Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

[Hunter]

Its no problem SLAD I am not mad, I understand where you are coming from, I didnt have time to go look at the source like I would have liked and normally do. I deleted the article, its done.

[Jerky]

What parity? Clinton? Not bad? And you've read about Iran/Contra, Mena? And you missed all the Republican-y things his team did? Financial deregulation? 9/11 "ball-dropping"?

Iran/Contra? Please educate me about governor Clinton's role in Iran/Contra.

Mena? Say you're the governor of a small, ass-backwards southern state, and the CIA, under direct orders from the White House, comes and tells you "We're running cocaine through this here airport and you ain't gonna do shit about it." What would YOU do? At most, with Mena, Clinton was "guilty" of allowing the CIA to do the White House's bidding.

RepublicanY isn't the same as Republican. When everybody and the Pope is saying Alan Greenspan walks on water, and it seems to, for all intents and purposes, be working, who was Clinton to second guess the Fed? For most of his two terms, rising waters raised all boats (not with full equality, but then that was NEVER gonna happen). Also, guess what? Some of his fiscal conservatism, I APPROVED OF! How's THAT for blowing minds and not being a sheeple?

Financial Dereg? - See above. He certainly wasn't perfect, but hindsight is 20/20.

9/11 ball-dropping? Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Sorry, but I was elbow-deep in that shit when it was going down, reading absolutely EVERYTHING that absolutely EVERYBODY was writing about it, and I can say with almost perfect certainty that there would NOT have been a 9/11 if Gore had been President. I don't know what you're even referring to when you say "9/11 ball-dropping". If anything, Republicans were accusing Clinton of being UNDULY OBSESSED with Jihadis at the time. So FUCK THAT NOISE, is what I'm saying to you about your last half-assed accusation.

Jerky

[Canadian_watcher]

sorry SLAD. shoulda listened.

[FourthBase]

What parity? Clinton? Not bad? And you've read about Iran/Contra, Mena? And you missed all the Republican-y things his team did? Financial deregulation? 9/11 "ball-dropping"?

Iran/Contra? Please educate me about governor Clinton's role in Iran/Contra.

Mena? Say you're the governor of a small, ass-backwards southern state, and the CIA, under direct orders from the White House, comes and tells you "We're running cocaine through this here airport and you ain't gonna do shit about it." What would YOU do? At most, with Mena, Clinton was "guilty" of allowing the CIA to do the White House's bidding.

RepublicanY isn't the same as Republican. When everybody and the Pope is saying Alan Greenspan walks on water, and it seems to, for all intents and purposes, be working, who was Clinton to second guess the Fed? For most of his two terms, rising waters raised all boats (not with full equality, but then that was NEVER gonna happen). Also, guess what? Some of his fiscal conservatism, I APPROVED OF! How's THAT for blowing minds and not being a sheeple?

Financial Dereg? - See above. He certainly wasn't perfect, but hindsight is 20/20.

9/11 ball-dropping? Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Sorry, but I was elbow-deep in that shit when it was going down, reading absolutely EVERYTHING that absolutely EVERYBODY was writing about it, and I can say with almost perfect certainty that there would NOT have been a 9/11 if Gore had been President. I don't know what you're even referring to when you say "9/11 ball-dropping". If anything, Republicans were accusing Clinton of being UNDULY OBSESSED with Jihadis at the time. So FUCK THAT NOISE, is what I'm saying to you about your last half-assed accusation.

Jerky

Good lord, man. That water you're carrying. Drop it, quick! It's radioactive!

[Jerky]

Yeah, I know. I'm a sheeple. I admit it.

The thousands of books and articles I've read - not to mention the millions of words I've written and published - on the subject in question have been totally wasted.

Jerky

[justdrew]

What parity? Clinton? Not bad? And you've read about Iran/Contra, Mena? And you missed all the Republican-y things his team did? Financial deregulation? 9/11 "ball-dropping"?

Iran/Contra? Please educate me about governor Clinton's role in Iran/Contra.

Mena? Say you're the governor of a small, ass-backwards southern state, and the CIA, under direct orders from the White House, comes and tells you "We're running cocaine through this here airport and you ain't gonna do shit about it." What would YOU do? At most, with Mena, Clinton was "guilty" of allowing the CIA to do the White House's bidding.

RepublicanY isn't the same as Republican. When everybody and the Pope is saying Alan Greenspan walks on water, and it seems to, for all intents and purposes, be working, who was Clinton to second guess the Fed? For most of his two terms, rising waters raised all boats (not with full equality, but then that was NEVER gonna happen). Also, guess what? Some of his fiscal conservatism, I APPROVED OF! How's THAT for blowing minds and not being a sheeple?

Financial Dereg? - See above. He certainly wasn't perfect, but hindsight is 20/20.

9/11 ball-dropping? Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Sorry, but I was elbow-deep in that shit when it was going down, reading absolutely EVERYTHING that absolutely EVERYBODY was writing about it, and I can say with almost perfect certainty that there would NOT have been a 9/11 if Gore had been President. I don't know what you're even referring to when you say "9/11 ball-dropping". If anything, Republicans were accusing Clinton of being UNDULY OBSESSED with Jihadis at the time. So FUCK THAT NOISE, is what I'm saying to you about your last half-assed accusation.

Jerky

Good lord, man. That water you're carrying. Drop it, quick! It's radioactive!

except he's correct 4thB

[FourthBase]

Except he is stunningly wrong, as are you. Wrong, and partially-blinded, willfully.

Seriously, do an intra-board search. Get back to us later.
Better yet, spend a couple hours on History Commons.

[seemslikeadream]

It's Obama Derangement Syndrome

[justdrew]

I deleted the article now can we move on, if you want to clean up your end of it great, if not that is fine also, I am done with this issue.

fyi, some background:
in the recent past, we have pissed off these chums: "I am the attorney representative of American Freedom Group, formerly known as American Third Position or A3P"

So it would be not surprising to find them creepin'

and they have a "party" to

The American Freedom Party (formerly the American Third Position Party or A3P) is a third positionist American political party which promotes white supremacy. It was officially launched in January 2010 (although in November 2009 it filed papers to get on a ballot in California) partially to channel the right-wing populist resentment engendered by the financial crisis of 2007–2010 and the policies of the Obama administration.

people really need to be a bit more savvy about cognitive infiltration, priming memes, etc

[Jerky]

I have spent a LIFETIME in the "history commons", my friend. And my conclusions are different than yours. So be it.

You can go on believing me to be pathetically blind, and I will go on believing you to be pathetically reductivist and holding liberal Democrats to impossible standards while letting honest to godzilla fascists skate, "just because".

Jerky

Except he is stunningly wrong, as are you. Wrong, and partially-blinded, willfully.

Seriously, do an intra-board search. Get back to us later.
Better yet, spend a couple hours on History Commons.

[Jerky]

Anybody still interested in the topic that started this thread, HERE is Rachel Maddow putting it all in rather plain language.

Looks like my instincts were right. The Conservative Movement is back and bad as ever. Sheesh...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddo ... mongering/

[8bitagent]

I finally figured out Benghazi, using my sleuthy para-political prowess!

Ok so Obama used a time machine sometime in 2007 or 2008 to go back in time to 1961 and change his birth certificate and the Hawaiian register newspaper baby announcement.
Most likely technology given to him by his secret Communista and Muslim handlers. Now the problem is that Obama in his crystal ball was watching in real time the Benghazi attacks happen
but did not use his time machine to send special forces to stop the attacks from happening. IE: Barack HUSSEIN Obama must have orchestrated the attacks. I mean, just freezeframe the aftermath footage...is that
drone missile parts I see?

[Jerky]

OMG I think you nailed it!!!

I finally figured out Benghazi, using my sleuthy para-political prowess!

Ok so Obama used a time machine sometime in 2007 or 2008 to go back in time to 1961 and change his birth certificate and the Hawaiian register newspaper baby announcement.
Most likely technology given to him by his secret Communista and Muslim handlers. Now the problem is that Obama in his crystal ball was watching in real time the Benghazi attacks happen
but did not use his time machine to send special forces to stop the attacks from happening. IE: Barack HUSSEIN Obama must have orchestrated the attacks. I mean, just freezeframe the aftermath footage...is that
drone missile parts I see?

[8bitagent]

you know damn well all those shadowy fuckers are and have always been in contact with non-iranian "jihadis" - and I don't think we still know at all WHO those attackers were exactly.

The same forces that marshaled to protect the 19 are the hand behind this attack.

The bluster may be just that, I wouldn't be surprised if some efforts are underway to prove that and may soon bear fruit.

Here's a timeline:

2008/2009:
Mccain, Lindsay, etc seen shaking hands with Moamar Ghadafi. UK, Italy and Spain along with US go gaga over Tripoli, initiating all sorts of backroom and frontroom deals.
Hey, Libya blew up Pan Am? Oh thats cool, as long as BP gets big fat oil contracts that's water under the bridge

early 2011: Mccain and Lindsay lead the charge BEGGING the US to start arming rebels, many of whom are under the command or connected to al Qaeda in Iraq groups

sept 11th 2012: A brazen attack on the embassy.

And who is at the forefront? Mccain and Lindsay, the not so ambiguous hawk duo. BENGHAZI TRUTH NOW

Of course it's a goddamn setup. Not that Im an Obama fan. But c'mon. SEPTEMBER 11TH. This shit is so see through.

[justdrew]

these three stooges are as low as it goes. Total fucking scum...

Rachel Maddow OBLITERATES John McCain, Joe Lieberman, And Lindsay Graham's Libyan Hypocrisy
Noah Davis | Apr. 26, 2011, 10:43 AM

In recent days, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsay Graham have all advocated different variations of the "cut the head of the snake off" approach in regard to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

The Senators criticized President Barack Obama's dealings with the Libyan leader, arguing that the United States needs to do more to eliminate Gaddafi.

Which might be the correct opinion, but -- as Rachel Maddow pointed out -- the trio visited Libya 20 months ago and could not say enough nice things about the Colonel they are now calling an enemy of the American state.

Back in a 2009 democratic cable, "Lieberman called Libya an important ally in the war on terrorism" while McCain said the country's relationship with the US had taken a "remarkable and positive turn in recent years."

Now, however, the Senator from Arizona is comparing Gaddafi to another former dictator.

"I don't think we worried too much when we wanted to get rid of Hitler who would take his place," McCain told an interviewer.

Maddow, understandably, thought the three men's about-face was rather absurd, but also -- sadly -- rather just another day in Washington.

"Inviting these Senators to opine on the war and to chest bump about how if they were in charge, Gaddafi would be a dead man because only they have moral clarity about what a bad guy Gaddafi is," she said. "Having these Senators opine on this war, after they've just crawled out of Gaddafi's tent themselves? That is a political science case study in 'getting away with it.' In a just world, this would be embarrassing, but in the Beltway, it's just Sunday morning."

http://www.businessinsider.com/rachel-maddow-john-mccain-joe-lieberman-lindsay-graham-libya-msnbc-video-2011-4

We previously identified a bout of amnesia experienced by John McCain, who has consistently said that the U.S. must take out Moammar Gadhafi because he has “American blood on his hands” even though McCain himself was cozying up to Gadhafi just 18 months ago on a visit to Tripoli.

Today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who accompanied McCain on that August 2009 trip to Libya, flashed a similar bit of amnesia. Like McCain, he invoked Gadhafi’s support for terrorism in the 1980s — including the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, which killed dozens of Americans — as a reason the U.S. should now “drop a bomb on him.”

This was during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where Secretary of Defense Bob Gates was testifying. Here’s the exchange (see the video here, starting around the 98:30 mark):

GRAHAM: Is Gadhafi the legitimate leader of the Libyan people in your eyes, legally? And if he’s not, would it be unlawful for a nation including ours to drop a bomb on him, to end this thing?

GATES: Well, President Reagan tried that.

GRAHAM: Well that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try again. I’m asking this in all seriousness. I don’t believe this man is the legitimate leader of the Libyan people. I believe he’s an international terrorist, unlawful enemy combatant, then we’re within our bounds as a nation — and our coalition partners — to take the fight to him and his cadre of supporters. Is that on the table or not?

GATES: I don’t think so because I think it would probably break the coalition.

Again, the argument that the U.S. should kill Gadhafi because he supported terrorism ignores the past decade of improving ties between the U.S. government and Libya, which included high-profile visits from members of the Bush administration and a deal in which Libya paid money to families of Lockerbie victims. Graham himself should know this, given his meeting with Gadhafi in 2009.

According to a WikiLeaks cable describing the meeting, Graham was on board with improving ties — and even helping send Libya military equipment — with this “international terrorist”:

Senators McCain and Graham conveyed the U.S. interest in continuing the progress of the bilateral relationship and pledged to try to resolve the C130 issue with Congress and Defense Secretary Gates.

And here’s video of Graham shaking Gadhafi’s hand back in 2009: