hillary blames congress for security failures in benghazi.

[stripes]

there certainly was a coverup to get it all past the election...gubment as usual....why would anyone defend the admins 1st months of lame ass storys & pass the buck playing hide & go seek with a security breech....all these people suck..they werent forthcoming, they made shit up & as it turns out, no ones responsible to we the people, as usual. really, you come here to defend the fucking lying career sack of shits that occupy washington? why? are you that dumb or is the party line just so ingrained in your little mind & you need washington party idiots to be your heros? wtf?

[MatthewT]

i think that they think if the government is omnipotent and infallible, they are safe

[MatthewT]

er, feel. i keep forgetting. i feel that they feel that if the government feels omnipotent and infallible, they can feel safe.

it's all about feelings for the left. and intentions. feeling and intentions.

[I invented that]

there certainly was a coverup to get it all past the election...gubment as usual....why would anyone defend the admins 1st months of lame ass storys & pass the buck playing hide & go seek with a security breech....all these people suck..they werent forthcoming, they made shit up & as it turns out, no ones responsible to we the people, as usual. really, you come here to defend the fucking lying career sack of shits that occupy washington? why? are you that dumb or is the party line just so ingrained in your little mind & you need washington party idiots to be your heros? wtf?

You're one smart fuckin cat!

[shitcunt]

Remember back when they had like 50 suspects arrested in connection to Benghazi? The investigation really fizzled after the election. Weird.

[MatthewT]

let's remember that Watergate was some political operatives breaking into a hotel room to see what the agenda for the democratic national convention was gonna be.

no one died. hell, no one got hurt.

that was Watergate.

[RiotGrip]

let's remember that Watergate was some political operatives breaking into a hotel room to see what the agenda for the democratic national convention was gonna be.

no one died. hell, no one got hurt.

that was Watergate.

So are you suggesting that democrats organized the attack on benghazi?

[MatthewT]

i'm suggesting that a republican administration and a rabid media produced watergate

and a democratic administration and a sycophantic media have been downplaying benghazi

really not a difficult comparison to draw

[Bosch76]

i'm suggesting that a republican administration and a rabid media produced watergate

and a democratic administration and a sycophantic media have been downplaying benghazi

really not a difficult comparison to draw

Downplaying??????

The deaths of 4 people have been getting more media attention than the deaths of THREE THOUSAND MOTHERFUCKING SOLDIERS!!!!!!!!!!!

WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY COVERING UP????

Your analogy is fucking retarded.

Idiot.

[Bosch76]

Remember back when they had like 50 suspects arrested in connection to Benghazi? The investigation really fizzled after the election. Weird.

No, why don't you search for some directly sourced information and update the class.

[RiotGrip]

i'm suggesting that a republican administration and a rabid media produced watergate

and a democratic administration and a sycophantic media have been downplaying benghazi

really not a difficult comparison to draw

Ok, Nixon was on tape telling people to cover up his involvement with watergate, it took years to delineate all that.

We were attacked in Benghazi by a foreign enemy. Obama referred to it as an act of terror on 9/12(OK not good enough for the righties). State department calls it a terrorist attack 9/19. Hillary Clinton and a White house spokesperson call it a "terrorist attack" on 9/20. Obama uses the words "terrorist attack" on 9/26. Perhaps slowness on exact semantics can be a real criticizm, but the election was on 11/06--how could you feel the administration wanted to cover it up as a terrorist attack to help win the election.

All of this aside, if any tape or evidence of any administration official surfaces that reveals intent to "cover up" anything I'll gladly support prosecution. With all evidence currently available, you comparing this to watergate is absurd, but hey you listen to right wing media so par for the course.

[Bosch76]

So let me get this straight. The "cover up" was that it was a terrorist attack?

Hahahaha.

[RiotGrip]

So let me get this straight. The "cover up" was that it was a terrorist attack?

Hahahaha.

Yep, the other false information/intelligence about an ongoing protest was also recanted on 10/09 nearly a month before the election. But as I said Fox News wrote an entirely uncashable check to their viewers. Honestly, why can't the republicans charge anyone for something illegal? Criticizm of how it was handled will always happen, and now Susan Rice's political career is over, but that is likely the best they will get.

[MatthewT]

Downplaying??????

The deaths of 4 people have been getting more media attention than the deaths of THREE THOUSAND MOTHERFUCKING SOLDIERS!!!!!!!!!!!

WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY COVERING UP????

Your analogy is fucking retarded.

Idiot.

nope. the 4 dead ones are nothing next to the 69,996 ones she's protected. lrn2math

[MatthewT]

Ok, Nixon was on tape telling people to cover up his involvement with watergate, it took years to delineate all that.

We were attacked in Benghazi by a foreign enemy. Obama referred to it as an act of terror on 9/12(OK not good enough for the righties). State department calls it a terrorist attack 9/19. Hillary Clinton and a White house spokesperson call it a "terrorist attack" on 9/20. Obama uses the words "terrorist attack" on 9/26. Perhaps slowness on exact semantics can be a real criticizm, but the election was on 11/06--how could you feel the administration wanted to cover it up as a terrorist attack to help win the election.

All of this aside, if any tape or evidence of any administration official surfaces that reveals intent to "cover up" anything I'll gladly support prosecution. With all evidence currently available, you comparing this to watergate is absurd, but hey you listen to right wing media so par for the course.

obama still has not called it a terrorist attack

he said something of the sort? that's good enough for you? "um, america will not bow to acts of terror"

yeah, that's really telling the american people what happened. that's his whole "rose garden" excuse.

where did the notion of the video tape come in? hmmmmmm?



more importantly, why is it okay for the government to lie to us, then when our supposed representatives ask what happened, they're told "what does it matter?"

so, yeah, the "coverup" over the frat boy prank of Watergate again pales in significance, reach, and tragedy to the feckless, reckless, cowardly obamanation regime.

but it's good enough for you, i guess.

[shitcunt]

So let me get this straight. The "cover up" was that it was a terrorist attack?

Hahahaha.

Are you not understanding why Obama would want to downplay a terrorist attack right before the election? He was running partly on having Al Qaeda on the run. Another terrorist attack on 9/11 did not fit the narrative so they claimed for weeks that this was just a protest over a video. Lying about the deaths of Americans for political reasons is kind of a big deal.

[MatthewT]

So let me get this straight. The "cover up" was that it was a terrorist attack?

Hahahaha.

no, the cover up was that they didn't know anything was going to happen; they didn't know anything was happening; they couldn't do anything to stop what was happening; and it wasn't a complete clusterfuck from the beginning.

that's the coverup. just exactly how naive and foolish they are to trust a post-revolutionary libya with the safety and security of our ambassador and his staff.

never mind the rambo stuff you guys seem to miss; the repeated calls for help ignored; the units an hour away that were never tasked. never mind that stuff.

you guys just worry about those rascally republicans and Faux News. that's your patriotic duty, i guess.

[MatthewT]

Are you not understanding why Obama would want to downplay a terrorist attack right before the election? He was running partly on having Al Qaeda on the run. Another terrorist attack on 9/11 did not fit the narrative so they claimed for weeks that this was just a protest over a video. Lying about the deaths of Americans for political reasons is kind of a big deal.

"Osama Bin Ladin is dead! and Al Queda is on the run!"

[MatthewT]

the enemies are within the walls

[RiotGrip]

obama still has not called it a terrorist attack

he said something of the sort? that's good enough for you? "um, america will not bow to acts of terror"

yeah, that's really telling the american people what happened. that's his whole "rose garden" excuse.

where did the notion of the video tape come in? hmmmmmm?



more importantly, why is it okay for the government to lie to us, then when our supposed representatives ask what happened, they're told "what does it matter?"

so, yeah, the "coverup" over the frat boy prank of Watergate again pales in significance, reach, and tragedy to the feckless, reckless, cowardly obamanation regime.

but it's good enough for you, i guess.

no, the cover up was that they didn't know anything was going to happen; they didn't know anything was happening; they couldn't do anything to stop what was happening; and it wasn't a complete clusterfuck from the beginning.

that's the coverup. just exactly how naive and foolish they are to trust a post-revolutionary libya with the safety and security of our ambassador and his staff.

never mind the rambo stuff you guys seem to miss; the repeated calls for help ignored; the units an hour away that were never tasked. never mind that stuff.

you guys just worry about those rascally republicans and Faux News. that's your patriotic duty, i guess.

Funny how none of this can be proven and no one can be brought to justice. But it is still far worse than watergate