White House has now been directly linked to Benghazi cover-up

Doesn't it seem like the GOP has gone from being a viable opposition party to a crowd of ass-hat hecklers?

 

Apparently, as more facts emerge in the Benghazi tragedy, the WH has issued yet another set of talking points...it seems the WH line now is "C'mon dude, that was 2 years ago..."

Let me get this straight- if you can kick the can down the road long enough, it's okay to lie & deceive?
Ok, got it!

 

Maybe this will get the ball rolling. I wish the liars luck getting past Gowdy.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-gop-form-special-select-committee-benghazi-n95696

 

View attachment 2502

 

View attachment 2503

 

View attachment 2504

 

The funniest part is that you idiots actually believe what you're saying.

 

And the saddest part is that people still believe the words coming out of Obama's mouth.

 

No, the saddest part is that the Right wing uses a tragedy like this for political points. But that has already been established.

 

The saddest part of the entire Benghazi story, other than the deaths of four brave Americans, is that the Democrats have never gotten on board with seeking the truth. Why not? Shouldn't everyone, regardless of political persuasion, want the truth?

As bits of this story have filtered out over the last couple of years, it's obvious that the administration was hiding something from the very beginning. That fact alone should raise doubts with anyone no matter your political views.

If Obama and Hillary have nothing to hide, then the full story should have come out a long time ago. But, that's not the case as is obvious with all the new revelations that are becoming apparent. The American people will never know what really happened unless someone pushes for the full story since this administration is certainly not going to give it of their own free will.

Thankfully, the Republicans are attempting to seek the truth. There's nothing wrong with that. Why are Democrats so opposed to seeking the truth?

 

Benghazi conspiracy theorists come unglued

05/02/14 08:00 AM
By Steve Benen

Ordinarily on Capitol Hill, when lawmakers organize a hearing and call a notable witness, the purpose is to advance a specific cause. But if lawmakers haven’t done their homework, this usually straightforward exercise can go quite badly.

A month ago, for example, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee held another Benghazi hearing because they hoped former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell might tell Republicans what they wanted to hear. He didn’t – Morell further debunked every right-wing conspiracy theory to which GOP lawmakers desperately cling.

Yesterday, something similar happened.

The Republican head of the House’s Armed Services Committee issued a statement sharply criticizing the testimony of his own party’s star witness in the latest hearing on Benghazi only minutes after the session concluded, going against his colleagues’ enthusiasm to hear just what the Obama administration did wrong the night of the attack.​

​

It quickly became an example of the right hand not knowing what the further-right hand was doing. Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) House Oversight Committee called retired Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell to testify on Benghazi, insisting Lovell had key insights into the developments. But the retired general refuted key elements of the GOP line, and soon after, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, insisted Lovell does not have key insights into the developments.

At the same time, the Republican Armed Services Committee chairman directly contradicted claims from the Republican Oversight Committee chairman about accusations related to Hillary Clinton.

When Casey Stengel asked, “Can’t anybody here play this game?” in 1962, he wasn’t talking about Republicans obsessed with a misguided conspiracy theory, but he might as well have been.

Indeed, yesterday was rough for the right, but the GOP’s newly invigorated, completely unhinged interest in Benghazi has had a rough week.

The conservative outrage machine apparently went to 11 this week when Republicans learned that a White House official repeated the CIA’s line on Benghazi soon after the attacks. Why is that scandalous? I haven’t the foggiest idea – the “revelation” simply reinforces what we already knew – but GOP officials and their media allies were certain this is a “smoking gun.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is now once again convinced there was a “cover-up” – he’s used that phrase before, though he’s struggled with its meaning – and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) added that he believes White House officials are “scumbags.”

Remember, according to the Beltway’s conventional wisdom, these are the kind of leading, reasonable Republican lawmakers with whom President Obama is supposed to work and strike deals.

Let me just repeat the point from earlier in the week: it’s clear at this point that no amount of evidence, no number of investigations, no hours of hearings, no volumes of comprehensive reports will ever be enough for those who want the Benghazi conspiracy theories to have merit. It’s no longer about substantiation; it’s more of a feeling. It’s as if Stephen Colbert’ persona were real and a large group of people proudly declared, “It doesn’t matter if the evidence says we’re wrong because our guts say we’re right.”

It’s no way to win an argument, but for Benghazi conspiracy theorists, they’ve already won the argument by convincing themselves that their version of reality is superior to everyone else’s.

 

Benghaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-zi ....Because we have nothing else

~The GOP

 

A spot-on observation!

 

Maybe it is simply that you haven't found the "truth" you want yet. That's how conspiracy theories work after all.

You guys really haven't noticed the pattern yet eh? Whenever there is good news about the economy, Obamacare, or bad news for the GOP like Cliven Bundy and mass school shootings, suddenly it's time to talk about Benghazi again.

 

Heck, give us a story that doesn't quickly turn out to be a lie. That would be a good start.

 

Sure, after 10 to 14 million dollars of tax payer money going into this partisan witch hunt, you want a "story". Why don't you just pick a story and then prove it. Isn't that how it's suppose to work? Oh yeah, ALL your stories have fallen apart. Well, keep trying.

 

Would "10 to 14 million dollars" (your numbers) have been spent if BO had simply told the truth from the beginning? You claim all of my stories have "fallen apart"? Name one of them. You can't...but it sure seems like all of BO's "stories" fallen apart.

 

Just one? Too easy. How the humdinger that Obama sat and watched in real time while a hovering drone filmed the entire incident and did nothing. That was a good one. Feel free to Google it. It was big at one time.

 

You said: "Oh yeah, ALL your stories have fallen apart."

Now show where:
1) I ever had "a story" & 2) where that supposed "story" fell apart.

 

And I have 2 questions for you. If you answer them correctly, I will never mention Benghazi again. Who decided that the lie would be "the film caused it"? And why did they lie blaming the film? Go ahead and Google it. You will find the film all over the net. Most commonly, it was/is blamed on the CIA, but you will notice that quote from Morrell - "When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that's not something that the analysts had attributed this attack to." So who did it? Obama? Clinton? Don't tell me it was Rhodes.