Benghazi? No...Ben Dover

ZappasGuitar said:
How about that?

NOVA is contradicting himself...

He himself cites information from the HASC that clearly states there was nothing that could have been done.
Click to expand...

He himself ?......well "he himself" also sites information from The US Senate, USA Today and Yahoo News besides the HASC....so I'M not contradicting myself at all, anywhere....
AND
1. being unable to respond to the attacks in time is part of wtf this scandal is about, moron...along with
2. Hillary's State Dept.'s inadequate security in the first place
3. and ignoring its own "tripwires" set to determine when it had become too dangerous to operate in Benghazi, and continued to operate the facility there, despite a steady drumbeat of U.S. intelligence reports showing the danger was rising.

Incompetence is not a strong enough description of Hillary's lack of talent in the job. It borders on criminal negligence...

So, learn to comprehend wtf you read so you don't continue to make an ass of yourself.
 
Truth Detector said:
That wasn't the point regarding Benghazi you fawning leftist dunce.

What is wrong with you morons? Can you really be this painfully stupid and dishonestly partisan?

I'm thinking in your case, BOTH.

Benghazi was a story of obfuscation, outright lies and an attempt to mask gross incompetence of the Obama Administration in an election year.

But you're a fawning lefttard dunce; why let facts, reality or the truth get in the way of your painfully stupid partisan efforts to defend the indefensible.

Dunce.
Click to expand...


Proof once again that, when the angry Rightie realizes he's lost the debate and has got nothing else...out come the insults.
 
the posts from truth deflector devoid of insults are as scarce as hen's teeth.

It's his MO.....

:::::: boring ::::::
 
NOVA said:
Yes, you do....spin and bullshit....from a left wing cite that spews the same type of crap day after day..
Here is your answer.....NOT from thinkprogress..

The question was never if the military could have gotten to Benghazi "in time" to save the Ambassador and the others, the question was why wasn't some show of
military force attempted at all. As they say, better late than never. And the most obvious question, given the fact that or if no assets were available, why the fuck weren't assets available in a region where it was already known that attacks against westerners were going on for several months and the our people in the region were lacking adequate security....

Why was no military assets within reach, and why way there inadequate security in the first place ? Because, because, wait for it, because
\
Last month, the Democratic-led Senate Intelligence Committee faulted the State Department and the intelligence community for failing to increase security at the poorly protected temporary diplomatic outpost in Benghazi and a nearby CIA compound.

"The Pentagon also confirmed to the HASC that there were no AC-130 gunships or armed drones within the region that night.

You can bet your ass they now....

"Defense Department, where senior officials were unaware of the intelligence annex"

Unaware there was an annex ?...thats unbelievable.....and inexcusable.

Italy-based F-16 aircraft were not on alert status, and “it is not at all certain that they would have been particularly helpful in this instance.”

Are they really saying the F-16's weren't scrambled because they weren't on alert status ? How freakin' lame is that excuse...if no one is 'on alert status' we
don't respond to attacks? You gotta be shittin' me.

Then the pinheads on the left claim "there is no scandal ?

From the Senate report....
The White House
“either failed to comprehend the situation in Libya,” despite intelligence warnings, or

“ignored the dramatically deteriorating security situation there” and did not instruct the military to change its deployment and readiness.

Both are proof of gross incompetance by the White House and the State Dept......Obama and Hillary Clinton...
Click to expand...

First off, it's hilarious to read your feigned outrage at an intelligence/military apparatus that you previously supported and praised to the hilt under the Shrub.

Secondly, you bitch about Zappas source, yet YOU CANNOT DISPROVE THE CONTENT OR REFERENCES OR SOURCES of that material....your opinion, supposition and conjecture are NOT a substitute for ALL THE FACTS and the logic derived from those facts.

Ask yourself this question, bunky......what exactly could F-16's have done? Drop bombs? Straif the area with machine gun fire? Remember, this was a CONSULATE in a CIVILIAN POPULATED AREA. The bombs and bullets don't differentiate from good & bad guys with that small concentration of area.

But hey, guys like YOU don't think things through...you're just upset because (once again) FACTS and COLD LOGICAL ANALYSIS has disproven a neocon/teabagger talking point. Squawk on, parrot!
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Proof once again that, when the angry Rightie realizes he's lost the debate and has got nothing else...out come the insults.
Click to expand...

Those aren't insults you pathetic whiny dunce; they are an accurate description of that special brand of stupid that erupts from your fingers. They would be insults if they were not true. But ask just about anyone here; you are painfully stupid, poorly informed and a hyper partisan dimwit.

You're not here for honest civil debate; you're here to provoke you pathetic pitiful vagina man. I treat you exactly the way you deserve to be treated; with disgust.
 
maineman said:
the posts from truth deflector devoid of insults are as scarce as hen's teeth.

It's his MO.....

:::::: boring ::::::
Click to expand...

You might want to read my signature Comrade Commander dimwit. But your pathetic vagina man whine and selective outrage have been noted.

LMAO
 
Truth Detector said:
I was laughing at how stupid it was. ;)
Click to expand...


The truth is stupid?

It was all Benghazi, all the time from Fox during the campaign. They'd "report" anything - hearsay, anonymous emails, anything. I've never seen anything so obviously partisan in my life.

I doubt Ailes would dispute it. He's been pretty open about Fox's bias, despite the many who defend the network.
 
Truth Detector said:
Those aren't insults you pathetic whiny dunce; they are an accurate description of that special brand of stupid that erupts from your fingers. They would be insults if they were not true. But ask just about anyone here; you are painfully stupid, poorly informed and a hyper partisan dimwit.

You're not here for honest civil debate; you're here to provoke you pathetic pitiful vagina man. I treat you exactly the way you deserve to be treated; with disgust.
Click to expand...


And thank you sir for admitting that if you had any facts, you'd be presenting them instead of the same tired derision that infests every post you make.

I imagine it wasn't easy for you to admit that all you brought to the debate yet again was more taunts and insults.
 
Thing1 said:
The truth is stupid?

It was all Benghazi, all the time from Fox during the campaign. They'd "report" anything - hearsay, anonymous emails, anything. I've never seen anything so obviously partisan in my life.

I doubt Ailes would dispute it. He's been pretty open about Fox's bias, despite the many who defend the network.
Click to expand...


No, the Truth DETECTOR is stupid.

But then, anyone reading this thread understood that fact a LOOOOOOOONG time ago.
 
NOVA said:
Sorry sweetie...I just never got back to the thread....but when you start blaming the dead men that can't defend themselves to any alleged bull, I do tend to
ignore those posts....
In any event, Hillary don't take orders from her underlings even if the accusations have any merit, which I doubt....Hillary gives orders, not the other way around.
She should have had much more information from US intell. than any underling in Libya was privy to...

Shes the boss, shes responsible....she even said so for all the good that does.
Click to expand...

The report didn't blame the dead men. The report listed all the actions that led up to the attack and every factor that contributed to the disaster. The report placed a lot of blame on the State Department employees and ultimately Hillary because she was head of the department. I'm not denying that. The report also criticized the military under General Dempsey; even the moonie Times called him a "failed leader." And finally, the report acknowledged that the ambassador turned down extra security that was offered twice. So no matter how much you want to put full blame on Hillary, that's not what the facts show.
 
Truth Detector said:
You might want to read my signature Comrade Commander dimwit. But your pathetic vagina man whine and selective outrage have been noted.
Click to expand...

please explain how my occasional use of insults somehow voids the fact that your posts are ALWAYS filled with them?

The fact remains... all the posts of yours - with very few exceptions - are laden with gratuitous insults that do NOTHING to advance the arguments you attempt to make.
 
maineman said:
please explain how my occasional use of insults somehow voids the fact that your posts are ALWAYS filled with them?

The fact remains... all the posts of yours - with very few exceptions - are laden with gratuitous insults that do NOTHING to advance the arguments you attempt to make.
Click to expand...

He's insecure and the insults make him feel superior.
 
Taichiliberal said:
First off, it's hilarious to read your feigned outrage at an intelligence/military apparatus that you previously supported and praised to the hilt under the Shrub.
Click to expand...

Sorry sonny, what is total bullshit is your spin on the facts.....In Bush's case the intell. was wrong and that is the intell. we relied on to make the decisions....got that.

In the case of Benghazi, the intell. totally right and Obama and Hilliary made their decisions by ignoring the intell....ie...for several months the terrorists were attacking
westerns in Libya....our State Dept. KNEW that the security was inadequate and did nothing to fix that. And they made no effort to even have a minimum of military or any
sort of force on standby in the event of an attack they should have known was possible by virtue of several events just a few months before.....Then to top it off, they lied about the entire issue for weeks after the event in an effort to cover their asses for their incompetence...Totally different when you look at the facts.


Secondly, you bitch about Zappas source, yet YOU CANNOT DISPROVE THE CONTENT OR REFERENCES OR SOURCES of that material....your opinion, supposition and conjecture are NOT a substitute for ALL THE FACTS and the logic derived from those facts.
Click to expand...

I didn't try to disprove the facts presented by Zippy, just the spin.....The House substantially agreed with the Senate investigation....its correct that our military was in no
position to respond to the attack in time....THATS WHAT THE FUCK WAS WRONG....it should have been able to respond if Hilliary had heeded the intell. and obvious dangerous
situation to our people there...thats the fuckin' scandal in a nutshell....
The Republicans admitting we could not respond in time isn't a mark against them, its agreeing that our military and/or State Dept. fucked up royally....

Ask yourself this question, bunky......what exactly could F-16's have done? Drop bombs? Straif the area with machine gun fire? Remember, this was a CONSULATE in a CIVILIAN POPULATED AREA. The bombs and bullets don't differentiate from good & bad guys with that small concentration of area.
Click to expand...

Answered above...

But hey, guys like YOU don't think things through...you're just upset because (once again) FACTS and COLD LOGICAL ANALYSIS has disproven a neocon/teabagger talking point. Squawk on, parrot!
Click to expand...
Its obviously YOU that don't think things through.....and its YOU that is upset because FACTS and COLD LOGICAL ANALYSIS proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that
this administration screwed up...just as the Senate investigation and the House investigation concluded....."the attack was preventable" ...THAT is their finding, not mine.
 
NOVA said:
He himself ?......well "he himself" also sites information from The US Senate, USA Today and Yahoo News besides the HASC....so I'M not contradicting myself at all, anywhere....
AND
1. being unable to respond to the attacks in time is part of wtf this scandal is about, moron...along with
2. Hillary's State Dept.'s inadequate security in the first place
3. and ignoring its own "tripwires" set to determine when it had become too dangerous to operate in Benghazi, and continued to operate the facility there, despite a steady drumbeat of U.S. intelligence reports showing the danger was rising.

Incompetence is not a strong enough description of Hillary's lack of talent in the job. It borders on criminal negligence...

So, learn to comprehend wtf you read so you don't continue to make an ass of yourself.
Click to expand...

What would you like done to right these perceived wrongs?

Hillary took responsibility, and she was already out the door, if she runs for president you won't vote for her based on your beliefs.

The State Department had gotten the determinations and recommendations of the investigation and it is now John Kerry who will see that they are or aren't implemented.

The Pentagon is most likely reviewing its procedures and implementing the recommendations of the investigation.

Patrick Kennedy is the only one that was recommended for dismissal.

Foxettes and Foxers are so busy going after Hillary that no one is calling for Kennedy blood!

Michele Mankind is too busy hating Michele Obama for being stunning in her Carolina Herrera!

Ted Cruz is still wanting to filibuster something.

Palin had cast a shadow over Christie.

Yeah, Hillary doesn't have anything to worry about if you have is Benghazi!
 
Sardonic said:
What would you like done to right these perceived wrongs?

Hillary took responsibility, and she was already out the door, if she runs for president you won't vote for her based on your beliefs.

The State Department had gotten the determinations and recommendations of the investigation and it is now John Kerry who will see that they are or aren't implemented.

The Pentagon is most likely reviewing its procedures and implementing the recommendations of the investigation.

Patrick Kennedy is the only one that was recommended for dismissal.

Foxettes and Foxers are so busy going after Hillary that no one is calling for Kennedy blood!

Michele Mankind is too busy hating Michele Obama for being stunning in her Carolina Herrera!

Ted Cruz is still wanting to filibuster something.

Palin had cast a shadow over Christie.

Yeah, Hillary doesn't have anything to worry about if you have is Benghazi!
Click to expand...

The two lines now in blue are the only lines that are relevant now...

And what I would like done is to have pinheads and the CIC seriously admit that she did a shitty job and was at least partly
responsible for the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi...

If the allegations against Kennedy are true he should be fired....

and that leaves the rest of your post irrelevant and nothing but standard left wing bullshit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top