Jump to content

Obama Administration ran guns from Benghazi to Syria


autigeremt

Recommended Posts

  • 3 months later...




  • Replies 541
  • Created
  • Last Reply

What difference does it make?

Killary has proven how far she will go to protect her six. Partisan or not, she's got dirt on her boots and the shovel is covered in bloody soil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It focuses on her because of her actions. Thus is where the evidence is leading the panel. Gowdy is a former prosecutor do he knows how investigations work and he's doing what investigators should do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She lied. 4 Americans died. And Hillary ? She is a witch. With a B.

He didn't say she wasn't to blame, nor shouldn't be investigated, but that MORE need to be held accountable.

Not quite the way the story is being spun, by some in the MSM , and TexasTiger, right there w/ this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A second congressman admitted on Wednesday that the Republican House committee created to investigate the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, is solely "designed to go after" Hillary Clinton.

“This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton,” Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) said on a morning radio show in upstate New York......

http://www.huffingto...4b0c5a1ce62037e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just more yada yada from A liberal NY congressman. But then what else is there for the committee to go after? Hillary is the prime suspect in the Benghazi coverup.

If after all the lies she has told about her e-mails, what intelligent person wouldn't suspect she has told a lot of lies about Benghazi?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just more yada yada from A liberal NY congressman. But then what else is there for the committee to go after? Hillary is the prime suspect in the Benghazi coverup.

If after all the lies she has told about her e-mails, what intelligent person wouldn't suspect she has told a lot of lies about Benghazi?

No, not really. This congressman is a Republican.

What do you believe is being "covered up"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's to go after Killary! She @!$%*# up and the result of that left four people for dead. Politics in D.C.....who would have thought? :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's to go after Killary! She @!$%*# up and the result of that left four people for dead. Politics in D.C.....who would have thought? :dunno:

What did she do (or not do) that directly resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three others?

These are not the first diplomats killed while serving America. Is there precedent for holding the Secretary of State criminally responsible?

Do you truly believe there is no political motives behind the investigation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's to go after Killary! She @!$%*# up and the result of that left four people for dead. Politics in D.C.....who would have thought? :dunno:

What did she do (or not do) that directly resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three others?

These are not the first diplomats killed while serving America. Is there precedent for holding the Secretary of State criminally responsible?

We know she lied about the attack. Can't you at least be honest enough to admit that much ?

And what is more likely, she took steps to keep the truth out of the news, too.So there was a cover up. Intentional.

Why was Stephens there in the first place ? Everyone else had bugged out of Libya, meaning all our other allies, yet he was there, under limited security.

Why ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to sit in the big chair, you take the heat when something goes wrong. Benghazi was really really wrong, and Hillary's backside was in that seat. She's got questions to answer. So far, she's lied.

Why ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's to go after Killary! She @!$%*# up and the result of that left four people for dead. Politics in D.C.....who would have thought? :dunno:

What did she do (or not do) that directly resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three others?

These are not the first diplomats killed while serving America. Is there precedent for holding the Secretary of State criminally responsible?

We know she lied about the attack. Can't you at least be honest enough to admit that much ?

And what is more likely, she took steps to keep the truth out of the news, too.So there was a cover up. Intentional.

Why was Stephens there in the first place ? Everyone else had bugged out of Libya, meaning all our other allies, yet he was there, under limited security.

Why ?

Well, that really wasn't HRC and, that was after the fact. Clearly, the President took the brief mention of protest and used that narrative because it was convenient considering the pending election. For the record, I have stated this opinion many times in this forum.

So, "Hillary lied, people died", is a lie, a lie that you (and others) have perpetuated here. Is that politically convenient? Can you admit that?

I do not know the extent of Ambassador Stevens duties. My guess,,,,,is that you would have to find out from the DCI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to sit in the big chair, you take the heat when something goes wrong. Benghazi was really really wrong, and Hillary's backside was in that seat. She's got questions to answer. So far, she's lied.

Why ?

That is NOT the big chair.

What was wrong other than the use of the "protest narrative". Given it was mentioned by intelligence (admittedly a brief mention), is that a crime?

I think your interest is purely political. I doubt you have any genuine concern for any other aspect of this tragedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to sit in the big chair, you take the heat when something goes wrong. Benghazi was really really wrong, and Hillary's backside was in that seat.

Reagan killed over 200 marines, then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to sit in the big chair, you take the heat when something goes wrong. Benghazi was really really wrong, and Hillary's backside was in that seat.

Reagan killed over 200 marines, then.

Of course it's to go after Killary! She @!$%*# up and the result of that left four people for dead. Politics in D.C.....who would have thought? :dunno:

What did she do (or not do) that directly resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three others?

These are not the first diplomats killed while serving America. Is there precedent for holding the Secretary of State criminally responsible?

Do you truly believe there is no political motives behind the investigation?

Considering the reason for the attack (gun running operation in Syria) and a failure to even try to get them out.........

What difference does it make? She just made a small error in judgment I guess? :dunno::blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to sit in the big chair, you take the heat when something goes wrong. Benghazi was really really wrong, and Hillary's backside was in that seat.

Reagan killed over 200 marines, then.

Wow. Unfathomable non sequitor as well as being 100% false.

Reagan didn't lie about it. Hillary did.

Too hard fo you to understand ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to sit in the big chair, you take the heat when something goes wrong. Benghazi was really really wrong, and Hillary's backside was in that seat.

Reagan killed over 200 marines, then.

Of course it's to go after Killary! She @!$%*# up and the result of that left four people for dead. Politics in D.C.....who would have thought? :dunno:

What did she do (or not do) that directly resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three others?

These are not the first diplomats killed while serving America. Is there precedent for holding the Secretary of State criminally responsible?

Do you truly believe there is no political motives behind the investigation?

Considering the reason for the attack (gun running operation in Syria) and a failure to even try to get them out.........

What difference does it make? She just made a small error in judgment I guess? :dunno::blink:

Your first statement has been proven false by several investigations. Has a "gun running" operation been confirmed? Would that have been conducted by State or, the CIA?

What was the "error in judgement"?

What is up with you? Why the emotion and the rhetoric? Why will you no longer engage in honest discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to sit in the big chair, you take the heat when something goes wrong. Benghazi was really really wrong, and Hillary's backside was in that seat. She's got questions to answer. So far, she's lied.

Why ?

That is NOT the big chair.

What was wrong other than the use of the "protest narrative". Given it was mentioned by intelligence (admittedly a brief mention), is that a crime?

I think your interest is purely political. I doubt you have any genuine concern for any other aspect of this tragedy.

She lied.

Deal with it.

And it's the biggest chair in the State Dept, so yeah, it's the big chair.

And the fact that she's running for THE big chair does not absolve her or protect her from the actions she took as Sec State.

And Benghazi may be the least of her worries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to sit in the big chair, you take the heat when something goes wrong. Benghazi was really really wrong, and Hillary's backside was in that seat. She's got questions to answer. So far, she's lied.

Why ?

You're right.

This is ALL about continuing to generate heat for Benghazi....... after how many investigations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to sit in the big chair, you take the heat when something goes wrong. Benghazi was really really wrong, and Hillary's backside was in that seat. She's got questions to answer. So far, she's lied.

Why ?

You're right.

This is ALL about continuing to generate heat for Benghazi....... after how many investigations?

What difference, at this point, does it matter ?

Hillary has stalled, delayed, destroyed e-mails, even those which were subpoenaed, just like Lois Lerner did w/ the TEA party groups.

Hillary is the single most corrupt, arrogant and dishonest politician in all of D.C., and that's saying a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...