Hillary: "I take responsibility"

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

It's not fantasy Riot! They actually said it. Shamelessly blamed a youtube vid that nobody was aware of for a commando assault on our Embassy. And they knew it the whole time but lied anyway.

Sigh ... have you simply not read the thread? It's effing fantasy. Yes, I know what Susan Rice said (I watched it as it happened), but you cannot deny that president didn't come out the next day (the week before Rice) and say it was terrorists, or that he said it was terrorists on Letterman. Or on The View.

Hello! These things exist, and there is video to prove it.

I posted the video. Watch it. The president's press statement the day after it happened is out there, too. Continuing to ignore those things actually exist is simply beyond crazy. Yes. It's fantasy. And it's a fantasy that only exists out there in Obama-Derangement land, populated by birthers, "He's a commie Muslim", and other wing nuts.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sigh ... have you simply not read the thread? It's effing fantasy. Yes, I know what Susan Rice said (I watched it as it happened), but you cannot deny that president didn't come out the next day (the week before Rice) and say it was terrorists, or that he said it was terrorists on Letterman. Or on The View.

Hello! These things exist, and there is video to prove it.

I posted the video. Watch it. The president's press statement the day after it happened is out there, too. Continuing to ignore those things actually exist is simply beyond crazy. Yes. It's fantasy. And it's a fantasy that only exists out there in Obama-Derangement land, populated by birthers, "He's a commie Muslim", and other wing nuts.

What are you smoking? I'm going to make a statement and you tell me if my statement is truthful. Here is my statement: "There was a protest over a video and the protest got out of hand and the protesters end up killing our ambassador. We will not tolerate an 'act of terror' like this."

Is that a true statement? Is that an accurate portrayal of what happened in Libya? The fact that I used the word "terror" in there is meaningless. I still mischaracterized the whole incident and that is exactly what Obama did. He made statements almost identical to my statement.

You can try to play with semantics and say that Obama did use the word "terror" in the Rose Garden. He did use the word "terrorist" on Letterman. Who cares? He still totally lied about what happened. By the time he came on Letterman, he knew exactly what happened yet he was still talking about the video. When Letterman asked him about what happened in Libya, Obama said, "Here is what happened. There was a video released......"

[dellinger63]

Who takes responsiblity for Hillary?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Who takes responsiblity for Hillary?

Damn ... seems some of you guys - including Romney - really need to access some reliable information sources (outside of the odd interpretations and reality-ignoring RWNJ echo chamber), before you go all in on ... falsehoods, like you have on the Libyan consulate attack.

How Mitt Romney’s Latest Attack On Libya Is Falling Apart

By Judd Legum on Oct 20, 2012 at 12:45 pm

http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...falling-apart/

Fox Admits Libya Attack May Have Been Caused By Anti-Muslim Video

By Hayes Brown on Oct 20, 2012 at 9:59 am

The right-wing is beginning to reverse itself on insisting that a anti-Muslim YouTube video had nothing to do with the attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya. Republicans and Fox News have scorned the Obama administration for weeks for initial statements that the assault in Benghazi, that took the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens, was an outgrowth of a protest sparked by this video.

Fox’s Geraldo Rivera went against that narrative on Friday. After Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy once again mocked the notion that the video was an impetus for the attack, Rivera instead presented the idea that it was in fact both a reaction to the video and a terrorist attack.

The hosts quickly attempted to pull Rivera back on-message after he completed explaining his theory, but couldn’t persuade him to drop it completely.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...used-by-video/

[GenuineRisk]

To Republicans, see, 3,000 dead Americans in an attack on our shore under a GOP President was just one of those things that no one could have foreseen ("Bin Laden Determined To Attack In US" memo in August being a non-issue of course). And 4,000 dead Americans and billions and billions of dollars wasted in Iraq (money we borrowed) is just one of those things- how could a GOP President possibly know there were no weapons of mass destruction? How could we possibly expect him to do due diligence and not just go with what he wished was true?

But an attack on our embassy under a Democratic President? Well, clearly that is the personal fault of the Democratic President, see! Because shut up, that's why.

The difference being, in the weeks after 9/11, when the GOP Administration was running around trying to figure out what happened, you didn't hear Democratic members of Congress saying anything resembling the crap the GOP is now spouting. Because pulling together as a nation is only for when there is a Republican in office.

Here's what Reagan and Bush had to say in 1980, after the failed rescue attempt for the hostages in Iran:

Reagan: "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united."

HW Bush: "I unequivocally support the president of the United States — no ifs, ands or buts — and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision.”

What a difference 30 years makes for the GOP. Once, they understood it was American first, Republican second. Not anymore.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

To Republicans, see, 3,000 dead Americans in an attack on our shore under a GOP President was just one of those things that no one could have foreseen ("Bin Laden Determined To Attack In US" memo in August being a non-issue of course). And 4,000 dead Americans and billions and billions of dollars wasted in Iraq (money we borrowed) is just one of those things- how could a GOP President possibly know there were no weapons of mass destruction? How could we possibly expect him to do due diligence and not just go with what he wished was true?

But an attack on our embassy under a Democratic President? Well, clearly that is the personal fault of the Democratic President, see! Because shut up, that's why.

The difference being, in the weeks after 9/11, when the GOP Administration was running around trying to figure out what happened, you didn't hear Democratic members of Congress saying anything resembling the crap the GOP is now spouting. Because pulling together as a nation is only for when there is a Republican in office.

Here's what Reagan and Bush had to say in 1980, after the failed rescue attempt for the hostages in Iran:

Reagan: "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united."

HW Bush: "I unequivocally support the president of the United States — no ifs, ands or buts — and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision.”

What a difference 30 years makes for the GOP. Once, they understood it was American first, Republican second. Not anymore.

Nobody said the attack was Obama's fault. What people are saying is that the State Deptartment did a horrible job in protecting the embassy. Granted even if they had armed guards, the attack may have still been successful. But you at least want to give your people a chance. Having unarmed guards is astounding. That is just complete incompetence.

The other thing that people are complaining about is Obama's lack of truthfulness after the fact.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

To Republicans, see, 3,000 dead Americans in an attack on our shore under a GOP President was just one of those things that no one could have foreseen ("Bin Laden Determined To Attack In US" memo in August being a non-issue of course). And 4,000 dead Americans and billions and billions of dollars wasted in Iraq (money we borrowed) is just one of those things- how could a GOP President possibly know there were no weapons of mass destruction? How could we possibly expect him to do due diligence and not just go with what he wished was true?

But an attack on our embassy under a Democratic President? Well, clearly that is the personal fault of the Democratic President, see! Because shut up, that's why.

The difference being, in the weeks after 9/11, when the GOP Administration was running around trying to figure out what happened, you didn't hear Democratic members of Congress saying anything resembling the crap the GOP is now spouting. Because pulling together as a nation is only for when there is a Republican in office.

Here's what Reagan and Bush had to say in 1980, after the failed rescue attempt for the hostages in Iran:

Reagan: "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united."

HW Bush: "I unequivocally support the president of the United States — no ifs, ands or buts — and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision.”

What a difference 30 years makes for the GOP. Once, they understood it was American first, Republican second. Not anymore.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

What a difference 30 years makes for the GOP. Once, they understood it was American first, Republican second. Not anymore.

True. It's sad. I've watched my lifetime party self-destruct and become political poison. Former shell of itself.

The Minority Leader of the senate announces his first and main priority is to undermine the newly elected President of the United States. Pathetic. An international embarrassment.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Damn ... seems some of you guys - including Romney - really need to access some reliable information sources (outside of the odd interpretations and reality-ignoring RWNJ echo chamber), before you go all in on ... falsehoods, like you have on the Libyan consulate attack.

The right-wing is beginning to reverse itself? Geraldo has been a democrat his entire life. He's not a right-winger.

[dellinger63]

The fact a consulate was guarded by guards, hired by a British Company, armed with flashlights and batons is all anyone needs to know.

Job outsourcing at its best.

When Hillary said she was taking responsiblity who knew it was for a job well done.

Couple more bumps in the road to go.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The right-wing is beginning to reverse itself? Geraldo has been a democrat his entire life. He's not a right-winger.

Really? I've always assumed he was a republican..At best he's a rightie who uses his heritage to pretend he's a Democrat to get ratings.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...erage-not-so-s

How many elite soldiers have died during "peacetime" under Obama, Genuine Chump?

24 minimum by my count. The Braggart in Chief had to disclose who killed bin Laden to toot his own horn.

You can't have it both ways, scum hypocrites. You accept death if it fits your agenda.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Really? I've always assumed he was a republican..At best he's a rightie who uses his heritage to pretend he's a Democrat to get ratings.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...erage-not-so-s

I've watched Geraldo dating all the way back to when he was on 20/20. He's always been very liberal. I just did a search and it says that he considers himself to be a liberal republican. That is very surprising to me. Maybe he's gotten a little more conservative as he's gotten older. He is still pretty liberal on most issues.