Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    The irony of all this is that the charge in the bigger than watergate scandal is that Obama spun  a tragedy in Benghazi for political gain.  And now here we are five months removed from the election, and suddenly it's gone from Obama's fault to Hillary's fault.  Also, conservatives now love Hispanics and Gays.  You're right about one thing - you guys will always be the party of transparency.

     

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    bigdog just say no comment .... I ain't reading all that .... at least I post photos that the meanings can be gotten quickly

     



    Your photos match your cartoonish and childish outlook on life: simplistic and lacking fact

     




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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    The irony of all this is that the charge in the bigger than watergate scandal is that Obama spun  a tragedy in Benghazi for political gain.  And now here we are five months removed from the election, and suddenly it's gone from Obama's fault to Hillary's fault.  Also, conservatives now love Hispanics and Gays.  You're right about one thing - you guys will always be the party of transparency.

     

     




     

    Again I would ask.................do you watch the news? Read a paper?  Are you listening to the coverage?  Your "theories" are being debunked hourly.  At this point you`re pretty much the only person on earth that still thinks this has ANYTHING to do with a spontaneous reaction to a video or that this was NOT a complete coverup. 




    Then it should be pretty easy to find a link showing somebody contradicting the original CIA talking points.  I won't hold my breath.

     

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    The point is.......the biq question..........WHO changed them?  



    Why does it matter, again...?

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:


    Why does it matter, again...?



    It matters because 4 Americans were murdered; the POTUS stood in front of the UN and the world and blamed it on a video made in America and that is unacceptable; especially when many including leaders are screaming that e are full of shlt and that it was a planned  and orchestrated terrosist attack and nothing less.

    Its been 8+ months now and we still have not found ANY of the people Obama stated "make no mistake, we will find and hold the people responsible accountible" Despite reports they are currently walking the streets!

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    Talking Points




    I posted the original talking points - yes, they were changed 12 times.  I believe you.  I don't dispute that.  Is that unusual?  I have no idea, because nobody in the history of the world has ever given two sh1ts about the evolution of talking points, let alone pretended it was a scandal.  Did Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama ever say anything that contradicts the original talking points?

    Look at the original talking points - what was removed was the conjecture - the "we think this" and "we can't rule out that".  The original talking points said this was for sure tied to Cairo and there were Libyans from all walks of life participating.  Other than that, we don't know sh1t, but here's some info that might be useful.

    And you're coverup is that the administration left out everything after "we don't know sh1t".

    You have the full unedited talking points and the full transcripts of Susan Rice's Sunday talk shows.  If you can't post a link, just paste in the part of the transcript that's a lie.  C'mon man - your whole argument is that she lied about what the CIA believed at the time - if you can't even do that, shouldn't you just apologize and move on?

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    The comparisons of the Obama and Nixon White Houses are suddenly coming—pardon the expression—fast and furious, and why not? The IRS investigations; the administration’s fixation on leaks and leakers and its obsession with enemies; the cover-ups, the blame-shifting to subordinates, the defiant chief executive, even the sweating, pathetically dissembling press secretary; it all has the odor of that earlier time. Again, it’s all happening early in the second term, following a triumphant reelection. Again, the operative terms are arrogance, contempt for law, and thuggery.

    The growing awareness of administration malfeasance is evident in the numbers on Google: more than 59 million hits for “Obama and Nixon” and 24 million–plus for “Obama and Watergate.” For those interested, the 44th president’s face can already be found morphing into the 37th’s. Then there’s the rising tide of commentary. “Obama knee-deep in Nixon-esque scandal” runs the headline of columnist Joe Battenfield’s piece in the Boston Herald, which notes that Obama’s campaign slogan would have been more appropriate if it were not “Forward” but “Backward”—“All the way to, say, 1972.” “Benghazi, IRS—Son of Watergate?” asks Cal Thomas. “In IRS Scandal, Echoes of Watergate,” observes the Washington Post’s George Will.

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     


    Why does it matter, again...?

     



    It matters because 4 Americans were murdered; the POTUS stood in front of the UN and the world and blamed it on a video made in America and that is unacceptable; especially when many including leaders are screaming that e are full of shlt and that it was a planned  and orchestrated terrosist attack and nothing less.

     

    Its been 8+ months now and we still have not found ANY of the people Obama stated "make no mistake, we will find and hold the people responsible accountible" Despite reports they are currently walking the streets!



    No, really...I want to know why it matters.

    These hearings are not about finding the culprits, so pull the other one.  Never were.  Accountable folks at State lost their jobs, and the SecState resigned.

    Terror attacks happen all the time.  The world is a violent place.  Americans are neither immune nor extraordinary in that respect.  High time we learned that.  We are at war, after all.

     

     



     

     

     

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    The comparisons of the Obama and Nixon White Houses are suddenly coming—pardon the expression—fast and furious, and why not? The IRS investigations; the administration’s fixation on leaks and leakers and its obsession with enemies; the cover-ups, the blame-shifting to subordinates, the defiant chief executive, even the sweating, pathetically dissembling press secretary; it all has the odor of that earlier time. Again, it’s all happening early in the second term, following a triumphant reelection. Again, the operative terms are arrogance, contempt for law, and thuggery.

    The growing awareness of administration malfeasance is evident in the numbers on Google: more than 59 million hits for “Obama and Nixon” and 24 million–plus for “Obama and Watergate.” For those interested, the 44th president’s face can already be found morphing into the 37th’s. Then there’s the rising tide of commentary. “Obama knee-deep in Nixon-esque scandal” runs the headline of columnist Joe Battenfield’s piece in the Boston Herald, which notes that Obama’s campaign slogan would have been more appropriate if it were not “Forward” but “Backward”—“All the way to, say, 1972.” “Benghazi, IRS—Son of Watergate?” asks Cal Thomas. “In IRS Scandal, Echoes of Watergate,” observes the Washington Post’s George Will.



    Not even close.  But keep trying...

    We know conservatives tried to disown Nixon long ago.

    BO hasn't even reached Reagan-era levels of scandal, yet.

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    The point is.......the biq question..........WHO changed them?  

     



    Why does it matter, again...?

     

     




     

    Let me get this straight..............The CIA reports the activities of a coordinated, calculated, terrorist attack on 9/11, leaving 4 Americans dead, that report goes to the State Dept and ultimately to the White House, they are changed (12 times) to say exactly what the State Dept and the White House want.....................and you say "why does it matter"?  



    I know it was 2 pages ago, so I've re-posted the original unedited CIA talking points below.  It states the absolute opposite of your claim.

    http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.pdf

    We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

    The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society.  That being said, we do know that Islamic extremests with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack.

    Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.  The group as since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.  Ansar al-Sharia's Facebook page aims to spread Sharia in Libya and emphasizes the need for jihad to counter what it views as false interpretations of Islam, according to an open source study.

    The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contribute to the lethality of the attacks.

    Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy.  We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.

    We are working w/ Libyan authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.

     

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    The point is.......the biq question..........WHO changed them?  

     



    Why does it matter, again...?

     

     




     

    Let me get this straight..............The CIA reports the activities of a coordinated, calculated, terrorist attack on 9/11, leaving 4 Americans dead, that report goes to the State Dept and ultimately to the White House, they are changed (12 times) to say exactly what the State Dept and the White House want.....................and you say "why does it matter"?  



    You see the text in blue?  That's called a link - if you click on it with your magic pointer it will take you to another tube on the interwebs where you can validate my post.

     

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    The point is.......the biq question..........WHO changed them?  

     



    Why does it matter, again...?

     

     




     

    Let me get this straight..............The CIA reports the activities of a coordinated, calculated, terrorist attack on 9/11, leaving 4 Americans dead, that report goes to the State Dept and ultimately to the White House, they are changed (12 times) to say exactly what the State Dept and the White House want.....................and you say "why does it matter"?  



    That's right.  Why does it matter?

    What is the goal here...beyond politicizing an already thoroughly politicized event...?

    Those four dead Americans aren't coming back, and none of this circus is aimed at finding the people who killed them.

     

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    bigdog just say no comment .... I ain't reading all that .... at least I post photos that the meanings can be gotten quickly

     



    Your photos match your cartoonish and childish outlook on life: simplistic and lacking fact

     

     




     



    Are you a hobbit? That explains a lot.

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    The point is.......the biq question..........WHO changed them?  

     



    Why does it matter, again...?

     

     




     

    Let me get this straight..............The CIA reports the activities of a coordinated, calculated, terrorist attack on 9/11, leaving 4 Americans dead, that report goes to the State Dept and ultimately to the White House, they are changed (12 times) to say exactly what the State Dept and the White House want.....................and you say "why does it matter"?  

     



    That's right.  Why does it matter?

     

    What is the goal here...beyond politicizing an already thoroughly politicized event...?

    Those four dead Americans aren't coming back, and none of this circus is aimed at finding the people who killed them.

     

     



    The only people who politicized it was Obama and Hillary, and they got caught.

    that's the story you are missing.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    Emails released by the WH:

    As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration’s explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.

    Where and why did we hear from the POTUS to the UN and from the SOS that is was over a video when the CIA report never mentioned it??

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    Friday, Sept. 14, Gen. David Petraeus goes to the Hill to brief lawmakers. It is unclear which version he relates, the video demonstration or the deliberate attack. The lawmakers ask for talking points. In their first incarnation the talking points from CIA combine the narrative, saying the attack was “spontaneous inspired” by the anti-Muslim video but that CIA did “know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qa’ida” participated.



    A story quickly dispelled long before Rice went on the talk show, Obama went to the U.N., and Hillary told the families of the killed about the video.

    Face it.  The Obama administration has been caught in a masisve cover up.

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    Friday, Sept. 14, Gen. David Petraeus goes to the Hill to brief lawmakers. It is unclear which version he relates, the video demonstration or the deliberate attack. The lawmakers ask for talking points. In their first incarnation the talking points from CIA combine the narrative, saying the attack was “spontaneous inspired” by the anti-Muslim video but that CIA did “know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qa’ida” participated.


    A story quickly dispelled long before Rice went on the talk show, Obama went to the U.N., and Hillary told the families of the killed about the video.

    Face it.  The Obama administration has been caught in a masisve cover up.



    I never really thought it until now but, this could actually lead to impeachment. Every day more damning information and we still know so little!

     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    "swampland" is your source?

    smells like teen fear! lol

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share