The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,
Faux News is going to beat this to death. How on earth does an intelligence failure turn in to such outrage? Were they outraged over that big intelligence failure, 9-11? How about the mission accomplished fanfare? How about the weapons of mass destruction intelligence failure that was just a flat out lie? How about the outing of Valerie Plame that ruined a woman’s career?
Not much outrage there. Faux News has to stir up their base and the old people. What’s a good day without working up the base?
How odd that there were protests all around the world over a video but in Benghazi, no one had seen or heard of said video. It was just all terrorist attack? Stupid Obama! Stupid Susan Rice. Stupid Hillary Clinton! Get on over there and fix the problem.
Benghazi was a sleazy lie, driven by election year politics. The way that Hillary left Rice holding the bag is interesting. I think we’ll be hearing more about this in 2016. At which pojnt, if Clinton’s the nominee, we hear this argument again about how delusionally slective the right’s outrage is.
Meanwhile, the way the right wing goes on and on about this story, while everyone else yawns, is self-destructive. They will hardly paper over the schisms in their party by yammering on about Banghazi.
The repugs have lost Obamacare so now they are bringing up Benghazi.
Let’s see, if the R’s are right, Obama massaged the message after the fact in Benghazi to avoid the appearance of policy or management failure. Bush and Cheney flat out lied to start a war in Iraq that resulted in thousands of Americans being killed, and had no strategy other than to invade and oust Hussein. Reagan lied about unconstitutionally selling weapons to terrorists. I think history will judge the latter two more harshly, Darrell Issa notwithstanding.
Benghazi was not an intelligence failure. The general threat reports were out there and known. It was a security screwup with fatalities and then falsehoods by the 7th Floor in Foggy Bottom and then by 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. You all dont like an investigation of official incompetence and prevarication? Tough.
I think we will have to disagree. Many people disagree. One reason I am disagreeing so strongly is that the conservative, anti-Obama guns came out the first 5 minutes of the report. The timing was just a little too perfect.
I would say there was an intelligence failure from the people I know.
Darrel Issa is an ill mannered McCarthy-ite.
Stir up the “old people”? Getting ageist now are we?
You seem pretty sure you are older than I am. I wouldn’t bet the ranch.
And yes, Faux News does stir up old folks. It preys on their fears that the country they know and understand is changing forever.
There was no intelligence failure. The general threats were there. That is why the Ambassador asked State for security enhancements. From what I have seen, it also looks like the CIA bolstered its own defenses at their separate Benghazi base because of those threats, while the Foggy Bottom 7th Floor crowd sat on their collective asses vis-a-vis the rest of the Mission. Whether or not there was a specified terrorist threat — when, where, how — is immaterial. When you have a general threat in a deteriorating security situation, you harden your spaces and get ready for anything. Dumb, dumb, dumb 7th Floor to refuse the Embassy’s security requests.
Were you born before or after Pearl Harbor?
Fox News seems to stir up liberals who cannot abide any valid criticism of their Dear Leader.
Even my husband was born after Pearl Harbor.
I was born after The War. I always felt I missed something. I am a baby boomer.
Actually I stopped watching Faux News before Obama was elected. I found it put me in a horrible mood for the day. The galloping ignorance and sneering out of Steve Duzy or however he spells his name just did it. I am happier not watching the news during the day.
Send me the deed to your ranch.
cattle and all? Mrs. W must have been a child bride. (tell her I said so)
Anyone older than Mr. Howler ….wow. He married a child bride.
@Moon-howler
They came out in the first five minutes because the lying was so incompetent.
When so many reports were coming out about refusals for military relief….the excuses made no sense, and the relieving the general in charge of that command so suddenly was suspicious.
And now the truth is coming out.
That wasn’t out the first five minutes. You were one of the people that convinced me that it was purely political.
I don’t know what you think you are trying to prove. Do you think situations like this are unheard of? Let’s face it. It was seen as a great tool to use in the upcoming election. I actually remember Mitt Romney coming on TV and commenting before the ambassador was even found.
It was political. No question.
We have no idea what role Obama played in all this during that night. All we know is that he went to bed, yet he was the one and only individual who had the authority to take military action. No military action was taken. We just want to know what exactly he did that night. I’ve seen documentary videos which show almost hour by hour what Bush did on September 11th, and yet we know absolutely nothing of what Obama did. That is my biggest question, and the public has a right to know. The talking points, although troublesome, are a minor issue. It’s obvious they were focused on election impressions.
9-11 was a much bigger deal in terms of event. An attack on a CIA outpost isn’t the same as an attack on a major US city.
@Moon-howler
It WAS political. And yes…the hyperbole was 5 minutes. The reality is 12 hours.
You do mean the narrative put out by the administration, right?
So much of their story is being revealed as lies.
@Second Alamo
Absolutely right.
He was nowhere to be found. Apparently Hillary was right….that was the 3am wake up call.
Does that mean that you will be supporting Hillary in the next election?
I wish some of your outrage had been expressed during the last administration…say over outing Valerie Plume or over no weapons of Mass destruction. I guess 4,000 killed and 40,000 with life altering injuries is somehow for some common good? How many intelligence screw ups were there?
The GOP has been trying to make political hay out of this since it happened. It was pretty much live at the time, including what the people at the outpost thought was happening.
Even Joe is mad. When you lose the moderates……
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/08/scarborough-interrupts-alex-wagners-benghazi-denial-dont-insult-our-intelligence/
Joe would tell you he is a conservative. I certainly wouldn’t consider him a moderate.
Two ways of looking at this; (1) the cover-up is worse than the political crime or (2) the cover-up that began while events were still unfolding is the result of a decsion in the White House to let people die in order to maintain an election mantra – as some now suspect with evidence now coming in. If the latter, the Dems will be out of office for 20 years and that is why they are runing so scared.
No, this has the potential to be bigger that Watergate, Iran-gate and Clinton-Gate put together. Deny if you must – but demand the records.
BTW what ever happened to the movie guy?
Cover up? What on earth is being covered up?
You and your GOP buddies are so political. What can a president do about terrorist attacks? FDR, Bush, Reagan would probably all like to know the answer to that one.
Do you honestly think Benghazi one way or the other…either what really happened or what you want to think happened would have any bearing on the election?
Romney stupidly had to go all political in the middle of the reports. That didn’t do much for his outcome, did it.
@blue
Still in jail.
@Cargosquid
Why — on what charges?
There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that the White House decided to let people die
Facts, facts, we MUST have the facts on Benghazi, Fox News and their Republican allies say!
I wonder why they didn’t insist on FACTS on 9-11-2001? The general threat reports were out there and known. It was a security screwup with fatalities and then falsehoods by the 7th Floor in Foggy Bottom and then by 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
I wonder why they didn’t insist on FACTS on Katrina in New Orleans? It was a rescue screwup with fatalities and then falsehoods by 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
I wonder why they didn’t insist on FACTS on the Valerie Plame “outing?” It was an intentional security screwup and then falsehoods by 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Maybe you all just dont like an investigation of official incompetence and prevarication?
@blue
Apparently, he was actually on probation due to some computer crimes…..
@middleman
Please tell us what the proper response to “threat says someone might hijack a plane”? Shut down the entire network?
The FACTS on Katrina? Such as?
The FACT that all pre-staged FEMA gear and other first responder supplies were destroyed…because noone imagined tidal surge going so far inland?
The FACT that Gov’ Blanco withheld her Nat’l Guard troops due to partisanship for 3 days and because she was a corrupt, incompetent governor?
The FACT that Nagin was an idiot?
The FACT that hundreds of thousands of New Orleanians could have left, but chose not to, and when “evacuated”, they were put into places SPECIFICALLY warned against by disaster relief?
The FACT that NOPD (New Orleans Police Department) stands for Not My Problem Dude, and hundreds abandoned the city….some with their duty cars?
The FACT that FEMA’s job is to show up AFTER the first responders show up….sure..they were incompetent…but no more so than usual…
The Valerie Plame outing? You mean the fact that the whole investigation was a witch hunt and that her “identity” was known to many people…including the fact that the person that actually “outed” her was not the person that got in trouble?
Please…continue with these needed investigations?
The thing is….. the investigation is not only into what happened, but why the administration is lying about what happened.
I agree that Scooter Libby was the fall guy for some other people higher up the food chain. However, her identity was NOT known by those without a need to know. She was outted for punishment because of her husband.
The problem here is that Bengazi is like a brush fire in the middle of a national forrest fire of lies, cover-ups, corruption and incompetence by this Administration from Obamacare to Solyndra, from fast and furious to Holder’s perjury, from imtimidation of reporters and new threats of regulatiing conservative outlets (today) to the enemies list/Rosengate, from Sebilius soliciting private donations from vested interests to advertize/politic for Obamacare to the IRS and Ms Lerner taking the 5th, from the sky is falling sequestratioin (1 person lay-off) to the attacks on the 1st and 2nd Amendment, from Veterans Health to Park Service Thuggery on the Mall, from the White House and the Congress exempting themselves from Obamacare to the $640+ million no bid HHS contract to develop the Obamacare site given to friend and classmate of Michelle. The thing is….. the investigation is not only into what happened, but why the administration continues lying about just about everything.
Does anyone remember the movie ‘Clear and Present Danger’ in which a special ops team was left for dead in the field with no support, no comms, and no backup? The movie was made in 1994. Even though I was a big fan of Tom Clancy, I thought this particular book was a little silly because it was unthinkable that the American government would ever abandon anyone in the field.
However, the attack in Benghazi was reported to have lasted for double-digit hours. Now it has come to light that the attack was being watched in real time from the White House Situation Room. Was the national security team assembled and potential courses of action discussed? Did Obama lead the discussions, since only he had the authority to approve a military operation? Why were all COAs rejected in favor of doing nothing? Why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi despite the obvious danger?
If the attack lasted as long as reported, it should have been possible to send combat aircraft/attack helicopters with a quick reaction force. Why was this obvious COA not carried out?
I want to be reassured that it is still silly to suggest that the U.S. government would abandon Americans in the field.
Middleman — You mean there was no non-partisan 9/11 Commission to examine the intelligence and investigative action errors leading up to 9/11? Could have fooled me. Well, I was yelling about it anyway, as in: “That doggoned Bill Clinton! I told you he was a screwup!”
Looks to me like screwups may run in the family.
Well other than he wasn’t president at the time of 9-11….Was Bush not warned of impending trouble in the field in several security meetings? Why wasn’t that damn guy clairvoyant!!!!
9/11 or Benghazi, when a terrorist attack is ongoing and American lives are in the balance, the C-in-C does not go to bed so he can be fresh the next day for a political fund raiser somewhere.
Ahem…maybe they shouldn’t do that during a huge hurricane disaster either then. Just sayin’ ….
Go ahead and take your imaginary pound of flesh. Attempts to cast aspersions on the administration of any Democrat are obvious. It was very obvious what was going on at the time the Benghazi events took place. It has now taken on a life of its own. There very obviously were protests and uprisings taking place around the middle east. Sitting from the east coast of the United States, why wouldn’t people assume that was part of the same protest?
Its easier and more politically advantageous to go with the conspiracy theory. Obviously the American people didn’t agree with those who would advance the conspiracy theory.
What it comes down to is that people believe what they want to believe. I freely admit that whenever you have Americans dying in an attack, there were probably mistakes made and we should learn from those mistakes. Where I part company with some folks on this blog is that the administration intentionally left those people to die or otherwise failed to do what they could, something that none of the numerous investigations already conducted have found any evidence of.
What some don’t seem to realize is that these partisan witch-hunts give comfort and support to our enemies. You may not like Obama, but he is the President of the United States, and when you have kangaroo courts run by zealots like Trey Gowdy (who has already referred to the proceedings as a “trial”) designed to find “evidence” that the president left folks to die, that weakens and undermines our country.
Yes, there was AN investigation on 9-11, as in ONE, not multiple ones already costing 15 million dollars and not a hyper-partisan one pre-stacked with a majority of Republicans (5 to 7) and without any witness oversight by the opposition party. This farce is what you expect to see in Russia or Iran, not in what used to be the USA.
This effort to “get” the president is actually going to “get” all Americans.
Very Well-stated, Middleman. You bring up points that we haven’t discussed. What do these multiple attacks on the current administration do to weaken our country? United we stand, divided we fall.
I opposed the Iraq War but you will not find me saying so anywhere in print. Why? Why give our enemies even one voice.
I do not want to believe it either. If the Administration was actively working to support these Americans in harm’s way, it should not be that hard to prove. The Administration should provide the “minutes” and other documentation that show that senior officials were present and leading the effort to respond to this attack, and that Obama was involved and ready to approve a military operation if necessary. Witnesses and documentation are needed to discuss the deliberations that concluded that ‘no operation’ was the best course of action. The previous investigations did not get appropriate access to the people and records necessary to answer the basic questions.
Trey Gowdy is no more a zealot than Obama is. Whatever his rhetoric, I think he has the ability to find out what decisions were made and how they were determined on that fateful day.
I find the argument that this investigation will provide aid and comfort to the enemy to be hollow, at best, and self serving, at worst. First of all, if it is determined that the government acted responsibly and in good faith, then it will restore some unity. Second of all, arguments like these were ignored during the Iraq War when there was a large number of troops on the ground. Hillary, Biden said the war was a mistake, and based on lies and deception. When negativity really did have the potential to impact the war effort, this was not a concern to Dems. Third, there is historical precedence for examining mistakes during on-going operations. For example, the failures at Pearl Harbor were investigated by Congress during WWII.
@middleman
We have ONE Benghazi investigation. Unfortunately, we have an admin that keeps having scandals…thus we need multiple investigations.
All I ask is for the press to treat all presidents the same….in other words, pretend all presidents are Republicans and watch them.
‘Politicians fudge the truth; it’s sad, but true. Though we could forgive hyperbole to make a point, this president’s answer to any inconvenient facts has continually been to deny reality, make up his own “facts,” and hope the public buys it after they hear it enough times.
It’s ruthless, dishonest (even by political standards) and the mark of a very, very poor leader who cannot lead with legitimate conviction, but must rely on fabricated narratives and lies to support his failing agenda. ‘
The Washington Post gives him 4 Pinocchios. Finally, even for the Post its time to step back and put Country over Party.
From Kelly: “The Administration should provide the “minutes” and other documentation that show that senior officials were present and leading the effort to respond to this attack, and that Obama was involved and ready to approve a military operation if necessary. Witnesses and documentation are needed to discuss the deliberations that concluded that ‘no operation’ was the best course of action.”
As you probably know, Kelly, there are no “minutes” kept that you speak of. No administration in modern history does this. And if you substitute “Bush” and “rescue” for “Obama” and “military,”
you can see how many folks feel about the lack of ANY investigation on the Katrina debacle. Unlike the multiple investigations (yes, multiple, Cargo) already conducted on Benghazi.
From Cargo: “All I ask is for the press to treat all presidents the same….in other words, pretend all presidents are Republicans and watch them.”
Cargo, you’re obviously joking. The difference between Republican presidents and Democrats is the nature of their transgressions. Nixon tried to undermine the democratic process, Reagan did undermine the democratic process. Bush lied and misled the American public (and yes, lazy Democrats in congress) to start a war. Bush ignored minority people in need resulting in multiple deaths. On the other hand, Clinton had sex in the Oval Office and lied about it- and was the only one impeached.
Pretend all presidents are Republican, indeed. What a joke.
Sex in the Oval Office. That one is about the rear its ugly head also. How much can we stand of it? I think I am going to affix trigger words to Lewinksy or something.
Who really cares? I sure don’t, not in the grand scheme of things. I mind that he humiliated his wife and daughter. Other than that, it really belongs in the land of I don’t give a rat’s ass.
@middleman
I know you are searching for a reason to disregard this investigation. Having been involved in watch centers and crisis action teams during my military career, I can tell you that there are most certainly a substantial number of written records from the White House Situation room. There will be logs, checklists, briefing notes, memos, sign-in sheets, etc. If these documents were turned over to the Select Committee, the events that transpired on 11 Sept 2012 could be figured out very quickly.
The comparison between Katrina and Benghazi is just plain stupid. The federal government cannot respond until requested by local and state authorities. The disaster response is dictated and controlled by local and state officials, and, by definition, the federal government is in a supporting role. My guess is that there was no investigation because Louisiana officials did not want one. An investigation would have revealed how inept the Dems in that state were (are?).
1. Who made the final decision to refuse the requests of Embassy Tripoli for security enhancements and even to take away some of what the mission already had at a time when the local security situation was deteriorating?
2. Who made the final decision to tell a blatant lie to the public when we now know that it was determined almost immediately to be a terrorist attack and that there was no demonstration in Benghazi over the video?
3. Who made the final decision NOT to give a greenlight to US military rescue forces to even make a try while having no idea how long the battle would last or if the ad hoc rescue team out of Tripoli would be enough to save those under seige?
4. Where was the Commander-in-Chief when this incident was still taking place and some of his troops had been murdered?
Take your political whines and howls and mantras and stuff ’em. I am an American citizen. I want to know specifically who screwed up on the Libya watch and who thought it would be o.k. to tell the public lies about it.
Maybe you are the one who should stuff it. I actually don’t care much for being told to stuff it or my contributors being told that.
Let’s single out terrorist attack for just a moment. You are aware that “terrorism” had been over-used to the point people were ignoring it and the various warnings? I think its important to get the facts first. Now when I say terrorism, it doesn’t mean the same thing as the government definition.
If you KNOW it was determined to be terrorism right off the bat, then why do you need to keep asking the question. You apparently know more than others.
Let me answer. Benghazi is a 2-fer. Just how much mileage do you all think you can get off of this incident? Do you seriously think it is going to hurt Hillary? It won’t.
It was obvious the first 5 minutes what Republicans are doing and it is still obvious. And….it hasn’t worked. give it up. There is a new one you can work on and try to tie to Hillary and Obama.
@middleman
I noticed you completely ignored the current office holder and the slavish devotion that the press has given him.
As for Katrina…. What a load of BS.
Please…tell me how Bush ignored people of color and allowed them to die. This should be good.
Bush had a political appointment who wasn’t qualified for the job. Bush was also off at some fun raiser the next day. The administration did not know how deadly that hurricane was. They got blind-sided.
Now, having said that….I don’t believe Bush ignored people of color. People, for whatever reason, did not evacuate. Some people simply refused to leave their pets. Some couldn’t leave. Some had no way to leave and no where to go. I don’t blame Bush for that either.
He had a very vulnerable person heading up FEMA. I know that happens a lot, regardless of administration. It might not have mattered had Katrina not dealt such a mighty blow.
Let’s face it, you get something like Katrina, there are not going to be any winners. No one can prepare for something like that.
And, middleman, the resistance of this administration to answering questions quickly, truthfully and a length, thereby stretching out all Congressional investigations, is purely banana republic stuff, not to mention an imitation of the Nixonian bullshit during Watergate.
Actually, the fact that Darrel Issa is a mean little rude McCarthyite and also an asshole is what is driving the investigations. What a loser.
@Moon-howler
No excuses for Slick Willie. He allowed his ignorant liberal mignons to screw up the federal counterterrorist effort almost from the day he arrived in Washington. That includes, but is scarcely limited to, the infamous “wall.”
I don’t make excuses for Clinton. I hopo you weren’t voicing your opinion so vociferously if you were working for the government at that time.
No records, my eye. Try the WH emails which have just been obtained after all this long period of administration hemming and hawing and trying to avoid the truth.
While we are at it, I sure would like to know who exactly in Washington gave the final go-ahead to Phoenix for Fast and Furious. Show me the memo or email with the final ops approval, along the supporting legal opinion signature. Oh, I forgot. The AG won’t talk, and the WH put an embargo on the critical docs. Transparency apparently has a new meaning none of us knew about.
We aren’t going to discuss fast and furious on this blog.
@Moon-howler
Um….we already did. When it happened.
But, I’m curious.
Why is that scandal off limits?
Actually, there was never a thread about fast and furious.
Why? I just don’t want to hear about it. Its just more muck raking.
Kelly, I don’t need a reason to disregard this “Select Committee” other than the facts that the GOP designed in a Republican majority and that they will dominate the witness selection and proceedings. How, in good conscience, can you claim that this will be anything but a kangaroo court? Select Committee is right- selected to reach a foregone conclusion- which Mr. Gowdy gave away when he referred to it as a “trial.” Frankly, believing otherwise would be stupid.
And you said “minutes” – many of the other documents you mentioned have already been turned over in the thousands of pages of material already sent.
Below (from Wikipedia) is one reason why comparing Benghazi to Katrina isn’t “stupid.” I could go into reasons why it’s stupid to refer to other’s opinions as stupid when one lives in a glass house, but that point should be obvious.
Investigation of State of Emergency declaration
In a September 26, 2005 hearing, former FEMA chief Michael Brown testified before a U.S. House subcommittee about FEMA’s response. During that hearing, Representative Stephen Buyer (R-IN) inquired as to why President Bush’s declaration of state of emergency of August 27 had not included the coastal parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and Plaquemines.[18] (In fact, the declaration did not include any of Louisiana’s coastal parishes, whereas the coastal counties were included in the declarations for Mississippi[19] and Alabama.[20]) Brown testified that this was because Louisiana Governor Blanco had not included those parishes in her initial request for aid, a decision that he found “shocking.” After the hearing, Blanco released a copy of her letter, which showed she had requested assistance for “all the southeastern parishes including the City of New Orleans” as well specifically naming 14 parishes including Jefferson, Orleans and Plaquemines.[21]
There was a general investigation that clearly found fault with the Bush Administration, who threw “Brownie” to the wolves in response. Like Benghazi, people died. Unlike Benghazi, the Democrats didn’t hold show trials to try to tar President Bush with the deaths. THAT’s why the comparison isn’t stupid, Kelly old friend.
@middleman
They didn’t hold trials because Bush wasn’t responsible for the deaths or for saving them. The request came after the disaster. The trial should have been for Blanco. She’s the one that blithely ignored the warnings and didn’t prepare. Her National Guard wasn’t even mobilized. Declaring the to be disaster areas would have merely allowed FEMA to advance money. And within days, those parishes were declared disaster areas.
Furthermore, what was Bush supposed to do for those parishes when Blanco refused to release her National Guard for three days?
@Moon-howler
I could have sworn we discussed it.
And “muck raking?” Really?
I guess every other scandal is muck raking too.
Yes, Benghazi – no where in the Select Committee or other committee hearings is to find out what the actual cause of our failure. Was it funding, incompetence or anything else. Do we want an investigation to find out about talking points? No, we should be looking at the incident and find out the how’s and why’s – and how to prevent it from happening again.
Stevens was not even supposed to be there that night, so his security detail was not present. The CIA annex has a lot to do with the facility and the response – but not of that will be looked into.
Wasn’t all that done before in all the other committees held on Benghazi?
How many more times, for heaven’s sake?
@Pat.Herve
I don’t know where you get your info, Pat, but I recall that the security detail was most certainly in the consulate at the time of the attack, as was Stevens. The contract guards (local militia types) either were told by the attackers to leave or fled of their own accord. I believe it was the DS security people who were fighting back and trying to find the Ambassador inside the burning main building. They were rescued by the armed CIA team that came from the CIA annex to the consulate. Let us ask those DS agents if there was a demonstration that night at the consulate because of the video. But, wait, those guys appear to have been put off limits, so we haven’t heard from them on that score.
Issa. Another liberal excuse to try to provide cover for the screwups by this administration. Sigh….
Blah blah blah…..More right wing conspiracy bullshit, Wolve. Do you all ever get tired of thinking this crap up?
The Senate Watergate committee had a Democratic majority that dominated witness selection. Should the Republicans have used that as an excuse not to participate? The Republicans put country before party and fully supported the investigation of Nixon.
As a military veteran, I want to know why there was no attempt to send military reinforcements to Benghazi. There should have been options for air support and maybe even additional boots on the ground. None of the previous investigations have satisfactorily answered that question.
If you or anyone else knows why there was no military response, feel free to direct me to the link. A vague answer about the lack of military forces in the immediate region will not be sufficient.
Most of us have moved on past Watergate and Benghazi. I believe we need to look at the results of the last report…you know…the report that suggested improvements so this type of thing wouldn’t happen again.
If there weren’t military forces in the area, then there weren’t. How do you change that?
Then there was the guy who was caught making crap up…you know, the expert.
You must be kidding. Benghazi was a screwup by Hillary and her 7th floor lieutenants. Then it turned into a pack of CYA lies by Hillary and the White House. I still cannot believe that Hillary, while waiting for the coffins to be deplaned, told one of the grieving families that the USG would make that video producer pay for this. Good God. They all knew it wasn’t the video by then. You seriously want to hitch yourself to that wagon?
You were there and heard her say that? PUH-Leez!!!!
I simply don’t believe she said that as a reaction to the deaths.
Too embarrassing?
No, too political and again, too conspiracy theoried. Go elsewhere to discuss it.
It doesn’t embarrass me in the least.
Actually the title of this thread is pretty apt: Where is the Big “O”?
That seems to be a question a lot of people were asking on the night Benghazi went down. Another query which has gone unanswered. Makes Jimmy Carter look good.
@Moon-howler
Don’t you ever get tired of supporting an administration which lies to you so frequently?
Don’t you ever tire of bashing that administration? Geez, you wear it out.
I tend to put less energy into hating administrations than you do. I wasn’t particularly fond of the Bush administration but it took too much energy to whine and complain about it incessantly.
@Moon-howler
As I recall, Hillary Clinton’s comment about getting the video maker was reported by Charles Woods, father of dead ex-Navy Seal Tyrone Woods, who was waiting for his son’s coffin and heard her say it. I believe he is also the one who reported Joe Biden’s typically asinine comment about having balls as big as cue balls
That gentleman has said many things I felt were questionable. I will chalk it up to grief.
What does Hillary say about the comment? Other witnesses not related to the Woods family?