Hillary Clinton Lied About Benghazi

Posted in the Paris Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Anonymous

Arlington, TX

#1 Apr 28, 2013
Hillary Clinton has been caught in a lie. She claims she knew nothing about any requests for aid in the Benghazi murders.

Her signature on some documents prove otherwise.

Some might consider an accomplice, since she refused aid and thereby assisted the murderers in carrying out their attack.
Anonymous

Arlington, TX

#2 Apr 28, 2013
Might consider her an accomplice.
lol

United States

#3 Apr 28, 2013
na, that could never happen. just think of the flood gate it would open if we started to hold "our" political leaders accountable for their actions. im pretty sure what youre suggesting is treasonous. to imply or suggest that our leaders are not above the law or reproach goes against the very core of what makes america the greatest nation in the world.

umm...hold up.?. i was just,,, crap,,, i think my aluminum foil hat came off.

“Thar's a new sheriff in town..”

Since: Jan 09

Frogville

#4 Apr 28, 2013
Anonymous wrote:
Hillary Clinton has been caught in a lie. She claims she knew nothing about any requests for aid in the Benghazi murders.
Her signature on some documents prove otherwise.
Some might consider an accomplice, since she refused aid and thereby assisted the murderers in carrying out their attack.
Afraid not. According to Congressional testimony, the mentioned request (one of hundreds received daily and routed to lower-level personnel) had Clinton's name TYPED at the bottom, not her signature, despite whatever you heard from some nutty right-wing "news" source.

No, the REAL mysteries concerning Benghazi is how the right-wing loons can obsess about it so while totally ignoring George Bush's massive intelligence failures concerning 9/11....While at the same time also totally ignore the Republican's slashing of the State Department security budget.

It would appear the phoney right-wing "outrage" over national security is kinda retrospective and decidely selective....Yes?
Anonymous

Arlington, TX

#5 Apr 28, 2013
PANTSONFIRE wrote:
<quoted text>
Afraid not. According to Congressional testimony, the mentioned request (one of hundreds received daily and routed to lower-level personnel) had Clinton's name TYPED at the bottom, not her signature, despite whatever you heard from some nutty right-wing "news" source.
No, the REAL mysteries concerning Benghazi is how the right-wing loons can obsess about it so while totally ignoring George Bush's massive intelligence failures concerning 9/11....While at the same time also totally ignore the Republican's slashing of the State Department security budget.
It would appear the phoney right-wing "outrage" over national security is kinda retrospective and decidely selective....Yes?
No
truman

Boise, ID

#6 Apr 29, 2013
Anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>No
In other words 'anonymous' you simply are unable to address any of the isssues 'Pants' raised correct.
You are an example of one of the Rights more deplorable(yet widespread) tactics:put forth Lies,Misrepresentations,and Distortions with NO other purpose then misleading the ignorant and predisposed into thinking its true.
Then somehow feeling your lies are justified by the furtherence of the Rights Strange and Perverted idealogical agenda.
You are Punk Anon and you and others of your ilk are without Honor.
Sunrise

Euless, TX

#7 Apr 29, 2013
PANTSONFIRE wrote:
<quoted text>
Afraid not. According to Congressional testimony, the mentioned request (one of hundreds received daily and routed to lower-level personnel) had Clinton's name TYPED at the bottom, not her signature, despite whatever you heard from some nutty right-wing "news" source.
So you have seen this document? Give us a link to it so we can all see it. But after all these months they have most likely created a new document with a typed name for the public like has been done on other occasions.
[QUOTE who="PANTSONFIRE"']N o, the REAL mysteries concerning Benghazi is how the right-wing loons can obsess about it so while totally ignoring George Bush's massive intelligence failures concerning 9/11....While at the same time also totally ignore the Republican's slashing of the State Department security budget.
It would appear the phoney right-wing "outrage" over national security is kinda retrospective and decidely selective....Yes?[/QUOTE]How did Republicans slash the State Department security budget? I see you approve of how the Benghazi incident was handled from start to finish. You don't even question why Americans were left in the midst of serious trouble while other countries had evacuated their citizens.

“This too shall pass”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#8 Apr 29, 2013
Sunrise wrote:
<quoted text>So you have seen this document? Give us a link to it so we can all see it. But after all these months they have most likely created a new document with a typed name for the public like has been done on other occasions.
<quoted text>How did Republicans slash the State Department security budget? I see you approve of how the Benghazi incident was handled from start to finish. You don't even question why Americans were left in the midst of serious trouble while other countries had evacuated their citizens.
"You don't even question why Americans were left in the midst of serious trouble while other countries had evacuated their citizens."

OR why increased security was denied more than once and instead, removed a lot of what was there.
Whether or not she signed/approved the denial, it was STILL her watch and that makes her responsible, like it or not.
She is, after all, an Alinksy disciple and we know what those are like. Lie, lie, lie and destroy at every opportunity.
Lexicon

Baton Rouge, LA

#9 Apr 29, 2013
PANTSONFIRE wrote:
<quoted text>
Afraid not. According to Congressional testimony, the mentioned request (one of hundreds received daily and routed to lower-level personnel) had Clinton's name TYPED at the bottom, not her signature, despite whatever you heard from some nutty right-wing "news" source.
No, the REAL mysteries concerning Benghazi is how the right-wing loons can obsess about it so while totally ignoring George Bush's massive intelligence failures concerning 9/11....While at the same time also totally ignore the Republican's slashing of the State Department security budget.
It would appear the phoney right-wing "outrage" over national security is kinda retrospective and decidely selective....Yes?
I thought you were as stupid as you could get but you never fail to find new levels of ignorance. George Bush's failed intelligence? You mealy mouthed lying idiot. clinton is the one that gutted the intelligence corps. He is the one that gutted the military so he could show how he was saving money, at the same time giving out more and more to America's enemies, America's parasites and others trying to wreck this country. Yeah, you spineless, un-American lickspittals would love for America to forget the murders committed by your president and your secretary of state wouldn't you. And in your profound ignorance, all you can come up with is Bush did it? What a moron.

“This too shall pass”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#11 Apr 29, 2013
We're always being accused of thinking this or that by the brainless liberals. No one I know of has ever said they thought Bush, or Reagan were perfect, tho' they by far were more preferable to the liberal dems that have been elected.
The thing is, the liberal crazies think obama is perfect and can do no wrong, yet over and over they attack President Bush and us. Too bad they can't grow up and move past it.
Curious

Talihina, OK

#12 Apr 29, 2013
Sunrise wrote:
<quoted text>So you have seen this document? Give us a link to it so we can all see it. But after all these months they have most likely created a new document with a typed name for the public like has been done on other occasions.
<quoted text>How did Republicans slash the State Department security budget? I see you approve of how the Benghazi incident was handled from start to finish. You don't even question why Americans were left in the midst of serious trouble while other countries had evacuated their citizens.
Are you auditioning to be a FOX News host, or do you just enjoy being a witless, doomsday-preaching lemming?
Curious

Talihina, OK

#13 Apr 29, 2013
Lexicon wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you were as stupid as you could get but you never fail to find new levels of ignorance. George Bush's failed intelligence? You mealy mouthed lying idiot. clinton is the one that gutted the intelligence corps. He is the one that gutted the military so he could show how he was saving money, at the same time giving out more and more to America's enemies, America's parasites and others trying to wreck this country. Yeah, you spineless, un-American lickspittals would love for America to forget the murders committed by your president and your secretary of state wouldn't you. And in your profound ignorance, all you can come up with is Bush did it? What a moron.
Are you auditioning to be a FOX News host, or do you just enjoy being a witless, doomsday-preaching lemming?

“Thar's a new sheriff in town..”

Since: Jan 09

Frogville

#14 Apr 29, 2013
Sunrise wrote:
<quoted text>So you have seen this document? Give us a link to it so we can all see it. But after all these months they have most likely created a new document with a typed name for the public like has been done on other occasions.
CLASSIC conspiracy nut response! I just read an article by a psychologist explaning the stunt you just tried to pull. Thank you for the WONDERFUL example! LOL

When confronted with the evidence the conspiracy nut simply tries to cast doubt on the evidence. "Obama is really a tungstun light bulb," they might contend and then challenge people to prove otherwise. When the obvious is pointed out they retort with something similar to what YOU just threw out! LOL

Of course, Obama COULD be a tungstun light bulb...and the Clinton message COULD be fake...but there is a standard of evidence expected and followed by RATIONAL people. Until somehow proven otherwise (and no doubt some whistleblower would come forward with such information), Congressional testimony meets that standard. Well, again, at least for RATIONAL people.

Then there is the weight of probability. Diplomatic cables are sent by the hundreds each day...all FORMALLY addressed to the head of the State Department (or whatever other government official is involved) that are handled by lower level employees and never seen by the person they are addressed to. You know, like when Glenn Beck sends you a "personal" letter or email....LOL

Important, top priority dispatches and messages to the Secretary of State are usually sent via diplomatic couriers and hand delivered.

The Republicans on the committee are playing to the ignorance, gullibility and bigotry of rubes like you by leading you to believe every cable addressed to Clinton is actually seen and acted (or not acted) on by her.

When political leaders are dealing with intelligent and RATIONAL people such Right-wing theatrical scams are not nearly as easy to pull off... ;-)

“Thar's a new sheriff in town..”

Since: Jan 09

Frogville

#15 Apr 29, 2013
Lexicon wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you were as stupid as you could get but you never fail to find new levels of ignorance. George Bush's failed intelligence? You mealy mouthed lying idiot. clinton is the one that gutted the intelligence corps. He is the one that gutted the military so he could show how he was saving money, at the same time giving out more and more to America's enemies, America's parasites and others trying to wreck this country. Yeah, you spineless, un-American lickspittals would love for America to forget the murders committed by your president and your secretary of state wouldn't you. And in your profound ignorance, all you can come up with is Bush did it? What a moron.
How's that FOX "News" thing working out for you? ;-)
Sunrise

Euless, TX

#16 Apr 29, 2013
Curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you auditioning to be a FOX News host, or do you just enjoy being a witless, doomsday-preaching lemming?
Neither.

“Thar's a new sheriff in town..”

Since: Jan 09

Frogville

#17 Apr 29, 2013
searcherfinder wrote:
We're always being accused of thinking this or that by the brainless liberals. No one I know of has ever said they thought Bush, or Reagan were perfect, tho' they by far were more preferable to the liberal dems that have been elected.
The thing is, the liberal crazies think obama is perfect and can do no wrong, yet over and over they attack President Bush and us. Too bad they can't grow up and move past it.
I can't speak for others, but No, I don't believe Obama is perfect. I disagree with him on a number of issues.

What you express is classic right-wing black-and-white simplistic "thinking." It is simply inconceivable for people like you to understand people supporting an elected official even if that elected official does not say and do everything you wish he did.

The right-wing's kamakazi double-down-on-everything approach is what has made you and the Republican Party such losers....
Sunrise

Euless, TX

#18 Apr 29, 2013
PANTSONFIRE wrote:
<quoted text>
CLASSIC conspiracy nut response! I just read an article by a psychologist explaning the stunt you just tried to pull. Thank you for the WONDERFUL example! LOL
You're welcome.
PANTSONFIRE wrote:
When confronted with the evidence the conspiracy nut simply tries to cast doubt on the evidence. "Obama is really a tungstun light bulb," they might contend and then challenge people to prove otherwise. When the obvious is pointed out they retort with something similar to what YOU just threw out! LOL
Of course, Obama COULD be a tungstun light bulb...and the Clinton message COULD be fake...but there is a standard of evidence expected and followed by RATIONAL people. Until somehow proven otherwise (and no doubt some whistleblower would come forward with such information), Congressional testimony meets that standard. Well, again, at least for RATIONAL people.
Then there is the weight of probability. Diplomatic cables are sent by the hundreds each day...all FORMALLY addressed to the head of the State Department (or whatever other government official is involved) that are handled by lower level employees and never seen by the person they are addressed to. You know, like when Glenn Beck sends you a "personal" letter or email....LOL
Important, top priority dispatches and messages to the Secretary of State are usually sent via diplomatic couriers and hand delivered.
The Republicans on the committee are playing to the ignorance, gullibility and bigotry of rubes like you by leading you to believe every cable addressed to Clinton is actually seen and acted (or not acted) on by her.
When political leaders are dealing with intelligent and RATIONAL people such Right-wing theatrical scams are not nearly as easy to pull off
You also provided a wonderful example of liberals. They make accusations. When asked a question to back up the accusation they go on a rant of calling names and telling the other person how stupid they are. Now give us a link to the document with Hillary's name typed on it. You have seen it, haven't you?
My Opinion

Arlington, TX

#20 Apr 29, 2013
PANTSONFIRE wrote:
<quoted text>
CLASSIC conspiracy nut response! I just read an article by a psychologist explaning the stunt you just tried to pull. Thank you for the WONDERFUL example! LOL
When confronted with the evidence the conspiracy nut simply tries to cast doubt on the evidence. "Obama is really a tungstun light bulb," they might contend and then challenge people to prove otherwise. When the obvious is pointed out they retort with something similar to what YOU just threw out! LOL
Of course, Obama COULD be a tungstun light bulb...and the Clinton message COULD be fake...but there is a standard of evidence expected and followed by RATIONAL people. Until somehow proven otherwise (and no doubt some whistleblower would come forward with such information), Congressional testimony meets that standard. Well, again, at least for RATIONAL people.
Then there is the weight of probability. Diplomatic cables are sent by the hundreds each day...all FORMALLY addressed to the head of the State Department (or whatever other government official is involved) that are handled by lower level employees and never seen by the person they are addressed to. You know, like when Glenn Beck sends you a "personal" letter or email....LOL
Important, top priority dispatches and messages to the Secretary of State are usually sent via diplomatic couriers and hand delivered.
The Republicans on the committee are playing to the ignorance, gullibility and bigotry of rubes like you by leading you to believe every cable addressed to Clinton is actually seen and acted (or not acted) on by her.
When political leaders are dealing with intelligent and RATIONAL people such Right-wing theatrical scams are not nearly as easy to pull off... ;-)
But, But, But!! Where is the evidence you were asked to back up your statements with?
lol - I can just hear you - But, But, But - my post is the evidence. lol
We are still waiting for that link, Barney!
My Opinion

Arlington, TX

#21 Apr 29, 2013
PANTSONFIRE wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't speak for others, but No, I don't believe Obama is perfect. I disagree with him on a number of issues.
What you express is classic right-wing black-and-white simplistic "thinking." It is simply inconceivable for people like you to understand people supporting an elected official even if that elected official does not say and do everything you wish he did.
The right-wing's kamakazi double-down-on-everything approach is what has made you and the Republican Party such losers....
Quit trying to change the subject. Just show us the link to prove your asinine statement. You CAN do it, right?
Sunrise

Euless, TX

#23 Apr 29, 2013
PANTSONFIRE wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't speak for others, but No, I don't believe Obama is perfect. I disagree with him on a number of issues.
What you express is classic right-wing black-and-white simplistic "thinking." It is simply inconceivable for people like you to understand people supporting an elected official even if that elected official does not say and do everything you wish he did.
That is not correct. It is not that we expect and elected official to do everything we wish. It is a matter of trust. If a person betrays your trust over and over then you begin not to trust anything that person does. You should understand that with all of your psychological training. Have you ever heard the expression "give him and inch and he will take a mile?" That is why we object to Obama's policies. If we let him pass a seemingly harmless gun law today, what is his next step?
PANTSONFIRE wrote:
The right-wing's kamakazi double-down-on-everything approach is what has made you and the Republican Party such losers....
It is only in your mind that the Republican Party is a loser.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Paris Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
TX Who do you support for Governor in Texas in 2010? (Oct '10) 14 min That Fart Guy 18,551
Best Part of Abbott Davis Debate Tonight 38 min hayseed 7
Jones Arrested 52 min Wholly Roller 1
We need to keep PEDC 1 hr Be Postive 1
What Would You Do? 1 hr Earl 2
Black Widow aka Anonymous 1 hr Latrodectus Hespe... 17
Paris sex offender arrested for sexually assaul... 2 hr washington redskins 12
PEDC Case by Case Scorecard 3 hr Citizen 8
Paris Lakes hospital and shopping mall 3 hr Funny 6
Should PEDC be shut down 3 hr Auric 63
Why PEDC 4 hr cash 24
•••

Paris News Video

•••
•••

Paris Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Paris People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Paris News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Paris
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••