In Case You're Wondering What Crazy Benghazi Lady Is On About...But Were Afraid To Ask

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He never called Benghazi an "act of terror" . He referred to an act of terror at the end of his speech.

Again, go listen to his interviews on the subject.

So irritating. Another poster posted this in another thread:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Ahahaha, did you even read the article? Four Pinocchios, and "revisionist history" for your claim. Even stupid Libs agree that stupid Libs have a problem with the truth. Maybe you should stick to watching the mouth breathing Sharptonites over at MSNBC and leave reality to those with a better grasp on the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Benghazi ‘scandal’ is really about the worst example you can imagine of a partisan clown car driving through Washington. As the President said pretty succinctly, “the whole issue of talking points, frankly throughout this process, has been a sideshow.”

The additional information we’ve gotten over recent weeks points to a turf war and blame-shifting between the State Department and the CIA over who was responsible for what happened, a feud seemingly rooted in the fact that the location in question was in fact a CIA facility under State Department cover.

From the git-go, the Benghazi story has been the partisan hunger for a scandal - first to shift the presidential election and then later to try to recover from it - trying to find something, really anything in a tragic series of events to make into a scandal.

First it was apologizing to the terrorists. Then it was not using the t-word soon enough. Then it was President Obama in the Situation Room watching the attack unfold and calling off a rescue. Now, we’re down to whether the State Department and the CIA massaged talking points that an administration official was going to use on a Sunday show. The only real after the fact issue there’s ever been is why there wasn’t enough or whether there should have been more security at such a vulnerable location. But that’s not a politically juicy enough question to get attention because it’s very hard to connect it in a meaningful way to important political players.

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/theres_was_just_a_very.php?m=1)

Lying to the American people is serious. Doing it to shift an election is heinous.

None of you consider the fact that if there was nothing to hide, there would be no issue. However the deaths of four Americans on 9/11 of all days by terrorists was a failure and embarrassment to the Administration. Especially so close to election. So they lied to y'all, and still you defend the indefensible. And now, you are seeing how crooked they are. And we've hit the iceberg's tip

Oh please.

1. No one shifted the election. This all got covered prior to the election. Romney and Obama even debated it.
2. Nothing except your conspiracy theory backs up the idea that this was done to shift the election.
3. If you want someone actually admitting to trying to shift an election, go here: http://radio.foxnews.com/2009/08/22/ridge-on-record-as-disagreeing-with-bushco-on-raising-threat-levels-in-2005/#.UZI0JZVWB7E

There is your scandal. Go investigate that one.

You bet, and you guys are doing this because he is black.

PayPerView Circus Hearings can reduce the deficit.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He never called Benghazi an "act of terror" . He referred to an act of terror at the end of his speech.

Again, go listen to his interviews on the subject.

So irritating. Another poster posted this in another thread:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Ahahaha, did you even read the article? Four Pinocchios, and "revisionist history" for your claim. Even stupid Libs agree that stupid Libs have a problem with the truth. Maybe you should stick to watching the mouth breathing Sharptonites over at MSNBC and leave reality to those with a better grasp on the truth.

Someone so lacking of intelligence as yourself should never refer to anyone else as "stupid". See if you can comprehend this: We are discussing whether Obama called Benghazi and "Act of Terror". The quotes and the referenced article show that he did. The article discussed whether he called it an "act of terrorism". Notice the difference? Are you able to tell the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism"? Would pictures help? The article determined that he did not use the phrase "act of terrorism". Hence the Pinocchios. But, he did use the phrase "act of terror".

Can we please get some respectable conservatives in here? The idiots we have now are making the rest of you look bad.

[Anonymous]

Respectable conservative here, just reading and being amazed at the unbelievable bends and weird shapes all the libs on here are twisting their bodies to fit the button hole dictated by the liar in chief and defended to the last gasp of verbal diarhea by this site's ring master in chief.
So entertaining !

[Anonymous]

So on Sept 12 Obama stated it was a terrorist attack. Why perpetuate the video scam then?

[Anonymous]

The Ringmaster In Chief has said many things and contradicted himself many many times. That is fact. Is it surprising that you yourself Jeff become confused with this flurry of elephant shit?

The answer is the disinfectant of sunshine in the form of sworn testimony with the threat of perjury. For those like Hillary exhaustive depositions prior to testimony are the only way.

The Ringmaster In Chief's reference to side shows is well taken; we need to have PayPerView Circus Hearings to reduce the deficit.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:So on Sept 12 Obama stated it was a terrorist attack. Why perpetuate the video scam then?

I swear to God the conservatives on this site are incapable of reading. The talking points that originated with the CIA stated that the attack grew out of a demonstration that was inspired by demonstrations in Cairo that were provoked by the video. The final version of the talking points changed "terrorists" in the original version to "extremists". Therefore, the Administration's story was that there was a demonstration inspired by the video from which grew an "act of terror" committed by "extremists". It was not until later that the Administration realized that there had been no demonstration and therefore, the video played no role.

As for the "respectable conservative" above, you may be respectable, but you certainly are not literate. Please have your message translated to English and then I will respond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Ringmaster In Chief has said many things and contradicted himself many many times. That is fact. Is it surprising that you yourself Jeff become confused with this flurry of elephant shit?

The answer is the disinfectant of sunshine in the form of sworn testimony with the threat of perjury. For those like Hillary exhaustive depositions prior to testimony are the only way.

The Ringmaster In Chief's reference to side shows is well taken; we need to have PayPerView Circus Hearings to reduce the deficit.

I thought the sunshine was to get Hillary to testify? That didn't exactly turn out the way you wanted.

Then the sunshine was supposed to be the next round of hearings. But uh oh, those didn't turn out the way you wanted either.

Now you want depositions because apparently your own elected leaders have proven to be incompetent at interviewing people under oath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Ringmaster In Chief has said many things and contradicted himself many many times. That is fact. Is it surprising that you yourself Jeff become confused with this flurry of elephant shit?

The answer is the disinfectant of sunshine in the form of sworn testimony with the threat of perjury. For those like Hillary exhaustive depositions prior to testimony are the only way.

The Ringmaster In Chief's reference to side shows is well taken; we need to have PayPerView Circus Hearings to reduce the deficit.

Testimony in front of Congress carries the same threat of perjury, moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Respectable conservative here, just reading and being amazed at the unbelievable bends and weird shapes all the libs on here are twisting their bodies to fit the button hole dictated by the liar in chief and defended to the last gasp of verbal diarhea by this site's ring master in chief.
So entertaining !

That's funny, because I find it equally entertaining that Repubs want to debate at what date and time did the President utter "terror" or "ism".
Seems to me that yall are the ones engaged in word parsing.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He never called Benghazi an "act of terror" . He referred to an act of terror at the end of his speech.

Again, go listen to his interviews on the subject.

So irritating. Another poster posted this in another thread:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Ahahaha, did you even read the article? Four Pinocchios, and "revisionist history" for your claim. Even stupid Libs agree that stupid Libs have a problem with the truth. Maybe you should stick to watching the mouth breathing Sharptonites over at MSNBC and leave reality to those with a better grasp on the truth.

Someone so lacking of intelligence as yourself should never refer to anyone else as "stupid". See if you can comprehend this: We are discussing whether Obama called Benghazi and "Act of Terror". The quotes and the referenced article show that he did. The article discussed whether he called it an "act of terrorism". Notice the difference? Are you able to tell the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism"? Would pictures help? The article determined that he did not use the phrase "act of terrorism". Hence the Pinocchios. But, he did use the phrase "act of terror".

Can we please get some respectable conservatives in here? The idiots we have now are making the rest of you look bad.

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Respectable conservative here, just reading and being amazed at the unbelievable bends and weird shapes all the libs on here are twisting their bodies to fit the button hole dictated by the liar in chief and defended to the last gasp of verbal diarhea by this site's ring master in chief.
So entertaining !

That's funny, because I find it equally entertaining that Repubs want to debate at what date and time did the President utter "terror" or "ism".
Seems to me that yall are the ones engaged in word parsing.

It was the Obama administration pushing the video for at least two weeks past the Benghazi attack. Yet they knew it was a terrorist attack within 24 hours, even who carried it out. So timing is important.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So on Sept 12 Obama stated it was a terrorist attack. Why perpetuate the video scam then?

I swear to God the conservatives on this site are incapable of reading. The talking points that originated with the CIA stated that the attack grew out of a demonstration that was inspired by demonstrations in Cairo that were provoked by the video. The final version of the talking points changed "terrorists" in the original version to "extremists". Therefore, the Administration's story was that there was a demonstration inspired by the video from which grew an "act of terror" committed by "extremists". It was not until later that the Administration realized that there had been no demonstration and therefore, the video played no role.

As for the "respectable conservative" above, you may be respectable, but you certainly are not literate. Please have your message translated to English and then I will respond.

From the ABC News exclusive:

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So on Sept 12 Obama stated it was a terrorist attack. Why perpetuate the video scam then?

I swear to God the conservatives on this site are incapable of reading. The talking points that originated with the CIA stated that the attack grew out of a demonstration that was inspired by demonstrations in Cairo that were provoked by the video. The final version of the talking points changed "terrorists" in the original version to "extremists". Therefore, the Administration's story was that there was a demonstration inspired by the video from which grew an "act of terror" committed by "extremists". It was not until later that the Administration realized that there had been no demonstration and therefore, the video played no role.

As for the "respectable conservative" above, you may be respectable, but you certainly are not literate. Please have your message translated to English and then I will respond.

From the ABC News exclusive:

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

I am going to have to drop out of these discussions because you conservatives cannot retain information. In fact, you don't even appear to read my responses. Do you realize that I have linked at least five times to the talking points drafts? The link I have been providing goes to the document referenced by the article that you are quoting. The link is actually in that article! So, you are now quoting from an article that references a document to which I have been posting links for days.

I don't know what you think you are proving. I am obviously aware of the editing of the talking points. Ultimately, the editing shows that specific mentions of terrorism were removed and replaced by "extremists". That's the entire scandal you have here. Now, you and Sunshine Boy can just keep repeating things to each other.

[Anonymous]

Which means that you have seen for yourself that the editing was done before the talk show circuit and what was said by Obama and Rice were planned talking points.

You're just choosing to ignore that because you don't want to admit Obama and Rice lied. Obama said himself that he avoided saying terrorist attack in the rose garden.

You think it doesn't make a different, that it's semantics. Have at it.