Absorbing too much right wing propaganda seems to have effects similar to serious brain trauma. The victims are never quite the same afterwards.
There's a case to be made that they qualify for SSDI.
^That is Stewox level stuff right there.
Notice the rabid fascination with hanging all of this on Obama and the COMPLETE lack of interest in actually getting the terrorists who actually committed the attack...... that alone tells me all I need to know about these smear boys.
While that wouldn't surprise me, can you cite a specific statement or quote? If that's accurate, it seems a rather stupid thing to lie about since it was inevitable that the rest would come out sooner or later.The White House insisted for nearly a year that they had released all communications related to the Benghazi talking points. It's now clear that they were lying.
It has been how many years now?
I seem to recall that Obama went on record as stating that those responsible will be held accountable.
Who (which terrorists) has been brought to task.
Or what did he mean by accountable? :whiste:
He had no problem taking credit and exposing classified info w/ respect to Bin Laden.
^That is Stewox level stuff right there.
Your reply falls short, having refuted nothing.
Here's some more "Stewox level stuff". Bill O'Reilly: President Obama, the press and the Benghazi memo.
How should an American vote if he wanted to stop America arming the terrorists in the first place?
Don't let Bill tell you what to think. Did you read Rhodes' actual message? It wasn't focused on Benghazi alone. It was addressing all of the unrest in the region: "these protests" (plural). Also remember that at that time, even the CIA believed the Benghazi attack was likely related to the video. The CIA stated this in their original Benghazi talking points, before the White House and State Department started revisions. Rhodes' message is consistent with this. You're conflating the RNC spin of his message with what it actually says.Your reply falls short, having refuted nothing.
Here's some more "Stewox level stuff". Bill O'Reilly: President Obama, the press and the Benghazi memo.
You're conflating the RNC spin of his message with what it actually says.
If only you were capable of understanding just how unintentionally appropriate is that statement . . .The first one lies, and then the second swears to it. Repeat it often enough & the believers will fall right in line, as usual.
Two things. First, I largely agree, which is why I'm not all up in arms about the lying and deceit. It's lying and deceit to cover up something politically embarrassing, a cover-up which may or may not (probably not) involve any real, intentional wrong-doing by the Obama administration. That is categorically different from, say, the cover-up over the IRS scandal or the Fast and Furious scandals which hide true wrong-doing. (Although not necessarily by the Obama administration - the IRS scandal could be a Christie thing where like-minded employees take advantage of a perceived friendly environment, and the BATFE needs no friendly environment at all.) No matter the dishonesty, it does not affect the deaths of Stevens and Smith. Competent planning and leadership might have prevented the deaths of Woods and Doherty, or might not. But either way, none of the dishonesty directly concerns the night of the attack, only the attempt to make it as politically damage-free as possible. That is independent of any guilt, as my guy was trying just as hard to make it as politically damaging as possible. That's how politics works - it is not an honest business.Can anyone explain to me why what the administration said was the cause of the ambassadors death immediately after while facts were still coming vs the same ambassador refused extra security offered to him by military which could have saved his life???
I agree with every bit of that, but his point is that none of the deceit materially affects the four deaths. Even if the Obama administration had taken the highly unusual (for them and indeed most administrations) step of reporting the exact truth rather than the least political damaging scenario remotely possible, those four men are still dead.A perfect demonstration that you have no idea what Benghazi is.
Illegal arms smuggling to Syrian terrorists aside, we suffered a terrorist attack and our people died. The White House then fearing their re-election narrative of defeating terrorists, instead of calling it what it was decided to blame Americans for the "protest".
Yes, this President's administration blames YOU, me, and everyone else for our free speech, for our youtube videos, for making people angry. For making them "protest" and for them killing Americans in Benghazi. Weeks later, after these lies became clear and repugnant, the President still spoke to the UN of the "video". Of America's fault.
All so they could save face and not be embarrassed. What are they covering up? Pretty much nothing. But they're doing it. They are corrupt and lying and breaking the law and the media is complicit in assisting, as demonstrated by that second Presidential debate.
This is conspiracy of corruption rooted down to nothing more than petty partisan politics. Where the White House fabricates a hateful lie against the American people, stood by that lie, and the media stood with them. The video maker was even arrested. They never came clean and had to be dragged against their will to divulge any information. Just this week we finally learn that the White House was directly involved in orchestrating this lie.
Perhaps if this was not the most secretive white house in history, then none of their covering, lying, and scheming would have felt necessary. Maybe then they would have been honest and not try to pawn the terrorist attack off as a protest caused by Americans.
The problem I have is that the states' rights candidates seem to embrace for the states the exact things I'd prefer the federal government to handle. I believe we should all have the same human rights nationwide, and I believe the federal government usually (though certainly not always) does a better job on environmental issues. Yet it seems to me that every viable states' rights candidate wants to empower the states to handle environmental issues (which have a nasty way of not honoring state boundaries) and block gay marriage.A good question. You'd have to choose the right candidate in the primary, there may be one or two for each of us. Aside from that, when it comes down to the general election and the ballot is stacked with war hawks, you've got to vote third party.
In addition, and this may sound self serving, if we champion State's rights then local interests will trump national parties. The stale impasse at the national level would find itself replaced by a more fluid dynamism.
If we weren't limited to just Republican or Democrat then we might find a more valid choice to vote against the arming of terrorists. We might also put petty partisanship aside and listen to New York Times warning us about this administration. Maybe then the media wouldn't carry their water or directly and wrongly intervene in Presidential debates.
Why is this even a thread? Who the fuck cares about Benghazi?
A handful of no-name diplomats died in some god-forsaken country they never should've been in to start with, WHO THE FUCK CARES. More people die every black friday, where's the scandal about the fat woman who was trampled in nashville? That's the REAL tragedy we should all be numbing our minds by discussing 70000x over and over.
Why is this even a thread? Who the fuck cares about Benghazi?
A handful of no-name diplomats died in some god-forsaken country they never should've been in to start with, WHO THE FUCK CARES. More people die every black friday, where's the scandal about the fat woman who was trampled in nashville? That's the REAL tragedy we should all be numbing our minds by discussing 70000x over and over.
While we can debate whether this is truely a scandal or not. I think most agree having a diplomat killed is a big deal.
I suspect that starting around mid-2017, he and OJ are doing a joint investigation. Then these vermin will no longer be able to hide. Um, on any PGA-level golf course, I mean.It has been how many years now?
I seem to recall that Obama went on record as stating that those responsible will be held accountable.
Who (which terrorists) has been brought to task.
Or what did he mean by accountable? :whiste:
He had no problem taking credit and exposing classified info w/ respect to Bin Laden.
From what I understand, the White House had actually released these emails, but in heavily redacted form. Now we know that the redactions had nothing to do with national security and everything to do with Obama security as they were simply covering up the political calculations and direction.The White House insisted for nearly a year that they had released all communications related to the Benghazi talking points. It's now clear that they were lying.
While I largely agree with Bill here, it's not the whole story. We haven't had an ambassador killed in the line of duty since Carter. It's a really big deal. So the Obama administration didn't choose to make it a political issue, it is inherently a political issue, as witnessed by Team Romney beginning its own political attacks long before they likely knew Team Obama was lying.Your reply falls short, having refuted nothing.
Here's some more "Stewox level stuff". Bill O'Reilly: President Obama, the press and the Benghazi memo.
Absolutely agree. The deaths are a big deal. The real shame in this controversy is that their deaths have been pushed aside by political infighting.While we can debate whether this is truely a scandal or not. I think most agree having a diplomat killed is a big deal.
I suspect it's an apples to oranges comparison, where the military forces offered to Stevens were not the kinds of additional security he felt they needed, especially considering the political considerations of helping the new Libyan government establish itself. This is wholly speculative, however.[ ... ]
Second, no way in hell am I believing that Stevens was turned down twice on record, then off record was offered the same thing for which he'd repeatedly asked and turned it down. That is merely a cynical attempt to blame the dead guy for being right, and that does piss me off a great deal. ...
Don't let Bill tell you what to think. Did you read Rhodes' actual message? It wasn't focused on Benghazi alone. It was addressing all of the unrest in the region: "these protests" (plural). Also remember that at that time, even the CIA believed the Benghazi attack was likely related to the video. The CIA stated this in their original Benghazi talking points, before the White House and State Department started revisions. Rhodes' message is consistent with this. You're conflating the RNC spin of his message with what it actually says.While I largely agree with Bill here, it's not the whole story. We haven't had an ambassador killed in the line of duty since Carter. It's a really big deal. So the Obama administration didn't choose to make it a political issue, it is inherently a political issue, as witnessed by Team Romney beginning its own political attacks long before they likely knew Team Obama was lying.
So the goalposts get shifted again, based on the premise that the Obama Admin was "lying" after the fact when they were trying to make the best of contradictory & confusing information, much of which was pure rumor & speculation of the sketchy variety.
Just because they had it wrong doesn't mean they were lying.
Well for one thing,They were assigned to over there by the administration.
For another thing,wars have been started for less.
An attack on an embassy is supposed to be akin to an attack on native soil.
It is very serious stuff,and here you are marginalizing a man's death while serving his country.
You have no respect.
No lies were broadcast by networks at the behest of any of those administrations afterwards.I hate to have to post this again but...
No lies were broadcast by networks at the behest of any of those administrations afterwards.