Apaprently, it's still unknown where Obama was...

Sure, he was at Walter Reed right at the beginning of the terrorist attack at Benghazi..

Where did he go after that?? He wasn't in the Situation room as he had claimed.

So he lied..

WHY did he lie??

WHERE was he??

Michale

Cite???

Michale

Do tell.. :D

Michale

No one knows where Obama was...

Or, more accurately, no one is saying where Obama was...

Obama initially said he was in the Situation Room and that turned out to be a lie..

Michale

Veterans scandal risks engulfing Obama
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/328546c0-dd10-11e3-8546-00144feabdc0.html#axzz31uvHRdxe

Employment wise, the LARGEST groups that are going to be hurt by dumping 30 million legal unskilled workers into the job pool are the low income minority groups...

What do you say to that??

Michale

Obama Makes It Clear That Amnesty Will Help Democrats
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/051414-700940-obama-knows-more-immigrants-mean-more-democrat-votes.htm?ref=HPLNews

Yea, it's all about "doing what's right", eh??

You mean, doing what's right for the Democratic Party and to hell with the country...

THAT's what ya mean... :D

Michale

And I am saying your wrong. NO civilized human being has the right to resort to terrorism.

NOTHING justified terrorism..

I'm saying your support of American terrorism under Bush while arbitrarily limiting Palestinians to tactics that won't hurt Israelis isn't a moral position its a bigoted one.

You are operating under the false premise that Bush committed terrorism.. You are in error.

If you believe that Bush committed terrorism then your precious Democrats AUTHORIZED that terrorism.

If you believe that Bush committed terrorism then you MUST believe that Obama is committing terrorism right now..

Your terrorist friends, Israel and Bush, for example, are fully "justified" heroic defenders.

G I G O

Your data is faulty, therefore your conclusion is garbage..

IS Obama a terrorist??

Michale

I'm saying the Palestinians have as much right to use whatever means necessary as we do. I'm saying your support of American terrorism under Bush while arbitrarily limiting Palestinians to tactics that won't hurt Israelis isn't a moral position its a bigoted one. Your terrorist enemies are "like child molesters, no redeeming value." Your terrorist friends, Israel and Bush, for example, are fully "justified" heroic defenders. Your hypocrisy is the result if your prejudice, not the result of any differences in tactics.

Drip, Drip, Drip.....

The Obama Administration is sinking... Drop by drop by drop.... :D

Michale

GOP War On Women??

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

Michale

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/14/dem-disarray-florida-house-candidate-drops-out-conyers-kept-off-ballot/?intcmp=latestnews

With (dis)organization like this, Democrats don't NEED Republicans to screw them over..

They are doing a bang-up job all by themselves.. :D

Michale

<I'm afraid I'm just not smart enough to know what I should and shouldn't read or should and shouldn't believe. The logical course of action for me is to stop reading about and discussing Benghazi altogether, forget I ever heard of it.

Okay, now THAT was funny!

Sorry.

Seriously, I think the logical course of action for you would be to stick around long enough to learn how to critically discriminate between sources for news and analysis.

Although, I would agree with you that you should avoid all things Benghazi. That was a little joke. :)

You are saying that the Palestinians have a right to fight back..

You are absolutely right.

They do.

But NOT by using terrorism..

By using terrorism, they forfeit ALL legality and morality...

I have no doubt that Palestinians have some real and legitimate concerns..

But by employing terrorism, they utterly DESTROY that legitimacy..

Do you know why??

Because NOTHING JUSTIFIES TERRORISM...

Let the Palestinians fight back within the rules of warfare..

Hell, I might even cheer them on...

But by employing terrorism??

The give Israel the moral and ethical high ground and carte blanche in the pursuit of Israeli security..

Michale

That terrorists aren't necessarily psychotic, unjustified, evil, or even bad! IS reality!--And you were SO CLOSE!

We'll just have to agree to disagree..

In my humble opinion, based on LOTS of personal experience, terrorists are like child molesters..

NO REDEEMING VALUE whatsoever. About the ONLY thing they are worth is a bullet to the head..

So having blown up the twin towers America should just forget about it? Its over? Our Ambassador was murdered in Benghazi. According to you Obama lied about it. Forget about it! It's over!--Lamest excuse on planet Earth.

Uhhhh Are you making my arguments for me?? :D

Michale

So having blown up the twin towers America should just forget about it? Its over? Our Ambassador was murdered in Benghazi. According to you Obama lied about it. Forget about it! It's over!--Lamest excuse on planet Earth.

If someone stole MY home it damn well WOULDN'T be over until I got it back! And I wouldn't hesitate for a second to engage in terrorism against the perpetrators either!--You just go right on trying to tailor reality to suit your prejudices. I feel quite confident reality will go right on refusing to oblige you.

That terrorists aren't necessarily psychotic, unjustified, evil, or even bad! IS reality!--And you were SO CLOSE!

Terrorism is evil, not necessarily terrorists. Plenty of evil goes on in the world. Sometimes its even necessary.

When your definition of evil always condemns your adversary and always exonerates you?!--Now THAT IS EVIL.

You see, that's the problem with organized religion..

Like Human Caused Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/Climate Chaos, god is responsible for everything and religion allows anything, no matter how heinous..

The perfect fall guy...

Michale

You want to define terrorism with some nebulous situational-dependent definition so you can apply it as you see fit..

But terrorism has a hard objective defintion...

But you DO raise an interesting question..

Due to the drone attacks by Obama Administration, is Obama a terrorist??

By your own definition as you applied it to Bush, the Obama would HAVE to be a terrorist..

What say you??

Michale

A- We're not talking about Arabs, we're talking about Palestinians

2- The ONLY reason that Palestinians are being "punished" is because they keep trying to solve their problems with terrorism..

The Palestinians would be free to live in peace side by side with Israel if Palestinians would simply be content to live in peace side by side with Israel..

But the STATED goal of Palestinians is to destroy Israel..

As long as Palestinians refuse to give Israel the peace that Palestinians themselves demand, they will continue to be "punished"..

Due to the Palestinians continued use of terrorism, Israel will ALWAYS have the moral and ethical high ground and will have, pretty much, a blank check to do what Israel needs to do...

It's really THAT simple...

Michale

And, according to terrorists, they're in a Holy War to take Palestinian lands back.--Maybe God changed his mind?

You have officially gone off the deep end, LD :D

I apologize.. I didn't realize we were having a metaphysical or semantical discussion where EVERYTHING is terrorism..

I thought we were talking about reality..

Silly me.. :D

Michale

I keep giving you examples, and you keep ignoring them and demanding that I provide examples! And I am wearying of it. Jews were NOT at war when they seized Palestinian land. And neither were the Allies. The war was OVER. And it was Germany and Japan who instigated and prosecuted the war, not Arab states.

And yet, its reasonable to displace Arabs and seize their homes and property? While spending 50 years calling for the reunification of Germany? That while Germany and Japan are rebuilt, at our expense, Arabs deserved to be permanently punished merely for being their allies?!

Once again you demonstrate that what you consider fact depends entirely upon the outcome you desire. Depends entirely upon your prejudices, in other words.

I never mentioned Israel, but since you did... The Allies established Israel because we sure as hell didn't want them all in America! So our "feel good" solution to satisfy both parties was the establishment of the State of Israel ON SOMEBODY ELSE LAND.

Now, I am not a religious theologian by ANY stretch of the imagination..

But it's my understand that Israel created their new state on the land that was promised to them by god..

The druthers of the Americans had very little to do with that...

"Are you aspiring to be god, eh??"
-BY THE RIVERS OF BABYLON, Nelson DeMille

:D

Michale

Adding the American genocide against indigenous natives in support of your claim that "terrorists are psychotic lesser people" and "never justified" isn't helping your case.

Neither is your latest bit of personal insanity that, "it isn't terrorism if you win!" Although I expect Hezbollah and Al Queada agree with you! You're only further establishing that there is no fundamental difference between the way that you think and the way terrorists think, in spite of your imagined moral and mental superiority.

NOW you've got it! Telling a ghost story IS "terrorism." Terrorism isn't automatically, bad, insane, unjustified, or anything OTHER than attempting to instill terror.

Like everything else in life its all in the details. You can not simply prejudge ANYTHING. THAT'S what's wrong with prejudice.

Relying on prejudice, prejudging, your complete disdain for nuance and context, is where you invariably go wrong.

Point to ONE ACT of terrorism committed by Israel?

You can't because none exists..

Michale

It was war... plain and simple..

The Palestinians lost... plain and simple..

Just like here at home..

The new country, America, expanded.. It was war.. Native Americans lost...

Plain and simple..

You see, the problem with your definition of terrorism is that it postulates that the GOAL is terror...

With terrorism, intent is 80% of the definition..

In the case of America, the goal wasn't to terrorize Native Americans. It was to defeat them and take their land..

AKA... WAR...

Michale

I never mentioned Israel, but since you did... The Allies established Israel because we sure as hell didn't want them all in America! So our "feel good" solution to satisfy both parties was the establishment of the State of Israel ON SOMEBODY ELSE LAND.

The Israelis sure as hell DID commit terrorism establishing Israel. The people now known as Palestinians didn't volunteer their homes an property for the formation of Israel. The Israelis, with American backing, threatened to kill anyone who interfered. There was no state of war. There was no purchase. There was no treaty. It was terrorism, plain and simple. Terrorism in order to perpetrate grand theft. A theft, and terrorism, that is ongoing with each expansion of the East Bank.--Whether it was "justified" is another matter.

If it were YOUR home, YOUR family, YOUR life, and YOUR livelihood being threatened and seized YOU'D call it terrorism THEN!

You prove EXACTLY my point..

Using YOUR definition, telling a ghost story or setting up a Haunted House on Halloween is "terrorism"... After all, the goal is to "terrorize"..

Michale

I should amend that to say that CONSERVATIVES can't say "I don't like this, that or the other thing" without getting fined, fired or sent to re-education camp...

If a Liberal blovioates on how bad Christians are, they get a job with a major MSM rag...

Michale

"Terrorism" is defined as acts intended to instill terror. Those who employ tactics intended to instill terror or called "terrorists."

You dehumanize your adversaries, deluding yourself that they are all "psychotic lesser people" which justifies attempts to terrorize them. That is exactly what terrorists do. THAT is what makes a "terrorist."

The "military purpose" of dropping atom bombs WAS TO TERRORIZE. To terrorize Japan into immediate surrender ahead of the invasion. It wasn't about taking out military production, destroying a military force, or securing a military position. It had one objective, and only one objective, to so terrorize the people of Japan that they would immediately and unconditionally surrender.

The PURPOSE of Mutually Assured Destruction is to so terrorize your adversaries they are afraid to attack.

The PURPOSE of Bush "arresting" people en mass, on any suspicion, of "associating with terrorists" was to terrorize people into being too afraid to support Al Qaeda.

And I DON'T have to go back 70 years, not that even if I did it would invalidate my point. That claim is just another example of you interpreting reality, adding arbitrary conditions and qualifications, to arrive at the conclusion you want. But, as I said Bush engaged in his own campaign of terror, WHICH YOU SUPPORTED AS "JUSTIFIED." And it was just six year ago. In fact, YOU claim its STILL ongoing.

"War=terrorism," "terrorism is NEVER justified," all terrorists are "psychotic lesser peoples." So anyone who engages in war is an unjustified psychotic lesser person and a terrorist?--And YOU were a career soldier?!

You see, that's the problem with intellectual dishonesty like yours. Trying to twist facts so that you are always on the side of the angels, and your adversary always a tool of the devil, only makes you a hypocrite or an idiot, or both.

It is not "War=terrorism." It is attempting to terrorize=terrorism. "Justification" being a separate issue, not mutually exclusive.

Like I said.. You are completely clueless as to what terrorism is..

Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda.

The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan served a military purpose. The fact that it terrorized is happenstance and doesn't indicate intent..

Even IF one could make a case, the fact that you have to go back over 70 years to MAKE that case (even if you could) indicates how weak your argument is..

The problem LD, is you ascribe simple attributes to your definition to suit your agenda.

If someone is scared, then it MUST be terrorism is how you look at things.

You are wrong...

Israel didn't commit terrorism in the formation of the country..

Reagan didn't commit terrorism just because people were afraid of a nuclear war.

Bush didn't commit terrorism just because he took this country to war..

WAR =! terrorism

It's THAT simple...

Michale

Michale

The greatest terrorist attack of the twentieth century, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan was justified as it saved tens of thousands of lives in the Allied Japan invasion fleet, and as a response to the terrorist attack on Pearl Harbor Hawaii by Japanese forces which started the World Ear Two. And the greatest terrorists of the twentieth century were Nazi German WWII troops.

Niether President Roosevelt, the Japanese navy, or the common German soldier were "psychotic" or "lessor peoples." Terrorist" isn't defined by irregular troops, your enemies, or both. Its defined as those who use terror as a tactic. And the tactic used can't be the sole factor determining justification. If it were no war, which ALWAYS relies on the tactic of murder, would NEVER be justified.

You simply display a consistent tendency to interpret everything to support your personal prejudices. If Al Qaeda had kidnapped people off the streets in America, labeled them "enemy combatants," held them indefinitely without charges or trial, and tortured them, you'd definitely call it "terrorism." But when George Bush did it you considered it justice and justified. You are not an expert on terrorism. Your bigotry and prejudice prevent you from even recognizing terrorism except when it suits and serves your prejudices.

You cannot solve a problem until you first identify the problem. Anyone who deludes themselves into thinking all terrorists are "psychotic lesser people" instead of seeking to identify the terrorists justifications, real or imagined, is of no use giving advise on how to combat terrorism. Anyone who thinks that nothing uniformed services personnel do, and particularly American military, can be terrorism is useless advising on terrorism. And anyone who thinks any tactic is arbitrarily off the table and never justified is useless advising on any security issue.

No tactic yet devised is more insane than that of "mutually assured destruction"--of the Human Race! And yet it was embraced by the United States of America and the Soviet Union.--And it worked! A tactic relying on terror. A "terrorist" tactic, which you wingers love to canonize St. Reagan for. President Reagan obviously being a "psychotic lesser person" with no justification for his terrorism.

So dead on ballz accurate, it's SCARY!!! :D

Michale

You are going to be told you are wrong, time and time again.. Probably EVERY time.

If not by me (99% of the time) then by someone else (1% of the time)...

Weigantians rarely agree on ANYTHING..

But, as a wise sage once told me and as I recently re-learned myself, it's not the capitulation or the surrender that's the fun part..

It's the landing of the punches.. :D

One of my old Police Academy instructors once told us:

"Yea, it's fun running huckley-buckley Code 3 to a crime scene and gawk.. But it's a lot more fun to park over an overpass, catch the perp, screw a shotgun in his ear and take him to jail"

The Weigantian version??

It's fun to hear, "Yea, you were right, I was wrong"...

It's MUCH more fun to intellectually pummel someone so hard, so fast and so precisely that such admissions, concessions or capitulations are superfluous and unnecessary, as the result is obvious for all to see.. :D

We're all like a bunch of Tellarites.. We love to argue. We LIVE to argue.. :D

I have seen many a commenter.. One-comment-wonders who make a smart, insightful and witty comment, but simply cannot handle the rebuttal and run from Weigantia screaming hysterically.

You have held on longer than most...

The one trick to keep in mind in surviving Weigantia is to not take ANY of it too seriously..

Even seasoned veterans sometimes forget that..

Anyways, my 2 cents worth...

Hope you stick around...

Michale

I am sure you didn't mean to, but THAT was funny!! :D

Michale

You just need to be aware that the western media is often pretty clueless on matters involving the Middle East and North Africa, among other geographical regions and geopolitical issues. You just have to know who to trust and where to find solid information about what is going on there.

I'm afraid I'm just not smart enough to know what I should and shouldn't read or should and shouldn't believe. The logical course of action for me is to stop reading about and discussing Benghazi altogether, forget I ever heard of it.

@ Michale

I can't even be right about being wrong and you are right again. I give up.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/12/feds-released-hundreds-immigrant-murderers-drunken/

Yea....

Amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants..

What could POSSIBLY go wrong??

Michale

It's THAT simple...

Michale

Beating the Obama Administration by almost two weeks... :D

Not that I am one to toot my own horn or anything..

But.... BEEEP BEEEEP :D

Michale

We know for a fact that it was NOT a protest gone bad..

We know for a fact that the anti-Islam video that had been in circulation for many many months had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack.

We know for a fact that officials within the CIA knew it was a PLANNED terrorist attack right from the outset. There NEVER was a question of that.

We know for a fact that Obama's White House issued a talking points memo to various people, including Susan Rice, that told them to blame the attack on the anti-islam video and steer anyone away from believing it was because of policy decisions.

We know for a fact that Obama and his administration lied thru their teeth for almost two weeks, saying that it was NOT a terrorist attack, but rather it was in response to an anti-islam video..

We know for a fact that our Ambassador and other Americans were brutally murdered during the attack..

We know for a fact that NOT ONE SINGLE PERPETRATOR of the Benghazi Terrorist Attack has been brought to justice...

We know for a fact that military officials high up in the TOP have testified that they received orders from the NCA to "stand down"...

Now, here's what we don't know...

We don't know where our Commander In Chief was during the attack.. The Left has well established that it is VITAL, it is IMPERATIVE that the CnC whereabouts are known during a national emergency.. We don't know where Obama was...

That about sums up the facts of Benghazi. At least all that is readily known...

Have I missed anything??

Michale

And you can thank the Obama Administration for that. Because of all their lies and obfuscations and outright BS...

All the American people want are the facts...

Why is the Obama White House stonewalling the release of these facts at every turn??

THAT is why we need a Special Committee with subpoena powers...

Michale

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/05/13/Over-5-Billion-and-Counting-Obamacare-Websites

If THAT is how things "work" it's well and truly factual that Obama and the Democrats have royally frak'ed this country...

Michale

This is EXACTLY the problem that ya'all have..

You make an argument for IMMIGRANTS, but NO ONE is talking about immigrants at all..

The issue at hand, the issue that ya'all simply REFUSE to address is the issue of ILLEGAL immigrants...

Illegal immigrants are, by definition, criminals...

America is ALWAYS open and ALWAYS willing to welcome immigrants..

AS LONG AS IMMIGRANTS OBEY ARE LAWS...

So, can we lose the straw man arguments and actually discuss what the REAL issue is??

***ILLEGAL*** immigrants...

Michale

There is very little accuracy around here with respect to what happened and didn't happen in Benghazi, I'm afraid.

While you may (or may not) be right, that doesn't negate the fact that McCain (and Graham AND me :D) was dead on ballz accurate about Benghazi being a Terrorist Attack...

Michale

I think Senator McCain has acquired a strong tendency to see what he wants to see. Consequently, his analysis of any given situation comports little with reality.

Sure they are.. At least in the case of the Benghazi Terrorist Attack..

The only person who called it faster than those two was yours truly... :D

Despite HEAVY opposition from the Weigantian Peanut Gallery, I might add.. :D

Where has Michty been anyways!!??? :D

Michale

In that case I should stop reading anyone's reports and certainly not quote anybody. Sorry. I was obviously wrong.

Well, that's not the conclusion you should have drawn from my reply.

You just need to be aware that the western media is often pretty clueless on matters involving the Middle East and North Africa, among other geographical regions and geopolitical issues. You just have to know who to trust and where to find solid information about what is going on there.

Senators McCain and Graham are also not your best sources for enlightened analysis, to put it mildly.

Once again, a DEMOCRAT puts it all in perspective...

Michale

And, just so we're clear..

NOTHING.... NO THING.... NOT ONE SINGLE THING.... Justifies terrorism.

Bush never committed any acts of terrorism.

Israel never committed any acts of terrorism.

And NO AMERICAN who IS an American would ever, EVER think Terrorism is justified..

The ONLY animals who think terrorism is justified ARE terrorists themselves...

I hope I have made my position clear...

Michale

So much for Obama's claim that only illegal immigrants who DON'T commit crimes are safe from deportation..

Another Obama lie....

Thank you President Obama for releasing murderers, thieves, rapists and other assorted criminals onto our streets so they are free to prey on innocent Americans again..

Yer a real peach... :^/

Obama and the Democrats are culpable and responsible for EACH and EVERY crime these ILLEGAL alien criminals commit while they are free..

Michale

Most Americans feel terrorism IS sometimes justified.

What a completely and utterly BULLSHIT statement..

Prove it!

You only think terrorism is never justified because when YOU support terrorism campaigns, like, say Bush's TORTURE policies, it isn't REALLY terrorism.--Just one more example of your intellectual dishonesty, self-delusion, and lying. Not to mention your LACK of credibility as an expert on terrorism.

You are obviously completely ignorant of what terrorism is...

Ignorance is not dishonorable..

Denying it is...

YoYo,

I was going to take Michale to task for bloviating about immigrants, but seriously, if he doesn't realise that he's descended from american immigrants at this point, he never will.

Where did I "bloviate" about immigrants?? Not one single place did ANYTHING about immigrants cross my lips.. er... fingers??

I simply asked a question about ILLEGAL immigrants..

This has been said a thousand times, Republicans should support immigration reform because it's right.

It's only right for the Democratic Party..

Giving amnesty to ILLEGAL immigrants will put TEXAS in play, fer chreest's sake!!

Face it.. Democrats ONLY support illegal immigrant amnesty because it will mint fresh new Democrat voters by the millions.

If ILLEGAL immigrants supported the GOP, then Democrats would be as against it as the GOP is..

In my america, everyone is welcome. Including those who made and epic trek across a water-less desert to be here. Fuck man, I'm not sure I'd do that to get back in, anyone who does that just for a chance at being American deserves to be welcomed by a party that says, "here's your water, here's how you start the process to be an american citizen."

Yes, in America ALL are welcome.

As long as they OBEY our laws

THAT's the point you don't seem to want to understand.

To put it into a perfect context...

Let's say you and your family go away for a month long vacation.. You come back and you have a family living in your house, eating your food, consuming your resources and running up your bills...

Since you are a loyal Democrat, you give them amnesty and let them stay in your home and you and your family suffer and go elsewhere.

That is the EXACT same situation that illegal immigration poses to America and Americans. Illegal immigrants have broken into our "home", are consuming our resources and running up our bills.

And giving NOTHING back...

Until then I'll wait.

Of course you will.. But you were all gung ho when Democrats where doing witch hunt after witch hunt after witch hunt on the Bush Administration, right??

Ya'all are so transparent.. If Democrats are on the witch hunt with "useless" investigations, ya'all are just fine with that..

Does the term "hypocrisy" mean anything to you?? :D

So Obama made Petraeus cheat on his wife? This is a new one frankly. Please Michale, tell me more.

You DO realize that blackmail/extortion is a crime, right??

But this is interesting.. You don't see a problem with the White House using leverage to silence Patraeus. After all, Patraeus cheated on his wife, so it's all HIS fault, eh??

Could your nose be any further up Obama's ass??? :D

But anyways, getting back to ILLEGAL immigration..

The GOP would be signing their own death warrants if they push thru amnesty..

My logic is as simple as it is dead on ballz accurate..

No matter WHAT the GOP does, ILLEGAL immigrants will NEVER support the GOP... NEVER.. Not in a million years.

Why?? Because of the mentality of the ILLEGAL immigrant and the fact that the Democratic Party is the FREE RIDE Party. The FREE STUFF Party..

The GOP simply cannot compete with that, nor should they try..

This country was built on HARD WORK and sweat and toil... This is totally anti-thesis to the FREE RIDE/FREE STUFF concept that the Democratic Party epitomizes..

If the GOP pushes thru amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants, then we won't see a GOP government in my lifetime..

And THAT is the ONLY reason that the Left supports ILLEGAL immigrants.

It's not about what's right, as you claim.

It's about who is going to be in power in this country..

"These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
-Captain 'Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

So spare me the preaching and sermonizing and the OH MY GODs!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" bullshit..

Democrats don't care about what's right.

They only care about what's in it for them...

Mopshell,

I'm wrong about everything and you're right about everything. Happy now?

Whoa now... I actually said you were right... So I am not sure where this is coming from..

You've been through a lot of pain in the dirt, and I know you've got the scars to prove it
-ROCK AND ROLL DREAMS COME TRUE, MeatLoaf

As someone who has the scars to prove it, a thick skin is a must here in Weigantia.. :D

Michale

[70]That is completely false.

In that case I should stop reading anyone's reports and certainly not quote anybody. Sorry. I was obviously wrong.

@ Michale

I'm wrong about everything and you're right about everything. Happy now?

I was going to take Michale to task for bloviating about immigrants, but seriously, if he doesn't realise that he's descended from american immigrants at this point, he never will.

"So, someone... ANYONE...
Please explain to me why it's in the best interests of the Republican Party to create up to 30 million new freshly minted Democrat voters??"

But then again...

This has been said a thousand times, Republicans should support immigration reform because it's right. We take your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, and we turn them into owners of your local 7/11. Because that's the American dream. I would not deny that to any man or woman. Period. My great- grandfather (to name just ONE immigrant in my family) came to this country from Poland (probably austria-hungary) in the very early 20th century. He would not have been able to do this post WW1 because that's when immigration quotas and other nativist nonsense were given credence. We still have his sledgehammer btw. Apparently B&O railroads was minimum wage and all the sledgehammers you can steal back in the day. In any case, the only reason I even exist was because of permissive immigration policies. We need to welcome and embrace the new generation, any other argument is racist bullshit. Including yours Michale. Complaining that Republicans don't appeal to anyone who isn't white (and further turn off a significant percentage of white people) doesn't make anti-immigration any less of the racist base pandering that it is.

In my america, everyone is welcome. Including those who made and epic trek across a water-less desert to be here. Fuck man, I'm not sure I'd do that to get back in, anyone who does that just for a chance at being American deserves to be welcomed by a party that says, "here's your water, here's how you start the process to be an american citizen."

As far as Benghazi phhhhffffffftt.....

come back to me when mister i'll put epic music over my questioning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5-qTNRroAw

does something that's not a grandstanding piece of nonsense. Until then I'll wait.

Also this bit.

"Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has already effectively silenced General Patreaus..."

So Obama made Petraeus cheat on his wife? This is a new one frankly. Please Michale, tell me more.

You seem to have unreasonable expectations of intelligence agencies.Your assumption that any and every intelligence failure represents error "that needs to be corrected" is neither realistic nor constructive. Scapegoating people risking their lives to protect yours because it makes you feel better is not an admirable quality.

There is no legitimate purpose to be served by this select committee, nor will any legitimate purpose be served. Your qualified support for it simply makes you a part of the problem. Which is exactly the point, and what Republicans want. Creating misperceptions like yours is what this slander campaign has always been about. An attempt to manufacture an unwarranted impression of Obama administration incompetence and corruption.

Wow. I have to admit that your comments have completely blind-sided me.

Your assumptions and assertions about me couldn't be further from the truth if you actually put some effort into it.

I'll have no further interaction with you here, on this topic or any other.

Most Americans feel terrorism IS sometimes justified. There's this little series of terrorist incidents known as the American Revolution that the bulk of us consider "A Good Thing."--Its called "patriotism."--Look it up.

Whether terrorism is "justified" depends on how and why, like everything else. (And, of course, on who wins.) You didn't have ANY problem with your boy Bush deciding to terrorize a little country called Iraq. YOU seemed the think that was justified. Now the insurgents fighting back were under the impression that defending their country against foreign invasion made THEM justified. Now, personally, I find your absurd contention that The U.S. has every right to engage in terror but that NO ONE ever, under ANY circumstances EVERY is justified in fighting back the same way to be insane, not just irrationally arrogant.

Your not a CT expert. Your just another bigot. "Psychotic behavior of lesser men?!" Just what would "lesser men" be? Those who aren't members of the "Master Race," or those who aren't white, those who aren't American, or just those who aren't you?--Because I gotta tell you, its thinking like that that's the reason terrorists on occasion ARE justified. Ask those who were in the French Resistance in WWII. Instead of throwing around terms like "psychopathic" you might want to look in the mirror and consider ones like sociopathic and megalomaniacal.

You only think terrorism is never justified because when YOU support terrorism campaigns, like, say Bush's TORTURE policies, it isn't REALLY terrorism.--Just one more example of your intellectual dishonesty, self-delusion, and lying. Not to mention your LACK of credibility as an expert on terrorism.

TERRORISM is *NEVER* justified..

I don't care HOW many weak governments are exploited by the US..

NOTHING JUSTIFIES TERRORISM..

If you weren't so enslaved by racial and political ideology and dogma, you would see that...

The idea that the US has ANY culpability or responsibility for the terrorist attacks that have been perpetrated world wide is the WORST kinds of bullshit of ALL the kinds of bullshit there is in the world..

It's psychotic insanity brought about by hysterical political ideology... Pure and simple..

Thank gods, I am not afflicted by that... :D

Michale

Yea, right. Terrorism has absolutely NOTHING to to with the psychotic behavior of lesser men. It's ALWAYS about the poor downtrodden and misunderstood..

Leftist Bleeding Heart Terrorism 101

Gimme a frakin' break..

But, as I said, it's nice to have you out of the closet.. You are one of those who believe that the US *DESERVED* the 9/11 attacks...

Spoken like a true terrorist..

Michale

You think everyone else should defer to you because you claim to be a counter terrorism expert and you don't even know what causes terrorism?! I remember black kids in church being bombed by whites protesting blacks being allowed to attend white schools. I remember our Iranian embassy being invaded and the staff held hostage in protest of our support for the murderous dictator who oppressed Iran for decades, largely thanks to us. I remember blacks rioting in the streets in protest of discrimination. I remember one of your redneck fellow travelers blowing up an IRS office in protest of "big gub'mint." I remember police rioting in the streets against people simply attending a Democratic convention in protest of protesters!

Since you seem to have such difficulty with the English language let me 'splain something to you.--Terroism, by definition, is action intended to "terrorize" others into altering their behavior. It is done ostensibly either to stop someone from doing something you don't want, to force someone to do what you want, or both. Peaceful protests seek to persuade people to either stop doing what you don't want, force someone to do what you want, or both through nonviolent means. Violent protests seek to achieve their goals through terrorist tactics.

Now, Mr. CT Expert, you can dispense your little pearls of expert wisdom without being so completely clueless!--You can thank me later.

Oh, and as for your typical attempt to twist the words of another, thank you for yet another demonstration proving my point, you simply lie about what others say. I never said America directly causes terrorist attacks. And I certainly never said the 9/12 attacks were America's fault. I said America's actions are the terrorists justifications, that they engage in terrorist attacks in protest. That is not to say those justifications ate legitimate. Just as Obama's actions are your justifications for opposing him, even though Obama has done nothing to warrant your opposition.--But as I understand your lack of rational arguments leaves you little but to lie in attempted ridicule. Far be it for me to try and stand in the way of you demonstrating the depths of your ignorance and childishness.

As for my being "ecstatic" over Republicans staging a fishing event media event for the next five months in order to pretend there's a serious Benghazi issue raising serious questions about the quality of Democratic governance?! Sorry. However convenient that might be for you, unlike you, I'm not that stupid.

Ahhhhhh I see...

So the US is to blame for the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks...

"Well, it's nice to have you out of the closet."
-SecState Arthur Curry, THE FINAL OPTION

:D

lol... And I should be "terrified" of the Select Committee investigation because...?!--There's some reason to believe they're going to uncover some magical evidence the previous 6 committees, and 50 hearings failed to disclose?

Fine.. Then you have nothing to worry about with ANOTHER committee that has infinitely more power than the others..

After all, the FACTS are on your side, right??

Then why are you so worked up that you have to add to the almost 100 comments regarding Benghazi??

If there's nothing to find, then you should be ECSTATIC that the GOP is wasting their time and their political capital, right??

Like I said. Me thinks thou doth protest TOO much... :D

Michale

Maybe inventing reality works for you among fellow wingers, here you just found stupid. The Twin Towers weren't attacked because Al Queda didn't have anything better to do. The U.S. Exploits other peoples with weak or corrupt governments. We're hardly alone in that, but it occasionally results in terrorists pushing back in protest.

You love to lie by trying to impose your own delusional definitions on words to suit your current deception. Marching in the park is PEACEFUL protest, NONVIOLENT protest. While no doubt Gandhi and Dr. King would be proud that you claim protests must be peaceful and nonviolent in order to BE "protests." As usual the truth is otherwise.

lol... And I should be "terrified" of the Select Committee investigation because...?!--There's some reason to believe they're going to uncover some magical evidence the previous 6 committees, and 50 hearings failed to disclose?--Once more for the hat trick.--Your arguments are too STUPID to be believed. No partisanship required.

Are you now unable to read as well as comprehend? There were protests all over the world. Mist believed the attacks were protests and the hearings proved the attackers, at minimum, used the protests as cover. They did so by pretending to be protesters.

I don't think anyone other than the attackers knows how much the video had to do with the attacks. Buy your insistence that Obama lied is a lie. There is NO proof no support it.

Where were the protests on 9/11/2001?? Using your reasoning, there HAD to have been protests in New York City that turned into terrorist attacks.. :D

Dance!!! Dance!!!! {guffaw} {guffaw}

So, what you are saying is that basically, EVERY PROTEST that has violence in it is automagically a terrorist attack.. :D

I would LOVE to know what training you have that would lead you to spew THAT totally irrational piece of flotsam... :D

Face it, LD... Obama lied and tried to cover his worthless and incompetent ass..

And you (and he) are PETRIFIED of this Special Investigation because it will get to these facts and the American people will learn how worthless and incompetent Obama really is..

Michale

And THAT was a lie, because there was absolutely NO PROTEST whatsoever..

SO, we agree...

Obama lied...

Michale

Once again YOU are lying. Obama never said a terrorist attack was "just protest gone bad." He said a protest gone bad turned into a terrorist attack. You keep trying to twist reality to suit your prejudices. "A protest gone bad" that results in storming an embassy and killing people is a terrorist attack. You wingers keep trying to pretend that only violent attacks perpetrated by people of color and non-Christians are terrorist attacks.

Attacks on abortion clinics or providers are terrorist attacks. Attacks on gays and lesbians are terrorist attacks. Attacks on schools and government facilities are terrorist attacks. Terrorists ALWAYS are protesting something. Protest and terrorist are not mutually exclusive.

Obama never tried to paint the terrorist attack as a nonviolent protest as you try to imply. NO ONE thought the attack WASN'T a terrorist attack. You, and Republicans are, once again, attempting to misrepresent what was actually said to make it a lie.

In a country that has ALWAYS rallied around the President when attacked you pretend that, for no reason at all, Obama would so fear a backlash, just because an embassy was attacked, that he felt the need to try to conceal the attack. And in your deluded worldview he actually thought that saying our ambassador and three aids were kill in our consulate due to a protest would mislead people into believing that there was no terrorist attack. That the contusion his masterful deception and delay of 24 hours before actually using the words "terrorists" in the middle of September surely would throw the election in November by keeping the public ignorant.--It isn't blind partisanship that keeps people from believing that Obama lied.--Its the abject STUPIDITY of your argument. The complete lack of anything remotely like supporting evidence. And all the documented evidence against you.

That NONE of that matters to you is simply evidence of YOUR blind partisanship, and no one elses.

I don't have to lift an eyebrow...

Obama is doing a bang up job of that all by hisself.. :D

Michale

Ya see??

Everything is the fault of the GOP.. NOTHING the GOP does is EVER good or right...

Obama and the Democrats are pure as the driven snow... Everything Obama does is all goodness and light. Obama is ALWAYS right on everything and has always been totally and completely good and honest..

We are at war with East Asia. We have always been at way with East Asia.

Michale

I don't see "lying". Or evidence of "lying".

Of course you don't...

It's EXACTLY as I said. Ya'all don't see ANY facts that would put Obama in a bad light..

But, when Obama's White House tells people that a terrorist attack was actually just a protest gone bad and Obama's White House KNOWS that this is not true, then that is what is called "a lie"..

I don't expect you to see it, let alone acknowledge it.

Ya'all have a blind spot when it comes to Obama. It's a symptom of ya'alls Obama Derangement Syndrome..

Read PERRY'S PLANET... Same concept..

Michale

You seem to have unreasonable expectations of intelligence agencies. There job is to provide us with needed information that we wouldn't ordinarily have as much as they can. It is not to provide us with all the information we need. The latter being impossible.

it isn't a police failure everytime there's a crime. It isn't fire department failure everytime there's a fire. A dentist failure everytime someone gets a cavity. A physician failure everytime a patient dies. A teacher failure everytime a student flunks.

Your assumption that any and every intelligence failure represents error "that needs to be corrected" is neither realistic nor constructive. Scapegoating people risking their lives to protect yours because it makes you feel better is not an admirable quality. When there is evidence of error it should be addressed. But failing to obtain the desire you wish is not necessarily evidence of failure.

You also seem to be willing to whitewash the abuse of official power to promote an election-year slander campaign on the basis of a supposed possibility that they might actually investigate unrelated matters. Matters which also have already been fully investigated.

You appear to be susceptible to Big Lie propaganda and sloppy "where there's smoke there's fire" reasoning. There is no legitimate purpose to be served by this select committee, nor will any legitimate purpose be served. Your qualified support for it simply makes you a part of the problem. Which is exactly the point, and what Republicans want. Creating misperceptions like yours is what this slander campaign has always been about. An attempt to manufacture an unwarranted impression of Obama administration incompetence and corruption

I don't see "lying". Or evidence of "lying".

None of the 6 investigations so far has either.

As usual, it's been fun, Michale. Unfortunately, once again we've reached the point where there's no further point.

Best of luck in your ever ongoing quest to make Obama look bad!

-David

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/17401/

Liberal Political Correctness is going to be the end of this country... :^/

Michale

Claiming everyone knew the video had nothing to do with the terrorist attack is not only not true the testimony gathered by Republican investigators proved the protests were used, at minimum, as cover for the attacks. Nor is it remotely credible to assume that a video which outraged Muslims all over the world inciting anger at the West didn't in any way influence the attitudes of extremists militants who already hate the West and blame us and consider themselves in a Holy war because of our attacks on Islam.

Like your claim the President was trying to cover-up a terrorist attack its absurd on its face and completely unsupported by the facts. Just as you ignore all the military commanders who testified that there was no stand-down order, the the nearest response team was too far away, you choose to ignore the facts and lie. The claims by the Right that they don't trust the administration are specious. Your paranoia and conspiracy theories are NOT facts to be assumed to be true until proven.

Has a ring to it, eh?

Michale

You prove my point in another way as well..

Bush "lied" even though he had absolutely NO CONNECTION to the faulty intel.. Yet, in YOUR mind, Bush is responsible..

Obama actually DID lie with regards to the "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" BS...

Yet, Obama is NOT RESPONSIBLE and get gets a pass from you...

Thereby, once again, proving the awesome unlimited power of the almighty '-x'

Michale

Yea.. And the Sandy Hook massacre was just small schoolyard fisticuffs... :^/

Michale

Nope.. At the time, the prevailing wisdom stated that the video had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attack..

On what evidence is this based?

Testimony from CIA officials who stated under oath that they informed the White House...

p.s. I'm sorry, Michale, but even if every single Republican accusation about this is true, it still seems like trying to make a big deal out of a small regional blunder in order to score political points.

You don't seem to mind that when it's Democrats who are scoring the points.. :D

So, you don't mind being lied to by your President??

Hmmmmmmm. Ya'all sure seemed to mind it (A LOT) when it was a GOP POTUS who was doing the "lying"...

"A small regional blunder"??

Do you know the last time a US Ambassador was murdered??? Almost 50 years ago..

It's a VERY serious incident..

By not that big of a deal, I mean compare this to George W. Bush lying us into a war in Iraq.

Except, it's been well established by the facts that Bush didn't lie..

But you prove my point perfectly..

It the POTUS has an '-R' after his name, lying is a big deal..

When the POTUS has a '-D'??

Not so much..

Are you sure this #Been-crazhi strategy isn't going to backfire for the GOP?

It's likely going win the GOP control of the Senate and the White House in 2016...

And I have been dead on ballz accurate so far concerning Benghazi.. So I have a well established track record. :D

Michale

Ummm ... Wasn't it based on the best knowledge they had at that point? Wasn't it based on CIA talking points?

The White House KNEW it was a blatant lie.

On what evidence is this based?
(NOTE: "I wasn't born yesterday" isn't evidence and you're going to need some pretty strong evidence to convince me that the administration deliberately lied for some reason. So far, I've seen nothing even close.)

----

p.s. I'm sorry, Michale, but even if every single Republican accusation about this is true, it still seems like trying to make a big deal out of a small regional blunder in order to score political points.

Hence, a new Congressional committee (after they're already been what? 6 or so investigations) designed just in time for the 2014 election.

By not that big of a deal, I mean compare this to George W. Bush lying us into a war in Iraq. Of course, it's tragic that 4 people were killed in Benghazi, but again, compare this to lying us into a trillion dollar war where tens of thousands of people were killed for no reason.

Are you sure this #Been-crazhi strategy isn't going to backfire for the GOP?

-David

Michale

Isn't it about someone editing talking points?

Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes sent an email September 14, 2012 advising everyone (including Susan Rice) that they were to state that the Benghazi attack was the result of an anti-Islam video and was NOT the result of any policy, action or in-action on the part of the Obama Administration.

That was a blatant lie..

The White House KNEW it was a blatant lie...

There's your cover-up...

Michale

Isn't it about someone editing talking points?

-David

There WERE hundreds of security incidents in Benghazi in the months leading up to the 9/11 Terrorist Attack, as you said..

There was also NO heightened security or threat levels, as Mopshell indicated...

Ergo, yer both right... :D

Michale

Actually, you are both right.

Ah, no.

I've had better.. :D

Of course, a focus on the state department is logical. Have you read their report on this? But, NOT to the exclusion of the CIA.

Oh, I agree. Don't EXCLUDE the CIA... I want to hear more about their heroic last stand at the Annex.. I also want to hear more about exactly what orders the CIA were given from the White House both during and after the terrorist attack..

The CIA's story and the White House's story contradict each other.. Of course, both are playing CYA...

Which is why a Special Investigation is warranted..

This very discussion illustrates THAT perfectly..

Michale

The security situation in Libya had been deteriorating, especially in the east of the country, during the many months leading up to the attack in the absence of a strong and functional central government.

Actually, you are both right.

Liz, your right. There were hundreds of security incidents leading up to the 9/11 Terrorist Attack..

But Mopshell is also right in that there was no sense of heightened alert or extra security.

Because SecState Clinton vetoed any extra security arrangements.

THAT is why we need a Special Investigation and THAT is why the State Department is bearing the brunt of the scrutiny..

Michale

I think that is an extremely inept analogy.

Of course, a focus on the state department is logical. Have you read their report on this? But, NOT to the exclusion of the CIA.

Their assessment (Sen Lindsey Graham was with him) may have been quite good at the time - it was seven months before the attack and, by all accounts, the place was pretty quiet at then.

I've also read journalists' accounts, British as well as American, who were there either in the two weeks before or a week after the attack and all said there was no sense of heightened alert or concern among the people apart from the actual day of the attack...

That is completely false.

The security situation in Libya had been deteriorating, especially in the east of the country, during the many months leading up to the attack in the absence of a strong and functional central government.

Not surprisingly, this went largely unreported by the western media.

Of course I do..

Because I know for a fact that it happens like that all over the world..

When the CIA works out of Embassies, yes.. The CIA and State are diametrically different operations..

But in backwater areas where Consulates are the norm, the CIA is nothing more than a glorified security force..

Which is not to say that the CIA doesn't (and didn't) have it's own OPs running. I am certain they did..

But the Benghazi terrorist attack was an attack on the CONSULATE, not the CIA annex..

That makes it under the purview of the State Department..

To be clear, all I am suggesting here is that there has been too much focus on the state department in this affair and not nearly enough on what the CIA involvement was.

Let me put it this way...

If there was an attack on a US Embassy, do you focus the investigation on the State Department??

Or on the military because there was an Air Force Base 10 miles away??

Further, the State Department is the agency that would have signed off on ANY security arrangements the CIA wanted to make.. And, in THIS case, the evidence clearly shows that the State Department did NOT want any augmented security at the Benghazi Consulate..

Therefore, the focus on the State Department is logical, both Pre and Post attack..

Michale

There is no reason to expect that Gowdy WON'T call General Patraeus to testify...Why do you and Liz think that Patraeus won't testify??

That really misses the point.

The point being that all of the talk from this committee is about subpoenas for Clinton and Kerry and not a word about the guy they should really be concerned about hearing from.

Oh, and, you don't seriously expect anyone to believe that the CIA was operating at their Benghazi complex under the control of the state department, do you?

To be clear, all I am suggesting here is that there has been too much focus on the state department in this affair and not nearly enough on what the CIA involvement was. Consequently, it's hard to take seriously anything that the congressional committees say or do on this matter until they lose their fixation with Hillary and Kerry and focus on the people that actually do have the answers they say they are searching for.

Well, let me put it this way..

Basically, we have two choices here..

To have a Congressional Special Committee investigate the Benghazi debacle..

Or to NOT have a Congressional Special Committee NOT investigate the Benghazi debacle..

Of the two choices, which has a better chance of getting to the facts??

:D

In short (too late :D) it's better than nothing..

Michale

Your faith that a congressional select committee is capable of discovering the truth of this matter surprises me.

Why, on the gods' green earth, would Republicans want to pass amnesty for illegals??

Everyone knows that Republicans are just in it (politics) for the power.. Their greedy, power-hunger power mongers..

So, someone... ANYONE...

Please explain to me why it's in the best interests of the Republican Party to create up to 30 million new freshly minted Democrat voters??

"Anyone?? Anyone?? Beuhler??"

Michale

Sound familiar? Only this happened in Tunis, the capital of Tunisia and is one of the attacks I was talking about. Four people died there too but none of them was the ambassador so the Republican House committees don't consider these lives worthy of investigation.

That was a DEMONSTRATION..

NOT a Terrorist Attack...

And those killed were NOT Americans..

So, why should the US House Of Representatives investigate that??

=============================

Jeeeezzus, I guess I didn't have the required amount of diet coke this morning before typing.. :D

PREVIEW is my friend... PREVIEW is my friend...

Michale

Let me clarify...

Mopshell,

Sound familiar? Only this happened in Tunis, the capital of Tunisia and is one of the attacks I was talking about. Four people died there too but none of them was the ambassador so the Republican House committees don't consider these lives worthy of investigation.

That was a DEMONSTRATION..

NOT a Terrorist Attack...

And those killed were NOT Americans..

So, why should the US House Of Representatives investigate that??

Sound familiar? Only this happened in Tunis, the capital of Tunisia and is one of the attacks I was talking about. Four people died there too but none of them was the ambassador so the Republican House committees don't consider these lives worthy of investigation.

It has been well documented that the Benghazi outpost was, for all intents and purposes, a CIA-run operation. And, yet, the latest investigation may involve subpoenas for Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, the former and current Secretary of State.

Actually, the Annex was CIA. The main compound, where the attack began, was a State Department facility.. A Consulate..

The CIA provided security for the Consulate as is usually the case for Consulates (not full Embassies) worldwide..

Since the State Department is in charge, it's natural that the State Department would bear the brunt of the fact finding investigations..

Why doesn't the new select committee want to hear from General David Petraeus, the then director of central intelligence? What information has he already given in closed sessions of congressional committee hearings?

THAT is a very good question..

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has already effectively silenced General Patreaus...

What was the CIA's mission in Benghazi and why was Ambassador Stevens there when the attack occurred?

Intelligence indicates that the CIA was running guns to Libyan rebels..

Ambassador Stevens was at the Consulate when the attack began, ostensibly to inspect the area..

I don't know that Ambassador Stevens was gay and I don't know why that matters.

The Obama Administration is on record and goes to great lengths NOT to offend muslims..

Then the Administration sends a gay Ambassador to a muslim country???

It doesn't make any sense...

The performance of the CIA in this case was very far from anything remotely resembling perfection.

In Benghazi, the CIA took their marching orders from the State Department.

Any failure here originates at State..

Senator John McCain's assessment of the situation in Libya was not accurate.

Do you mean his assessment now or his assessment at the time??

Because, at the time, McCain's assessment was DOBA... :D

LD,

The military was not told to stand down. There was no help close enough to arrive in time.

Yea, that's the Administration's story. And, of course, the Administration would never lie, right?? {chortle} {chortle}

There has been testimony from high ups in the TOP command that they were, in fact, told to stand down.

And THAT is why there needs to be more investigation.. Because there is a conflict between what the Administration is saying and what people on the ground at the time are saying..

Neither have you explained your absurd conspiracy theory about Obama trying to hide a terrorist attack. Announcing an embassy attack with loss of life IS announcing a terrorist attack. And the President himself specifically condemned the "terrorist attack" within 48 hours. WELL before the election.

Again, you are making shit up..

The Administration went to great lengths for almost TWO WEEKS to AVOID saying "terrorist attack"... For that two weeks, both here in Weigantia and in the national airwaves, everyone was saying "It was the anti Islam video"...

*I* was the ONLY one here in Weigantia who was saying it was a terrorist attack..

The Obama Administration was wrong. Ya'all were wrong..

I was right...

The only scandal involving Benghazi is the Rights corrupt abuse of their Congressional oversight authority.

Spoken like a true Democrat enslaved by political ideology.. :D

Mopshell,

I have no idea why he isn't being called to testify to the House Select Committee. Possibly because Trey Gowdy doesn't have much respect for "expert witnesses" and he puts Patraeus in that category. It could also be because he's been told that Patraeus is off-limits to a committee which cannot be trusted to hold their tongues.

There is no reason to expect that Gowdy WON'T call General Patraeus to testify...

Why do you and Liz think that Patraeus won't testify??

I agree. Stevens was a friend of Obama's and he was devastated when he learned of his death; a fact so readily overlooked in all this.

Yea and if Obama had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin :^/

Obama is so broken up about the Ambassador's death that it's been almost two years and not ONE SINGLE PERPETRATOR has been brought to justice..

Yea... Obama is really broken up... :^/

But all your questions and all Liz's questions prove beyond any doubt as to why a Special Investigation is required..

The Obama Administration has stonewalled and obfuscated to hell and back...

It's long past time that the American people learn the facts..

At least the facts that the people CAN learn..

Michale