Ho Hum, another republican admits Benghazi is just a Hillary witch hunt. [W:42]

[sangha]

And this doesn't stop you from doing similar things. You call everyone who disagrees with you con, and ask them to debate "properly." Without even defining what you mean by that.



So I'm not really sure what you expected here. Do you actually hear yourself? Do you not understand that this is a debate politics forum!!! That usually means everything is fair game in politics. Maybe YOU'D be more comfortable in Democratic Underground. Though because your only "slightly" liberal. I'm not sure they would like you that much...

Sure we can all agree with you on this topic and say yeah. Look at those crazy republicans constantly going after Hillary, but then. That wouldn't really be a debate would it? I'm sorry did you want to debate how crazy JUST the Republicans are? Again what did you expect?

There is nothing in the rules on DP that says we can't point out how one-sided you are being. In fact, there is a whole entire section of this website devoted to media bias, highlighting one-sided hypocrisy on both sides.

So I replied to someone else who asked a similar question about Democrats making crap up out of thin air. Care to reply to that or are you just going to ignore it? These examples are only vague to somebody who hasn't been into politics in the last ten years, so why not google these controversies for yourself and learn something about how crazy democrats can be instead of only picking on Republicans. But I remember you don't like examples that aren't from this election period, so I included at least two.



I'll add one more and say that the liberal/hippie war against Monsanto and GMOs are usually built up around false pretenses and failure to understand science and basic genetics.

There's a good deal of rightwing opposition to GMO's which are often promoted using false pretenses based on flawed "science"

 

[Absentglare]

After you are done with the personal attacks....can you answer these questions?

When did the State Department know there was a threat?
Why didnt they act upon their intel?
Who fed the media the lie about the cause of the attack?
Why did everyone in the Obama administration knowingly spread a story they knew was a lie regarding the cause of the attacks?
Why did it take 3 years to produce the emails?

Those are some pretty direct questions...wouldnt you say? Something that direct...that shouldnt take 3 years to answer, should it?

The state department knew that having embassies in war-torn areas of social unrest is dangerous before you or i were born.

Why didn't they act on what intel?

Nobody fed the media any lies. During the attacks, an attacker credited the video. You were fed lies by your propagandist "news" sources that told you there is no doubt that the video was unrelated only hours after the attack. Sound familiar? Cheney said "there is no doubt that Iraq has WMDs and will use them on us," as a reason to go to war with Iraq where we lost 4,500 American lives. But you don't care about that because your "news" didn't tell you to care about it.

Why did it take 3 years to produce the emails ...? Did President Bush 2 immediately publish all of his emails to the public for each one of the 13 attacks on US embassies during his term ? No ? Wow, it's almost like politicians aren't expected to immediately lose all privacy the second any attack occurs.

 

[Absentglare]

And this doesn't stop you from doing similar things. You call everyone who disagrees with you con, and ask them to debate "properly." Without even defining what you mean by that.



So I'm not really sure what you expected here. Do you actually hear yourself? Do you not understand that this is a debate politics forum!!! That usually means everything is fair game in politics. Maybe YOU'D be more comfortable in Democratic Underground. Though because your only "slightly" liberal. I'm not sure they would like you that much...

Sure we can all agree with you on this topic and say yeah. Look at those crazy republicans constantly going after Hillary, but then. That wouldn't really be a debate would it? I'm sorry did you want to debate how crazy JUST the Republicans are? Again what did you expect?

There is nothing in the rules on DP that says we can't point out how one-sided you are being. In fact, there is a whole entire section of this website devoted to media bias, highlighting one-sided hypocrisy on both sides.

So I replied to someone else who asked a similar question about Democrats making crap up out of thin air. Care to reply to that or are you just going to ignore it? These examples are only vague to somebody who hasn't been into politics in the last ten years, so why not google these controversies for yourself and learn something about how crazy democrats can be instead of only picking on Republicans. But I remember you don't like examples that aren't from this election period, so I included at least two.

I'll add one more and say that the liberal/hippie war against Monsanto and GMOs are usually built up around false pretenses and failure to understand science and basic genetics.

This entire post is purely rhetorical.

 

[NeverTrump]

That's a resounding "No" then ?

I'm not talking about when they bring attention to some issue your propaganda told you not to care about.

I'm talking about putting a bullseye on a politician for absolutely no reason at all, and then go on to completely, unquestionably lie about them, continually, for three+ years.

You never specified these rules so all my examples fit this:

Can you explain one instance where democrats did something this bad, manufactured a massive controversy completely out of thin air ?

Those are all controversies Democrats created either completely out of thin air or based on false pretenses. Just like the Benghazi committee.

Yeah I already mentioned Bush and Cheney. Oh yeah, I guess black conservatives and conservative hollywood celebs don't matter either? Is that too vague? Need I say more? Have you liberals really forgotten about how you treated them? Oh wait I know, Bush deserves it and Hillary doesn't right? I'm glad Hillary is being targeted before she is elected. All the Clintons deserve to be investigated.

 

[NeverTrump]

There's a good deal of rightwing opposition to GMO's which are often promoted using false pretenses based on flawed "science"

I wouldn't consider conspiracy prone libertarians, who usually oppose GMO, right wing. Especially those! However, it can be determined, if you followed this stuff from the beginning (which I have) that the majority of Anti-GMO crap has come from the environmentalist wing of the Democratic Party and the anti-corporatists who also happen to think Alex Jones is right wing.

 

[VanceMack]

The state department knew that having embassies in war-torn areas of social unrest is dangerous before you or i were born.

Why didn't they act on what intel?

Nobody fed the media any lies. During the attacks, an attacker credited the video. You were fed lies by your propagandist "news" sources that told you there is no doubt that the video was unrelated only hours after the attack. Sound familiar? Cheney said "there is no doubt that Iraq has WMDs and will use them on us," as a reason to go to war with Iraq where we lost 4,500 American lives. But you don't care about that because your "news" didn't tell you to care about it.

Why did it take 3 years to produce the emails ...? Did President Bush 2 immediately publish all of his emails to the public for each one of the 13 attacks on US embassies during his term ? No ? Wow, it's almost like politicians aren't expected to immediately lose all privacy the second any attack occurs.

Perhaps when you seek credibility in a posting response you should avoid "but...Cheney!!!!" and "but Bush!!!!!!". Just a thought.

It is a fact that though they knew it was a terrorist attack from the moment it happened they repeated the lie offers by the State Department (and in direct disagreement with the Libyan president, site personnel, and everyone with a measurable IQ and a pulse) for 9 days.

 

[Vern]

After you are done with the personal attacks....can you answer these questions?

When did the State Department know there was a threat?
Why didnt they act upon their intel?
Who fed the media the lie about the cause of the attack?
Why did everyone in the Obama administration knowingly spread a story they knew was a lie regarding the cause of the attacks?
Why did it take 3 years to produce the emails?

Those are some pretty direct questions...wouldnt you say? Something that direct...that shouldnt take 3 years to answer, should it?

Vance I'm back. As I stated in the message, your questions are based on false conservative narratives.

This addresses false question 1&2
Question 1 and 2

“Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies surrounding the incident, the report concludes that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.”

No stand down order or military missteps in Benghazi attack, GOP-controlled intel panel finds | Fox News

On a quick side note, this is what intel that gets ignored looks like
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

"
In July 2001, an FBI agent in the Phoenix field office sent a memo to FBI headquarters and to two agents on international terrorism squads in the New York Field Office, advising of the “possibility of a coordinated effort by Usama Bin Ladin” to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation schools. The agent based his theory on the “inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest” attending such schools in Arizona."

This addresses false question 3&4 (same link)

“The report blames the Obama administration's inaccurate portrayal of the attack as having evolved from a protest on fragmentary and contradictory intelligence from the CIA. It finds no intent to mislead the American public.”

this addresses false question 5
It didn't take 3 years. She turned over her emails when she was asked and she wasn't asked until last year. think about that, they didn't ask until last fall. that only confirms the witch hunt narrative that the first 7 investigations didn't ask for her emails.

And that's the problem when cons demand their questions be answered. Every one of your questions was based on a false premise. the good thing is that conservatives seem to finally be realizing that the "stand down orders" lies were vile and disgusting hence you didn't demand answers to that. So vance, if you think something is true, make a clear straight forward statement and back it up. And again, I think you and other cons are overcompensating for your lack of outrage when bush ignored the clear and repeated warnings of 9-11. (go back and the Arizona FBI warning again).

 

[Vern]

Sure ever hear of the movie Fahrenheit 9/11? No. What about an Inconvenient Truth? Oh right you want something completely out of thin air. OK How about all the recent race riots and Black Lives Matters? No Ok How about Obama's entire 2008 campaign message? How is that Hope and Change coming? Even Chris Matthews doesn't have the thrill up his leg anymore. Still not good enough? What about that campus rape story? Remember that? It was supposed to start the discussion and change rape culture on campus, even though it was fake!

Oh speaking of young people we must not forget the liberal war against the NFL and how it damages young men and should be abolished...

The Go To Liberal defense for making up fake stuff is, "Who cares, it brings awareness to the issue."

your attempts to come up with "librul witch hunts" is a spectacular failure. You don't even understand what "witch hunt" means. You could call Fahrenheit 9/11 a hit piece if it wasn't true. maybe you should read the 9-11 commission report sometime. Speaking of 9-11, bush refused to testify under oath to the commission, for more than an hour and not without Dick. that's the opposite of a witch hunt.

 

[VanceMack]

Vance I'm back. As I stated in the message, your questions are based on false conservative narratives.

This addresses false question 1&2
Question 1 and 2

“Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies surrounding the incident, the report concludes that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.”

No stand down order or military missteps in Benghazi attack, GOP-controlled intel panel finds | Fox News

On a quick side note, this is what intel that gets ignored looks like
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

"
In July 2001, an FBI agent in the Phoenix field office sent a memo to FBI headquarters and to two agents on international terrorism squads in the New York Field Office, advising of the “possibility of a coordinated effort by Usama Bin Ladin” to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation schools. The agent based his theory on the “inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest” attending such schools in Arizona."

This addresses false question 3&4 (same link)

“The report blames the Obama administration's inaccurate portrayal of the attack as having evolved from a protest on fragmentary and contradictory intelligence from the CIA. It finds no intent to mislead the American public.”

this addresses false question 5
It didn't take 3 years. She turned over her emails when she was asked and she wasn't asked until last year. think about that, they didn't ask until last fall. that only confirms the witch hunt narrative that the first 7 investigations didn't ask for her emails.

And that's the problem when cons demand their questions be answered. Every one of your questions was based on a false premise. the good thing is that conservatives seem to finally be realizing that the "stand down orders" lies were vile and disgusting hence you didn't demand answers to that. So vance, if you think something is true, make a clear straight forward statement and back it up. And again, I think you and other cons are overcompensating for your lack of outrage when bush ignored the clear and repeated warnings of 9-11. (go back and the Arizona FBI warning again).

You were gone?

 

[Vern]

Says the most immature poster on the site. However, your obnoxious and adolescent posting style hasn't prevented you, on this one occasion, from actually swerving into the truth. Benghazi is a non-issue. Republicans look foolish in their continued pursuit of this non story and Hillary will emerge from this in a stronger position than when she went in.

Hey fletch thank you for admitting I was right. mmm, wouldn't you say vance has an "obnoxious and adolescent posting style"?

You were gone? I guess I just don't miss rats.

vance, wouldn't a more appropriate response be "thank you vern. I should have listened the first time you told me my questions were based on false conservative narratives. But I didn't so I reposted them. And your response proves without a doubt that I've been believing false conservative narratives instead of the truth. And your reference to 9-11 was particularly relevant. Yes, that is what "ignoring intel looks like". Maybe I am overcompensating for my complete lack of outrage at Bush concerning 9-11. "

see con, your response is why I generally ignore conservative "questions". You demanded answers but ignored the truth. don't feel bad most (if not all cons) ignore the truth when it conflicts with their ideology.

 

[sangha]

I wouldn't consider conspiracy prone libertarians, who usually oppose GMO, right wing. Especially those! However, it can be determined, if you followed this stuff from the beginning (which I have) that the majority of Anti-GMO crap has come from the environmentalist wing of the Democratic Party and the anti-corporatists who also happen to think Alex Jones is right wing.

I was thinking about right wing farmers and other rural types but I would agree that the sentiment is stronger on the left as well as being based more on ideology than first hand experience.

 

[Rentoc]

Oh look, an investigator says he was fired from the Benghazi investigation because he was trying to do his job instead of joining in the partisan witch hunt.

Ex-staffer: Benghazi committee pursuing 'partisan investigation' targeting Hillary Clinton - CNNPolitics.com


A former investigator with the House Select Committee on Benghazi is accusing the Republican-led panel of carrying out a politically motivated investigation targeting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instead of the thorough and objective fact-finding mission it was set up to pursue.

Maj. Bradley Podliska, an intelligence officer in the Air Force Reserve who describes himself as a conservative

The fact that the guy's name is not "unnamed source" might be a little confusing to some. And even more confusing than the fact that we know his name is that he's a Major in the air force and claims to be a conservative.

The Clinton News Network gets into the fight. Who would have figured? :shock:

 

[eohrnberger]

The Clinton News Network gets into the fight. Who would have figured? :shock:

It's almost as bad a Georgie boy over there in ABC land:
pretending to be journalist
pretending not to be an ex-Clinton war room regular
pretending to be impartial in the race

 

[Absentglare]

You never specified these rules so all my examples fit this:

Those are all controversies Democrats created either completely out of thin air or based on false pretenses. Just like the Benghazi committee.

Yeah I already mentioned Bush and Cheney. Oh yeah, I guess black conservatives and conservative hollywood celebs don't matter either? Is that too vague? Need I say more? Have you liberals really forgotten about how you treated them? Oh wait I know, Bush deserves it and Hillary doesn't right? I'm glad Hillary is being targeted before she is elected. All the Clintons deserve to be investigated.

Those things you mentioned simply make you look poorly informed.

AGW is very real.

When was the last time the democrats wasted tax dollars on unnecessary investigations into republicans ?

Oh? What's that? Never?

 

[Fenton]

Those things you mentioned simply make you look poorly informed.

AGW is very real.

When was the last time the democrats wasted tax dollars on unnecessary investigations into republicans ?

Oh? What's that? Never?

Only in Computer models built on manipulated data is AGW " real "

And the investigations into Hillary's private email server is very necessary.

 

[cpwill]

Oh look, an investigator says he was fired from the Benghazi investigation because he was trying to do his job instead of joining in the partisan witch hunt.

Ex-staffer: Benghazi committee pursuing 'partisan investigation' targeting Hillary Clinton - CNNPolitics.com

A former investigator with the House Select Committee on Benghazi is accusing the Republican-led panel of carrying out a politically motivated investigation targeting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instead of the thorough and objective fact-finding mission it was set up to pursue.

Maj. Bradley Podliska, an intelligence officer in the Air Force Reserve who describes himself as a conservative

The fact that the guy's name is not "unnamed source" might be a little confusing to some. And even more confusing than the fact that we know his name is that he's a Major in the air force and claims to be a conservative.

Well, well, well.

Ex-House Benghazi Committee staffer Bradley Podliska lit up the political world last October when he claimed that the committee had a partisan obsession with Hillary Clinton, and that he was fired for not going along with it.

But according to Politico, Podliska filed an amendment to his lawsuit against the committee February to remove that accusation. His sole claim against his former employer is now that they discriminated against his need to take weeks off to serve in the military.

The Republican-controlled committee has strongly contested both of Podliska’s claims. On the contrary, they claimed in October that he was fired in part because he was the one who showed a partisan bias....

 

[NonoBadDog]

Well, well, well.

Vern's batting average is sucking lately. I am sure Vern will admit that his post was based on a person that was victimizing themselves based on a lie. Now Vern can claim to be a victim of the self victimized liar that started the suit. Poor Vern.

 

[Fenton]

"A second congressman admitted on Wednesday that the Republican House committee created to investigate the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, is solely "designed to go after" Hillary Clinton.

:lamo :lamo :lamo

Hillary, Susan Rice and Obama lying to...well everyone







Hillary Told Daughter Chelsea That Terrorists Were Behind Benghazi Attack The Night It Happened
Read more: Hillary Told Chelsea Terrorists Were Behind Benghazi Attack | The Daily Caller
Hillary Told Chelsea Terrorists Were Behind Benghazi Attack | The Daily Caller



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Hillary Clinton January 31st 2016.....
“There is no classified marked information on those emails, sent or received by me. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the intelligence committee, who’s had a chance to review them, has said that this email chain did not originate with me and that there were no classification markings.”

In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure"
In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure" - CBS News

" Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."

Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Hillary’s emails were ‘beyond top secret
Hillary’s emails were ‘beyond top secret’ | New York Post


State Department will not release 22 'top secret' Clinton emails
State Department will not release 22 'top secret' Clinton emails - CNNPolitics.com

FBI's Hillary Probe Expands Again, Now Investigating Public Corruption, Sources Say
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/01/11/report-fbis-hillary-investigation-expands-again-now-probing-corruption-n2102799
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Why Voters Don't Trust Hillary Clinton
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/28/why_voters_dont_trust_hillary_clinton_127567.html

Hey Hillary, Here’s Why People Don’t Trust You
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cody-cain/hey-hillary-heres-why-peo_b_9206424.html

 

[eohrnberger]

:lamo :lamo :lamo

Hillary, Susan Rice and Obama lying to...well everyone







Hillary Told Daughter Chelsea That Terrorists Were Behind Benghazi Attack The Night It Happened
Read more: Hillary Told Chelsea Terrorists Were Behind Benghazi Attack | The Daily Caller
Hillary Told Chelsea Terrorists Were Behind Benghazi Attack | The Daily Caller

View attachment 67198947

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Hillary Clinton January 31st 2016.....
“There is no classified marked information on those emails, sent or received by me. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the intelligence committee, who’s had a chance to review them, has said that this email chain did not originate with me and that there were no classification markings.”

In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure"
In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure" - CBS News

" Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."

Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Hillary’s emails were ‘beyond top secret
Hillary’s emails were ‘beyond top secret’ | New York Post


State Department will not release 22 'top secret' Clinton emails
State Department will not release 22 'top secret' Clinton emails - CNNPolitics.com

FBI's Hillary Probe Expands Again, Now Investigating Public Corruption, Sources Say
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/01/11/report-fbis-hillary-investigation-expands-again-now-probing-corruption-n2102799
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Why Voters Don't Trust Hillary Clinton
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/28/why_voters_dont_trust_hillary_clinton_127567.html

Hey Hillary, Here’s Why People Don’t Trust You
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cody-cain/hey-hillary-heres-why-peo_b_9206424.html

Hey Fenton, I'm going to have crib this nice collection of yours (hope you don't mind). Excellent and succinct summary.

 

[Fenton]

Hey Fenton, I'm going to have crib this nice collection of yours (hope you don't mind). Excellent and succinct summary.

No at all, be my guest. VERN says she's not under investigation.

I guess the FBI is investigating inanimate objects now ?

 

[RetiredUSN]

Those things you mentioned simply make you look poorly informed.

AGW is very real.

When was the last time the democrats wasted tax dollars on unnecessary investigations into republicans ?

Oh? What's that? Never?

Wrong!

 

[eohrnberger]

No at all, be my guest. VERN says she's not under investigation.

I guess the FBI is investigating inanimate objects now ?

You can lead some to water, but that doesn't mean they can escape their self-imposed blinders.

 

[Absentglare]

Wrong!

Failing to name a single instance makes you look wrong.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Failing to name a single instance makes you look wrong.

No....your accusation makes you look wrong. There are many democrat witch hunts out there. A simple google search can lead on to them.

 

[NonoBadDog]

:lamo :lamo :lamo

Hillary, Susan Rice and Obama lying to...well everyone







Hillary Told Daughter Chelsea That Terrorists Were Behind Benghazi Attack The Night It Happened
Read more: Hillary Told Chelsea Terrorists Were Behind Benghazi Attack | The Daily Caller
Hillary Told Chelsea Terrorists Were Behind Benghazi Attack | The Daily Caller

View attachment 67198947

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Hillary Clinton January 31st 2016.....
“There is no classified marked information on those emails, sent or received by me. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the intelligence committee, who’s had a chance to review them, has said that this email chain did not originate with me and that there were no classification markings.”

In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure"
In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure" - CBS News

" Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."

Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Hillary’s emails were ‘beyond top secret
Hillary’s emails were ‘beyond top secret’ | New York Post


State Department will not release 22 'top secret' Clinton emails
State Department will not release 22 'top secret' Clinton emails - CNNPolitics.com

FBI's Hillary Probe Expands Again, Now Investigating Public Corruption, Sources Say
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/01/11/report-fbis-hillary-investigation-expands-again-now-probing-corruption-n2102799
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Why Voters Don't Trust Hillary Clinton
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/28/why_voters_dont_trust_hillary_clinton_127567.html

Hey Hillary, Here’s Why People Don’t Trust You
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cody-cain/hey-hillary-heres-why-peo_b_9206424.html

Great summation.