Benghazi Questions ALL Answered but ONLY if You Actually Want Answers

The Senate Select Committee on Benghazi produced a bipartisan report which answered all the relevant questions about the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi. But asking questions couched in the form of accusations is all the wing nuts have left so they keep pushing already answered questions. It's a special kind of stupid for sure.

http://mediamatters.org/research/20...ked-and-answered-questions-fox-wa/199208#four

 

Just curious, but how did they answer all the questions when they did not have all the emails?

And, I notice that there is no name attached to the person or persons who CHANGED the talking point to the VIDEO. Since Mr. Morrell has not been charged with perjury, it has been proven not to be the CIA. Was it Obama?

 

The republican defense of Bush's inaction:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories

And the investigation of that:

Began 442 days after the event, ended 20 months later.
It laid most of the blame of the intelligence community, rather than Presidents Clinton and Bush Jr. and their respective administrations.

The investigations into the Benghazi incident are nothing like that, because the focus has always been on the Executive branches public responses, rather than the attack itself.

What will their investigations reveal, in the end, whenever that will be? That incomplete information was given to both the White House and the public. Is that unexpected? Hell no. That's how it works. Information comes in piecemeal. As more info is learned, eventually you get an idea of what occurred. The White House provided that initial piecemeal/incomplete info to the public, and republicans think that's criminal? republicans that use the death of four people to make political attacks are some of the lowest kinds of humans on the planet. Is it criminal for them to do so? Nope, it just shows how those republicans are awful human beings.

Then again, using public funds to make warrantless political attacks might be. What's the bill so far, anyway?

 

A everyone knows, Presidents never attempt to rescue Americans, and deliberately do not act so they can be re-elected.

What?

FAUX "contributors" worked really really hard on that "logic" gem.

 

They have just decided to start the eighth investigation into Benghazi. I think it's time to just start ignoring these idiots.

 

There, for the sake of accuracy, I fixed it for you.
You're welcome!

 

And there you have it folks: Just when you think that republicans have hit rock bottom, they find new ways of digging deeper into their psychosis. They have lost all sense of reality.

They insist that people believe their rantings that Obama wanted 4 people to die in Benghazi in order to win an election. That is beyond pathetic, it's psychotic.

 

How does that work, in your mind, anyway? What advantage does four people dying give to a President's re-election bid?

Being republicans, do you therefore suggest that future republican hopefuls find ways to kill people, and make those killings public knowledge...to improve their chances at winning?

The question: "Are you mad?", appears to have already been answered but, "Are you hearing the voices of spirits?" may still be appropriate. If so, what are they saying?

 

View attachment 2531

 

It doesn't have to actually make any sense. The accusation is the thing. Now they can say that the adminstration is ridden with scandals even if they are imaginary scandals. To them, real proof be damned. They just have to want to believe.

 

Exactly! It doesn't! But the needless deaths of 4 Americans, on your watch, can sure have a negative impact on a President's re-election bid, can't it?

 

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence: Intel Reports Linked Inflammatory Video To Benghazi Attack. A Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that "some intelligence suggests" an inflammatory video linked to violent protests around the region led terror groups to conduct "similar attacks with advanced warning":

It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]

 

As Commander-in-Chief, why didn't BO sent help during the 7+ hours this attack was unfolding?

 

One of the more fascinating quirks of their beliefs is where they are guilty, beyond the shadow of doubt, of this or that, yet accuse their opponents of that very same guilt, even in the absence of any hint of guiltiness.

Take Scotty. He repeats everything FAUX "News" says, word-for-word in most cases, so I called him a "parrot" a couple times. What does he do? He accuses me of it, apparently believing this to not only be true, but also in an attempt to "rile" me.

I think it's time the parrot-boy was clued-in to that particular part of his idiocy: If it riles him when I call him a parrot, that doesn't mean it's going to rile me when he calls me one.

Why? There are many reasons, really, though one of the most obvious is that I speak with originality, rather than repeating the words of others. (Hint: cut-and-pastes are not "original"). That means that, while he is indeed guilty of being a "parrot" of others, through his reliance on cut-and-paste posts to voice "his" opinion, I know that I am not, because I write my own responses in my own unique manner, a manner in which appears to have upset David to the point of hysteria, and am therefore inoculated against his moronic attempts to rile me.

Now, I can and have called these attempts childish...and can and have left it at that in the past....but Scotty apparently still believes his accusations are not only true, but successful in riling me. I will therefore repeat the obvious to Scotty: You are a parrot. You are parroting me. You are like a child having a temper-tantrum. Learn how to be an adult, or at least learn how to act like one, you pathetic little CoinOKC.

 

David's quotes (with point highlighted in red):

How quickly he forgets.

 

Did moron joe tell you to post this? I'll bet he did.

 

Yeah, so which part of BO's cowardice & the subsequent cover-up to protect his re-election propsects confuses you?

...and why didn't he send help...at any point...during the 7+ hours of this attack?

 

Make up your mind, David.

You "corrected me", saying it was designed to win an election, then did a 180 saying it hurt his chances...You losin' it, old-timer?

 

Just how slow are you? Nevermind, you don't have to answer, we already know.

 

View attachment 2532