Howell lost the election. Get over it.




    What's the latest version of what transpired??

    The latest cover-up lie?

    My side and my contention has always had one version - that  Rice was trotted out on Sept. 14 with what everyone with a half of a brain knew was a lie, and a false story.

    Everyone (except Obama lemmin and their corrupt media friends) knew Al Qaeda was behind the planned attack.

    Now we know that Obama, Rice and Clinton knew instantly watching the drone broadcast live and security cameras.

    But all of them -  Rice, Clinton and Obama talked about the mob and Video for Benghazi which they all knew was a total fabrication.

    The creator of the video sits in jail, Obama's Uncle runs the streets of Boston free.

    Now we find out the story was changed before delivered to the American public.

    But by who and by who's orders?????

    AND - who turned down the consulate's request for more security and assistance the night of the attack??

    4 dead Americans, 2 + months no clear answers.

    Keep spinning.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    What's the latest version of what transpired??

    The latest cover-up lie?

    My side and my contention has always had one version - that  Rice was trotted out on Sept. 14 with what everyone with a half of a brain knew was a lie, and a false story.

    Everyone (except Obama lemmin and their corrupt media friends) knew Al Qaeda was behind the planned attack.

    Now we know that Obama, Rice and Clinton knew instantly watching the drone broadcast live and security cameras.

    But all of them -  Rice, Clinton and Obama talked about the mob and Video for Benghazi which they all knew was a total fabrication.

    The creator of the video sits in jail, Obama's Uncle runs the streets of Boston free.

    Now we find out the story was changed before delivered to the American public.

    But by who and by who's orders?????

    AND - who turned down the consulate's request for more security and assistance the night of the attack??

    4 dead Americans, 2 + months no clear answers.

    Keep spinning.

    [/QUOTE]


    This is all conservative spin.  You don't have the facts so you make up a story that paints the president as a liar.  Very predictable spin.

     
Sections
Shortcuts