I think it’s satire! More subtle than “Barack HUSSEIN Obama”–which is far too obvious. Nobody really thinks like that!
Were the Jews involved? Was this part of the white genocide conspiracy? Please tell us how you really feel.
Well, there’s the video of Obama and Clinton cackling evilly and ordering all assistance to leave as their video camera drones recorded the dying screams of Ambassador Stevens. I believe some nice gentleman named “James O’Keefe” has a copy of that he’s willing to share.
If it was so important for Barack’s mommy to give him a Muslim middle name, the least I can do is capitalize the entire name.
Obviously you’re hinting at something we all missed. Why are you afraid to say it?
It wasn’t that Susan Rice spewed bad info that Sunday morning.
It was the way she vehemently defended her BS and seemed to get offensive if anyone suggested it might have been more than a protest over a movie…(Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer )
Can you tell us more about why this is important? Also, can you tell us about how the Jews are involved, and if you are concerned about ‘white genocide’?
I think the point is that these weren’t random Americans who died. They were Americans (and some foreign nationals) who were working in US diplomatic posts and were killed in the line of duty.
Since they were under the protection of the United States, and working for the United States, why have there not been similar inquiries into whether the United States government failed to protect them?
So your evidence for a cover-up is your interpretation of Susan Rice’s mood on one television show?
Welp. That’s good enough for me. Must have been a cover-up. Connect the dot, sheeple!
I wonder if he capitalizes his own middle name? I mean, his parents thought it was “so important” to give him whatever middle name he has too.
Just to be clear on what you’re saying: the murder of an ambassador is far more serious than the murder of 241 Marines.
This is your view, correct? Because you’re implying it, but for some reason, not actually saying it.
It’s an invented principle. When something has happened on numerous occasions under both parties but you want to only put the blame on one party. So you find something that was unique about this particular occasion and declare that this is important and makes this occasion different.
I strongly suspect that there has been some investigation and analysis after every attack on our embassies. As for why this one got more attention, I can think of two reasons: 1) partisan politics, and 2) the high rank of one of the officials killed. This isn’t rocket science. If a senator dies in a car accident, there are news stories all over the state about it. When a stay-at-home mom does, there might be a brief blurb on some local news station and that’s about it. When a PFC gets shot in battle, there’s probably relatively little attention paid to that (by the media / Congress / etc). When it’s a LTC, it gets made into a bigger deal. Do you seriously not understand that the world works this way?
I think (hope!?) you forgot the ‘/s’
The Russian judge marked you down for missing the triple word score “Wicked Witch of Whitewater” but otherwise well done.
To some degree, #2 applies but there would not have been eight investigations if it wasn’t widely assumed that Hillary would run for president. None of these investigations showed any wrongdoing on her part. The purpose of the investigations was not to arrive at any truth, the purpose was to derail her campaign. Personally, I think the notion that the death of one ambassador warrants outrage while the death of 200+ Marines does not is quite offensive.
Of course it was. Congressional investigations are almost always about trying to win some partisan advantage for the next election. Pelosi did it to Bush and now Congressional Republicans do it to Obama and Hillary. You don’t actually think that Democrats’ hands are clean on this front, do you?
I think so to, but I don’t think I know anyone that actually holds that view. Did I miss where someone said that the Marine barracks bombing didn’t warrant any outrage.
Only if you don’t read your own posts.
Oh, for Og’s sake, can we knock it off with the false equivalence fallacies? Yes, “both sides do it.” But they’re not remotely similar in scale or scope, and pretending they are is allowing that imbalance to continue and grow to obscene proportions.
We have one side that’s literally stopped governing in order to devote the entirety of their time to obstruction, denial, and one politically motivated “investigation” after another of the other, while utterly ignoring their own, much greater, misdeeds.
That needs to stop.
The truth is that Democrats understand that the world is volatile and sometimes these things are not preventable. You’re in a foreign land surrounded by people who are sometimes angry at you and dependent on the cooperation of local forces to keep you safe. The safety of our people is not entirely on our hands. Therefore, when something like an attack happens and lives are lost, we move on, because there’s little that can be done to ensure 100% safety. In those cases, the deaths were probably not directly at the hands of the executive, nor should a small lead be blown up into a larger situation that distracts the country and divides it.
Also, Democrats are not going to use a commonplace occurrence for the SOLE, ADMITTED PURPOSE (by the #2 GOP in the House) to lower the approval rating of a future presidential opponent. We’re more loyal and less divisive than that. Of course, when a party like the GOP is desperate to cling to any shred of undeserved power they have, they resort to underhanded, unAmerican, lies such as Benghazi to stay in power even though the country would be better off without them.
I think this tells us all we need to know about how seriously to take your opinions on the matter.
OK, so it has happened before. So, on that previous occasion back in the 70s when an American ambassador died in an attack, was there a massive witch-hunt by the opposition party? Or was that one different somehow, too?