Afternoon, Pete.
All actual evidence shows that Rubio was and is correct.
This goes to the old Watergate saying - "It was the cover-up, not the break-in." Spinning the truth to not look like a moron right before a major election is one thing. Lying about it is another. The Obama White House had been telling the American People that al Qaeda was on the run and "we" killed bin Laden. The Benghazi attack, if honestly discussed, would have shown that this was not true, so they spun in. They said that "there is no evidence that this was anything more than a bunch of protestors upset because of a video" even though they knew it was something totally different. That goes to the level of dishonesty that the politically appointed senior officials in the Administration would go to get the President re-elected. And, here's the truth: They didn't have to lie. Obama would have been re-elected anyway. In addition, if he would have come out like Bush did and rally the American people against this attack then I predict he would have won by an even larger margin.
But he didn't, and they didn't. They lied to us, and they've gotten caught, and what's worse, they continue to stick to it even to this day. That says something major about the integrity of many of these people in power, including Mrs. Clinton.
I don't think a spokesperson for the Clinton campaign couldn't have done a better job than Rose did defending Hillary. He was sharp and knew all the campaign's talking points by heart.
Pete, buddy, I only used the "saying" from the Watergate hearings to describe the fact that this is a cover-up and the cover-up is the problem. No other comparison was made by me or even intimated by me. So, let's not over react.First of all, this is nothing, I mean nothing like Watergate and IMO, the reason the Right brings that red herring up is because Nixon was forced to resign. (I voted for him and I was sad when he did. I have etched in my brain a picture of where I was when I watched on TV)
It doesn't. What I was talking about was that the Obama Administration was trying to establish their bonafides in protecting the American people from terrorists as part of their re-election campaign, and the fact that "al Qaeda is on the run" was far from true, and the attack on Benghazi proved as much. The reference to bib Laden was just to show another part of the campaign strategy that the al Qaeda reference was also part and parcel - nothing else.I fail to see how the killing of bin Laden is connected to Benghazi.
On the run means they are not able to attack us, because they are "on the run." They were not and are not "on the run."He said al Quida was on the run, he didnt say they were defeated.
Sure, you can call it a strawman if you like. The truth is, that many center right independents that care about national security issues as a main issue could very well have voted for Obama based solely on that one issue, had he played it correctly. He didn't. That isn't a strawman, it's a theory and I posed it as such by saying "I predict."Your prediction he would have received more votes is A strawman argument that makes no sense.
How can they "know" but it still be a "guess" educated or otherwise?The truth as I see it, is they "knew" it was al Quaida, but that was an educated guess,
They had evidence, and the emails that have just become available (and conveniently after all the other investigations were concluded) show that they had the evidence the same day and almost immediately after the attack. That's what Rubio is talking about.There was no physical evidence that proved it so they couldn't announce it on the world stage until they had it.
Pete, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to put any credence into a "fact checker" opinion in the media since we actually have the REAL evidence to make the determination ourselves.Read the following from the Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler:
Is Hillary Clinton a ‘liar’ on Benghazi?
You see Pete, this is what I was talking about above. This committee came to their conclusions before all the evidence was made available, including the emails from the Clinton personal email server. How can we use a report that was written prior to all the evidence being revealed as anything other than an inaccurate view absent of all the evidence? If we had a Congressional Committee exonerate Nixon, prior to the Watergate Committee pressing and getting White House aide Alexander Butterfield to admit on national television that the taping system existed. And, no, I'm not comparing the two issues, just the timing of evidence becoming available, so don't dismiss it out of hand unless you just want to blindly defend Mrs. Clinton.And then read the following from The House Intelligence Committee 2014 report:
First of all, this is nothing, I mean nothing like Watergate and IMO, the reason the Right brings that red herring up is because Nixon was forced to resign. (I voted for him and I was sad when he did. I have etched in my brain a picture of where I was when I watched on TV)
I fail to see how the killing of bin Laden is connected to Benghazi. He said al Quida was on the run, he didnt say they were defeated. Your prediction he would have received more votes is A strawman argument that makes no sense.
The truth as I see it, is they "knew" it was al Quaida, but that was an educated guess, There was no physical evidence that proved it so they couldn't announce it on the world stage until they had it.
Read the following from the Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler:
Is Hillary Clinton a ‘liar’ on Benghazi?
And then read the following from The House Intelligence Committee 2014 report:
Pete, buddy, I only used the "saying" from the Watergate hearings to describe the fact that this is a cover-up and the cover-up is the problem. No other comparison was made by me or even intimated by me. So, let's not over react.
It doesn't. What I was talking about was that the Obama Administration was trying to establish their bonafides in protecting the American people from terrorists as part of their re-election campaign, and the fact that "al Qaeda is on the run" was far from true, and the attack on Benghazi proved as much. The reference to bib Laden was just to show another part of the campaign strategy that the al Qaeda reference was also part and parcel - nothing else. On the run means they are not able to attack us, because they are "on the run." They were not and are not "on the run." Sure, you can call it a strawman if you like. The truth is, that many center right independents that care about national security issues as a main issue could very well have voted for Obama based solely on that one issue, had he played it correctly. He didn't. That isn't a strawman, it's a theory and I posed it as such by saying "I predict."
Read Kessller's report.How can they "know" but it still be a "guess" educated or otherwise? They had evidence, and the emails that have just become available (and conveniently after all the other investigations were concluded) show that they had the evidence the same day and almost immediately after the attack. That's what Rubio is talking about.
Read Kessler's report or play ignorance.Pete, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to put any credence into a "fact checker" opinion in the media since we actually have the REAL evidence to make the determination ourselves.
You see Pete, this is what I was talking about above. This committee came to their conclusions before all the evidence was made available, including the emails from the Clinton personal email server. How can we use a report that was written prior to all the evidence being revealed as anything other than an inaccurate view absent of all the evidence? If we had a Congressional Committee exonerate Nixon, prior to the Watergate Committee pressing and getting White House aide Alexander Butterfield to admit on national television that the taping system existed. And, no, I'm not comparing the two issues, just the timing of evidence becoming available, so don't dismiss it out of hand unless you just want to blindly defend Mrs. Clinton.
Trayvon Martin, a thug killed when he attacked a HISPANIC man.
Media manipulates 911 call making Zimmerman a racist and turns those HISPANIC hues White so as not offend Florida's (nd the country's) large latino community. Creating a "There goes whitey killing us minorities again" narrative.
IRS targets and harasses right leaning nonprofits stalling and in some cases denying them their tax exempt creating hurdles, obstacles , and roadblocks to limit their influence and activities thus handicapping the opposition during the same election period as the "There Whitey dos killing again" campaign took place.
Benghazi embassy is attacked killing 4 Americans including the US Ambassador in a planned assault. Confusing and conflicting reports creating a aura of uncertainty providing cover. "No No, it wasn't a failure on our part.." says the Administration, it wasn't a failed lead from behind strategy which toppled the pre-existing power structure and brought chaos to the land, it wasn't our ignoring of intelligence reports, it wasn't our "Oh hell, what's the use" response to the attack, it was a god damn stupid ass video which just happened to cause a spontaneous attack there, because the place where the US led from behind would be the first place I -- if I were a jihadi -- liberated from a monster thanks to US intervention (let's not think our minimum contribution wasn't given maximum exposure) would spontaneously attack with weaponry that I just happen to have my hands on at the time... Yeah that isn't a false narrative set up to provide the "We're keeping America and Americans safe, honest, this came out of nowhere, really..." schpeal going less than two months before an election..
You Hillary Humpers will go to any lengths, won't ya?
Now it was Hillary Clinton who was born in Kenya.
It is a waste of time arguing with these partisans and using real facts and data. They have predetermined that it was all a huge plot to get Obama re-elected no matter how stupid that is. They will ignore the CIA's role in this entirely because it doesn't work with their conspiracy theory. It is like mass brainwashing that reaches all the way up to the top. The idea that with something as important as Benghazi, Hillary would use her own intuition and ignore the CIA talking points that she was given is so ludicrous that it boggles the mind. This is the type of thing that the CIA is in existence for isn't it?
Your are correct, the Right has gone off the cliff. There will not be another Republican president until they stop this crap.
He damned sure did, and sure as hell got him, too. I've always given him credit for that, so stop sidetracking with it.Senator Obama made a campaign promise he would get bin Laden even if we had to go into Pakistan. Guess what happened. I wonder what intelligence they got.
Of course not. The current committee found out MAJOR evidence existed that ALL the other committees didn't have a clue existed. So sure, let's shut everything down before we find anything else.There was no reason to have further commissions, except to smear Obama and Hillary.
You mean a fundamental lie? You mean when she told the American people and the families of the dead a lie? Does that not matter you Pete?To spend 4.6 million because Hillary said something the Right didn't like?
To get to the truth when a person an officer of the Untied States Government lies to the American people and covers up the truth for POLITICAL GAIN? Hell yeah Pete, I think that's how our government should work - regardless of the party that does either one.The Republican party sure has gone over the rails since I was one. You should ask yourself if this is the way politics should be.
WTF does Trayvon Martin have to do with Benghazi?
I couldn't agree more. The last of the great Republican presidents was Dwight Eisenhower. If they can get back to that they'll have viable candidates again.
They're examples of you being duped
Couldn't figure that out for yourself, eh?
Under the circumstances, I suppose not...
Afternoon, Pete.
All actual evidence shows that Rubio was and is correct.
This goes to the old Watergate saying - "It was the cover-up, not the break-in." Spinning the truth to not look like a moron right before a major election is one thing. Lying about it is another. The Obama White House had been telling the American People that al Qaeda was on the run and "we" killed bin Laden. The Benghazi attack, if honestly discussed, would have shown that this was not true, so they spun in. They said that "there is no evidence that this was anything more than a bunch of protestors upset because of a video" even though they knew it was something totally different. That goes to the level of dishonesty that the politically appointed senior officials in the Administration would go to get the President re-elected. And, here's the truth: They didn't have to lie. Obama would have been re-elected anyway. In addition, if he would have come out like Bush did and rally the American people against this attack then I predict he would have won by an even larger margin.
But he didn't, and they didn't. They lied to us, and they've gotten caught, and what's worse, they continue to stick to it even to this day. That says something major about the integrity of many of these people in power, including Mrs. Clinton.
I've read the information that has come out in emails and other documents in the last few moths, and they support Rubio.He damned sure did, and sure as hell got him, too. I've always given him credit for that, so stop sidetracking with it.
Read Kessller's report.
Read Kessler's report or play ignorance.
Trayvon Martin, a thug killed when he attacked a HISPANIC man.
Media manipulates 911 call making Zimmerman a racist and turns those HISPANIC hues White so as not offend Florida's (nd the country's) large latino community. Creating a "There goes whitey killing us minorities again" narrative.
IRS targets and harasses right leaning nonprofits stalling and in some cases denying them their tax exempt creating hurdles, obstacles , and roadblocks to limit their influence and activities thus handicapping the opposition during the same election period as the "There Whitey dos killing again" campaign took place.
Benghazi embassy is attacked killing 4 Americans including the US Ambassador in a planned assault. Confusing and conflicting reports creating a aura of uncertainty providing cover. "No No, it wasn't a failure on our part.." says the Administration, it wasn't a failed lead from behind strategy which toppled the pre-existing power structure and brought chaos to the land, it wasn't our ignoring of intelligence reports, it wasn't our "Oh hell, what's the use" response to the attack, it was a god damn stupid ass video which just happened to cause a spontaneous attack there, because the place where the US led from behind would be the first place I -- if I were a jihadi -- liberated from a monster thanks to US intervention (let's not think our minimum contribution wasn't given maximum exposure) would spontaneously attack with weaponry that I just happen to have my hands on at the time... Yeah that isn't a false narrative set up to provide the "We're keeping America and Americans safe, honest, this came out of nowhere, really..." schpeal going less than two months before an election..
You Hillary Humpers will go to any lengths, won't ya?
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065202652 said:As well as those who think she's done nothing wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?