As the B******i lies unfold, we will find several moving parts:
(1.) Hillary Clinton was involved in turning down Ambassador Chris Stevens' request for more security
for our diplomatic facilities in Libya.
(2.) The extra security was declined because it was essential for the Administration's narrative that Libya be seen as being secure.
(3.) When the crap hit the fan on Sept.11, Hillary realized the danger a coordinated al Qaida attack presented to Obama's ree******n and the danger it represented to her 2016 p**********l ambitions.
(4.) She resorted to her best friend to save her...THE BIG LIE.
(5.) The press release issued by the State Department around 11 pm EDT on September 11 locked in the story of the internet video, even though Hillary knew at the time IT WAS A LIE.
(6.) During the week leading up to Susan Rice's television appearance on September 16, Ben Rhodes, with the assistance of Jay Carney, David Plouffe, and others, drafted a set of talking points which were patently false. The purpose being to freeze interest in investigating B******i until after the e******n in less than two months.
Hopefully Tray Gowdy will provide Hillary Clinton with the answer to her question she put before the Congress.
CDM
Loc: Florida
carolyn wrote:
As the B******i lies unfold, we will find several moving parts:
(1.) Hillary Clinton was involved in turning down Ambassador Chris Stevens' request for more security
for our diplomatic facilities in Libya.
(2.) The extra security was declined because it was essential for the Administration's narrative that Libya be seen as being secure.
(3.) When the crap hit the fan on Sept.11, Hillary realized the danger a coordinated al Qaida attack presented to Obama's ree******n and the danger it represented to her 2016 p**********l ambitions.
(4.) She resorted to her best friend to save her...THE BIG LIE.
(5.) The press release issued by the State Department around 11 pm EDT on September 11 locked in the story of the internet video, even though Hillary knew at the time IT WAS A LIE.
(6.) During the week leading up to Susan Rice's television appearance on September 16, Ben Rhodes, with the assistance of Jay Carney, David Plouffe, and others, drafted a set of talking points which were patently false. The purpose being to freeze interest in investigating B******i until after the e******n in less than two months.
Hopefully Tray Gowdy will provide Hillary Clinton with the answer to her question she put before the Congress.
As the B******i lies unfold, we will find several ... (
show quote)
What, at this point does it matter? Indeed. Let us help her count the ways...the fear is tangible.
Bhengazi,oh Bhengazi. Will the GOP ever cease to feed this crap to their low IQ base?
The Bush ,crime gang is responsible for the DEATHS of up 1,000,000 human beings and dumb assed, w****s just shrugged. LET IT GO YOU MORONS.
CDM wrote:
What, at this point does it matter? Indeed. Let us help her count the ways...the fear is tangible.
How can an American make such an irresponsible statement? If you can't see why it matters to our country's future, then I feel sorry for you. Perhaps you would be better off in a country where freedom is a word that would get you shot if you uttered it.
The republicans cut funding for embassy security.
mitch mcconnell and 60 minutes started the scandal story, based on lies. the reporter who started it was suspended for false story.
carolyn wrote:
How can an American make such an irresponsible statement? If you can't see why it matters to our country's future, then I feel sorry for you. Perhaps you would be better off in a country where freedom is a word that would get you shot if you uttered it.
Carolyn ,you are getting older and dumber.
carolyn wrote:
How can an American make such an irresponsible statement? If you can't see why it matters to our country's future, then I feel sorry for you. Perhaps you would be better off in a country where freedom is a word that would get you shot if you uttered it.
===============================
I believe you misunderstood CDM
Inyourface wrote:
Carolyn ,you are getting older and dumber.
So when one gets "older and dumber," he/she should forget about freedom for the people and let the government decide just how free we are to be, eh? You and people like you are too young and stupid to realize just what we have lost in the last 50 years. You are willing to allow our Constitution to be completely discarded and let the crooks that have put this country in the shape it's in have complete rein on all of us. You aren't even smart enough or mature enough to realize what this great writ even means to every American in this country. We should all just sit by and allow these crooks to k**l American people, all for the sake of an impending e******n? What manner of person are you anyway? You definitely belong in a Socialist Country where the government owns every last thing, even your lives.
I, for one, am very pleased that there are finally some attempts being made to stop these elected Chicago criminals. I am just disgusted that it had to take so long to get started.
Can you stay on subject here? We are not talking propaganda here.
This string concerns a totally corrupt government. Not a skewed history lesson. Please start another string for that.
Thank you.
Inyourface wrote:
Bhengazi,oh Bhengazi. Will the GOP ever cease to feed this crap to their low IQ base?
The Bush ,crime gang is responsible for the DEATHS of up 1,000,000 human beings and dumb assed, w****s just shrugged. LET IT GO YOU MORONS.
hprinze wrote:
===============================
I believe you misunderstood CDM
I did misunderstand CDM and I humbly apologize to him/her with all my heart. But I get so upset and disgusted by some of these liberal's who want to make the government the all mighty power over us all that I see red. Who but a C*******tic Socialist would even dream of giving up our freedom to a bunch of power-hungry and greedy un-American SOB'S that care only of how much they can steal while they completely sack our country?
From May 7, 2014 "National Memo" by Gene Lyons
The Great B******i Scandal Gets Sillier
Heres how unreal the Great B******i Scandal had already grown as of last year. Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler dev**ed an entire May 2013 column to the scholastic question of whether President Obamas calling the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on a U.S. Consulate in Libya an act of terror was the same as calling it an act of terrorism, as hed recently claimed.
Kessler pondered the deep semantic differences between the two phrases before awarding Obama a full four Pinocchios, signifying a whopper. Seriously. Thats the big cover-up House Republicans pretend theyre outraged about.
Obamas exact words, from the White House Rose Garden on the day after the attack that k**led Ambassador Christopher Stevens and his security team:
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."
So who was Obama trying to deceive? People who hadnt seen the smoking ruins on TV? And about what? Kessler doesnt say. Only that the two phrases dont signify precisely the same thing a distinction without a difference in any realistic political context.
It will be recalled that GOP nominee Mitt Romney executed one of the clumsiest pratfalls in p**********l debate history for mistakenly challenging Obama on this exact point. Had the president, or had he not, described the B******i disaster as an act of terror?
Obama cooly urged his rival to consult the transcript. In fact, hed used the phrase several times. Had the Washington political press not had so much invested in a cliffhanger e******n narrative, Romneys blunder would have been compared to President Gerald Fords denying Soviet influence in Poland during a 1976 debate with Jimmy Carter.
But then this is the great mystery confronting non-initiates in the great GOP B******i cult. What on earth are these people going on about? That if Obama had said act of terrorism instead of act of terror, Americans would have punished his failure to eliminate jihadists from the face of the earth by turning to Mitt 47 percent Romney?
That everything would be different if UN Ambassador Susan Rice had cast aside White House talking points about inflammatory videos on the Sunday political chat shows and candidly confessed that whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself
is one of the things well have to determine?
Because those were Rices exact words, block copied from the transcript of CBSs Sept. 16, 2012 Face the Nation broadcast in response to a direct question from Bob Schieffer about al Qaeda involvement.
Everybody now pretends she named no terrorist groups, for the sake of keeping the make-believe scandal alive.
It follows that contrary to everything you hear from partisan mischief makers and their helpers among the Washington press, the Obama White House has never sought to deny the obvious: that the kinds of religious zealots who bring rocket-propelled grenade launchers to street demonstrations didnt simply find them lying around in the bazaar.
The original CIA talking points released 11 months ago said pretty much what Ambassador Rice said: that outrage at a crude, American-made video mocking Islam sparked violent protests across much of the Middle East, and that militants took advantage of the resulting chaos for their own bloody purposes. The exact identity of those responsible isnt yet known.
See, out there in the real world, it doesnt always have to be either/or. Most often its both/and: armed terrorist groups and a provocative video. A Senate Intelligence Committee report released last January sharply criticized the State Department, but also concluded that the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic.
David D. Kirkpatricks masterful reporting in The New York Times established that the anti-western Libyan m*****a Ansar Al-Sharia had long had the consulate under surveillance, although [a]nger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters
.A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him.
However, a 2012 White House email has recently emerged, re-stating CIA talking points in somewhat different language. So big deal.
Theyll be singing all summer: Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto.
Well, you know the rest.
Typical. Facts get muddled during fights over semantics. Politicians know and use that. Sometimes it works. " It depends on what is, is".
RetNavyCWO wrote:
From May 7, 2014 "National Memo" by Gene Lyons
The Great B******i Scandal Gets Sillier
Heres how unreal the Great B******i Scandal had already grown as of last year. Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler dev**ed an entire May 2013 column to the scholastic question of whether President Obamas calling the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on a U.S. Consulate in Libya an act of terror was the same as calling it an act of terrorism, as hed recently claimed.
Kessler pondered the deep semantic differences between the two phrases before awarding Obama a full four Pinocchios, signifying a whopper. Seriously. Thats the big cover-up House Republicans pretend theyre outraged about.
Obamas exact words, from the White House Rose Garden on the day after the attack that k**led Ambassador Christopher Stevens and his security team:
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."
So who was Obama trying to deceive? People who hadnt seen the smoking ruins on TV? And about what? Kessler doesnt say. Only that the two phrases dont signify precisely the same thing a distinction without a difference in any realistic political context.
It will be recalled that GOP nominee Mitt Romney executed one of the clumsiest pratfalls in p**********l debate history for mistakenly challenging Obama on this exact point. Had the president, or had he not, described the B******i disaster as an act of terror?
Obama cooly urged his rival to consult the transcript. In fact, hed used the phrase several times. Had the Washington political press not had so much invested in a cliffhanger e******n narrative, Romneys blunder would have been compared to President Gerald Fords denying Soviet influence in Poland during a 1976 debate with Jimmy Carter.
But then this is the great mystery confronting non-initiates in the great GOP B******i cult. What on earth are these people going on about? That if Obama had said act of terrorism instead of act of terror, Americans would have punished his failure to eliminate jihadists from the face of the earth by turning to Mitt 47 percent Romney?
That everything would be different if UN Ambassador Susan Rice had cast aside White House talking points about inflammatory videos on the Sunday political chat shows and candidly confessed that whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself
is one of the things well have to determine?
Because those were Rices exact words, block copied from the transcript of CBSs Sept. 16, 2012 Face the Nation broadcast in response to a direct question from Bob Schieffer about al Qaeda involvement.
Everybody now pretends she named no terrorist groups, for the sake of keeping the make-believe scandal alive.
It follows that contrary to everything you hear from partisan mischief makers and their helpers among the Washington press, the Obama White House has never sought to deny the obvious: that the kinds of religious zealots who bring rocket-propelled grenade launchers to street demonstrations didnt simply find them lying around in the bazaar.
The original CIA talking points released 11 months ago said pretty much what Ambassador Rice said: that outrage at a crude, American-made video mocking Islam sparked violent protests across much of the Middle East, and that militants took advantage of the resulting chaos for their own bloody purposes. The exact identity of those responsible isnt yet known.
See, out there in the real world, it doesnt always have to be either/or. Most often its both/and: armed terrorist groups and a provocative video. A Senate Intelligence Committee report released last January sharply criticized the State Department, but also concluded that the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic.
David D. Kirkpatricks masterful reporting in The New York Times established that the anti-western Libyan m*****a Ansar Al-Sharia had long had the consulate under surveillance, although [a]nger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters
.A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him.
However, a 2012 White House email has recently emerged, re-stating CIA talking points in somewhat different language. So big deal.
Theyll be singing all summer: Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto.
Well, you know the rest.
From May 7, 2014 "National Memo" by Gene... (
show quote)
missinglink wrote:
Can you stay on subject here? We are not talking propaganda here.
This string concerns a totally corrupt government. Not a skewed history lesson. Please start another string for that.
Thank you.
You want to stay on a subject that has been debunked over and over,while ignoring heinous ,crimes against humanity .Is your r****m so virulent that you discount the deaths of your fellow human beings so you can rant against that Black guy in the White House? How pathetic.
What took you so long? Same ole song. Same ole dance. Race race race.
Narrow minded thinking and last ditch defense. Who would have guessed it???
Inyourface wrote:
You want to stay on a subject that has been debunked over and over,while ignoring heinous ,crimes against humanity .Is your r****m so virulent that you discount the deaths of your fellow human beings so you can rant against that Black guy in the White House? How pathetic.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.