GOP Benghazi

[Big girl]

GOP-Led House Committee Exonerates Obama Admin of Any Wrongdoing in Benghazi AttackAugust 4, 2014 • By John Prager

This is a good article.

[baddog]

Link?

[tvc184]

The article is a straw man argument (I read it). The author only quotes a Democratic member of the committee. The author's bio at the end of the article states that he is an "unfortunate liberal soul" that is in the midst of a "conservative hellscape". He has a "deep-seated" hatred" of "bigotry", "hatred" and "lies of the Right Wing".

 

Yep, that is a well thought out and objective article............... 

 

 

[PN-G bamatex]

The House Intelligence Committee, led by Republicans, has concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, said Rep. Mike Thompson of St. Helena, the second-ranking Democrat on the committee.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/House-panel-No-administration-wrongdoing-in-5663509.php

 

It says that they've concluded there was no deliberate wrongdoing. That doesn't mean the administration didn't do anything wrong, just that if they did, it wasn't intentional.

 

I'd hardly call that a victory.

[stevenash]

I would interpret that article as pertaining to the deaths of the four individuals.  I don't think it was intended to speak to the issue of using the video excuse in order to help at election time.

[Big girl]

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/House-panel-No-administration-wrongdoing-in-5663509.php

 

It says that they've concluded there was no deliberate wrongdoing. That doesn't mean the administration didn't do anything wrong, just that if they did, it wasn't intentional.

 

I'd hardly call that a victory.

wow, unbelievable. Is that the only thing you could think of the write?  SMH

[Big girl]

I would interpret that article as pertaining to the deaths of the four individuals.  I don't think it was intended to speak to the issue of using the video excuse in order to help at election time.

smdh :blink:

[PN-G bamatex]

wow, unbelievable. Is that the only thing you could think of the write?  SMH

 

Are you saying the point isn't valid?

[TROJANSWIN]

She is saying she didn't actually read the article. Now, that y'all have explained the article to her all she can respond with is that y'all are too stupid to discuss this article with her. That is her way of winning the argument! Y'all are dumb, so she is right!

[NorthoftheBorder]

When I realized that the debate with a certain poster could only be held at the kindergarten level, I decided that is was a complete waste of time to engage!!  I am sure in time you fellows will come to a similar conclusion!!!

[bullets13]

wow, unbelievable. Is that the only thing you could think of the write? SMH

Wow. Unbelievable! You don't understand the very valid point he made? SMH

[Big girl]

This is my point: you guys will find a way to criticize the President no matter what he does. He didnt "intentionionally" do anything wrong, but maybe he did something wrong without malice; therefore, we should still crucify him. You guys were talking about cover ups of deliberate actions just weeks ago, your story has changed again, now you switch to the video footage at election time as your new Benghazi witch hunt. How about saying we were wrong as it pertains to this issue. You guys are pathetic. .

[PN-G bamatex]

This is my point: you guys will find a way to criticize the President no matter what he does. He didnt "intentionionally" do anything wrong, but maybe he did something wrong without malice; therefore, we should still crucify him. You guys were talking about cover ups of deliberate actions just weeks ago, your story has changed again, now you switch to the video footage at election time as your new Benghazi witch hunt. How about saying we were wrong as it pertains to this issue. You guys are pathetic. .

Where, exactly, have I ever stated that the administration was trying to cover up a deliberate misdeed? Where has bullets said that, for that matter? Please, go back and find those posts.

When the Benghazi attack first happened, I clearly remember stating that we needed to wait for the results of a full investigation before jumping to conclusions about anything. I gave the administration the benefit of the doubt and even argued on the administration's behalf with a couple of the posters here. If I could go back and quote those posts, I would; unfortunately, the site crash that occurred a few months later makes that impossible.

I'll admit, the fact that it has taken this long to get an investigation, in conjunction with the fact that the Democrats have never really cooperated with any of the inquiries that preceded it, makes me very suspicious. It doesn't help that the evidence that has been released about the attack completely contradicts the narrative the Obama administration ran with in its immediate aftermath, or that this all occurred in the middle of a heated election when the last thing the Obama campaign wanted was a terrorist attack on the president's record. But, unlike some people who want to post half a quote from a Democrat member of an investigative committee that has yet to release its actual findings and call it noteworthy, I'm sticking to what I said almost two years ago and waiting to see the conclusion of a full investigation before formulating an opinion.

In the meantime, you should make sure the people you point your asinine blanket accusations at have actually done some of the things you claim before calling them out.

[NorthoftheBorder]

So what we can take away from this is that the Admin didn't do anything intentional that led to the deaths of the 4 americans.  That was NEVER in question.  What was is the absolute ridiculous lie about what caused it (video) and that is was spontaneous from a crowd of rebel rousers!!  Also in  question was the lack of any effort to provide military support while the attack was going on which lasted for hours.  This thread is another attempt by a radical left apologist for the current POTUS (this would be like something ECO would do) to try to divert attention from the real problem and issue!!

[stevenash]

My issue with Benghazi has always been the video issue and not the unfortunate deaths.

[LumRaiderFan]

So now we can only criticize an administration only if they INTENTIONALLY did something wrong...hmmmmm.

 

So it's all about intent and not results?

[stevenash]

Intent is all that matters to some.  If our leader says "it is my intent to create a 21st century VA"  then the waiting lines and non treatment of patients does not matter.  If our leader say, " my program will provide shovel ready jobs" and nothing happens, it's ok because he meant well.  If our leader says, " if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it" but you can't, it doesnt matter because he was only trying to help the poor get coverage.

[bullets13]

This is my point: you guys will find a way to criticize the President no matter what he does. He didnt "intentionionally" do anything wrong, but maybe he did something wrong without malice; therefore, we should still crucify him. You guys were talking about cover ups of deliberate actions just weeks ago, your story has changed again, now you switch to the video footage at election time as your new Benghazi witch hunt. How about saying we were wrong as it pertains to this issue. You guys are pathetic. .

The real point is that you will defend him, even if he does something wrong. And when your article by the biased liberal writer implying that the administration had done no wrong was proven false (no intentional culpability does not mean no culpability), you attacked the guy who proved your article wrong, rather than admitting that your article was misleading. I have a long history of going after those on this site who post misleading articles to try and attack Obama (in fact I just did before I responded to this post). But your article is just as bad, and IMO someone who will defend the president on issues where he doesn't deserve defending are no better than those who attack him when he doesn't deserve attacking.

[Big girl]

My issue with Benghazi has always been the video issue and not the unfortunate deaths.

you are lying

[Big girl]

Intent is all that matters to some. If our leader says "it is my intent to create a 21st century VA" then the waiting lines and non treatment of patients does not matter. If our leader say, " my program will provide shovel ready jobs" and nothing happens, it's ok because he meant well. If our leader says, " if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it" but you can't, it doesnt matter because he was only trying to help the poor get coverage.

you can't use Benghazi anymore so now you are switching topics again.

[Big girl]

The real point is that you will defend him, even if he does something wrong. And when your article by the biased liberal writer implying that the administration had done no wrong was proven false (no intentional culpability does not mean no culpability), you attacked the guy who proved your article wrong, rather than admitting that your article was misleading. I have a long history of going after those on this site who post misleading articles to try and attack Obama (in fact I just did before I responded to this post). But your article is just as bad, and IMO someone who will defend the president on issues where he doesn't deserve defending are no better than those who attack him when he doesn't deserve attacking.

you guys attack him about everything he does, which is a damn shame. There is something wrong with y'all

[smitty]

you guys attack him about everything he does, which is a damn shame. There is something wrong with y'all

Show us something that he has done right for America and we'll acknowledge it.

[PN-G bamatex]

you guys attack him about everything he does, which is a damn shame. There is something wrong with y'all

... she says in response to a guy who voted for Obama.

[stevenash]

Big Girl- Lets take a different angle- Is there anything that Mr. Obama has done that displeases you?

[Big girl]

Yes, I dont agree with his stance on gay marriage and abortions.