Posted on 05/06/2013 8:07:08 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Edited on 05/07/2013 6:47:33 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
one question
who told hillary that it was over a bogus film?
just keep asking pointed questions
Worse than all of the above.
Should, but probably won't, considering what the Beast and her so-called husband have gotten away with in the past.
Bump
I’m glad to see one pundit finally talk about the real reason for the Benghazi,running guns and vetting jihadists who had killed Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight in Syria is the reason that no one wants to mention.
Watergate, Iran-Contra, and St. Valentine’s Day Massacre thrown in for good measure.
You guys don’t seriously believe anyone is getting impeached for this, do you? People in government office stopped being held accountable for dead americans a very long time ago. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, 9/11...no one gets held accountable for being incompetent, evil or just plain asleep at the wheel. It’s the same reason why sharks won’t eat lawyers. It’s just a professional courtesy that one side of the club extends to the other.
“...say goodbye Democratic party.”
The Democrat Party is the party of saints and is incapable of wrongdoing.
/sarc/
IMHO
You mean, who told Hillary to say that it was over a bogus film.
Hillary knew perfectly well that it wasn’t, and I think that’s why the high-level person that the WH sent out to talk it up was the UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who was unconnected with the events in any way and probably really didn’t have much first-hand knowledge of the actual attack. Thus, if people challenged her, she could always say she was just relying on what “sources” told her and get away without directly lying to the media or, ultimately, perjuring herself.
Even though minions in the State Dept had almost immediately sent out the video story to foreign missions, indicating that the story had been prepared even in advance of Benghazi as a cover story for any Islamic attacks on 9/11, Hillary had virtually no firm statements at first, because she knew too much about it. But once that narrative, including massaging of the CIA reports to reflect it, came out from the Muslim-loving WH and survived its trial run without being challenged, it became the official story and she felt perfectly free to proclaim it.
I think we’re going to find that this whole scheme was an effort on the part of the WH to build up what someone else called “plausible deniability.” The unusual thing, as Hanson points out, is that the WH got all the rest of the departments and agencies to fall in with the lie almost immediately. The WH was seeking not only deniability of Obama’s incompetence and lack of interest, but deniability of their real intention, whatever it was. (Arming AQ?)
“No facts please, we’re Democrats.”
Thanks for putting me on the Benghazi list. I can’t get enough of this, and hope it brings Hil-liar-y down.
Comparing this to Watergate is like comparing hurricane Katrina to a dust devil in a farm field because they both have rotating winds. It is like comparing an Irish Wolfhound on steroids to a Chihuahua because they are both canines. If Watergate is in any way comparable to Benghazi then Joe Biden is the new Albert Einstein.
This administration could pull off the modern equivalent to Watergate and you would never even hear of it unless they decided to brag about it and then the media would rave about what a wonderful thing it was.
I agree. I keep blasting them on Facebook as that is the only way to get this info in front of low information voters. My facebook “friends” are dwindling but I don’t care.
Mine too, and honestly, I believe at this point I’m better off! There are plenty of people who truly are willing to at least learn the facts. The others, not so much.
I just can’t wrap my mind around the resistance of so many to utilize this avenue as a way to spread the information.
Wasn’t that Lara Logan?
Hit me hard, yes it was,bad screw up.sorry
June 17, 1972 was the break in. Nixon didn’t resign until August 9, 1974. I remember it well, it was my birthday.
As you say, it takes time. In Nixon’s case, there was a full court press that hounded him all that time. Obama will face no such organized onslaught. On the contrary, far more effort will go in to protecting him than running him out of town.
It will take even longer to get rid of Obama than it did Nixon, if in fact we can get rid of him at all.
At this point I just hope this stirs things up to the point that we can defeat the Democrats in huge numbers in next year’s elections.
>>Where they are unable to dictate the dialogue is social media and it would be helpful if other conservatives took to some of these tools available.
<<
Exactly. Every time I hear some conservative whining that “the media is not doing their job” I ask them “And what was your first clue? And what are YOU doing about it?”
Anyone who complains about the media without taking to social media or otherwise informing others is just that...a pathetic whiner.
Don’t just stand there whining, DO something!!!! lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.