OK, someone on either side of the political aisle, please explain this one to me. What's the allegations regarding the supposed scandal in Benghazi? This obsession has been going on for almost three years now and I still haven't heard what the charges are exactly.
Now, before anyone answers it this way, yes, I know this is just a page out of the anti-Clinton playbook. "Whitewater II: White Harder." Keep investigating anything and everything and hope something sticks or at the very least you bog the whole system down with your kicking and screaming. It's the search for some reason, any reason, to impeach.
Got it. But at least with Whitewater, you had an allegation. Granted, it was crazy. Granted, there was nothing of real substance there. But it was a coherent accusation. I'm not even sure what the alleged crime is with Benghazi.
Sometimes, it's supposed to be about the lack of preparation. We should have provided more security. We should have seen this coming. Never mind the 13 embassy attacks under the W Bush administration. Never mind 9/11 itself. Nobody could have seen them coming but Benghazi we should have anticipated or prepared for.
Sometimes, it's supposed to be about the inept response (or even more crazy, deliberately sacrificing the ambassador and other lives that were lost that day for some reason). Where was Obama? Why didn't he do more? Why wasn't more done to save the lives of the ambassador and his staff? Why haven't any of the attackers been found and brought to justice? This same inquiry was never done after 9/11, never mind the 13 embassy attacks under W Bush.
Sometimes, it's supposed to be about the post-attack spin. "Obama lied after they died". The spin was that it was a spontaneous attack after an anti-Islamic video was released. They "suppressed" the knowledge that it was an Al Qaida attack. Why again? Because, we're told, it went against the narrative that Al Qaida was on the run. If Obama ran for re-election on the slogan that Al Qaida was completely neutralized and could never launch another attack ever again, I never heard of it. Al Qaida has been on the run ever since 2002, yet they continued to launch terror attacks. Have I mentioned the 13 embassy attacks that happened under the W Bush administration?
I've been so mystified as to what the charges are even supposed to be and I can't find anything coherent.
I mean, just listen to the crazy (eight minutes of near incoherent ranting with nothing of substance offered): http://www.spreaker.com/user/theatheista...ghazi-evil
So who can map this out for me? What's the charge? Fill it in for me, conservatives, "Obama (should/should not) have _____."
Now, before anyone answers it this way, yes, I know this is just a page out of the anti-Clinton playbook. "Whitewater II: White Harder." Keep investigating anything and everything and hope something sticks or at the very least you bog the whole system down with your kicking and screaming. It's the search for some reason, any reason, to impeach.
Got it. But at least with Whitewater, you had an allegation. Granted, it was crazy. Granted, there was nothing of real substance there. But it was a coherent accusation. I'm not even sure what the alleged crime is with Benghazi.
Sometimes, it's supposed to be about the lack of preparation. We should have provided more security. We should have seen this coming. Never mind the 13 embassy attacks under the W Bush administration. Never mind 9/11 itself. Nobody could have seen them coming but Benghazi we should have anticipated or prepared for.
Sometimes, it's supposed to be about the inept response (or even more crazy, deliberately sacrificing the ambassador and other lives that were lost that day for some reason). Where was Obama? Why didn't he do more? Why wasn't more done to save the lives of the ambassador and his staff? Why haven't any of the attackers been found and brought to justice? This same inquiry was never done after 9/11, never mind the 13 embassy attacks under W Bush.
Sometimes, it's supposed to be about the post-attack spin. "Obama lied after they died". The spin was that it was a spontaneous attack after an anti-Islamic video was released. They "suppressed" the knowledge that it was an Al Qaida attack. Why again? Because, we're told, it went against the narrative that Al Qaida was on the run. If Obama ran for re-election on the slogan that Al Qaida was completely neutralized and could never launch another attack ever again, I never heard of it. Al Qaida has been on the run ever since 2002, yet they continued to launch terror attacks. Have I mentioned the 13 embassy attacks that happened under the W Bush administration?
I've been so mystified as to what the charges are even supposed to be and I can't find anything coherent.
I mean, just listen to the crazy (eight minutes of near incoherent ranting with nothing of substance offered): http://www.spreaker.com/user/theatheista...ghazi-evil
So who can map this out for me? What's the charge? Fill it in for me, conservatives, "Obama (should/should not) have _____."
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
