Bob Woodward Doesn’t Buy Hillary’s Benghazi Denial

Eight years of Clinton hiding from al qaeda, while they attacked us repeatedly, included?

 

I'm not trying to rewrite anything, that pathetic attempt is being made by you, and you aren't doing it very well either....

 

So I'm going to comment FURTHER ON THIS SOURCE THING!!! I googled percentage of americans who think hillary lied about benghazi. I mean HOW MUCH MORE PARTISAN and specific can you get than that?? 2 FULL PAGES of matches'. I'd post them but the moderators would probably delete--as they should, way too long. 2 PAGES OF 'CRAP'. The RW echo chamber picking up the same BAD DATA and reposting it site after site after site. Not one single solitary legitimate source that I could find. All 2 pages of 'junk newsources' cited a FOX POLL. A FOX poll which was 'half assed'. It was conducted with GLARING, to me, metrics. In this day and age ANY good poll CANNOT include 50% of its respondeds on LANDLINES at 6PM to get accurate data. (Unless you want a slanted poll or a BAD ONE).

INCIDENTALLY, A FOX POLL OF OLD 'WHITE PEOPLE' --yes, not an assumption because they listen to FOX but because they leave out at least of half of the voters--those under age 40 who DON'T OWN LAND LINES and probably another percentage of that since they conducted the poll at 6PM.

https://www.google.com/search?q=per...s:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7

PS Even with FOX'S conducting it and its metrics, STILL ONLY 50% of people thought Hillary was lying about Benghazi.

 

So when you don't know the answer, you just make it up......

You think the US was fighting in Bosnia in 2001, Here's a big clue, that war ended in 1995.
The US was still fighting a war in Somalia in 2001, here's another big clue, the last US troops were withdrawn in 1993.
As far as I can tell, there was no war in Hati.....

And Yes, we were involved in a no fly zone in Iraq, but not a war.....

So do you want another try?

What wars was the US fighting when George W. Bush took office?

 

Bush started two unnecessary wars, and managed both disastrously, Obama has ended one and is ending the second.
Obama hasn't involved the country in any new wars.

The economy is recovering from the disaster the Bush left, you do realize that Bush was the first president since Hoover to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than the day he took office.....
Bush assumed office with a budget surplus, he left office with a Trillion dollar + deficit.
Obama assumed office with a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit, that has been cut in half.

So who did better on, foreign policy, Obama
on the Domestic economy, Obama
on the Deficit, Obama.....

Bush could ride a bicycle better though....

- - - Updated - - -

You and the facts have never met ....right?

 

I respectfully disagree on all accounts.

1. Bush ended the war in Iraq....Obama just saw its conclusion.

2. Bush had 2 wars.....4 natural disasters, 9/11 and a mini recession at the beginning of his term and never had massive deficits.

The 2009 deficit was revised upwards due to lack of revenue.........not spending. It was budgeted at circa 400k

3. The budget surplus was a misnomer. It was nothing more than unspent social security that by law rolled into general funds. They were marked for spending so the technically were not really left over.

4.Democrats controlled congress from 2007. They were in full financial control. They were even warned about the impending collapse and sat on their hands.

Obama has done nothing with foreign policy... Negotiating with terrorists is not an accomplishment

The economy still has not recovered to the point Obama took office.

The Deficit, laughable that you claim Obama. Obama has not done a single thing to reduce the deficit . Its only shrinking because of increased revenue.

On that note........after the Bush tax breaks............all time record revenues were recorded

 

Those all happened during the Clinton Admin did they not?

So know i did not make it up thanks. Know your history. The fact you are trying to cherry pick such a small time frame tells the forum everything they need to know.

Air strikes are part of war... You can call it "no fly zone" all you want.. Drop bombs at its war.

 

Maybe that stuff happened in fantasyland, but it didn't happen like that in reality, and that was what I was going by.....

 

Cherry pick a small time frame?
I asked what wars the US fighting when George W. Bush took office....

The correct answer was "NONE"

Thanks for playing, sorry you didn't win, but just for playing you'll receive a free remedial history lesson....

 

that is not a rebuttal and I am not going to do your research for you.

 

You must know by now, THEY have their own Bible, their own Constitution, their own science books, their own female anatomy texts and MOST CERTAINLY, THEIR OWN HISTORY BOOKS!

 

When someone took office is a small time frame. A simple search on wiki will show you all i listed Clinton was involved in. When you are focusing on the beginning of an Admin instead of the entire term a President is on office is beyond me.

 

I will offer you the same chance to rebut what I said.

 

Iraq which was in a cease fire and against terrorism.

 

Bush's contriving two very costly nation-building fiascos and squandering the Clinton surplus he had inherited resulted in his receiving approval ranging in the twenties and low thirties, with disapproval in the high sixties and low seventies at the end of his second term. Obama's approval has been in the low to mid-forties with disapproval in the high-forties to low fifties.

Of course, he could still fall to the abysmal Bush levels - or the numbers could stay study or improve. However, the is no reason to expect a "referendum on Obama" in 2016 to the extent there may have been one on the absconding Bush in 2008, and to the extent there was one, it was on Hillary Clinton's voting to surrender the decision whether to invade Iraq to Bush.

Meanwhile, Clinton is receiving 55% support vs 39% opposition as a 2016 presidential candidate.

You may well have another Bush referendum in '16 - Jeb vs Hillary - and Jebby was complicit in the Project for the New American Century along with the Bushie neocons who contrived the disastrous war, whereas Hillary, Obama's opponent the last time she ran, is hardly a surrogate for Obama. (Note the absence of familial resemblance.)

 

We'll TRY THIS AGAIN! Raw Story is a news aggregator. They find stories and put them up and even comment on them! I've yet to find one news story RAWSTORY puts up that hasn't been true. But then one has to have enough CRITICAL THINKING to fact-check a story in Raw Story--especially going GO TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. I know that can be tough for people who don't want the FACTS!

See how it works now??

 

Let's have congressional hearing on all U.S. citizens worldwide killed as a result of incidents of terrorism,
and determine to what extent Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Hillary Clinton may have been personally culpable:

2001: 2,689
2002: 25
2003: 35
2004: 74
2005: 56
2006: 28
2007: 19
2008: 33
2009: 9
2010: 15
2011: 17
2012: 10
2013: 3

 

Then post the original source and stop having rawstory think for you.

 

Oh my, I did notice your only response to PT again was your silly little inane comment. Very typical of someone that has been smacked down with facts

 

The thread title should read "anyone with a functioning brain doesn't buy Hillary's Benghazi denial".

- - - Updated - - -

Or better yet. "only partisan hacks buy Hillary's Benghazi denials"

 

Pretty sure those numbers are not right..................2001 is a little off

 

Surely someone has beat me to this but are you really claiming that in the entire year of 2013 only three Americans
died due to terrorist events?

Forgive the internet inanity, but LOL! How many troops died in Afghanistan alone? What idiocy!

 

For starters.....

1) She has claimed the video story came from the CIA; testimony from those in the know from the CIA disputed that claim. The video story was pulled out of the backsides of Obama and Hillary during that 10pm private phone call between the two....and where 30 minutes later she released a Memo that claimed it was about a video.

2) She has not answered why they sent Susan Rice on the 5 tv shows to push that video story. And why Hillary herself did not do it.....since she was the head of the State Dept and Rice had nothing to do with the State Dept?

3) She has not answered questions about the number of requests the State Dept had in the months leading up to 9/11 for more security....and why they were ignored?

4) She has not answered questions about what the specific mission in Benghazi was. Was it about running guns into Syria? The American people have a right to know what the mission was there....that got 4 Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador, killed.

That's just a few off the top of my head. There are many, many more questions she hasn't answered or spun away from and refused to answer. Her position as S.O.S. is her experience....and she WILL be held accountable for full answers just as every one else who runs will be.

 

You didn't really think the mainstream would cover what he said, did ya? The mainstream ONLY quotes Bob Woodward when he says something negative about George W. Bush. I would think all lefties would know this by now.

In case you haven't noticed....the mainstream is in the tank for both Obama AND Hillary.....and will either not cover or downplay anything negative. That's why they are the state-run media under this administration.

 

Woodsward's IQ dropped long before Nixon was busted over a taped door lock.