Jump to content

why do dems hate the truth....

Rate this topic

redfishkiller

By redfishkiller
in Political Graffiti

 Share

Recommended Posts

fishnmagician

fishnmagician

Posted
Posted

Lib's like Wet Spot loathe anyone that doesn't agree with them, the only way they can handle differing opinions is to lash out.

this is funny,

if you think about it.

Eggy 10-13

LAA 7-14

50-50 2-15

"I asked my daughter to send Barron Trump a link to this thread. Wouldn’t it be funny if Trump sued FnM for slander". Wayne Tj

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fishizzle

fishizzle

Posted
Posted

Zac I dont seem to remember but what lies did Reagan and Bush use as a cover for the attacks? Was it a video? Please refresh my memory.

 

A-hole, kool-aid drinking troll(s).

 

That vet is a disgrace to his uniform by faking his concern about the VA only to use his opportunity to talk to Bubba by attacking him with lies & Brietbart partisan misinformation.

 

It's sooo funny see that dude and the woman talk over Bubba when Bubba was trying to give them an actual answer.

 

What is even funnier is that they've been played for fools by the Fox/Breitbart/InfoWars/WorldNetDaily propaganda and lies.

 

The Republican party ruled that there was no wrong doing. The 343rd or 449th Republican led, house intelligence committee exonerated Obama, HRC, etc.

 

In the Republican party's own words - "The House Intelligence Committee, led by Republicans, has concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya...the report "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given."

 

And while all you Cheetos Jesus sheeple piss & moan about HRC & Benghazi, just remember that our U.S. state department personal, who are serving overseas, have been far & away safer and better protected while serving under Barry & HRC than they ever were under a Republican president.

 

benghazi.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
captdavemiami

captdavemiami

Posted
Posted

:laugh:

 

Uh...ever heard of the 9/11 Commission Report?

 

And Beirut was investigated by the Democrat House. Don't take my word for it, here is a clip from one of your papers back in '83, and even they didn't hang it all on Reagan.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/20/world/house-study-finds-officers-at-fault-in-beirut-bombing.html

 

PS. Take your own advice from your last sentence, please.

Like I plainly stated dems didn't blame shrub for 911

 

Yes I mis stated about Lebanon. Nobody ,rightly so, blamed Reagan was what I was getting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zak-striper

zak-striper

Posted
Posted (edited)

Zac I dont seem to remember but what lies did Reagan and Bush use as a cover for the attacks? Was it a video? Please refresh my memory.

 

 

Keep drinking the kool-aid my friend.

 

Did you know that on the morning of 9/11/12, the day of the Benghazi attack,  "Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him."

 

And the CIA's initially assessment of the attack was that it might be related to the video protest earlier in the day. Where do you think Obama & HRC got that idea?? Our intelligence agencies told him that.

 

So, to be honest, I couldn't care less that it took them a few days to correctly assess who committed the attack and why.

 

Do you know it took 3 days, yes 3 days, for the San Bernardino attack to be called an terrorist attack? And we had immediate access to their cell phone records, their home, their family, co-workers, computers, etc. It still took 3 days to correctly assess the event and the attackers motivations.

 

So if it took a few days to correctly label the Benghazi attack, which happened in a country in the middle of a civil war, half way around the world, it truly doesn't effing matter.

 

It only matters to the sheeple who are all to willing to mindlessly regurgitate the Fox/Brietbart rhetoric.

Edited by zak-striper

The cultists will proudly eat sh-t so that sane, rational people will smell it on their breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fishizzle

fishizzle

Posted
Posted

Please Zac I will ask again, what lies did Reagan and Bush use to cover the attacks? I think you must be the one drinking the

stoolaid if you feel it not being a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11. Most people with half a brain assumed as much or maybe you were hoping like Podesta in the other attack that the shooters name was Christoper Hayes

Not Sayeed Farouk.

 

Keep drinking the kool-aid my friend.

 

Did you know that on the morning of 9/11/12, the day of the Benghazi attack, there was a protest about the movie in Cairo, Egypt at the U.S Embassy?

 

The ringleader of the Benghazi attack "Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him."

 

And the CIA's initially assessment of the attack was that it might be related to the video protest earlier in the day. Where do you think Obama & HRC got that idea?? Our intelligence agencies told him that.

 

So, to be honest, I couldn't care less that it took them a few days to correctly assess who committed the attack and why.

 

Do you know it took 3 days, yes 3 days, for the San Bernardino attack to be called an terrorist attack? And we had immediate access to their cell phone records, their home, their family, co-workers, computers, etc. It still took 3 days to correctly assess the event and the attackers motivations.

 

So if it took a few days to correctly label the Benghazi attack, which happened in a country in the middle of a civil war, half way around the world, it truly doesn't effing matter.

 

It only matters to the sheeple who are all to willing to mindlessly regurgitate the Fox/Brietbart rhetoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zak-striper

zak-striper

Posted
Posted (edited)

Please Zac I will ask again, what lies did Reagan and Bush use to cover the attacks?

 

There are only lies if you are incapable of original thought and you actually believe Brietbart, Alex Jones, Fox, Beck, etc.

 

The big difference between Benghazi & Reagan's massive failures in Lebanon is that the Democrats, who controlled the house back in '83, weren't a bunch of partisan, obstructionist, a-hole c-nts like the current crop of Republicans in D.C.

 

Rather than exploiting a tragic situation for partisan gain and political theatre the Democrats worked with Republican controlled senate to find out what happened and how to prevent another attack, even passing legislation to improve the hierarchy of the military to help prevent similar attacks.

 

Just an FYI, it took years to figure out who perpetrated the Beirut barracks bombing.

Edited by zak-striper

The cultists will proudly eat sh-t so that sane, rational people will smell it on their breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...