Senator Feinstein Rejects NY Times On Benghazi

UncleBuck said:
3qwc8j.jpg
Click to expand...
They made a political action out of the cover up.
benghazi-grave-mole-hill.jpg
 
Ok yea, this is the thread that I posted the boobies in. WTF, I just found some weed in my drying box and smoked it and forgot where I was at. :lol: Fucking Pineapple express.
 
echelon1k1 said:
it should read "shit cock". like Obama your arguments are as flaccid as coke dick...
Click to expand...

that theory has been proposed by no other than dean chambers, originator of the skewed polls theory. you guys believed the living shit out of him then with your 149 IQs (no doubt the result of a bogus online 10 question "IQ" test which then attempted to sell you something afterwards).

chickens are coming home to roost.
 
beenthere said:
I'm willing to bet this scandal sticks to Hillary the Hag like glue.
Her words of " what difference does it make" will make a big difference, come 2016.




The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said that key conclusions of a recent New York Times investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack are wrong.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) rejected the Times’s conclusion that al Qaeda wasn’t responsible for the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. She also took issue with the notion that the Libya strike was sparked by a U.S.-made anti-Islam video online.

“I believe that groups loosely associated with al Qaeda were” involved in the attack, she told The Hill last week. “That’s my understanding.”She also disputed the notion that the Sept. 11, 2012, assault evolved from a protest against the video, which was widely disseminated by Islamic clerics shortly before the attack.
“It doesn’t jibe with me,” she said. http://thehill.com/blogs/global-aff...rica/195327-feinstein-rejects-nyt-on-benghazi



​

​
Click to expand...


wait just a second. Beenthere, you have rejected nut articles because the nyt was a lying liberal rag. But now they no longer are, is that correct? Can I now use any further opinions or news from that paper to make my points?
 
canndo said:
wait just a second. Beenthere, you have rejected nut articles because the nyt was a lying liberal rag. But now they no longer are, is that correct? Can I now use any further opinions or news from that paper to make my points?
Click to expand...

LOL You're pulling a Cheezy canndo.

The NYT has always been a lying liberal rag, the OP is about one of the top liberal's agreeing with me.
 
beenthere said:
LOL You're pulling a Cheezy canndo.

The NYT has always been a lying liberal rag, the OP is about one of the top liberal's agreeing with me.
Click to expand...

You can't argue against the 60 killed during the Bush administration so you resort to name calling.

Classic Finthere.
 
beenthere said:
Christopher Stevens was the first sitting U.S. ambassador to be killed in office since 1979.
Click to expand...

So now it isn't just that people were killed (because 50 some odd were killed under the Bush administration and no one gave a shit), now it has to be an ambassador.

I don't see any response to my question over my use of the nyt as a source.
 
canndo said:
So now it isn't just that people were killed (because 50 some odd were killed under the Bush administration and no one gave a shit), now it has to be an ambassador.

I don't see any response to my question over my use of the nyt as a source.
Click to expand...

Taken individually I would be hard pressed to find a situation comparable to Ambassador Stevens. If you know of any, I'm open. All other countries pulled out of there prior because of the danger. Repeated requests for increased security were denied. Our embassies in France and other allied nations had many times more armed guards. People have accused Clinton/Obama of wanting to maintain the rhetoric that Al Qaeda was on the run, increasing security at that time flies in the face of that claim, there has been no response other than "but sequestration". A spokesperson was sent on 5, count em 5, different morning news/political shows and lied when at that time they knew it was a lie. Nobody took any blame for her lies and she was given a promotion. We later found out that a squadron of marines was waiting on a tarmac to assist and were told to stand down.. twice. What does it matter anyway?

So, what do you have that's comparable? Our instant news and social medium are relatively new. It's quite possible there is comparable events and we were not informed at the time. Should be easy enough to find if you have any.
 
ginwilly said:
Taken individually I would be hard pressed to find a situation comparable to Ambassador Stevens. If you know of any, I'm open. All other countries pulled out of there prior because of the danger. Repeated requests for increased security were denied. Our embassies in France and other allied nations had many times more armed guards. People have accused Clinton/Obama of wanting to maintain the rhetoric that Al Qaeda was on the run, increasing security at that time flies in the face of that claim, there has been no response other than "but sequestration". A spokesperson was sent on 5, count em 5, different morning news/political shows and lied when at that time they knew it was a lie. Nobody took any blame for her lies and she was given a promotion. We later found out that a squadron of marines was waiting on a tarmac to assist and were told to stand down.. twice. What does it matter anyway?

So, what do you have that's comparable? Our instant news and social medium are relatively new. It's quite possible there is comparable events and we were not informed at the time. Should be easy enough to find if you have any.
Click to expand...


How about Katrina? Quite comparable. Feds knew of the problem and Bush's underlings failed while Bush congradulated them on doing a good job. It was an unmitigated and preventable disaster larger than Bengazi.
 
canndo said:
So now it isn't just that people were killed (because 50 some odd were killed under the Bush administration and no one gave a shit), now it has to be an ambassador.

I don't see any response to my question over my use of the nyt as a source.
Click to expand...

Finthere only values certain lives when it works in his favor. He's very Republican like that.
 
beenthere said:
LOL You're pulling a Cheezy canndo.

The NYT has always been a lying liberal rag, the OP is about one of the top liberal's agreeing with me.
Click to expand...


So you have a lying liberal rag agreeing with you, which would make you akin to them. If I don't get to use the NYT, then NEITHER DO YOU. Which pretty much nulifies this entire thread from your prerspective.
 
canndo said:
So now it isn't just that people were killed (because 50 some odd were killed under the Bush administration and no one gave a shit), now it has to be an ambassador.

I don't see any response to my question over my use of the nyt as a source.
Click to expand...

canndo, using previous terrorist attacks and their casualties is creating a straw man
I'm sorry but Americans care more when Americans are killed, but it's not about people getting killed, none of us turn a blind eye to that, left or right.
It's about our State Department and Executive branch of government trying to cover it up as not to get blame or take responsibility.
 
canndo said:
How about Katrina? Quite comparable. Feds knew of the problem and Bush's underlings failed while Bush congradulated them on doing a good job. It was an unmitigated and preventable disaster larger than Bengazi.
Click to expand...

I was actually there 3 days after the levee collapse helping in a hospital. The Mayor of NO absolutely dropped the ball. Nursing home residents were not evacuated, people were left stranded and you could see school bus yards with enough buses to transport all displaced people just sitting there. There were no bodies in the street by the time I got there, yet CNN looped the story of bodies floating for 8 more days. Locals showed up with boats to get people off their roofs but were turned away by local officials by silly things like expired tags on their boats. Many locals took routes around this and helped anyway. The officials present did more harm than good. Not to mention watching the city police members looting stores and having gun fights with citizens wasn't pretty either.

The local officials dropped the ball on Katrina and loudly and repeatedly placed the blame on Bush. "Bush hates black people". We all hated Bush, so we joined in. The people of NO knew the truth and voted out the leaders the first chance they got.

Now compare this with the BP oil spill. How long before Obama even made a decision on what to do? A month? The governor was trying to act but was not allowed. He made pleas that if the federal government won't help, at least get out of our way so we can do something. The barriers he wanted to use were not allowed at the time by the feds. The private sector was offering solutions as well as a huge oil collector but the EPA would not allow because the water coming out after the collection was only 99.8% pure and EPA standards required 99.9% (not sure of exact numbers, but look it up, it was ridiculous) so they felt it better to just leave the oil.

Wouldn't the reasonable solution after the spill be to start cleanup immediately and bill BP for it? He played political games instead, and actually IMPEDED efforts. Yet you blame Bush for the local leadership being corrupt and incompetent, no bias on your part there.

In your opinion, what did Bush do wrong, what did Obama do right about the spill? Bush certainly could have handled it better, but some people act is if though he built the levees and caused the storm. If the local officials weren't so inept, Bush would have been an afterthought.
 
beenthere said:
canndo, using previous terrorist attacks and their casualties is creating a straw man
I'm sorry but Americans care more when Americans are killed, but it's not about people getting killed, none of us turn a blind eye to that, left or right.
It's about our State Department and Executive branch of government trying to cover it up as not to get blame or take responsibility.
Click to expand...


This is the same argument I see over and over again - "What are you talking about? We conservatives care about (pollution, the poor, the elderly, education)"

"ok, what are you willing to give up or pay to help the problem"?

"nothing"


Caring, true caring usually costs resources, conservatives talk a compassionate game but are willing to do NOTHING about the problems they acknowlege exist.
 
ginwilly said:
I was actually there 3 days after the levee collapse helping in a hospital. The Mayor of NO absolutely dropped the ball. Nursing home residents were not evacuated, people were left stranded and you could see school bus yards with enough buses to transport all displaced people just sitting there. There were no bodies in the street by the time I got there, yet CNN looped the story of bodies floating for 8 more days. Locals showed up with boats to get people off their roofs but were turned away by local officials by silly things like expired tags on their boats. Many locals took routes around this and helped anyway. The officials present did more harm than good. Not to mention watching the city police members looting stores and having gun fights with citizens wasn't pretty either.

The local officials dropped the ball on Katrina and loudly and repeatedly placed the blame on Bush. "Bush hates black people". We all hated Bush, so we joined in. The people of NO knew the truth and voted out the leaders the first chance they got.

Now compare this with the BP oil spill. How long before Obama even made a decision on what to do? A month? The governor was trying to act but was not allowed. He made pleas that if the federal government won't help, at least get out of our way so we can do something. The barriers he wanted to use were not allowed at the time by the feds. The private sector was offering solutions as well as a huge oil collector but the EPA would not allow because the water coming out after the collection was only 99.8% pure and EPA standards required 99.9% (not sure of exact numbers, but look it up, it was ridiculous) so they felt it better to just leave the oil.

Wouldn't the reasonable solution after the spill be to start cleanup immediately and bill BP for it? He played political games instead, and actually IMPEDED efforts. Yet you blame Bush for the local leadership being corrupt and incompetent, no bias on your part there.

In your opinion, what did Bush do wrong, what did Obama do right about the spill? Bush certainly could have handled it better, but some people act is if though he built the levees and caused the storm. If the local officials weren't so inept, Bush would have been an afterthought.
Click to expand...


Obama did little right about the spill, what should he, as president, done except have private industry swing in? Bush? recall FEMA was not on the ball, at all, they didn't stage, they didn't plan and they didn't actually believe anyting bad would happen, which, pretty much was the story of the Bush presidency. Bush did, however, do something to aleviate the economic crash (he helped create). However, it seems that Obama still gets the blame for a bailout that Bush signed.

go figure.
 
canndo said:
Obama did little right about the spill, what should he, as president, done except have private industry swing in? Bush? recall FEMA was not on the ball, at all, they didn't stage, they didn't plan and they didn't actually believe anyting bad would happen, which, pretty much was the story of the Bush presidency. Bush did, however, do something to aleviate the economic crash (he helped create). However, it seems that Obama still gets the blame for a bailout that Bush signed.

go figure.
Click to expand...

If you remember, the levees didn't give until the day AFTER the hurricane. Almost everyone thought we dodged that bullet, not just FEMA.

It was mostly a local clusterfuck and nobody is talking about it but the residents of NO. The rest of the people who weren't there still blame Bush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

squarepush3r
Tulsi Gabbard Pushes No War Agenda – and the Media Is out to Kill Her Chances
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
hanimmal
hanimmal
rollinbud
Four More Years? Of This?
Replies
15
Views
2K
canndo
canndo
canndo
A small list of FOX lies and methods of distortions - for BeenThere.
3 4 5
Replies
96
Views
6K
UncleBuck
UncleBuck
deprave
  • Locked
O-Baaaaaaaaa-maaaaaaaaaaaa!
4 5 6
Replies
118
Views
7K
UncleBuck
UncleBuck
kendothegreenwizard
  • Poll Poll
Bill targets citizenship of terrorist allies
Replies
14
Views
1K
kendothegreenwizard
kendothegreenwizard
Back
Top