• 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!

Ex-White House Official On Benghazi: 'Dude, This Was Like Two Years Ago'

Your collective feigned outrage is noted. Until you can tell me that you were at least equally outraged by the mistakes made by the Bush Administration for the complete failure of intelligence of 9/11 and Iraq WMDs (where hundreds of thousands have died), then I am sorry, your crocodile tears mean nothing but a bunch of partisan whining. Mistakes might have been made... nothing as grave as the 2 that I just mentioned. Not even close.

Collective outrage? Hardly. I'm used to ****-ups by now. If you'll note (like, you know, if you actually read my post), you'll see that I didn't blame Obama for the failure of intelligence. Your complete incompetence in debating Benghazi is noted. Try as you might? There is no way you can blame Bush for it. Poor you.

As to throwing **** against the wall and praying it'll stick? IOW, "You have no right to question Benghazi. Look what your guy did." That sucks wind. Please use duct tape.
 
If you cant see it, I can't help you. I don't give a rats ass if you served the Queen, it does not make you smarter or any less partisan. If the Bush era lies mean little to you, then you need to seriously look in a mirror.

Unlike you, I'm not obsessed with the past. I have experience in the region, and you don't and never will because you lack the stuffing to do such things. All you have is an undying devotion to a political viewpoint, which is little more than a puff in the wind in the end. Explain to me why it took CNN (!) to find Steven's personal journal four days after the attack. You can't, but I'll clue you in. There was no military presence there to clean up the mess. There was a political campaign to manage here, and there was no interest in securing anything or bringing those responsible for the attack to justice at all. It remains that way 20 months later in spite of Obama's solemn promise to bring those responsible to justice. Post #11 described you perfectly.
 
You can't even spell Benghazi right and yet you want me to believe you give a flying **** about the 4 that died? And here you are, whining about Obama and Hillary tag-team lying yet have no issues with the false intelligence produced to convince congress to attack Iraq. :roll: :doh

You seriously need to take a look at yourself, FFS.

The spelling of Benghazzi is irrelevant.

What's wrong ? Nothing intelligent to say ?

So you have to whine about something as irrelevant as someone's spelling ?

Benghazzi is turning the left into children.

Obama and Hillary knew the night of the attack that it was terroist.

The State Department was in communication with the Lybian Givt the night of the attack telling them it was a terrorist group loyal to Al Qaeda.

How about you educate yourself on this issue before showing up and embarrassing yourself. ..AGAIN
 
If you cant see it, I can't help you. I don't give a rats ass if you served the Queen, it does not make you smarter or any less partisan. If the Bush era lies mean little to you, then you need to seriously look in a mirror.

This is not about the Bush era and your juvenile attempts to move the thread in that directions has become far too commonplace among the leftists. Why not just stick to the topic at hand, or you can start another thread about George Bush if you have anything topical to report.
 
This is not about the Bush era and your juvenile attempts to move the thread in that directions has become far too commonplace among the leftists. Why not just stick to the topic at hand, or you can start another thread about George Bush if you have anything topical to report.

You have to realize that a tick on the ass hole of a hog has a rather limited view of things.
 
You have to realize that a tick on the ass hole of a hog has a rather limited view of things.

Well said! And that would apply to all the leftists who are trying to shift the conversation to George Bush.
 
Well said! And that would apply to all the leftists who are trying to shift the conversation to George Bush.

There's little doubt that George Washington lied about something, too. Let's talk about that. How about Condi Rice? Whadduya think about Sterling? War on wimmens? Anything? I just read a poll a while ago that said even over 50% of registered democrats would like the truth about Benghazi. That says that even they know the truth hasn't been told. Gives you a little bit of an idea exactly who we're dealing with here at DP.
 
Well said! And that would apply to all the leftists who are trying to shift the conversation to George Bush.

No, I, just remembering his how quick you guts can turn on that dime. Jon Stewart just reminded me of this:

WASHINGTON — Tom Ridge, the first secretary of homeland security, asserts in a new book that he was pressured by top advisers to President George W. Bush to raise the national threat level just before the 2004 election in what he suspected was an effort to influence the vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/us/21ridge.html?_r=0

add to that Rumsfeld's you go to war with the army you have when they went to a war OF CHOICE inadequatedly prepared, or Cheney's vote for us die re-election effort. The point is, your party ruined the nation by showing the partisan ideologue doesn't really give a **** outside of politics, so you're not getting many to jump on your exaggeration trian.
 
No, I, just remembering his how quick you guts can turn on that dime. Jon Stewart just reminded me of this:

WASHINGTON — Tom Ridge, the first secretary of homeland security, asserts in a new book that he was pressured by top advisers to President George W. Bush to raise the national threat level just before the 2004 election in what he suspected was an effort to influence the vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/us/21ridge.html?_r=0

add to that Rumsfeld's you go to war with the army you have when they went to a war OF CHOICE inadequatedly prepared, or Cheney's vote for us die re-election effort. The point is, your party ruined the nation by showing the partisan ideologue doesn't really give a **** outside of politics, so you're not getting many to jump on your exaggeration trian.

See post 381.
 
See post 381.

Saw it. I'm pointing out what you're missing.

No, I, just remembering his how quick you guts can turn on that dime. Jon Stewart just reminded me of this:

WASHINGTON — Tom Ridge, the first secretary of homeland security, asserts in a new book that he was pressured by top advisers to President George W. Bush to raise the national threat level just before the 2004 election in what he suspected was an effort to influence the vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/us/21ridge.html?_r=0

add to that Rumsfeld's you go to war with the army you have when they went to a war OF CHOICE inadequatedly prepared, or Cheney's vote for us die re-election effort. The point is, your party ruined the nation by showing the partisan ideologue doesn't really give a **** outside of politics, so you're not getting many to jump on your exaggeration train.
 
Saw it. I'm pointing out what you're missing.

No, I, just remembering his how quick you guts can turn on that dime. Jon Stewart just reminded me of this:

WASHINGTON — Tom Ridge, the first secretary of homeland security, asserts in a new book that he was pressured by top advisers to President George W. Bush to raise the national threat level just before the 2004 election in what he suspected was an effort to influence the vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/us/21ridge.html?_r=0

add to that Rumsfeld's you go to war with the army you have when they went to a war OF CHOICE inadequatedly prepared, or Cheney's vote for us die re-election effort. The point is, your party ruined the nation by showing the partisan ideologue doesn't really give a **** outside of politics, so you're not getting many to jump on your exaggeration train.

The topic is 'Ex-White House Official On Benghazi: 'Dude, This Was Like Two Years Ago'. This time you should actually think about post 381.
 
The topic is 'Ex-White House Official On Benghazi: 'Dude, This Was Like Two Years Ago'. This time you should actually think about post 381.

Yes, I know. And pointing out your (universal you) hyperbolic hypocrisy on topic. You're the one not following and who needs to go back and read.

Jon Stewart just reminded me of this:

WASHINGTON — Tom Ridge, the first secretary of homeland security, asserts in a new book that he was pressured by top advisers to President George W. Bush to raise the national threat level just before the 2004 election in what he suspected was an effort to influence the vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/us/21ridge.html?_r=0

add to that Rumsfeld's you go to war with the army you have when they went to a war OF CHOICE inadequatedly prepared, or Cheney's vote for us die re-election effort. The point is, your party ruined the nation by showing the partisan ideologue doesn't really give a **** outside of politics, so you're not getting many to jump on your exaggeration train.
 
benghaziobamacare550.png
 
The topic is 'Ex-White House Official On Benghazi: 'Dude, This Was Like Two Years Ago'. This time you should actually think about post 381.

Thought I'd share:

"You think people's failure to match your level of outrage is based on ignorance," Stewart said. "That after nearly 100 network news stories, hundreds of cable news stories about Benghazi, 13 Congressional hearings, 50 further Congressional briefings, and 25,000 pages of official findings concerning what happened in Benghazi, that if we all only knew about it, we would care." Right.

Rather, the reason no one can match Fox News' outrage is that we've seen this sort of thing before. You want to talk about an intelligence failure leading to the tragedy of American's losing their lives? As Stewart pointed out, there's a little something called the Iraq War.

"I commend you for finally getting in touch with your inner outrage. Because if I remember correctly, in the previous decade it was an emotion you did not seem comfortable addressing or expressing," Stewart said.

Jon Stewart Exposes Fox News' Hypocrisy over Benghazi - The Wire
 
Thought I'd share:

"You think people's failure to match your level of outrage is based on ignorance," Stewart said. "That after nearly 100 network news stories, hundreds of cable news stories about Benghazi, 13 Congressional hearings, 50 further Congressional briefings, and 25,000 pages of official findings concerning what happened in Benghazi, that if we all only knew about it, we would care." Right.

Rather, the reason no one can match Fox News' outrage is that we've seen this sort of thing before. You want to talk about an intelligence failure leading to the tragedy of American's losing their lives? As Stewart pointed out, there's a little something called the Iraq War.

"I commend you for finally getting in touch with your inner outrage. Because if I remember correctly, in the previous decade it was an emotion you did not seem comfortable addressing or expressing," Stewart said.

Jon Stewart Exposes Fox News' Hypocrisy over Benghazi - The Wire

Stewart is such a hack.

Going along with the desperate left wing tactic of diversion and Bush blame.

You people used to say Benghazzi was a fake scandal. What happened ?
 
And your point is that the public should just accept this and move on rather than confronting liars? That 'they all do it' excuse is wearing a little thin.

it just seems that this issue is more about politics than about discovering what went wrong.
 
Stewart is such a hack.

Going along with the desperate left wing tactic of diversion and Bush blame.

You people used to say Benghazzi was a fake scandal. What happened ?

Hack or not he's correct. You just don't want to own your own hypocrisy (universal your).
 
Hack or not he's correct. You just don't want to own your own hypocrisy (universal your).

Hypocrisy is a part of politics. For example, doubt that you would call the o - criminals "hero's in error" right?
 
No, American. The blatant arrogance belongs to those who have been passionately screaming "Benghazi" for political points the last few years, yet don't give one flying **** about those who died.

Bingo. Its so ironic that the wacko right-wing is claiming that the "scandal" behind Benghazi was for political purposes.....when the only real reason that the wingers keep trying to kick this dead horse is to rally their base in a never-ending hope to gain political points....and the really funny thing is that the salivating base doesn't even recognize that they are being manipulated.
 
Stewart is such a hack.

Going along with the desperate left wing tactic of diversion and Bush blame.

You people used to say Benghazzi was a fake scandal. What happened ?

It is a fake scandal.....no matter how many thousand times you try to breathe life into it.
 
Hypocrisy is a part of politics. For example, doubt that you would call the o - criminals "hero's in error" right?

True that. But I didn't know you guys were politicians. However, if you're willing to concede this is just one side of the isle hypocrisy, I'll move on.

And no, to the part I put in bold. There was nothing equivalent in this to Chalibi and his heroes in error.
 
True that. But I didn't know you guys were politicians. However, if you're willing to concede this is just one side of the isle hypocrisy, I'll move on.

And no, to the part I put in bold. There was nothing equivalent in this to Chalibi and his heroes in error.

To some extent, sure it is. But let's see if Obama the liar will release the PDBs. Wanna bet he won't?
 
It is a fake scandal.....no matter how many thousand times you try to breathe life into it.

Yes, Obama and Hillary concocting a fake video narrative while our Embassy was still under attack and then lying about it for the next 20 months is a "fake scandal".

The WH ignoring a Senate committee subpoena over a E-mail that would have proven they lied to Millions of Americans and the Family members of those murdered at Benghazzi is a "fake scandal".

The Obama administration and Hillary chosing their Political welfare over the welfare of the people who died in Benghazzi is a "fake scandal".

Sucks for people like you.

For months to come we get to witness a steady stream of corroborating data and evidence that will define Obama's legacy and ruin Hillary's chances in 2016 .

No amount of desperate and pathetic partisan mitigation from people like you is going to stop it.

Yes, we were ( Conservatives ) RIGHT all along about these low lifes
 
Back
Top Bottom