Ookie Pringle
Footballguy
There is nothing stopping them from dealing with these issues. They all must be really inept if this one issue prevents them from addressing other issues.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Topes
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
Yes they are really inept. And whether it makes sense to you or not, one of the sad facts of modern times is that whenever there is a political scandal that is the center of attention, nothing else gets done.
DocHolliday
Footballguy
Now the Benghazi scandal is to blame for Obama's lack of effort on jobs and the deficit? That is hilarious. At least it is not Bush's fault for a change.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Josie Maran
Footballguy
I'm Benghaziing right now. 
Sand
Footballguy
One can understand the logic, but it certainly looks like it was (yet another) awful decision from State.
timschochet
Footballguy
Hillary Clinton offers a detailed account of the deadly attack on the American embassy in Benghazi — and a pointed rebuttal to Republican critics who’ve laced into her over the incident — in a much-anticipated chapter of her forthcoming book, “Hard Choices,” obtained by POLITICO.
“Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country,” Clinton writes in the gripping chapter, “Benghazi: Under Attack.”
Casting doubt on the motivations of congressional Republicans who have continued to investigate the attacks, including with an upcoming House select committee, Clinton continues: “I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.”
The 34-page chapter is Clinton’s most complete account to date of the attack and its aftermath. Her tone is less defensive than defiant: Clinton takes responsibility for the “horror” of the loss of life in Benghazi, but puts it in the context of “the heartbreaking human stakes of every decision we make” — and she accuses adversaries of manipulating a tragedy for partisan gain.
There has been, she writes, a “regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media,” but new information from “a number of reputable sources continues to expand our understanding of these events.”
The chapter appears intended, in part, to give Democrats a clear framework to respond to Republicans who have raised questions about Clinton’s role and what the Obama administration has said about the Sept. 11, 2012, killing of four Americans. The section was obtained and reviewed by POLITICO on the eve of a meeting in which members of Democratic-leaning groups will be briefed by Clinton’s team about how she addresses the attacks in the book.
And in a sign of the concerted effort to rebut the ongoing controversy in a cohesive way, Clinton’s camp has brought on former National Security Council spokesman and longtime President Barack Obama hand Tommy Vietor to assist in the response to the book, a source familiar with the plan said.
The book’s arrival comes as Clinton is considering a second presidential campaign in 2016. Pieces that have emerged ahead of the June 10 release include a section about Clinton’s late mother, the author’s note and a four-minute video featuring the former first lady talking about the book. On Thursday, conservative-leaning Fox News — which has heavily covered the Benghazi story — announced Clinton will sit down with two of its anchors for an interview during her book rollout media blitz.
Asked to comment on what Clinton hoped to achieve with the Benghazi chapter, among the most anticipated sections of her State Department retrospective, her spokesman, Nick Merrill, responded, “Until the book is released, there’s nothing to say. And once it’s released, it will speak for itself.”
The chapter is a mostly chronological retrospective of the attack interspersed with Clinton’s views. She points out that she ordered an investigation into what happened nine days after the attacks, and that she agreed with and implemented all 29 of the recommendations made by a review board.
While saying that as a former senator she respects the “oversight role that Congress is meant to play,” Clinton later adds, “Many of these same people are a broken record about unanswered questions. But there is a difference between unanswered questions and unlistened to answers.”
Clinton defends the intelligence at the time preceding the attack on the American compound in Benghazi. An anti-Islamic video that had sparked a protest at an embassy in Cairo was proved in “later investigation and reporting,” including by The New York Times, to have been “indeed a factor” in what happened in Benghazi, Clinton writes.
That point is among those that has been debated during hearings into the attacks.
“There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” she writes. “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.”
Clinton addresses lingering questions about how military assets were deployed to try to rescue personnel at the besieged compound, writing that Obama “gave the order to do whatever was necessary to support our people in Libya. It was imperative that all possible resources be mobilized immediately. … When Americans are under fire, that is not an order the Commander in Chief has to give twice. Our military does everything humanly possible to save American lives — and would do more if they could. That anyone has ever suggested otherwise is something I will never understand.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/hillary-clintons-benghazi-chapter-107240.html#ixzz33FcRZifq
“Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country,” Clinton writes in the gripping chapter, “Benghazi: Under Attack.”
Casting doubt on the motivations of congressional Republicans who have continued to investigate the attacks, including with an upcoming House select committee, Clinton continues: “I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.”
The 34-page chapter is Clinton’s most complete account to date of the attack and its aftermath. Her tone is less defensive than defiant: Clinton takes responsibility for the “horror” of the loss of life in Benghazi, but puts it in the context of “the heartbreaking human stakes of every decision we make” — and she accuses adversaries of manipulating a tragedy for partisan gain.
There has been, she writes, a “regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media,” but new information from “a number of reputable sources continues to expand our understanding of these events.”
The chapter appears intended, in part, to give Democrats a clear framework to respond to Republicans who have raised questions about Clinton’s role and what the Obama administration has said about the Sept. 11, 2012, killing of four Americans. The section was obtained and reviewed by POLITICO on the eve of a meeting in which members of Democratic-leaning groups will be briefed by Clinton’s team about how she addresses the attacks in the book.
And in a sign of the concerted effort to rebut the ongoing controversy in a cohesive way, Clinton’s camp has brought on former National Security Council spokesman and longtime President Barack Obama hand Tommy Vietor to assist in the response to the book, a source familiar with the plan said.
The book’s arrival comes as Clinton is considering a second presidential campaign in 2016. Pieces that have emerged ahead of the June 10 release include a section about Clinton’s late mother, the author’s note and a four-minute video featuring the former first lady talking about the book. On Thursday, conservative-leaning Fox News — which has heavily covered the Benghazi story — announced Clinton will sit down with two of its anchors for an interview during her book rollout media blitz.
Asked to comment on what Clinton hoped to achieve with the Benghazi chapter, among the most anticipated sections of her State Department retrospective, her spokesman, Nick Merrill, responded, “Until the book is released, there’s nothing to say. And once it’s released, it will speak for itself.”
The chapter is a mostly chronological retrospective of the attack interspersed with Clinton’s views. She points out that she ordered an investigation into what happened nine days after the attacks, and that she agreed with and implemented all 29 of the recommendations made by a review board.
While saying that as a former senator she respects the “oversight role that Congress is meant to play,” Clinton later adds, “Many of these same people are a broken record about unanswered questions. But there is a difference between unanswered questions and unlistened to answers.”
Clinton defends the intelligence at the time preceding the attack on the American compound in Benghazi. An anti-Islamic video that had sparked a protest at an embassy in Cairo was proved in “later investigation and reporting,” including by The New York Times, to have been “indeed a factor” in what happened in Benghazi, Clinton writes.
That point is among those that has been debated during hearings into the attacks.
“There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” she writes. “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.”
Clinton addresses lingering questions about how military assets were deployed to try to rescue personnel at the besieged compound, writing that Obama “gave the order to do whatever was necessary to support our people in Libya. It was imperative that all possible resources be mobilized immediately. … When Americans are under fire, that is not an order the Commander in Chief has to give twice. Our military does everything humanly possible to save American lives — and would do more if they could. That anyone has ever suggested otherwise is something I will never understand.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/hillary-clintons-benghazi-chapter-107240.html#ixzz33FcRZifq
squistion
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
This makes me sure she's running too. A book right now? The book tour will be a prelim for the campaign, watch.Hillary says to the GOP, want to talk about Benghazi? Well, bring it on.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Beengoofy?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Great Zeus she is doubling down.squistion said:Hillary says to the GOP, want to talk about Benghazi? Well, bring it on.timschochet said:
This probably guarantees this thread will still be active in 2017.
What I recall from 2007-08 was a Hillary who was slow to respond to Obama in her campaign, in interviews and on stage in person.
Her husband has the common touch, a man who brought home a balanced budget, a great economy, who got reelected repeatedly in a red state, who weaved his way through the first meaningful third-party election ballots since 1912, to victory, twice. Hillary won a US Senate election against a tomato can in lock solid blue NY State, entered into the Demo primary the heavy, heavy favorite and managed to lose, even crying in a desperation plea for sympathy and to belatedly show her humanness at the end.
This is a woman who denied having billing records from her law firm for years (forget the why), actually claimed they had been destroyed, and then they were "discovered" by a maid in a WH closet. Forget the whole stupid scenario behind it, either ditch the records or turn them over. Don't keep on inviting inquiry with 'right wing conspiracy' accusations and then whoops lookie here. She invites this stuff. This is what she does. She lambastes Obama over the 3 o'clock call business, then guess what happens the one time she gets the 3 o'clock call. Whoops.
Tell you how this is going to go: she is going to keep this alive by repeating the 'thought it was the video' theme over and over again and the media will keep asking her about it because of her defensiveness, her insistence on blaming others, and her complete lack of ability to point to any specific source that told her it was that besides maybe CNN or her own imagination. Hillary will eventually become the shrill person we saw on Capitol Hill that day, right or wrong it won't matter, that is who will emerge and it won't be pretty.
Last edited by a moderator:
Questioning the integrity of her opponents on this issue and 'bringing it on' seems to throw more logs into the fire, and keeps alive the debate. I don't doubt that this issue is large politics from the Republicans, but there are still questions on this that have not been answered.squistion said:Hillary says to the GOP, want to talk about Benghazi? Well, bring it on.timschochet said:
I'm also interested in hearing all of her achievements while serving under Obama.
otello
Footballguy
Tim, you are not going out on a limb here.This makes me sure she's running too. A book right now? The book tour will be a prelim for the campaign, watch.squistion said:Hillary says to the GOP, want to talk about Benghazi? Well, bring it on.timschochet said:
Jim11
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Democrats are praying that Republicans double down on this Benghazi stuff- Saints, you think Hillary made a mistake by devoting a chapter to it and mentioning the video? Think again. The whole thing is being done on purpose. She mentioned the video because she WANTS to drive people like you crazy. It only helps her electoral chances.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Funny thing about that is that it may likely be a Democrat who brings it up first in the primaries.
Remember how it was the Clintons who raised the Jeremiah Wright business?
Hillary has one thing on her resume, her time as SOS, and this issue is front and center on that record. If and when a Democratic opponent decides to go after her, and someone will, they will have to go through here.
I will also add that Hillary does not have the touch of Bill Clinton and Obama; Hillary has yet to show the ability to rise above it all, quite the opposite, when controversy embroils her she just seems to get more wrapped up in the imbroglio.
Last edited by a moderator:
I doubt Benghazi is a campaign strategy for Hillary. Even if Republicans are overplaying their hand, it keeps the focus on Hilary and her lack of accomplishments while serving under Obama.
This will be the just the first of "War on _____" from Hillary's camp. Anything said about her will be turned into some inequality argument.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
We get it. Anytime anyone criticizes or wants answers from a Democrat, they always have some kind of fake outrage or are some kind of "____________ Truthers". By labeling people as such, it allows Democrats to avoid any responsibility.
I'm sure in very short order we're going to be hearing about "VA Truthers".
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Let's be fair here. There's no way the current Benghazi kerfluffle will ever rise to the level of the Democratic-led kangaroo courts about all of the embassy deaths under Republican Presidents.
(You'd think that the fact the Dems are embracing these hearings and are more than happy to engage in a big fight about all this might tip off Reps that they've got a dog of an issue here, but... no.)
(You'd think that the fact the Dems are embracing these hearings and are more than happy to engage in a big fight about all this might tip off Reps that they've got a dog of an issue here, but... no.)
RBM
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
You're dreaming if you think a Democrat rival would criticize Hillary over Benghazi. Also, when you wrote that Hillary has only one thing on her resume, I think you're forgetting her 8 years as a United States Senator. If Obama was one of the least qualified Presidential candidates in modern history, Hillary Clinton is the opposite.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Has anyone been brought to justice yet, as Obama promised they would be, for killing our ambassador?Still on this? lol Come on Fox News, time to think of a new scandal. This one is running out of steam.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yes, people running for president will do anything, again see the Clintons and Wright. Also it's her 5-6 years time as SOS is the one thing on her resume, not just this one incident. If someone runs against her for the Demo nomination, and someone will, they will have to go through this incident though.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Still on this? lol Come on Fox News, time to think of a new scandal. This one is running out of steam.
Reminder: it's Hillary who just devoted and separately issued a whole chapter on this.
Everyone ok with that?
That;'s not what the NYT says. The NYT says that there were some terrorists who were angry about the video - along with all the other stuff they are "angry" about, such as the fact of the USA itself, intellectual freedom, western education, western cultural and economic influence, support for Jewish people in Israel and religious freedom, etc. - not that there were ordinary citizens who were spontaneously protesting a video. Nowhere does the NYT say there was a spontaneous protest about the video. The terms "spontaneous" and "protest" as opposed to "terrorism" are key here. The NYT makes clear that Ansar al-Shariah, a terrorist militia, was the perpetrator.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B6194549-C464-462A-924A-068F944F18C7
The issue has always been about the motives of the attackers and the nature of the attack. I think it's more like someone who continues to say, 'Hey let's not get caught up in whether they had just walked into the wrong house thinking it was theirs and really thought those hostages were their friends who wanted to be tied up, or whether they were really trying to hurt us, what happened, happened." Clearly these were bad guys up to no good, they were criminals, and in the real example, terrorists committing terrorism. And nobody, not the president, not the CIA, not the NSA, not the Senate Demos, not the press, not anyone is accepting or plying this "spontaneous protest with mixed motives" bs anymore. It's one thing to say they didn't know at the time, it's a whole other thing to say they believe now what they claim to have believed then.
That's what I'm talking about, her own ego and bad wordsmithing won't let this go. And politically her performance that day on Capitol Hill is as bad and maybe worse of a problem than the events themselves.
Last edited by a moderator:
jamny
Footballguy
Hillary released that chapter now so it won't be the only focus once the book is officially released. Get any discussion out there now and talk about other things later on.
cstu
Footballguy
So you admit there were people involved in the attack who were upset about the video?
If so, then the administration's initial claims were not completely unfounded.
matuski
Footballguy
No.. why do you ask?Has anyone been brought to justice yet, as Obama promised they would be, for killing our ambassador?Still on this? lol Come on Fox News, time to think of a new scandal. This one is running out of steam.
matuski
Footballguy
You keep acting like this hurts Clinton in some way? Hillary devoted the chapter, and will go on Fox, and will continue to toss out bait for the same reason Obama kept hanging his birth certificate out for all of you... because you guys do this.Still on this? lol Come on Fox News, time to think of a new scandal. This one is running out of steam.Reminder: it's Hillary who just devoted and separately issued a whole chapter on this.
Everyone ok with that?
That;'s not what the NYT says. The NYT says that there were some terrorists who were angry about the video - along with all the other stuff they are "angry" about, such as the fact of the USA itself, intellectual freedom, western education, western cultural and economic influence, support for Jewish people in Israel and religious freedom, etc. - not that there were ordinary citizens who were spontaneously protesting a video. Nowhere does the NYT say there was a spontaneous protest about the video. The terms "spontaneous" and "protest" as opposed to "terrorism" are key here. The NYT makes clear that Ansar al-Shariah, a terrorist militia, was the perpetrator.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B6194549-C464-462A-924A-068F944F18C7
The issue has always been about the motives of the attackers and the nature of the attack. I think it's more like someone who continues to say, 'Hey let's not get caught up in whether they had just walked into the wrong house thinking it was theirs and really thought those hostages were their friends who wanted to be tied up, or whether they were really trying to hurt us, what happened, happened." Clearly these were bad guys up to no good, they were criminals, and in the real example, terrorists committing terrorism. And nobody, not the president, not the CIA, not the NSA, not the Senate Demos, not the press, not anyone is accepting or plying this "spontaneous protest with mixed motives" bs anymore. It's one thing to say they didn't know at the time, it's a whole other thing to say they believe now what they claim to have believed then.
That's what I'm talking about, her own ego and bad wordsmithing won't let this go. And politically her performance that day on Capitol Hill is as bad and maybe worse of a problem than the events themselves.
You fall for it. Again. And again. And again.
Nutjobs hanging on to Benghazi for dear life is Hillary's dream. Just like the birthers were the best thing that could have happened to Obama.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Nobody on any side of this issue has to admit anything.
HC referred to the NYT article, that's what I did. I've actually read it. It doesn't say there was a spontaneous protest over a video, it says it was a planned attack by the terrorist militia group. In 1-2 sentences in one paragraph in a 6 part series it says a Libyan journalist who works for the NYT says that there were some attackers there who referred to the video. That is different from a spontaneous protest about the video being the cause of the deaths and destruction.No one, not the NYT, no one in the administration, no one, is still claiming it was a spontaneous protest.
Chaka
Footballguy
That's nice but I'm not a democrat. I have voted republican (Bush 1 x 1, Bush 2 x 1) independent (Perot, Paul) and democrat (Obama x 1).
I am a citizen who is tired of this Benghazi nonsense, this is a non-story that people are trying to manufacture into something to be outraged about (and wasting far too many man hours and resources on). They don't care about getting to any truth about the issue (if they did they would have dropped it years ago instead of holding hearing after hearing that ultimately shows no wrong doing) they care about repeating false accusations over and over until it becomes beaten into people's head long enough that they begin to believe Hilary actually did something wrong.
It's a joke and I am annoyed when either party does it. And people like you are part of the problem.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Wouldn't you think that finding who killed our ambassador matters?No.. why do you ask?Has anyone been brought to justice yet, as Obama promised they would be, for killing our ambassador?Still on this? lol Come on Fox News, time to think of a new scandal. This one is running out of steam.
And I am someone who thinks the stories matters. It's not a Watergate-like scandal like some on the right think it is, but it's not a non-story like some of the left think it is either.
Boston
Footballguy
Exactly...there are legit questions about this...they need to be put to bed...if a dem wants to pretend there is not he is lying...if a GOPer is using this for pure politics than he is a scumbag...let's tie up the loose ends and move on...Wouldn't you think that finding who killed our ambassador matters?No.. why do you ask?Has anyone been brought to justice yet, as Obama promised they would be, for killing our ambassador?Still on this? lol Come on Fox News, time to think of a new scandal. This one is running out of steam.
And I am someone who thinks the stories matters. It's not a Watergate-like scandal like some on the right think it is, but it's not a non-story like some of the left think it is either.
jonessed
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
Good enough for me that the administration wasn't completely lying and there was no cover up.
Ookie Pringle
Footballguy
Pathetic response.No.. why do you ask?Has anyone been brought to justice yet, as Obama promised they would be, for killing our ambassador?Still on this? lol Come on Fox News, time to think of a new scandal. This one is running out of steam.
Insomniac
Footballguy
How has the never ending series of hearings and right wing media stories helped find the people who are responsible for the murders? Do you believe the intent of this is to gain information to find/apprehend/kill the perpetrators?Wouldn't you think that finding who killed our ambassador matters?No.. why do you ask?Has anyone been brought to justice yet, as Obama promised they would be, for killing our ambassador?Still on this? lol Come on Fox News, time to think of a new scandal. This one is running out of steam.
And I am someone who thinks the stories matters. It's not a Watergate-like scandal like some on the right think it is, but it's not a non-story like some of the left think it is either.
Ookie Pringle
Footballguy
Huh? So the people on the left in this thread have no issues that we haven't found the perpetrators?How has the never ending series of hearings and right wing media stories helped find the people who are responsible for the murders? Do you believe the intent of this is to gain information to find/apprehend/kill the perpetrators?Wouldn't you think that finding who killed our ambassador matters?No.. why do you ask?Has anyone been brought to justice yet, as Obama promised they would be, for killing our ambassador?Still on this? lol Come on Fox News, time to think of a new scandal. This one is running out of steam.
And I am someone who thinks the stories matters. It's not a Watergate-like scandal like some on the right think it is, but it's not a non-story like some of the left think it is either.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Dont change the question. <_<Huh? So the people on the left in this thread have no issues that we haven't found the perpetrators?How has the never ending series of hearings and right wing media stories helped find the people who are responsible for the murders? Do you believe the intent of this is to gain information to find/apprehend/kill the perpetrators?Wouldn't you think that finding who killed our ambassador matters?No.. why do you ask?Has anyone been brought to justice yet, as Obama promised they would be, for killing our ambassador?Still on this? lol Come on Fox News, time to think of a new scandal. This one is running out of steam.
And I am someone who thinks the stories matters. It's not a Watergate-like scandal like some on the right think it is, but it's not a non-story like some of the left think it is either.
Ookie Pringle
Footballguy
Why not? Based on what I have seen in this tread the answer is they don't.Dont change the question. <_<Huh? So the people on the left in this thread have no issues that we haven't found the perpetrators?How has the never ending series of hearings and right wing media stories helped find the people who are responsible for the murders? Do you believe the intent of this is to gain information to find/apprehend/kill the perpetrators?Wouldn't you think that finding who killed our ambassador matters?No.. why do you ask?Has anyone been brought to justice yet, as Obama promised they would be, for killing our ambassador?Still on this? lol Come on Fox News, time to think of a new scandal. This one is running out of steam.
And I am someone who thinks the stories matters. It's not a Watergate-like scandal like some on the right think it is, but it's not a non-story like some of the left think it is either.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Of course they don't. They're not concerned about the truth until a Republican is President.Why not? Based on what I have seen in this tread the answer is they don't.Dont change the question. <_<Huh? So the people on the left in this thread have no issues that we haven't found the perpetrators?How has the never ending series of hearings and right wing media stories helped find the people who are responsible for the murders? Do you believe the intent of this is to gain information to find/apprehend/kill the perpetrators?Wouldn't you think that finding who killed our ambassador matters?No.. why do you ask?Has anyone been brought to justice yet, as Obama promised they would be, for killing our ambassador?Still on this? lol Come on Fox News, time to think of a new scandal. This one is running out of steam.
And I am someone who thinks the stories matters. It's not a Watergate-like scandal like some on the right think it is, but it's not a non-story like some of the left think it is either.
matuski
Footballguy
I'm not sure I count myself as "on the left", but at this point.. no. I don't care anymore. I don't think they can be found. This is why "the right" focusing on this tired topic is only going to help the "the left".Why not? Based on what I have seen in this tread the answer is they don't.Dont change the question. <_<Huh? So the people on the left in this thread have no issues that we haven't found the perpetrators?How has the never ending series of hearings and right wing media stories helped find the people who are responsible for the murders? Do you believe the intent of this is to gain information to find/apprehend/kill the perpetrators?Wouldn't you think that finding who killed our ambassador matters?No.. why do you ask?Has anyone been brought to justice yet, as Obama promised they would be, for killing our ambassador?Still on this? lol Come on Fox News, time to think of a new scandal. This one is running out of steam.
And I am someone who thinks the stories matters. It's not a Watergate-like scandal like some on the right think it is, but it's not a non-story like some of the left think it is either.
Any sane person is going to run so far away from you guys chanting "BENGHAZI BLAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH"... reference birthers, Tea Party, etc.
Ookie Pringle
Footballguy
Any sane person would want the perpetrators to be found and considering they knew that night what groups were behnd it gives reasonable people the belief they can be found.I'm not sure I count myself as "on the left", but at this point.. no. I don't care anymore. I don't think they can be found. This is why "the right" focusing on this tired topic is only going to help the "the left".Why not? Based on what I have seen in this tread the answer is they don't.Dont change the question. <_<Huh? So the people on the left in this thread have no issues that we haven't found the perpetrators?How has the never ending series of hearings and right wing media stories helped find the people who are responsible for the murders? Do you believe the intent of this is to gain information to find/apprehend/kill the perpetrators?Wouldn't you think that finding who killed our ambassador matters?No.. why do you ask?Has anyone been brought to justice yet, as Obama promised they would be, for killing our ambassador?Still on this? lol Come on Fox News, time to think of a new scandal. This one is running out of steam.
And I am someone who thinks the stories matters. It's not a Watergate-like scandal like some on the right think it is, but it's not a non-story like some of the left think it is either.
Any sane person is going to run so far away from you guys chanting "BENGHAZI BLAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH"... reference birthers, Tea Party, etc.
matuski
Footballguy
Any sane person would see that by now that isn't going to happen.Any sane person would want the perpetrators to be found and considering they knew that night what groups were behnd it gives reasonable people the belief they can be found.I'm not sure I count myself as "on the left", but at this point.. no. I don't care anymore. I don't think they can be found. This is why "the right" focusing on this tired topic is only going to help the "the left".Why not? Based on what I have seen in this tread the answer is they don't.Dont change the question. <_<Huh? So the people on the left in this thread have no issues that we haven't found the perpetrators?How has the never ending series of hearings and right wing media stories helped find the people who are responsible for the murders? Do you believe the intent of this is to gain information to find/apprehend/kill the perpetrators?Wouldn't you think that finding who killed our ambassador matters?No.. why do you ask?Has anyone been brought to justice yet, as Obama promised they would be, for killing our ambassador?Still on this? lol Come on Fox News, time to think of a new scandal. This one is running out of steam.
And I am someone who thinks the stories matters. It's not a Watergate-like scandal like some on the right think it is, but it's not a non-story like some of the left think it is either.
Any sane person is going to run so far away from you guys chanting "BENGHAZI BLAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH"... reference birthers, Tea Party, etc.
But don't let me stop your obsession, personally I look forward to the kookiness.. the Tea Party, birther, and Palin efforts were some of the best entertainment I've seen over the years.
Similar threads
