Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    Sorry to see a fine military man taken down by his weakness, but hey, if you can get some strange, go for it. All you better that thou clowns need to catch up. Your women are looking around.

     

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     Could it be he took lessons from Harriet Miers?
    BLAME BUSH!!!!

    BLAME BUSH!!!

    What went on under Bush?  Why does it matter?

    Is you answer to any Obama indiscretion a claim, false or otherwise, that Bush did worse?

    Stop being an ID10T.

    ++++++++++++++++++

    Apparently you haven't heard about the exit polls.



    That you would cite exit polls,(and I`m guessing you mean the exit polls where a large percentage still blamed Bush) is laughable.  Let me be very clear................4 years into this incompetent fool`s tenure, if people are blaming Bush, those people are freakin` MORONS! The people blaming Bush are the same people that don`t know what Benghazi is, who the VP is, and think that Obama hanging with Jay Z is cool.  

     

     But, we knew that.



    I think this economy is recovering slower than it should because 1) the federal funds rate was nearly at zero even at the height of the real estate bubble and 2) the debt and deficit were so large that any suggestion of stimulus spending was met with violent opposition.

    You can blame the fed for the federal funds rate, but the fed is appointed by the president, so it's fair to blame Bush for point one.  And how do you not blame him for point two, turning a 100 billion dollar surplus into a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit?

    I suppose you can disagree with the causes of the slow recovery, but how can you consider the argument mis-informed?

     

     

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Besides.  the details of the legalities are unimportant.  It has just been reported due to this resignation, he will not be allowed to testify.

    Obama has successfully thrown a blanket over Bengazi.

    I guess Angry is happy that the President has successfully avoided telling us why 4 Americans were denied protection and as a result died.



    I'm calling BS Skeeter - the only request for security at the Benghazi consulate was to bump up the number of security agents from 3 to 4.  On the night of the attack, there were 5 (two traveled with Stevens).  The bulk of the security requests related to the embassy in Tripoli. 

     



    I think you misunderstand me.  My reference was to the three requests for more security during the attack.  that was Bengazi.

    That happened.  Sorry, no BS.

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     Could it be he took lessons from Harriet Miers?
    BLAME BUSH!!!!

    BLAME BUSH!!!

    What went on under Bush?  Why does it matter?

    Is you answer to any Obama indiscretion a claim, false or otherwise, that Bush did worse?

    Stop being an ID10T.

    ++++++++++++++++++

    Apparently you haven't heard about the exit polls.




    I know exit polls are used to establish opinion. 

    First time I have had someone claim that they establish fact.

     

    However, more to the point:  What the frigg do exit polls have to do with your constant blaming of Bush for Obama's mistakes?

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     Could it be he took lessons from Harriet Miers?
    BLAME BUSH!!!!

    BLAME BUSH!!!

    What went on under Bush?  Why does it matter?

    Is you answer to any Obama indiscretion a claim, false or otherwise, that Bush did worse?

    Stop being an ID10T.

    ++++++++++++++++++

    Apparently you haven't heard about the exit polls.



    That you would cite exit polls,(and I`m guessing you mean the exit polls where a large percentage still blamed Bush) is laughable.  Let me be very clear................4 years into this incompetent fool`s tenure, if people are blaming Bush, those people are freakin` MORONS! The people blaming Bush are the same people that don`t know what Benghazi is, who the VP is, and think that Obama hanging with Jay Z is cool.  

     

     But, we knew that.



    I think this economy is recovering slower than it should because 1) the federal funds rate was nearly at zero even at the height of the real estate bubble and 2) the debt and deficit were so large that any suggestion of stimulus spending was met with violent opposition.

    You can blame the fed for the federal funds rate, but the fed is appointed by the president, so it's fair to blame Bush for point one.  And how do you not blame him for point two, turning a 100 billion dollar surplus into a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit?

    I suppose you can disagree with the causes of the slow recovery, but how can you consider the argument mis-informed?

     

     



    And I could go back further and cite the lack of movement by he Democrat House and senate to act on Bush's call to reign in bad mortgages.  Remember the famous Barney Frank comments that everyhting was fine?  that was in response to Bush saying they were not.

     

    As far as the deficits, yep.  Bush spent like a liberal.  Because in a large measure, he was a liberal, like Nixon, another liberal you Democrats love to hate and misindentify as conservatives.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     Could it be he took lessons from Harriet Miers?
    BLAME BUSH!!!!

    BLAME BUSH!!!

    What went on under Bush?  Why does it matter?

    Is you answer to any Obama indiscretion a claim, false or otherwise, that Bush did worse?

    Stop being an ID10T.

    ++++++++++++++++++

    Apparently you haven't heard about the exit polls.




    I know exit polls are used to establish opinion. 

    First time I have had someone claim that they establish fact.

     

    However, more to the point:  What the frigg do exit polls have to do with your constant blaming of Bush for Obama's mistakes?

    I never said the exit pollos were fact; however they indicate something.


    Also, I never said they weren't mistakes. I was illustrating there's different magnitudes. IMO, his accomplishments far outweigh those. Is he a saint? Is he better than Clinton/Reagan/Truman/FDR/Lincoln? No. But the opposition is grabbing on to whatever they can in amongst their darker moments

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     Could it be he took lessons from Harriet Miers?
    BLAME BUSH!!!!

    BLAME BUSH!!!

    What went on under Bush?  Why does it matter?

    Is you answer to any Obama indiscretion a claim, false or otherwise, that Bush did worse?

    Stop being an ID10T.

    ++++++++++++++++++

    Apparently you haven't heard about the exit polls.




    I know exit polls are used to establish opinion. 

    First time I have had someone claim that they establish fact.

     

    However, more to the point:  What the frigg do exit polls have to do with your constant blaming of Bush for Obama's mistakes?

    I never said the exit pollos were fact; however they indicate something.


    Also, I never said they weren't mistakes. I was illustrating there's different magnitudes. IMO, his accomplishments far outweigh those. Is he a saint? Is he better than Clinton/Reagan/Truman/FDR/Lincoln? No. But the opposition is grabbing on to whatever they can in amongst their darker moments

    The exit polls indicated somethign about Bush?  Was he on the ballot?

    So, in other words, you can't back up your vague asertion that Bush did something worse.

    See, facts matter.

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Besides.  the details of the legalities are unimportant.  It has just been reported due to this resignation, he will not be allowed to testify.

    Obama has successfully thrown a blanket over Bengazi.

    I guess Angry is happy that the President has successfully avoided telling us why 4 Americans were denied protection and as a result died.



    I'm calling BS Skeeter - the only request for security at the Benghazi consulate was to bump up the number of security agents from 3 to 4.  On the night of the attack, there were 5 (two traveled with Stevens).  The bulk of the security requests related to the embassy in Tripoli. 

     



    I think you misunderstand me.  My reference was to the three requests for more security during the attack.  that was Bengazi.

    That happened.  Sorry, no BS.




    Do you have a source?  The only thing I could find specific to Benghazi was a request for one more security agent, and since two traveled with Stevens, there were more at the consulate at the time of the attack than had been requested.

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Besides.  the details of the legalities are unimportant.  It has just been reported due to this resignation, he will not be allowed to testify.

    Obama has successfully thrown a blanket over Bengazi.

    I guess Angry is happy that the President has successfully avoided telling us why 4 Americans were denied protection and as a result died.



    I'm calling BS Skeeter - the only request for security at the Benghazi consulate was to bump up the number of security agents from 3 to 4.  On the night of the attack, there were 5 (two traveled with Stevens).  The bulk of the security requests related to the embassy in Tripoli. 

     



    I think you misunderstand me.  My reference was to the three requests for more security during the attack.  that was Bengazi.

    That happened.  Sorry, no BS.




    Do you have a source?  The only thing I could find specific to Benghazi was a request for one more security agent, and since two traveled with Stevens, there were more at the consulate at the time of the attack than had been requested.



    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

    You need to keep up.

    But, it's Fox News, so you will say it is garbage.

    But, where am I to turn, as no other media are covering Bengazi, except to point out how Romney mishandled it?

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Besides.  the details of the legalities are unimportant.  It has just been reported due to this resignation, he will not be allowed to testify.

    Obama has successfully thrown a blanket over Bengazi.

    I guess Angry is happy that the President has successfully avoided telling us why 4 Americans were denied protection and as a result died.



    I'm calling BS Skeeter - the only request for security at the Benghazi consulate was to bump up the number of security agents from 3 to 4.  On the night of the attack, there were 5 (two traveled with Stevens).  The bulk of the security requests related to the embassy in Tripoli. 

     



    I think you misunderstand me.  My reference was to the three requests for more security during the attack.  that was Bengazi.

    That happened.  Sorry, no BS.




    Do you have a source?  The only thing I could find specific to Benghazi was a request for one more security agent, and since two traveled with Stevens, there were more at the consulate at the time of the attack than had been requested.



    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

    You need to keep up.

    But, it's Fox News, so you will say it is garbage.

    But, where am I to turn, as no other media are covering Bengazi, except to point out how Romney mishandled it?



    Oh, sorry "during the attack" - my reading comprehension error.

    I'm not saying it's garbage - the CIA is ... 

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-cias-benghazi-timeline-reveals-errors-but-no-evidence-of-conspiracy/2012/11/01/a84c4024-2471-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html

    U.S. says CIA responded within 25 minutes to Benghazi attack

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/02/world/la-fg-libya-cia-20121102

     

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Besides.  the details of the legalities are unimportant.  It has just been reported due to this resignation, he will not be allowed to testify.

    Obama has successfully thrown a blanket over Bengazi.

    I guess Angry is happy that the President has successfully avoided telling us why 4 Americans were denied protection and as a result died.



    I'm calling BS Skeeter - the only request for security at the Benghazi consulate was to bump up the number of security agents from 3 to 4.  On the night of the attack, there were 5 (two traveled with Stevens).  The bulk of the security requests related to the embassy in Tripoli. 

     



    I think you misunderstand me.  My reference was to the three requests for more security during the attack.  that was Bengazi.

    That happened.  Sorry, no BS.




    Do you have a source?  The only thing I could find specific to Benghazi was a request for one more security agent, and since two traveled with Stevens, there were more at the consulate at the time of the attack than had been requested.



    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

    You need to keep up.

    But, it's Fox News, so you will say it is garbage.

    But, where am I to turn, as no other media are covering Bengazi, except to point out how Romney mishandled it?



    Oh, sorry "during the attack" - my reading comprehension error.

    I'm not saying it's garbage - the CIA is ... 

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-cias-benghazi-timeline-reveals-errors-but-no-evidence-of-conspiracy/2012/11/01/a84c4024-2471-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html

    U.S. says CIA responded within 25 minutes to Benghazi attack

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/02/world/la-fg-libya-cia-20121102

     




    Who cares what cover-up the CIA lays out there? I'm calling BS on the CIA timeline.  They leave out known evidence, emails sent, and a live video feed.  If you read this article, this highly selective timeline, it looks like incompetence on the part of the people on the ground.  The real incompetence is wit hthe leadership.

    a seven hour attack, no one shows.  no air support, not troops, no cruise missles, nothing! That's a leadership crisis.

    Facts matter.  The CIA is spinning.

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    Sellers pinkpanther7.jpgI always wondered what skeeter looked like.

     

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Besides.  the details of the legalities are unimportant.  It has just been reported due to this resignation, he will not be allowed to testify.

    Obama has successfully thrown a blanket over Bengazi.

    I guess Angry is happy that the President has successfully avoided telling us why 4 Americans were denied protection and as a result died.



    I'm calling BS Skeeter - the only request for security at the Benghazi consulate was to bump up the number of security agents from 3 to 4.  On the night of the attack, there were 5 (two traveled with Stevens).  The bulk of the security requests related to the embassy in Tripoli. 

     



    I think you misunderstand me.  My reference was to the three requests for more security during the attack.  that was Bengazi.

    That happened.  Sorry, no BS.




    Do you have a source?  The only thing I could find specific to Benghazi was a request for one more security agent, and since two traveled with Stevens, there were more at the consulate at the time of the attack than had been requested.



    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

    You need to keep up.

    But, it's Fox News, so you will say it is garbage.

    But, where am I to turn, as no other media are covering Bengazi, except to point out how Romney mishandled it?



    Oh, sorry "during the attack" - my reading comprehension error.

    I'm not saying it's garbage - the CIA is ... 

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-cias-benghazi-timeline-reveals-errors-but-no-evidence-of-conspiracy/2012/11/01/a84c4024-2471-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html

    U.S. says CIA responded within 25 minutes to Benghazi attack

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/02/world/la-fg-libya-cia-20121102

     




    Who cares what cover-up the CIA lays out there? I'm calling BS on the CIA timeline.  They leave out known evidence, emails sent, and a live video feed.  If you read this article, this highly selective timeline, it looks like incompetence on the part of the people on the ground.  The real incompetence is wit hthe leadership.

    a seven hour attack, no one shows.  no air support, not troops, no cruise missles, nothing! That's a leadership crisis.

    Facts matter.  The CIA is spinning.



    The seven-hour attack narrative can't be correct either - Libyan civilians brought Stevens to a local hospital three hours after the consulate was first attacked.   Apparently, nobody even knew who he was.

    If you're right, I'll be the first to acknowledge it, but especially after Tuesday - to take the stance that Fox News is telling it straight, and the CIA is spinning a coverup... it just sounds ridiculous.

     

     

     

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Besides.  the details of the legalities are unimportant.  It has just been reported due to this resignation, he will not be allowed to testify.

    Obama has successfully thrown a blanket over Bengazi.

    I guess Angry is happy that the President has successfully avoided telling us why 4 Americans were denied protection and as a result died.



    I'm calling BS Skeeter - the only request for security at the Benghazi consulate was to bump up the number of security agents from 3 to 4.  On the night of the attack, there were 5 (two traveled with Stevens).  The bulk of the security requests related to the embassy in Tripoli. 

     



    I think you misunderstand me.  My reference was to the three requests for more security during the attack.  that was Bengazi.

    That happened.  Sorry, no BS.




    Do you have a source?  The only thing I could find specific to Benghazi was a request for one more security agent, and since two traveled with Stevens, there were more at the consulate at the time of the attack than had been requested.



    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

    You need to keep up.

    But, it's Fox News, so you will say it is garbage.

    But, where am I to turn, as no other media are covering Bengazi, except to point out how Romney mishandled it?



    Oh, sorry "during the attack" - my reading comprehension error.

    I'm not saying it's garbage - the CIA is ... 

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-cias-benghazi-timeline-reveals-errors-but-no-evidence-of-conspiracy/2012/11/01/a84c4024-2471-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html

    U.S. says CIA responded within 25 minutes to Benghazi attack

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/02/world/la-fg-libya-cia-20121102

     




    Who cares what cover-up the CIA lays out there? I'm calling BS on the CIA timeline.  They leave out known evidence, emails sent, and a live video feed.  If you read this article, this highly selective timeline, it looks like incompetence on the part of the people on the ground.  The real incompetence is wit hthe leadership.

    a seven hour attack, no one shows.  no air support, not troops, no cruise missles, nothing! That's a leadership crisis.

    Facts matter.  The CIA is spinning.



    The seven-hour attack narrative can't be correct either - Libyan civilians brought Stevens to a local hospital three hours after the consulate was first attacked.   Apparently, nobody even knew who he was.

    If you're right, I'll be the first to acknowledge it, but especially after Tuesday - to take the stance that Fox News is telling it straight, and the CIA is spinning a coverup... it just sounds ridiculous.

     

     

     



    Clearly non of us have all the info.  We wach look at different nuggets of info and try to infer a position from that.  I find the CIA troubling, as it gives us about six focused pieces of information over about twelve hours.  That's insufficient to dray any conclusions, except that we are not being given the most of the information.

    Couple this with the passive unwillingness of the Obama administration to reveal this inf0ormation, as the three cabinet officials invovled are all "unable" to testify, and the picture looks and smells like a cover up.

    I'll cede the details, as like most coverups, the details at this point are relatively irrelevant.  it is the cover up that becomes important.  

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from jackbu. Show jackbu's posts

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    In response to jmel's comment:

    "You'd be hard pressed to find someone with a more decorated and distinguished military career.  Still, all that training and discipline was not enough to control the weapon between his legs.  Women are powerful."

    I needed to laugh..............and that`s funny.




     

    bingo, wars have been started over that little triangle of realestate..

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    [/QUOTE]


    Clearly non of us have all the info.  We wach look at different nuggets of info and try to infer a position from that.  I find the CIA troubling, as it gives us about six focused pieces of information over about twelve hours.  That's insufficient to dray any conclusions, except that we are not being given the most of the information.

    Couple this with the passive unwillingness of the Obama administration to reveal this inf0ormation, as the three cabinet officials invovled are all "unable" to testify, and the picture looks and smells like a cover up.

    I'll cede the details, as like most coverups, the details at this point are relatively irrelevant.  it is the cover up that becomes important.  

    [/QUOTE]

    To have a cover-up you need wrongdoing to cover up.  If you have no facts indicating wrongful conduct in the first instance, you pretty much have nothing.  

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:


    Clearly non of us have all the info.  We wach look at different nuggets of info and try to infer a position from that.  I find the CIA troubling, as it gives us about six focused pieces of information over about twelve hours.  That's insufficient to dray any conclusions, except that we are not being given the most of the information.

    Couple this with the passive unwillingness of the Obama administration to reveal this inf0ormation, as the three cabinet officials invovled are all "unable" to testify, and the picture looks and smells like a cover up.

    I'll cede the details, as like most coverups, the details at this point are relatively irrelevant.  it is the cover up that becomes important.  



    To have a cover-up you need wrongdoing to cover up.  If you have no facts indicating wrongful conduct in the first instance, you pretty much have nothing.  



We have four dead Americans.  That's a fact.

We have no troops on the ground asisting for 22 hours.  That's a fact.

We have multiple requests for assistance.  That's a fact.

We have a number of interesting "things" happening:

Petraeus out.  Not testifying.

Clinton not testifying for dubious reasons.

Continued blame on a video that was never the reason.  Curious.

 

Though we do not have it completely nailed, the facts and the surrounding events point in the direction of a cover up.

 

 

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:


    Clearly non of us have all the info.  We wach look at different nuggets of info and try to infer a position from that.  I find the CIA troubling, as it gives us about six focused pieces of information over about twelve hours.  That's insufficient to dray any conclusions, except that we are not being given the most of the information.

    Couple this with the passive unwillingness of the Obama administration to reveal this inf0ormation, as the three cabinet officials invovled are all "unable" to testify, and the picture looks and smells like a cover up.

    I'll cede the details, as like most coverups, the details at this point are relatively irrelevant.  it is the cover up that becomes important.  



    To have a cover-up you need wrongdoing to cover up.  If you have no facts indicating wrongful conduct in the first instance, you pretty much have nothing.  



    We have four dead Americans.  That's a fact.

    We have no troops on the ground asisting for 22 hours.  That's a fact.

    We have multiple requests for assistance.  That's a fact.

    We have a number of interesting "things" happening:

    Petraeus out.  Not testifying.

    Clinton not testifying for dubious reasons.

    Continued blame on a video that was never the reason.  Curious.

     

    Though we do not have it completely nailed, the facts and the surrounding events point in the direction of a cover up.

     

     




  • We have four dead Americans.  That's a fact.

    true

    We have no troops on the ground asisting for 22 hours.  That's a fact.

    false - assistance arrived less than an hour after the attack began.  Two of the four dead Americans were there because they were part of the rescue mission.

    We have multiple requests for assistance.  That's a fact.

    and we have a speedy response to the requests, as stated above.

    We have a number of interesting "things" happening:

    More interesting to Fox News than the rest of the world

    Petraeus out.  Not testifying.

    The GOP-led house can call Petraeus to testify.  The fact that they suddenly have no interest in his testimony supports my theory.

    Clinton not testifying for dubious reasons.

    More dubious is the house replacing Petraeus's testimony with Clinton's.

    Continued blame on a video that was never the reason.  Curious.

    You can't be sure of that - libyan militants getting their hands on RPGs and attacking a small consulate is not something that takes months, weeks or even days to plan.  It's very likely that the video played a part in all this.  And even if it played no part, was there a statement that was made that would not have been made absent the Benghazi attacks?  There were 18 other violent protests in the region - not every comment made about the video was necessarily about Benghazi.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from msobstinate99. Show msobstinate99's posts

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    I guaruntee that the bold debunking will be completely ignored when his excellency, his lordship the arch-tard skeeter reposts exactly the same set of lies tomorrow, in yet another Benghazi thread created by desparate conservative liars.



    Don't worry all the facts are trinkling out, day by day, hour by hour. Benghazi may actually turn out to be much more than just a demonstration as we were told by the Rice lady. 

    Life imitates art....reminds me of that Kevin Costner movie, No Way Out.

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    We have four dead Americans.  That's a fact.

    We have no troops on the ground asisting for 22 hours.  That's a fact.

    We have multiple requests for assistance.  That's a fact.

    We have a number of interesting "things" happening:

    Petraeus out.  Not testifying.

    Clinton not testifying for dubious reasons.

    Continued blame on a video that was never the reason.  Curious.

     

    Though we do not have it completely nailed, the facts and the surrounding events point in the direction of a cover up.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Where is the crime in all this?  No where.  Where is the wrongdoing by the White House?  No where.  Why are you talking about this?  To score political points involving rumor and conjecture.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    [/QUOTE]


    You want DNA proof.. in THIS case?

    Do you still buy the anti Muslim video.... excuse?

    A simple yes, no or non response will do.

    Have a nice day.

    [/QUOTE]

    No I want facts indicating a crime was committed.  You got any?  Didn't think so...  Facts are inconvenient for right wing ranters.  Have a typically mindless day.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Someone's jumping ship before the Benghazi details emerge.

    Someone's jumping to conclusions before the Benghazi details emerge.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share