Attack on American Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi [MERGED]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chance1

LOL

that's like someone in hell saying its a little hot

---

What exactly is it that you're looking for?

We reject this ridiculous claim that there was a huge conspiracy and coverup because you offer absolutely no proof for it. (And because it's ridiculous.) So you're not going to hear anyone say "yeah, you guys are right, they planned this all along and tripped Hillary down a flight of stairs to give her brain damage so she could get out of testifying."

What do you want? You get up on this martyr cross about how the 85% around here defend anything about Obama but Obama himself said mistakes were made. If you claim it was anything more than that, substantiate it. Otherwise take a hike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xbuzzerx

What exactly is it that you're looking for?

We reject this ridiculous claim that there was a huge conspiracy and coverup because you offer absolutely no proof for it. (And because it's ridiculous.) So you're not going to hear anyone say "yeah, you guys are right, they planned this all along and tripped Hillary down a flight of stairs to give her brain damage so she could get out of testifying."

What do you want? You get up on this martyr cross about how the 85% around here defend anything about Obama but Obama himself said mistakes were made. If you claim it was anything more than that, substantiate it. Otherwise take a hike.

---

I expected and expect:

The truth - not when it's convenient - but when it's available
The demonstration story was BS from day 1 - and it dishonors the dead

My POV is that Obama and his team knew that the real story was a loser especially given the upcoming election
My POV is that Hillary wanted no part of the "story" - she did not provide much "support" for the story in the days/weeks after
I don't doubt Hillary's illness - it's a brain clot - what caused it i have no idea - i believe in good and bad karma and this perhaps was the latter

take a hike?

dude - your race to 1800 posts has been tragic

cya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chance1

I expected and expect:

The truth - not when it's convenient - but when it's available
The demonstration story was BS from day 1 - and it dishonors the dead

My POV is that Obama and his team knew that the real story was a loser especially given the upcoming election
My POV is that Hillary wanted no part of the "story" - she did not provide much "support" for the story in the days/weeks after
I don't doubt Hillary's illness - it's a brain clot - what caused it i have no idea - i believe in good and bad karma and this perhaps was the latter

take a hike?

dude - your race to 1800 posts has been tragic

cya

---

So your point is that during election years politicians engage in damage control and that really, really bugs you when a Democrat does it? What Romney himself tried to pull in the debates-- that Obama had somehow "hidden" that this was a terrorist attack when he'd mentioned those very words in his first address on the topic-- was fiction, as is your outrage here over nothing.

I don't even know why you've bothered with 20,000 posts when you virtually never say anything. It's just pretzel shaped unsupported vitriol for the left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chance1

.... I don't doubt Hillary's illness - it's a brain clot - what caused it i have no idea - i believe in good and bad karma and this perhaps was the latter ....

---

God's judgment? Well, he overlooked Sandy Hook. Karma I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chance1

well it's only taken you what several months? to admit the obvious ?

that the State Dept. run by Hillary Clinton
and the Admin. which is the "boss" of the State Dept.
fucked up

prior to this your narrative is that all was fine save for Ambassador Steven's mismanagement and stupidity which caused his own death the death of others

not sure why you're changing your tune now

and i'm not sure what u really believe

---

I havent changed my tune. You only hear what you wish because it plays nicely on your iHate Obama soundtrack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayHawk

I havent changed my tune. You only hear what you wish because it plays nicely on your iHate Obama soundtrack.

---

With big gulps of Haterade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayHawk

I havent changed my tune. You only hear what you wish because it plays nicely on your iHate Obama soundtrack.

---

change it ? u destroyed it

day 1 it was stevens fault chief - a tirade of bullshit and denigration

ur epiphany is faux and new

and no one buys it

as for Hills ......... she's prob got Bill's old staff working on her story

the one that puts her in the most favorable light

which would be the dark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palbert

God's judgment? Well, he overlooked Sandy Hook. Karma I guess.

---

spoken like a true atheist ;)

i said karma not gospel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xbuzzerx

So your point is that during election years politicians engage in damage control and that really, really bugs you when a Democrat does it? What Romney himself tried to pull in the debates-- that Obama had somehow "hidden" that this was a terrorist attack when he'd mentioned those very words in his first address on the topic-- was fiction, as is your outrage here over nothing.

I don't even know why you've bothered with 20,000 posts when you virtually never say anything. It's just pretzel shaped unsupported vitriol for the left.

---

your meds have worn off as has my patience

first cornfield of the year - congrats :wave:

as for Hills ............... my gut is the karma is not a short lived thingy

.....?.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TX-Beau

.....?.....

---

His dramatic way of saying I'm back on the ban list, which is fine. He doesn't like his crap being called out.

Oh Chance.

I thought you were taking Buzzer out to the field to cornhole him.

So with your concern expressed for another poster's mental state, would it be fair game to suggest that your meds may be out of balance as well? You know we all worry about you. Is that how we'll deal with it from now on? Just stop an argument by telling the other poster that they need pharmacological intervention? Is that how the next four years play out?

^^^

Some honesty from the Obama Administration would be a good start. Obama doesn't need to play the American people anymore -- he doesn't have to run for anything anymore -- he won. A winner and leader would not flaunt his victory, he would work to mend fences and promote the general welfare of all people.

Obama has done the opposite.

Benghazi would have long blown over, except for the mourning of the dead, if the Obama Administration had been honest and not tried to spin a story. What I and others don't understand is -- why did they go to such extremes to spin the story and then clam up on the details when asked.

^ No Benghazi has already blown over. Except for you. Chance and FOX.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

Some honesty from the Obama Administration would be a good start.

---

A start to what exactly? Obama proving himself to you? Is such a high standard ever truly achievable?

And yes, Benghazi did blow over. Nobody cares about it anymore, but a bunch of sad trolls under a bridge in a gay board, and a gang of sad "reporters" afraid they'll lose their jobs if they can't make the president look bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chance1

change it ? u destroyed it

day 1 it was stevens fault chief - a tirade of bullshit and denigration

ur epiphany is faux and new

and no one buys it

as for Hills ......... she's prob got Bill's old staff working on her story

the one that puts her in the most favorable light

which would be the dark

---

No you had no substantial argument to defend what I originally posted on the matter so you adopted some very fake outrage concerning Ambassador Stevens and how evil I am because he died doing something dangerous and I had the absolute gall to suggest he made decisions that were a party to his death. You then subsequently made assertions that the military abandoned them, that Obama watched and laughed and that is was a huge cover up (that was some how occurring on the front page of every news broadcast from the moment it started)

Since that time the investigation completed by the State Department and sanctioned as correct by the Senate Intel committee confirmed my suspicions and debunked yours. You then tried to translate that to other issues like Hammar who tried crossing an international border with a fucking firearm as if that was okie dokie. And make out my position that transporting a firearm across international borders is fucking ignorant and has consequences. But again you adopted fake outrage to try and shape the discussion as me being callous and uncaring because I lap Obama's balls. Yet again in that case the correct level of government intervened, the man was freed and he will not transport weapons again will he?

So the long and short is easy. You are the white knight of republican defense which is ostensibly the party of personal responsibility. (Although their leaders rarely demonstrate such behavior) Yet when actions taken by individuals have consequences you scrape and claw to blame it on others.

What is the truth is that the process at State could be faulted while Amb. Stevens made decisions outside of protocol. The two items are not in any way mutually exclusive. Similarly the proper levels can work to free Hammar (Not POTUS Obama) while at the same time what he was accused of and what occurred could be greatly flawed. In the end the same is maintained. Personal decisions reap personal consequences. That is a fact of life no matter how you lean politically.

^ all anyone has to do is read the originals - if they choose

no need for you to cover (badly) your tracks

as for decisions and consequences i agree

The President doesn't seem to and it appears neither do you

His decisions with regard to running the country and promises that don't take ....... well he inherited xyz
Positive developments he takes credit for
It's politics

He has accepted no responsibility for Benghazi - he lied about the events - no one has been held accountable (really) - reassignments are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic

Hills has been MIA

And you're changing your story

It's all very convenient

but not very honest

Pass

President Obama stated on national television that if anyone in congress wanted to blame anyone for Benghazi then they can come talk to him about it because it is his responsibility. More of a sitch (<< is that the cutsey slang) ?! More of a sitch where you refuse to here English words and comprehend them because they do not fit your story that you have already decided must be. Kinda the same reason the entire republican establishment was ignorant to their historic loss this time around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chance1

He has accepted no responsibility for Benghazi - he lied about the events - no one has been held accountable (really) - reassignments are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic

Hills has been MIA

---

Really? Please show us where Obama "lied" and denied that Benghazi was a disaster. (using his own words, and not shit cut and pasted from Brietbart.com). And don't trot out the tired old "but he blamed it on the video!" BS. Yes, he originally said it was a possibility that the video was the case, but that was due to early intelligence reports that were later debunked by more recent sources. Mentioning possible causes based on shaky intel isn't lying, unless you want to admit that Bush II "lied" about the yellowcake uranium as the rationale for starting a war.

As for Hillary, how is she "MIA?" Has she been missing for years or unable to be located by anyone? Is she being held prisoner by the Viet Cong? I guess the next time someone takes sick leave, we'll have to notify the Army to send out a search team.

Are the right wingers still going on about Benghazi? Yes it has already blown over. Obama accepted responsibility and said there had to be changes made. He never lied about anything. Right wingers are so desperate. When the American people told you guys to sit in the corner on election day, you still want to harp on about this? It's an old tired argument and it's disrespectful. Stop trying to score cheap political points on the deaths of Americans. That has been done since before the election... and it failed.

So accept that you guys have failed in this argument and move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rareboy

^ No Benghazi has already blown over. Except for you. Chance and FOX and the Obama White House.

---

Again, if you filter the information you receive through sources sympathetic to your views, your intelligence will never grow. Two days ago the White released a photo taken in the White House the night of the Benghazi attack.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiteho...in/photostream

PS: Correction made to your list -- emphasis added.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

A start to what exactly? Obama proving himself to you? Is such a high standard ever truly achievable?

And yes, Benghazi did blow over. Nobody cares about it anymore, but a bunch of sad trolls under a bridge in a gay board, and a gang of sad "reporters" afraid they'll lose their jobs if they can't make the president look bad.

---

I and others care, the families of the dead care.

The President makes himself look bad by his refusal to answer questions. As I've said before, if they would have honest from the beginning instead of creating a stupid story about a video -- this probably would not be news today. Nixon thought the same thing about breaking into an office -- not a big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

I and others care, the families of the dead care.

The President makes himself look bad by his refusal to answer questions. As I've said before, if they would have honest from the beginning instead of creating a stupid story about a video -- this probably would not be news today. Nixon thought the same thing about breaking into an office -- not a big deal.

---

1) What is that photo supposed to prove - Obama was meeting with his staff? OH NOES! THEY IZ MAKING SECRET MUZLIN PLOT!

2) Refuse to answer what questions? Has he been dragged before a court of law and taken the Fifth? He sure had no problems answering questions about it on 60 Minutes.

Please, Jack. Stop the madness. I know at it makes your anus pucker to know that a "blah person" is in the White House, but you have to move on. Better luck in 2016, mein freund!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

I and others care, the families of the dead care.

The President makes himself look bad by his refusal to answer questions. As I've said before, if they would have honest from the beginning instead of creating a stupid story about a video -- this probably would not be news today. Nixon thought the same thing about breaking into an office -- not a big deal.

---

Did you seriously just compare your false outrage at a disgraceful house refusal to spend money on the President? Then compare it to Watergate....??? Fucking really dude? Holy shit.... Ambrocious move over....there is a new tinfoil hat sherruf' in town.

I wonder why the bipartisan investigation sponsored by State and endorsed by the Senate didnt find any of your conspiracies? Why did Lyndsey Graham and John McCain drop the issue... you know guys who have a security clearance and know the whole story? What is your tin foil hat picking up that our Senators missed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chance1

^ all anyone has to do is read the originals - if they choose

no need for you to cover (badly) your tracks

as for decisions and consequences i agree

The President doesn't seem to and it appears neither do you

His decisions with regard to running the country and promises that don't take ....... well he inherited xyz
Positive developments he takes credit for
It's politics

He has accepted no responsibility for Benghazi - he lied about the events - no one has been held accountable (really) - reassignments are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic

Hills has been MIA

And you're changing your story

It's all very convenient

but not very honest

Pass

---

It's fairly clear to me at least that the goalposts you've set up, the only "reckoning" would be if President Obama stepped forward and said he murdered the ambassador knowingly and covered it up, and asked America to try him for high treason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xbuzzerx

It's fairly clear to me at least that the goalposts you've set up, the only "reckoning" would be if President Obama stepped forward and said he murdered the ambassador knowingly and covered it up, and asked America to try him for high treason.

---

Didn't you know that not only did Obama plot death of the Ambassador, he watched the whole thing via drone while snorting coke off of a Puerto Rican rent boy's buttocks and laughing manically? It's true because some blog on the Internet said so!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

I and others care, the families of the dead care.

The President makes himself look bad by his refusal to answer questions. As I've said before, if they would have honest from the beginning instead of creating a stupid story about a video -- this probably would not be news today. Nixon thought the same thing about breaking into an office -- not a big deal.

---

No. The thing that right wingers care about is scoring political points. It's all about playing political games with the lives of dead Americans. Republicans seem to make that a habit.

The President didn't make himself look bad. He accepted responsibility and wants to make improvements. Republicans on the other hand refuse to listen and continue in the same partisan bickering, even after getting their asses handed to them on November 7th.

And comparing this to what Nixon did is seriously out of order and absolutely ridiculous. Get a grip.

Move on please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuryOfFirestorm

Really? Please show us where Obama "lied" and denied that Benghazi was a disaster. (using his own words, and not shit cut and pasted from Brietbart.com). And don't trot out the tired old "but he blamed it on the video!" BS. Yes, he originally said it was a possibility that the video was the case, but that was due to early intelligence reports that were later debunked by more recent sources. Mentioning possible causes based on shaky intel isn't lying, unless you want to admit that Bush II "lied" about the yellowcake uranium as the rationale for starting a war.

As for Hillary, how is she "MIA?" Has she been missing for years or unable to be located by anyone? Is she being held prisoner by the Viet Cong? I guess the next time someone takes sick leave, we'll have to notify the Army to send out a search team.

---

You've got to be careful suggesting chance1 uses Brietbart.com. He will pester you for weeks for an apology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuryOfFirestorm

1) What is that photo supposed to prove - Obama was meeting with his staff? OH NOES! THEY IZ MAKING SECRET MUZLIN PLOT!

2) Refuse to answer what questions? Has he been dragged before a court of law and taken the Fifth? He sure had no problems answering questions about it on 60 Minutes.

Please, Jack. Stop the madness. I know at it makes your anus pucker to know that a "blah person" is in the White House, but you have to move on. Better luck in 2016, mein freund!

---

Thanks, I can read between the lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

A start to what exactly? Obama proving himself to you? Is such a high standard ever truly achievable?

And yes, Benghazi did blow over. Nobody cares about it anymore, but a bunch of sad trolls under a bridge in a gay board, and a gang of sad "reporters" afraid they'll lose their jobs if they can't make the president look bad.

---

recently a respected member of the forum called you out for your antics - it was a classic CE+P moment

He advised you to think hard before posting - clearly it fell on deaf ears

He shared that NO ONE likes you - he knows his shit

as for the "story" course it's not well covered

there's so much shit going on in the US - that any story struggles to stay "topical"

and Obamallegiance as practiced by the media keeps the volume low - they'd rather fawn over the Pres. cuz he's so cool ;)

But 4 heroes are dead and the report, despite lies to the contrary above by one who should know better, points directly to systematic failure of the state dept.

the state dept. headed by hills
with obama as her boss

obama stonewalled this puppy for the longest time and now that the election is over, it's sorta white noise

but not because it isn't a big deal

because politics trumps the truth



his views speak for themselves

yours

^ In Republican world, delayed testimony because of a head blood clot = "stonewalling."

Were you utterly and completely asleep through 8 years of Bush? Because if there's no way you were awake you'd think this is stonewalling.

See post #163 Chance.

What Obamallegiance? Keep grasping at the straws. I guess when one questions the bullshit some post they get ignored. It's hard addressing the facts when the entire motivation for ones posts are based on a distorted view of reality.

Obama hasn't stonewalled shit. He took responsibility for it. A few desperate right wingers are trying to bring it up again so they can score some political points. 4 heroes... wait... what? Rather... 4 deaths a few ignorant republicans can score some brownie points on.

Let me ask... when was the last time republicans took responsibility for the multiple screw ups they have committed against this country? When was the last time they took responsibility for spearheading a failed idiotic war that resulted in the deaths of thousands of young Americans and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans?

Oh wait never. I guess the GOP lives by the quote "To kill one is a tragedy, to kill one million is a statistic".

Obama has the record of success. Not the repeated lies and failures of the right wing and republican party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GiancarloC

What Obamallegiance? Keep grasping at the straws. I guess when one questions the bullshit some post they get ignored. It's hard addressing the facts when the entire motivation for ones posts are based on a distorted view of reality.

Obama hasn't stonewalled shit. He took responsibility for it. A few desperate right wingers are trying to bring it up again so they can score some political points. 4 heroes... wait... what? Rather... 4 deaths a few ignorant republicans can score some brownie points on.

Obama has the record of success. Not the repeated lies and failures of the right wing and republican party.

---

I love how the Republican definition of stonewalling is something that was openly addressed in front of hundreds of millions of Americans in the Presidential debates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xbuzzerx

I love how the Republican definition of stonewalling is something that was openly addressed in front of hundreds of millions of Americans in the Presidential debates.

---

Obama took responsibility for it, and was a man about it. Republicans remain angry upset children because they got destroyed on election day. It just seems to me some cannot accept defeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GiancarloC

Obama took responsibility for it, and was a man about it. Republicans remain angry upset children because they got destroyed on election day. It just seems to me some cannot accept defeat.

---

Yeah I don't get how the people here think this is some critical matter that is being hush-hushed when the voters clearly didn't think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GiancarloC

Obama took responsibility for it, and was a man about it. Republicans remain angry upset children because they got destroyed on election day. It just seems to me some cannot accept defeat.

---

LOL

he "took responsibility"

the way O.J. took responsibility for Nicole's death

obamallegiance in full view ;)

he refused to take questions from the press

he referenced it as a response to a video for about 10 days - the best was on The View with his ladies

he lied about it

he sent out susan rice to tell a story then left her for dead

he posed about it being "on him" but clearly they were empty words

no one was held accountable for it - no one lost their job - 4 men are dead

the head of the state dept. has yet to weigh in - probably soon - i imagine she's been coached well by now what to say what not to say - there has been plenty of time

obama politically won on this

as a man he lost

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chance1

LOL

he "took responsibility"

the way O.J. took responsibility for Nicole's death

obamallegiance in full view ;)

he refused to take questions from the press

he referenced it as a response to a video for about 10 days - the best was on The View with his ladies

he lied about it

he sent out susan rice to tell a story then left her for dead

he posed about it being "on him" but clearly they were empty words

no one was held accountable for it - no one lost their job - 4 men are dead

the head of the state dept. has yet to weigh in - probably soon - i imagine she's been coached well by now what to say what not to say - there has been plenty of time

obama politically won on this

as a man he lost

---

The voters en masse disagreed that any of this is what you claim it was.

Move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chance1

LOL

he "took responsibility"

the way O.J. took responsibility for Nicole's death

obamallegiance in full view ;)

---

How about address the points I made instead of pontificating about this so called Obamallegiance?

Quote:

---

he refused to take questions from the press

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

he referenced it as a response to a video for about 10 days - the best was on The View with his ladies

---

Doing as what the CIA said.

Quote:

---

he lied about it

---

Nope. And there is no proof he lied about it.

Quote:

---

he sent out susan rice to tell a story then left her for dead

---

Nope. Again I ask for direct proof of that.

Quote:

---

he posed about it being "on him" but clearly they were empty words

---

As opposed to the empty words being posted on here?

Quote:

---

no one was held accountable for it - no one lost their job - 4 men are dead

---

4 men are dead? As compared to the thousands of US soldiers that died because republicans started a war they couldn't finish?

Quote:

---

as a man he lost

---

Nope. Because he was right both politically and morally. Thanks for the empty desperate rhetoric with not ONE SHRED or IOTA of proof. As if the beat down on November 6th wasn't enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GiancarloC

How about address the points I made instead of pontificating about this so called Obamallegiance?



Nope.



Doing as what the CIA said.



Nope. And there is no proof he lied about it.



Nope. Again I ask for direct proof of that.



As opposed to the empty words being posted on here?



4 men are dead? As compared to the thousands of US soldiers that died because republicans started a war they couldn't finish?



Nope. Because he was right both politically and morally. Thanks for the empty desperate rhetoric with not ONE SHRED or IOTA of proof. As if the beat down on November 6th wasn't enough.

---

It's very hard to take you seriously

Obama saying NOTHING

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ests-for-help/

The fact that it was an Al Qaeda attack was known the day after - The President clearly had access to the information - and he lied in the debate saying he knew it was a terror attack

make up your mind GC

your unwillingness (admitted) to reading anything but the funny papers makes u an impossible character to engage with

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chance1

It's very hard to take you seriously

Obama saying NOTHING

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ests-for-help/

The fact that it was an Al Qaeda attack was known the day after - The President clearly had access to the information - and he lied in the debate saying he knew it was a terror attack

---

This is absolutely false and has no justification in reality. Obama didn't lie about anything. He said that it was a terrorist attack from day one. This has been asked and answered numerous times. He didn't lie. Get over it already. Your claims are old and have been debunked a thousand times over.

Quote:

---

make up your mind GC

---

I already did.

Quote:

---

your unwillingness (admitted) to reading anything but the funny papers makes u an impossible character to engage with

---

Oh fucking puh-lease.. I have a far more objective understanding of this matter. And what funny papers? Shit sources like Newbusters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chance1

It's very hard to take you seriously

Obama saying NOTHING

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ests-for-help/

The fact that it was an Al Qaeda attack was known the day after - The President clearly had access to the information - and he lied in the debate saying he knew it was a terror attack

make up your mind GC

your unwillingness (admitted) to reading anything but the funny papers makes u an impossible character to engage with

---

Assuming he didn't call it a terror attack promptly this tells us what exactly?

Right. Nothing. Doesn't change a thing, doesn't bring people back from the dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xbuzzerx

Assuming he didn't call it a terror attack promptly this tells us what exactly?

Right. Nothing. Doesn't change a thing, doesn't bring people back from the dead.

---

It just gives him a chance to score a few more political points. And he says I can't be taken seriously. Personal attacks are a tool of the desperate and those without valid arguments (relying on outdated disinformation). You are right Buzzer. 20,000 posts and minimal content at best.

What I am trying to figure out is what "truth" is it that people are looking for? There's really only a few key things any of us really needs to know:

1) Our consulate in Benghazi was attacked. This was known on day one by all.
2) Our ambassador and three others were killed. This was know on day one by all.
3) We are looking for who did it. This was known on day one by all.

These are really the only things anyone needs to know. What label you attach to the people who did it is irrelevant. A few things should also be noted here:

1) If this was an election ploy, it was a poor one. Most of the truth and testimony came out before the election, so I don't see how any of this would have benefited the President anyway.
2) Diplomats and US personnel serving overseas know the risks and that their lives are in danger constantly. It's not like this guy was promised a cushy desk job and was unaware of the dangers he faced.
3) If Benghazi was known by those in the country to be so dangerous and if they needed so badly to get extra security there to make it safe, the Ambassador could have just not gone. He could have remained at the embassy in Tripoli and stayed out of harm's way. He knew the risks and the security situation before going there and chose to go anyway.
4) Mistakes were made and mistakes were admitted to. The President accepted full responsibility. I'm not exactly sure what it is the people who keep this going are after except for satisfaction of their personal vendetta against the President.
5) Some of these posts seem to invoke the whole "they're not telling us everything" conspiracy theory-type themes. A lot of details of any overseas mission and it's activities aren't shared with the public, so I wouldn't ever expect to see a lot of things people are hoping to see.

The bottom line is that we lost good Americans in Benghazi. They were aware of the risks they were taking and, unfortunately, they paid the ultimate price. It's always sad to lose Americans overseas, but to continue to use their deaths to try and attack the President and his administration over something which the recent State Department report provides complete insight into, is no more honorable than the claims that are made that the President used a cover-up of their deaths for political gain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

What I am trying to figure out is what "truth" is it that people are looking for? There's really only a few key things any of us really needs to know:

1) Our consulate in Benghazi was attacked. This was known on day one by all.
2) Our ambassador and three others were killed. This was know on day one by all.
3) We are looking for who did it. This was known on day one by all.

These are really the only things anyone needs to know. What label you attach to the people who did it is irrelevant. A few things should also be noted here:

1) If this was an election ploy, it was a poor one. Most of the truth and testimony came out before the election, so I don't see how any of this would have benefited the President anyway.
2) Diplomats and US personnel serving overseas know the risks and that their lives are in danger constantly. It's not like this guy was promised a cushy desk job and was unaware of the dangers he faced.
3) If Benghazi was known by those in the country to be so dangerous and if they needed so badly to get extra security there to make it safe, the Ambassador could have just not gone. He could have remained at the embassy in Tripoli and stayed out of harm's way. He knew the risks and the security situation before going there and chose to go anyway.
4) Mistakes were made and mistakes were admitted to. The President accepted full responsibility. I'm not exactly sure what it is the people who keep this going are after except for satisfaction of their personal vendetta against the President.
5) Some of these posts seem to invoke the whole "they're not telling us everything" conspiracy theory-type themes. A lot of details of any overseas mission and it's activities aren't shared with the public, so I wouldn't ever expect to see a lot of things people are hoping to see.

The bottom line is that we lost good Americans in Benghazi. They were aware of the risks they were taking and, unfortunately, they paid the ultimate price. It's always sad to lose Americans overseas, but to continue to use their deaths to try and attack the President and his administration over something which the recent State Department report provides complete insight into, is no more honorable than the claims that are made that the President used a cover-up of their deaths for political gain.

---

This, exactly. Whenever asked what it is they actually want to hear, the answers are some ridiculous vagued-up version of "some honesty" or "the truth", but no specifics. What it is that we "need to know" that we don't already? Specifically?

Chance, keep your snide remarks of what "respected members" think to yourself. I have my observations of your status of likeability as well, and I keep them to myself because they have no part in any topic here. Of the two of us, only one has ever had his posts delayed for inspection, so I'd say this isn't a purse fight you're equipped to win.

Well I like Rolyo so the "NO ONE LIKES HIM" thing, sadly, is disproven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

What I am trying to figure out is what "truth" is it that people are looking for? There's really only a few key things any of us really needs to know:

1) Our consulate in Benghazi was attacked. This was known on day one by all.
2) Our ambassador and three others were killed. This was know on day one by all.
3) We are looking for who did it. This was known on day one by all.

These are really the only things anyone needs to know. What label you attach to the people who did it is irrelevant. A few things should also be noted here:

1) If this was an election ploy, it was a poor one. Most of the truth and testimony came out before the election, so I don't see how any of this would have benefited the President anyway.
2) Diplomats and US personnel serving overseas know the risks and that their lives are in danger constantly. It's not like this guy was promised a cushy desk job and was unaware of the dangers he faced.
3) If Benghazi was known by those in the country to be so dangerous and if they needed so badly to get extra security there to make it safe, the Ambassador could have just not gone. He could have remained at the embassy in Tripoli and stayed out of harm's way. He knew the risks and the security situation before going there and chose to go anyway.
4) Mistakes were made and mistakes were admitted to. The President accepted full responsibility. I'm not exactly sure what it is the people who keep this going are after except for satisfaction of their personal vendetta against the President.
5) Some of these posts seem to invoke the whole "they're not telling us everything" conspiracy theory-type themes. A lot of details of any overseas mission and it's activities aren't shared with the public, so I wouldn't ever expect to see a lot of things people are hoping to see.

The bottom line is that we lost good Americans in Benghazi. They were aware of the risks they were taking and, unfortunately, they paid the ultimate price. It's always sad to lose Americans overseas, but to continue to use their deaths to try and attack the President and his administration over something which the recent State Department report provides complete insight into, is no more honorable than the claims that are made that the President used a cover-up of their deaths for political gain.

---

Well dayum... I need not say anything more. Complete summary of my thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

What I am trying to figure out is what "truth" is it that people are looking for? There's really only a few key things any of us really needs to know:

1) Our consulate in Benghazi was attacked. This was known on day one by all.
2) Our ambassador and three others were killed. This was know on day one by all.
3) We are looking for who did it. This was known on day one by all.

These are really the only things anyone needs to know. What label you attach to the people who did it is irrelevant. A few things should also be noted here:

1) If this was an election ploy, it was a poor one. Most of the truth and testimony came out before the election, so I don't see how any of this would have benefited the President anyway.
2) Diplomats and US personnel serving overseas know the risks and that their lives are in danger constantly. It's not like this guy was promised a cushy desk job and was unaware of the dangers he faced.
3) If Benghazi was known by those in the country to be so dangerous and if they needed so badly to get extra security there to make it safe, the Ambassador could have just not gone. He could have remained at the embassy in Tripoli and stayed out of harm's way. He knew the risks and the security situation before going there and chose to go anyway.
4) Mistakes were made and mistakes were admitted to. The President accepted full responsibility. I'm not exactly sure what it is the people who keep this going are after except for satisfaction of their personal vendetta against the President.
5) Some of these posts seem to invoke the whole "they're not telling us everything" conspiracy theory-type themes. A lot of details of any overseas mission and it's activities aren't shared with the public, so I wouldn't ever expect to see a lot of things people are hoping to see.

The bottom line is that we lost good Americans in Benghazi. They were aware of the risks they were taking and, unfortunately, they paid the ultimate price. It's always sad to lose Americans overseas, but to continue to use their deaths to try and attack the President and his administration over something which the recent State Department report provides complete insight into, is no more honorable than the claims that are made that the President used a cover-up of their deaths for political gain.

---

Where were you when Nixon needed you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

Where were you when Nixon needed you.

---

:roll:

How on earth can someone compare this to watergate? It's ridiculous, desperate and just silly.

(I'M STEALING from Rolyo!!)

Nothing is silly when one inhabits the UnderBridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

This, exactly. Whenever asked what it is they actually want to hear, the answers are some ridiculous vagued-up version of "some honesty" or "the truth", but no specifics. What it is that we "need to know" that we don't already? Specifically?

Chance, keep your snide remarks of what "respected members" think to yourself. I have my observations of your status of likeability as well, and I keep them to myself because they have no part in any topic here. Of the two of us, only one has ever had his posts delayed for inspection, so I'd say this isn't a purse fight you're equipped to win.

---

Abraham Lincoln - great President - great man

he said

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"

another free bit of advice

as for Hills and the "report"

it proves a high level of incompetency on this matter - and it proves that no one was truly held accountable - the Obama administration is big on words but not so much on substance - his puffy chested "it's on me" is like a guy who steps into a skirmish w/o any real intent to fight - that's the Pres.

no one was held accountable

tiger - your piece is as if it's a fictional what if story

it was not

and the President, as he has shown for 4 years now - is not a leader - he's a talker