Mr. Speaker! We Need To Get Back To Benghazi

[IrezumiKiss]

He is also an act, a parody of the Left, and phrases his answers as a mirror to their conversational "debate" norm.

To blast him is to blast the Left in absentia.

And yet look at the pejoratives employed by the Left when you beg to disagree: racist, homophobe, hater, tea-bagger, fascist, nazi, old white men, etc.

And all the while the Left champions its subgroups when they call each other nigger and engage in violent and misogynist behaviors.

Just because you do not do it, does not make your discussions the norm, you are more like Recidiva where she can be rare rational and polite debater while her husband U_D is the normative name-calling down-in-the-mud-and-gutter type of angry and hateful "debater" which so seems to predominate the argumentative methodology of the modern Democrat.

Yeah Throb, when we think Democrat, we do not think LadyVer, we think you, U_D, merc, zip, Frodo, Petey...


The angry, hateful bromide and vile bunch.

Why don't you give us some of those racial and sexist zingers that you have been hurling at my daughter for years now...

busybody has never stooped that fucking low.

You're so fucking full of shit.

It used to be...

Andra Jenny.

androgyny.

Oh, I get it! Hurr hurr hurr!

but now it's all...

"Fawkin' Injun."

"I'm a half-breed! Look at me being all racially self-deprecating in order to preemptively diffuse your racial insults and make you think I'm beyond it all or somethin'!"

"I used to be about (bisexual) sex but now I'm a reformed liberal cut & pasting pseudo-political pundit...on a porn/erotica site! I must be some kinda (American) Thinker!"

get it?

Hurr hurr hurr!

(((lipstick)))

Hey, at least the permanent shitstain got some wood off your passive-aggro, pussy assed endorsement of his privileged racist bullshit as "parody." Now that we've cleared up where you stand again, go cry some more rivers over Rob's vileness towards your daughter.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Squibbs]

When are the baby boomers all supposed to die off?

FFS, all they do is whine.

 

[phrodeau]

Who was the Taliban fighting at the time?



Morons.

Our allies.

 

[Squibbs]

Our allies.

World history.

 

[KyleW]

700? You don't say.

Well many millions wanted the travesty of the bush/gore election set right.

Zumi: sadly the number of people who know of/remember fawkin injun is dwindling.

 

[eyer]

I see you quoted my post, but it looks like you're talking to yourself.

You do realize that picture does not capture the Taliban...

...right?

Or, did you really not know the Taliban didn't even exist when Reagan held office?

So, the American deaths by Taliban count stands thusly: Reagan 0 - Obama 2,000+ and still mounting.

You also realize, right playdeau, that more than 2/3 of all American deaths in Afghanistan have occurred on President Obama's watch...

...yet he's only been President 1/4 of the time since Bush invaded?

Don't tell us you disingenuously posted that pic, playdeau...

...'cause I'm sure some of us will be heartbroken to learn you are intentionally so deceitful. (< that would be sarcasam)

How 'bout this question since you won't answer any others that would also instantly expose you as the partisan fraud you've always been:

Can you name any of the Afghanis seated with Reagan in your propaganda photo...

...or describe what any one of them represented.

I'll even lend you a clue:

One of their fate's paved the way to the most draconian legislation America has ever known...

 

[phrodeau]

Something i learned a long time ago: the person who asks, "Don't you really know what goes on?" doesn't know himself.

 

[eyer]

Something i learned a long time ago: the person who asks, "Don't you really know what goes on?" doesn't know himself.

So why'd you disingenuously post a pic titled Taliban with Reagan conversing with a formidable group of mujahideen, playdeau?

 

[Sean Renaud]

I call eyer's math to question. Even if Bush had invaded Afghanistan the day he took office Obama would have been president for over a third of the time we were there.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Busybody]

 

[RjThoughts]

Well now, the investigation by five House committees has produced a report that says......

response

By Stephen Dinan-The Washington Times Tuesday, April 23, 2013


House Republicans have concluded that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was responsible for cutting security at the consulate in Benghazi ahead of last year’s attack there, and that the administration lied about why it downplayed terrorism as the cause of the assault.

A new report — the result of months of investigation by five different House committees — says there was plenty of intelligence that presaged the attack, but the State Department and President Obama failed to heed the warnings or give the Defense Department the authority to respond to such an attack.

The report exonerates the Pentagon itself, saying the military did what it could to respond once the attack began, but “was hindered on account of U.S. military forces not being properly postured” beforehand.

In the most damning finding, House Republicans said Mr. Obama and his team lied about the attacks afterward, first by blaming mob violence spawned by an anti-Muslim video, and then wrongly saying it had misled the public because it was trying to protect an FBI investigation.

“This progress report reveals a fundamental lack of understanding at the highest levels of the State Department as to the dangers presented in Benghazi, Libya, as well as a concerted attempt to insulate the Department of State from blame following the terrorist attacks,” the GOP investigation concluded in its 46-page report.

The Obama administration has acknowledged providing an inaccurate explanation for the attacks early on — even though officials at the Defense Department said they knew it was a terrorist assault from the beginning.
But Mr. Obama has vehemently denied he intended to deceive the public.
Tuesday’s report comes after Republicans feared the pressure to get answers on the Benghazi attacks was dying out.

Earlier this year Senate Republicans had threatened to hold up some of Mr. Obama’s top nominees in order to extract more information about the timeline on the night of the attacks.

But over the last two months the Benghazi questions had slipped into the background amid debates over guns, immigration and the budget sequesters.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...tration-blew-benghazi-response/#ixzz2RK0lzUgt
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

So 5 Senators spent money that America doesn't have on a report that they obviously wanted to say what it said, and we're supposed to be surprised?

 

[Busybody]

So 5 Senators spent money that America doesn't have on a report that they obviously wanted to say what it said, and we're supposed to be surprised?

that's a PATHETIC comment


didya say the same when Obama has his CONCERTS at the WH?

 

[unregistered]

 

[RjThoughts]

There are no Senators in the House of Representatives, dummy. The report is the result of an investigation into the lies of the Obama administration by five "House" committees.

Committees, that makes it WORSE, a total waste of time and money, for fuck's sake!!!

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

The hypocrisy of the Vettebigot explained in one easy to read chart:

 

[RjThoughts]

The big dummy doesn't even know the difference between the House and the Senate.

Did GW stop his WH concerts while he sent Americans to Iraq to die because of a FUCKING LIE?

Vette, it's time to go back and read history without your jaundice slant of hating the President and blaming him for everything from the Teapot Dome scandal to XYZ Affair.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Busybody]

Did GW stop his WH concerts while he sent Americans to Iraq to die because of a FUCKING LIE?

Vette, it's time to go back and read history without your jaundice slant of hating the President and blaming him for everything from the Teapot Dome scandal to XYZ Affair.

what lie?

tell me

I'll wait


oh, and did YOU sleep thru 2001-2008?

 

[RjThoughts]

The hypocrisy of the Vettebigot explained in one easy to read chart:

Vette's more jaundiced towards the President than William Randolph Hearst was to the Spanish in the late 1800s.

 

[RjThoughts]

It's their job to oversee the government, especially when it lies to the American people as the report affirms.

Read Rob's chart and tell me that you and the House Republicans are NOT hypocritical. I dare you to.

 

[Busybody]

Vette's more jaundiced towards the President than William Randolph Hearst was to the Spanish in the late 1800s.

not comparable

all the other attacks were a spontaneous attack

the one in LIB YEAH wasn't

pretend Im on IGGY

 

[Busybody]

Read Rob's chart and tell me that you and the House Republicans are NOT hypocritical. I dare you to.

they aren't

Rob has posted that 34 times and been refuted 34 times