Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
No Benghazi chatter here?
#11
The "official report" (ARB) is under review because it was not complete. How can you have an "official report" when the ARB was a product of the State Department reviewing the State Department? (Fox guardig the hen house?) How can you have an official report when they did not interview any people that were on the ground that night in Benghazi?

As far as Benghazi being political. That be came obvious when the administration persisted in the YouTube video story even when it was known from the beginning of the attack that it was in fact terrorists? The "script" was scrubbed to delete references to AQ in order to fit the pretender-in-chief's campaign line that AQ was on its heels. THAT is pretty dang political and even some Democrats are realizing what Hillary and Obummer's staffs did.

Nobody has been held responsible or accountable (R or D). Except for Hillary, everyone in the State Department connected with the fiasco still have SD jobs. Obummer promised swift justice, but nobody's been captured yet except the American who made the video (you DO remember free speech, don't you?) and is still in jail in California.

The families of the fallen still have no real answers and the whistleblowers (who say they were under threats not to talk) are laying their lives and fortunes on the line in order to find the truth of what went wrong. A military security team that was stationed in Tripoli (200 miles away) were told NOT to board the Libyan C-130 aircraft headed to Benghazi during the attack. Who made that decision?

We have people in this forum who claim to be intelligent and inpartial. Fine, but aren't you guys even curious about what happened? Are you saying that you don't care about being lied to by your government or gross incompetence getting a pass?

I really don't expect the press to give it much coverage other than to make more excuses for the administration. Because Carney told them "it was a long time ago" Hillary doesn't think it matters (we have no time line on her involvement that night) and we know Obummer went to bed without following up on the crisis that night (he had to get his beauty sleep before a big campaign speech the next day).

Stay tuned for the next chapter.
Reply
#12

I'm glad we have our best 'all-facts' investigative reporter on this.
Reply
#13
For God's sake, there is no reason to discuss the fantasies of right wing nutters who hate Obama so much that they accept zero evidence as reason to convict.
Reply
#14
Front page Washington Post, top story. Yesterday: It neither excuses the White House nor the State Dept nor accepts at face value the claims Republicans are making. One of the reasons this isn't getting much play otherwise is that there is NO new information.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nati...ml?hpid=z3
Reply
#15
“If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the [CIA] annex in the morning, because I believe the Libyans would have split,” Hicks said. “They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

I believe. I believe. Believing will make it true.
Reply
#16
swampy wrote:
The "official report" (ARB) is under review because it was not complete.

Who says that?

swampy wrote:
How can you have an "official report" when the ARB was a product of the State Department reviewing the State Department? (Fox guardig the hen house?)

And if the IG of the State Dept. is actually doing a review of the ARB process and the IG issues a report then you will say that that report can't be official either because it comes from the IG of the State Dept. who obviously is part of the State Dept. so, again, you can say it's just the State Dept. reviewing the State Dept.

swampy wrote:
How can you have an official report when they did not interview any people that were on the ground that night in Benghazi?

How do you know that they didn't interview any of the people on the ground from that night?
Reply
#17
Benghazi is brought to you by the people who tried to impeach President Clinton over an affair with a grown woman. That should tell you everything you need to know about the legitimacy of the Benghazi investigation.
Reply
#18
I wonder if Hicks believes in the easter bunny too.
Reply
#19
And so it begins. The disparaging of the whistleblower's accounts before they have even given testimony. It's like you don't want to hear anything that might reflect on the integrity of Hillary or the administration.

Gutenberg, Clinton was not impeached for the affair. He was impeached for LYING and obstructing justice. do you revise history for a living?
Reply
#20
samintx wrote:
There has been no chatter here from the group on Benghazi since it all happened other than RIP for those killed.

No chatter? What do you call this:

http://forums.macresource.com/search.php..._threads=0

767 mentions of the word so far.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)