• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

Really? I thought everyone listened to CNN/MSNBC. In fact I think they say everyone listens to them all the time. I don't understand why these
people who want to talk - can't talk on TV? I'm waiting to hear? I'm guessing there is at least one host on one of these networks that would gladly
ask them the simple question - who decided to use the video - and the simple follow up question - why?


Ap[pearing on biased talk shows means nothing. Talking at the hearings means a whole lot more and you know it.
 
This is the common answer. The "CIA" did it. The "State Department" did it, the "White House" did it, the "FBI" did it.
I'm not asking for an organization; lets find the name of the person who decided to lie to the American people about why
the men in Libya died and what was their motivation for saying what they did? The president of the united states knows
the answer, we all know he is aware of this persons name and intent. His unwillingness to be transparent is sickening.


 
Is he the Issa who voted against funding for extra diplomatic protection abroad, in places like Benghazi?

Nice Lie, I mean nice try.

" In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats."

Try another false narrative no one will believe next time.
 
Really? I thought everyone listened to CNN/MSNBC. In fact I think they say everyone listens to them all the time. I don't understand why these
people who want to talk - can't talk on TV? I'm waiting to hear? I'm guessing there is at least one host on one of these networks that would gladly
ask them the simple question - who decided to use the video - and the simple follow up question - why?

Like I said, talking at the hearings is what matters. Why were they not asked?
 
This is the common answer. The "CIA" did it. The "State Department" did it, the "White House" did it, the "FBI" did it.
I'm not asking for an organization; lets find the name of the person who decided to lie to the American people about why
the men in Libya died and what was their motivation for saying what they did? The president of the united states knows
the answer, we all know he is aware of this persons name and intent. His unwillingness to be transparent is sickening.
If you read the ink I provided, you'll see that David Petraeus signed the unclassified talking points.
 
If you read the ink I provided, you'll see that David Petraeus signed the unclassified talking points.

Yea he DID sign it, and then stated he knew immediately that it was a terror attack.

So Patraeus for whatever reason did n't refuse to sign a obvious lie, a narrative drummed up before an election to pull focus away from the State Dept's abysmal failure when it came to protecting a consulate that had already been attacked once.
 
This is not my argument, but I'm too amused not to comment. Your whole point seems to center around people lying, being generally dishonest, and miss representing facts. Yet, that is exactly what you did with this post. You generalized an entire section of the American public, presumed to know their personal opinions on this subject, and completely miss represented a number of facts.

The irony is just too much, lol :lamo

Obama and Hillary didn't lie to the faces of the grieving families and tell them their loved ones died because of a youtube video?

Obama didn't repeatedly LIE to the American People and blame benghazi on a youtube video?

The obama administration didn't spend 70K in pakistan blaming a youtube video?

There wasn't 2 stand down orders given while Americans were in combat?

Whistleblowers weren't harassed, demoted and intimidated?

You left wing radicals can have your own opinions, but sorry, you don't get to have your own facts. Whining that there is nothing here isn't going to make Benghazi go away. It's here to stay and it's a major scandal. Get used to it.
 
Yea he DID sign it, and then stated he knew immediately that it was a terror attack.

So Patraeus for whatever reason did n't refuse to sign a obvious lie, a narrative drummed up before an election to pull focus away from the State Dept's abysmal failure when it came to protecting a consulate that had already been attacked once.
Petraeus signed the unclassified version that was released to the public, he didn't say it was a terror attack in public.
 
Obama and Hillary didn't lie to the faces of the grieving families and tell them their loved ones died because of a youtube video?
Prove they did.

Obama didn't repeatedly LIE to the American People and blame benghazi on a youtube video?
Prove he did.

The obama administration didn't spend 70K in pakistan blaming a youtube video?
?????

There wasn't 2 stand down orders given while Americans were in combat?
Prove it.
Whistleblowers weren't harassed, demoted and intimidated?
Prove this.

You left wing radicals can have your own opinions, but sorry, you don't get to have your own facts. Whining that there is nothing here isn't going to make Benghazi go away. It's here to stay and it's a major scandal. Get used to it.
It's not a scandal.
 
Obama and Hillary didn't lie to the faces of the grieving families and tell them their loved ones died because of a youtube video?

Obama didn't repeatedly LIE to the American People and blame benghazi on a youtube video?

The obama administration didn't spend 70K in pakistan blaming a youtube video?

There wasn't 2 stand down orders given while Americans were in combat?

Whistleblowers weren't harassed, demoted and intimidated?

You left wing radicals can have your own opinions, but sorry, you don't get to have your own facts. Whining that there is nothing here isn't going to make Benghazi go away. It's here to stay and it's a major scandal. Get used to it.

So 'left wing radicals' aren't allowed their 'own facts', but you are? The world "lie" implies malice, with the intention to miss lead. You are interpreting the facts to support the conclusions you want to be true. There are three sides to every story, but you are only interested in one. That's fine, I'm just amused by the irony.
 
And the GOP continues to fall to pieces, tripping on their own lips and lies. The GOP last week got all up in arms about certain emails that got leaked and they spoonfed their bull**** to the press... have you wondered how these emails were leaked? It was the GOP that "leaked" of their existence then intentionally misquoted them to try and trump up more heat where there is absolutely no flame. The Whitehouse released the real emails and yeah... they don't say what the GOP claims they did. Surprise, surprise surprise.

WH Benghazi emails have different quotes than earlier reported

Republicans on Capitol Hill claimed they found proof in White House emails that they leaked to reporters last week. It turns out some of the quotes were wrong.

On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

But it turns out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department.

It read: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."​

more incidences of GOP falshoods at the link.
 
Last edited:
Yup. That's the one that earned him four Pinocchios from the Washington Post.:roll:

I've noticed that you continue to serve up rhetoric where others supply links. Makes life rather easy playing the naysayer in such fashion... don't it?
 
I've noticed that you continue to serve up rhetoric where others supply links. Makes life rather easy playing the naysayer in such fashion... don't it?

I have technical trouble with links, but I have no problem supporting my assertions.:cool:
 
I have technical trouble with links, but I have no problem supporting my assertions.:cool:

And on an internet forum... links are how you do that. Do you really not know how to copy and paste?
 
And the GOP continues to fall to pieces, tripping on their own lips and lies. The GOP last week got all up in arms about certain emails got leaked and they spoonfed their bull**** to the press... guess what? It was the GOP that "leaked" them then intentionally misquoted them to try and trump up more heat where there is absolutely no flame. The Whitehouse released the real emails and yeah... they don't say what the GOP claims they did. Surprise, surprise surprise.

WH Benghazi emails have different quotes than earlier reported

Republicans on Capitol Hill claimed they found proof in White House emails that they leaked to reporters last week. It turns out some of the quotes were wrong.

On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

But it turns out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department.

It read: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."​

more incidences of GOP falshoods at the link.
I find it ironic that Major Garrett gave that report. He was Fox News White House several years ago.
 
And on an internet forum... links are how you do that. Do you really not know how to copy and paste?

Yes. I had no trouble on POLITICO and I have followed the directions here. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't. I get by on the undeniable power of my arguments.:cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom