Difference here people is that Bush did not try to cover up the attacks by claiming it was some spontaneous flash mob that instead of dancing killed Americans. The Administration attempted to, because it was election time, to show that terrrorists were not involved.
It’s not about the attack its about the failure to protect and the lies,lies and more lies. Hussein and Hillary should go under for dereliction of duty and breaking their oaths!
Quoting from President Obama’s Rose Garden speech: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation….”*Are “acts of terror” somehow different from “acts of terrorism”? It’s a question of semantics, isn’t it?
Good list, D-squared. And don’t forget: How many Congressional inquiries were done regarding those attacks? Oh, that’s right…three. That’s three total, not three per attack.How many inquiries have been done on Benghazi alone so far? Twelve or so? Remember Fox News saying the inquiry with Petraeus would blow the lid of the story? Except that was last fall. And then the inquiry featuring Clinton would expose everything…when was that, January? Guess what they’re predicting about the latest inquiry…you know, the one being run by Darrell Issa, one of the Republicans who voted against increasing the protection of our embassies?
And where were your complaints during the Bush years, Harleyquinn? Oh, that’s right…no need, because Bush was a Republican.And when Republicans block increased security for our embassies like Issa did, all that’s done is to put him in charge of doing the latest investigation. I guess you think that’s appropriate, huh?http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1005/Libya-attack-Congressmen-casting-blame-voted-to-cut-diplomatic-security-budget
“Unbelieveable!!! Obama could be caught screwing horses on the White House lawn and Liberals like Bennett would give him a pass!!”You tell us that sixteen thousand pedophile priests is only a “few”, and then complain about someone giving Obama “a pass”??? Talk about unbelievable.
" When Obama gets information from his intelligence community, whatever happens from that point isn’t Obama’s fault, he’s just acting on what information he has to go forward and is blameless because he just uses whatever “information” was given him."So how should he have handled it to please you, PianoGuy? If he’s told “A is true”, and acts on it, and then is told, “No, B is true”, should he then change his action to take into account the new information, and be called a liar by you because he originally acted on “A”? Or should he ignore the latest information, claim he never heard of “B”…and get called a liar by you?
How many more hearings are we going to have? Republicans are keeping this charade going for purely political reasons.There is no evidence that this was an attack planned well in advance. There are quotes from people on the scene who said the attackers were angry about the Youtube video.We know diplomats in Libya were complaining about inadequate security. So were most of the other diplomats in dangerous places. The Republican sponsors of the hearings don’t like to talk about how they cut the budget for diplomatic security.We know the fabled talking points were watered down & were wrong about a protest before the actual attacks. This is hardly a scandal that is, “Watergate plus Iran-Contra, times ten”, as Steve King (R-Hypeville) put it.The security team in Tripoli was ordered to stay & get the Americans there to safety, rather than dash off to a situation in Benghazi that was still very murky. This isn’t exactly a “stand down” order. They wouldn’t have arrived in time, anyway.Keep digging. You guys are looking more foolish by the day.
Which “eye witnesses”? The ones who said the attackers were talking about the Youtube videos?I wouldn’t call a guy who was missing phone calls from Stephens, because he was watching TV in Tripoli an “eyewitness”.
“You ask Harley where he was during complaints during Bush years. We see where you were. Now – it’s Obama’s game. Where are you now?”Complaining about real things like Obama’s expansion of Bush’s extra-legal drone strikes, the lack of a jobs bill & offers to cave in on Social Security cuts.
It is flagrantly obvious that the only reason for this “investigation” (real word: kangaroo court) is that the Reps are scared to death that Hillary will run for Pres in the next election. This is trying to head her off at the pass…more hypocrisy from the people who brought you WMD!
“What a thought – a horse’s ass screwing a horse. Ha Ha.”Yes, more hilarity from the guy who puts protecting pedophile priests ahead of their juvenile victims. Ha ha, indeed.
PlainBill almost 11 years ago
You forgot the tagline – ‘So Sayeth Rush’.
TCulberson almost 11 years ago
Difference here people is that Bush did not try to cover up the attacks by claiming it was some spontaneous flash mob that instead of dancing killed Americans. The Administration attempted to, because it was election time, to show that terrrorists were not involved.
Magnaut almost 11 years ago
It’s not about the attack its about the failure to protect and the lies,lies and more lies. Hussein and Hillary should go under for dereliction of duty and breaking their oaths!
d_legendary1 almost 11 years ago
Red herring much?
derlehrer almost 11 years ago
Quoting from President Obama’s Rose Garden speech: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation….”*Are “acts of terror” somehow different from “acts of terrorism”? It’s a question of semantics, isn’t it?
riley05 almost 11 years ago
Good list, D-squared. And don’t forget: How many Congressional inquiries were done regarding those attacks? Oh, that’s right…three. That’s three total, not three per attack.How many inquiries have been done on Benghazi alone so far? Twelve or so? Remember Fox News saying the inquiry with Petraeus would blow the lid of the story? Except that was last fall. And then the inquiry featuring Clinton would expose everything…when was that, January? Guess what they’re predicting about the latest inquiry…you know, the one being run by Darrell Issa, one of the Republicans who voted against increasing the protection of our embassies?
riley05 almost 11 years ago
And where were your complaints during the Bush years, Harleyquinn? Oh, that’s right…no need, because Bush was a Republican.And when Republicans block increased security for our embassies like Issa did, all that’s done is to put him in charge of doing the latest investigation. I guess you think that’s appropriate, huh?http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1005/Libya-attack-Congressmen-casting-blame-voted-to-cut-diplomatic-security-budget
riley05 almost 11 years ago
“Unbelieveable!!! Obama could be caught screwing horses on the White House lawn and Liberals like Bennett would give him a pass!!”You tell us that sixteen thousand pedophile priests is only a “few”, and then complain about someone giving Obama “a pass”??? Talk about unbelievable.
riley05 almost 11 years ago
What “whistleblowers” are you referring to, Tigger?
riley05 almost 11 years ago
" When Obama gets information from his intelligence community, whatever happens from that point isn’t Obama’s fault, he’s just acting on what information he has to go forward and is blameless because he just uses whatever “information” was given him."So how should he have handled it to please you, PianoGuy? If he’s told “A is true”, and acts on it, and then is told, “No, B is true”, should he then change his action to take into account the new information, and be called a liar by you because he originally acted on “A”? Or should he ignore the latest information, claim he never heard of “B”…and get called a liar by you?
Uncle Joe Premium Member almost 11 years ago
How many more hearings are we going to have? Republicans are keeping this charade going for purely political reasons.There is no evidence that this was an attack planned well in advance. There are quotes from people on the scene who said the attackers were angry about the Youtube video.We know diplomats in Libya were complaining about inadequate security. So were most of the other diplomats in dangerous places. The Republican sponsors of the hearings don’t like to talk about how they cut the budget for diplomatic security.We know the fabled talking points were watered down & were wrong about a protest before the actual attacks. This is hardly a scandal that is, “Watergate plus Iran-Contra, times ten”, as Steve King (R-Hypeville) put it.The security team in Tripoli was ordered to stay & get the Americans there to safety, rather than dash off to a situation in Benghazi that was still very murky. This isn’t exactly a “stand down” order. They wouldn’t have arrived in time, anyway.Keep digging. You guys are looking more foolish by the day.
Uncle Joe Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Which “eye witnesses”? The ones who said the attackers were talking about the Youtube videos?I wouldn’t call a guy who was missing phone calls from Stephens, because he was watching TV in Tripoli an “eyewitness”.
Uncle Joe Premium Member almost 11 years ago
“You ask Harley where he was during complaints during Bush years. We see where you were. Now – it’s Obama’s game. Where are you now?”Complaining about real things like Obama’s expansion of Bush’s extra-legal drone strikes, the lack of a jobs bill & offers to cave in on Social Security cuts.
Pogostiks Premium Member almost 11 years ago
It is flagrantly obvious that the only reason for this “investigation” (real word: kangaroo court) is that the Reps are scared to death that Hillary will run for Pres in the next election. This is trying to head her off at the pass…more hypocrisy from the people who brought you WMD!
riley05 almost 11 years ago
“What a thought – a horse’s ass screwing a horse. Ha Ha.”Yes, more hilarity from the guy who puts protecting pedophile priests ahead of their juvenile victims. Ha ha, indeed.