What's the deal with their obsession over this? They're still harping on it.
Benghazi and the freeps
|by Anonymous||reply 48||12/20/2012|
Maybe we should go back and charge bush/Cheney with something for fucking 9/11
|by Anonymous||reply 1||11/08/2012|
yeah, it's not like it was the invasion of Iraq which was completely and utterly foundless.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||11/08/2012|
It's really odd the significance they attach to it. They were convinced it was going to be the final nail in Obama's electoral coffin. Now they're all juiced up to impeach him for it.
It was a horrible event. The administration's story did change over time. I don't think that's unusual for such a chaotic situation half a world away. I'm also not surprised at any administration keeping the full truth from the American public on matters of foreign security. As for claims that the embassy was ill-guarded and warnings of an attack went unheeded, go ahead and hold hearings. But unless the President personally ordered security to be decreased and made the decision to keep the embassy open in the face of credible threats, I don't how you can pin it on him. Even if he were responsible, it wouldn't be an impeachable offense. It would simply be a bad decision. Ask George Bush about those.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||11/08/2012|
Because it's all they have. The Obama administration has been a remarkably scandal free one. By this point, there should have been at least a few administration officials who should have been charged with something. But it hasn't happened. Why? Because there is nothing scandalous happening there.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||11/08/2012|
If they really gave a shit about Bengazi, they'd call their republican senator who voted down a state department budget increase which included 300 new security positions.
Seriously, THEY HAVE NOTHING on Obama. Arugala? Spicy mustard? Terrorist fist bumps? Once he said "America's 57 states."? Nothing. They don't give a shit about Bengazi. They're just so pissed that it's the only thing close to something and it's STILL nothing. Crazed fuckers.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||11/08/2012|
It's a new word they learned so they like to keep repeating it. Most of them probably think Benghazi is in the Middle East.
It was a terrible event, but shit happens in unstable countries.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||11/08/2012|
Three words: grasping at straws
|by Anonymous||reply 7||11/08/2012|
In matters of foreign policy, the red state inhabitants and mouth breathers everywhere have little grasp of facts nor reason. It's very easy to delude such folk, and an easy target for the republicans. You know, if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit. If it gets the teabaggers riled up, it doesn't matter whether or not the matter has a basis in reality.
All they care about at this point is destroying Obama's legacy.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||11/08/2012|
They only listen to each other.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||11/08/2012|
Benghazi is Arabic for "Clinton's penis".
|by Anonymous||reply 10||11/08/2012|
Soo, Graham, McCain get out of a meeting w/CIA head and Rice- look emotionally panicked stricken and disturbed, an Oscar winning performance is distress over the meeting?
What is going on???? Please explain.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||11/27/2012|
Al Sharpton discussed Fox's obsession with this on his MSNBC show. Amazingly he showed Geraldo of all people calling out Fox on ignoring an actual issue of concern (mission safety) and instead obsessing on b.s. questions.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||11/27/2012|
Didn't they try to push it as an October Surprise, they thought it would turn the election their way and now they're just following through? It's insane. If Iraq were a beach, Benghazi would be a grain of sand.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||11/27/2012|
Gramps McCain will go to his grave never knowing the truth. He is a foolish sad man. And loser.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||11/27/2012|
An Ambassador was assassinated and the administration lied about it. Pathetically so. A better question would be why liberals find it excusable in the name of Obama.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||11/27/2012|
I'm still wondering if this is a set-up that Obama will let the Republicans walk into. No. I don't mean he let those people get killed but maybe his Repug enemies set something up (Oct. surprise)and now he's going to let them bitch and bitch until they fall into their own trap. Obviously Americans know these things happen every year...no one is concerned, except the normal Rethug assholes.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||11/27/2012|
The US Ambassador in Benghazi repeatedly asked for more security because of an al Qaeda threat and he was ignored. Why? On who's orders?
A mob attacks the embassy on 9/11 and kills the U.S ambassador and others.
The CIA and other intelligence organizations know it's al Qaeda and brief the White House about it.
President Obama in full election "cover-your-ass" mode, blames the attack on a Youtube video and sends UN Envoy Susan Rice on the Sunday talk circuit to push the lie.
U.S. Intel community is furious that they are being portrayed by the White House as stupid and incompetent. They are now leaking like a sieve.
There is a fast growing paper trail showing that President Obama KNEW it was an al Qaeda attack from day one, and deliberately LIED to the american people for political purposes.
In a congressional hearing Obama would have to admit he lied to the American people (not a crime but a huge blow to his presidency)
Obama would continue the lie under oath at the hearing (an impeachable offense) where there is a growing body of evidence that he did lie.
THIS is where they are going with this.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||11/27/2012|
Hmm, Bill at R17, maybe so,,, but this morning sure was an emotional response from McCain this morning....
But didn't the rethugs cut budget for embassy security.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||11/27/2012|
Links [R17]? Since everything I've read states that the CIA told them it was in response to the video. Amb Rice went on the television and stated 'at this time, evidence points to the video, but we are still gathering intel'. Even General Petreaus' testimony before congress backed up the fact that she was just reporting what she had been told by the CIA... so please enlighten us as to where the CIA is now claiming otherwise and where Amb Rice was told by the President to lie.
PS.. while you are at it please explain WHY you think the President would have her lie when the day after the attack he called it a terrorist attack from the Rose Garden
|by Anonymous||reply 19||11/27/2012|
Plenty of questions about 911 and the aftermath, but you don't hear a peep out of the freeps about that.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||11/27/2012|
Gosh I am freaking out about this. I do not want this to derail the presidency. there is so much to do in this term...
|by Anonymous||reply 21||11/27/2012|
He never lied. That's horseshit, he used the information he had at the time.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||11/27/2012|
r17, you're then lying in your very post since it wasn't an "embassy". It was a consulate (a house).
So, if you are conflicted with what really happened, think of the chaos that day.
For Rethuglicans to suggest there was a cover-up because Rice did not know ON DAY ONE, MINUTE ONE what transpired...well, it's as ridiculous as anyone with a brain, eyes, and ears to suggest Senatress Lindsay Graham is anything but a cock-sucking self-loathing homophobe.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||11/27/2012|
R21, did you by any chance freak out a lot in the run up to the election about whether or not Obama would actually win?
|by Anonymous||reply 24||11/27/2012|
Do you think that her skin color has anything to do with this petty drivel coming from the repukes?
|by Anonymous||reply 25||11/27/2012|
[R24]- I did freak out a bit but the polling actually comforted me. I have been blowing off the Benghazi thing until I heard that press conference this morning w/L.Graham in "near tears"?
|by Anonymous||reply 26||11/27/2012|
Same reason they harped about George W. Bush and his so called "weapons of mass destruction"
|by Anonymous||reply 27||11/27/2012|
Polls are showing that the Republicans are wildly overreaching with this one. Most Americans don't care, but of the ones who do, they are getting increasingly turned off by the Republicans' obstructionism.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||11/27/2012|
"Soo, Graham, McCain get out of a meeting w/CIA head and Rice- look emotionally panicked stricken and disturbed, an Oscar winning performance is distress over the meeting?"
What the fuck does that even MEAN????
|by Anonymous||reply 29||11/27/2012|
It's just post-election sour grapes from the freeps.
They keep trying to make Benghazi happen. It's not going to happen. The more they keep harping on it, the more stupid and pathetic they look.
Senators participate in security briefings all the time. The ones who have high security clearance and who are on military, intelligence and security oversight committees know a lot of classified information that they are not allowed to disclose publicly.
Does that mean that they are liars and unfit for office every time they go on the Sunday shows and discuss military, intelligence and security matters without revealing everything they know? DUH.
They have no case here and they know it but they have boxed themselves in with their public display of hysteria. It does keep the base occupied with this loony nonsense instead of blaming their fearless leaders for being a bunch of douchebag losers who couldn't competently buy an election - even in America.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||11/27/2012|
I keep hearing that John McCain can "block" Susan Rice's nomination. How does that work? I assumed cabinet members were like Supreme Court nominees, and they just need to pass some committee and then a floor vote with majorities.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||11/27/2012|
I think the old fool is threatening a filibuster. If they pass the rule change on filibusters they'll have to go back to doing it old-school, actually standing up and talking for as long as they can in order to stall a vote.
This is why we should all be contacting our senators to support the rule change. It can only be done on the first day of the new senate and it only requires 51 votes to pass.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||11/27/2012|
No, any individual senator can put a "hold" on a nomination, meaning that it temporarily can't go forward. (Jesse Helms used to do it all the time.)
|by Anonymous||reply 33||11/27/2012|
R30 Nails it.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||11/27/2012|
You do realize that the killing of an American ambassador while he is in the US consulate in any country is the equivalent to killing the US president while he is at the White House don't you?
I think the better question should be why isn't the media making a bigger deal out of this?
It was the anniversary of Sept 11th and the ambassador requested more security. This request was denied.
The ambassador (who was gay) and three of his staff were brutally raped, tortured and drug through the streets and murdered.
The White House then lied to cover up the fact that a) the president knew about the request and b) that request was denied.
This isn't about politics you numfucks this is about an actual terrorist attack against the US and our sitting commander and chief is to big of a ninny to stand up and take ownership of this issue.
He allowed Hillary to take the heat. Still she should have stepped down.
And now they've got Rice continuing the lie and cover up.
I have to say if you are so brainwashed and blinded by party loyalty you are worse than a freep.
At least they will admit that Bush was wrong on some things.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||11/28/2012|
That attempt was just sad, r35.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||11/28/2012|
I know this is an older thread, but I gave R10 a W&W.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||11/28/2012|
[quote]You do realize that the killing of an American ambassador while he is in the US consulate in any country is the equivalent to killing the US president while he is at the White House don't you?
Um ... no. Not even REMOTELY.
[quote]The White House then lied to cover up the fact that a) the president knew about the request and b) that request was denied.
You are merely parroting Faux News talking points -- or, worse, loony right-winger talking points -- here. There is ZERO proof of this assertion. Also, do you seriously think the president is the one who makes decisions this small? And would an extra dozen or so security people have done much good when A HUNDRED FIFTY people attacked the embassy?
[quote]This isn't about politics you numfucks this is about an actual terrorist attack against the US
Again, no; attacking Americans in a foreign country is not tantamount to "an actual terrorist attack against the US." And btw we've had over a dozen embassy attacks since 9/11.
PLEASE stop reading extremist conspiracy theories and treating this as gospel. The ONLY reason this is being politicized is because it happened right before a presidential election.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||11/28/2012|
John, stop trying to make Benghazi happen! It's not gonna happen!
|by Anonymous||reply 39||11/28/2012|
R35, name anything they admitted Bush was wrong on at the time.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||11/28/2012|
[quote]The ambassador (who was gay) and three of his staff were brutally raped, tortured and drug through the streets and murdered.
I don't think it was ever fully discloses as being the truth or not. Anyone?
|by Anonymous||reply 41||11/28/2012|
[quote]It was the anniversary of Sept 11th and the ambassador requested more security. This request was denied.
And why bother finding out who denied money specifically for security, am I right?
[quote]At least they will admit that Bush was wrong on some things.
Except the reason we even have a Sept 11 "anniversary." Oh, and that Iraq war thingy.
In fact, how about you list all of the things that Bush was wrong about to which the Freepers have admitted. There wouldn't be a "Miss me yet?" bumper sticker if that were the case.
-His brother showed up to the RNC to defend him and the applause were everywhere.
-TARP happened under Bush, yet that debt clock they put up at the convention was up there as if Obama was responsible for every penny. They pretend the two trillion+ which Bush kept off the books and Obama put on the books was Obama's fault.
-They unleashed holy hell on Obama from the moment he took office. We have video proof of FOX attacking Obama for "not doing enough" within mere weeks of him taking office, so tell me what the right has explicitly stated Bush did wrong since FOX allows his turdblossom on the air all of the time and Cheney is treated like an old sage?
I agree with R36. You're embarrassingly ignorant.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||11/28/2012|
Susan Collins is on Hardball right now, reciting lots of Freeper talking points.
Did she have a stroke or something? It's like her whole body is shaking.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||11/28/2012|
R35, you could not be anymore of a freeper unless you were that welfare-collecting shithead who runs that site.
The only ones claiming they were dragged through the streets and raped are sites like World Nut Daily and Pamela Geller's site. Let's guess why.
Oh it makes so much sense considering the fact that following their deaths, the very people who were out there protesting ended up attacking the militia they blamed for the deaths.
Are you even aware of who started the rumor about the rapes? The equivalent of Chalaby. Recall that name?
This picture is not of someone being dragged through the streets:
|by Anonymous||reply 44||11/28/2012|
[quote]I don't think it was ever fully discloses as being the truth or not. Anyone?
False, but it gives fire to R35's martyr complex (gay ambassador AND raped by Arab savages! oh my!).
|by Anonymous||reply 45||11/28/2012|
BTW, there's video at the link I posted. One doesn't put a body into a car for the purpose of raping it and dragging it through the streets.
Freepers are such vile sacks of shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||11/28/2012|
I say, send a bunch of Freepers to Benghazi and let them check out the story. McCain, Limbaugh, Romnie(sp?), Rove...
|by Anonymous||reply 47||11/28/2012|
I just wish all Republicans in congress would die...is that so wrong?
|by Anonymous||reply 48||12/20/2012|