What a truly pathetic trio you are. None of you three stooges can even address or begin to answer the simple question whether or not you are satisfied with the administrations explanation on the consulate attack. If you are, then be man enough to say so, but to throw insults at legitimate questions exposes your weak character.
Issues stand alone and relevance is determined at that time, based on what occurred, with no consideration for what may have happened in the past.
You may hate Fox, but without their efforts we would have been left with the explanation that the attack was a response to a video - CNN, NYT were nowhere to be found. And as we do know now, the Administration knew that story was wrong from the start and still let Ambassador Rice go out and lie a week later. That doesn't bother you in the least? Fools.
All you do is answer by bringing up previous incidents, mostly during Bush. As if that could ever get us anywhere. I could bring up plenty of examples of democrat presidents that were errors or poor judgement and likewise that would have us no closer to the truth on an unrelated issue. Danny #$%$, you don't know what my thinking was on any of those issues - you'd probably be surprised if you were capable of an original thought. For anyone to consider a dead Ambassador as a hyped issue is truly repugnant.
So Blue, when you're done rolling on the floor laughing about dead Americans, knell and pray for an answer.
Re: "Elk - Are YOU satisfied with the administrations explanation for the attack on our consulate and the deaths of those American citizens? Answer that coward."
Get over it, nobeach. McCain and Graham have managed to get you working yourself into a full monty wedgie over this but fact is they hardly give a dam about this particular incident nor do they think Rice did anything so terrible. As Graham let slip today, it is all about payback for John Bolton:
|| ……When asked about the possibility of supporting Rice to be the next secretary of state, Graham insisted that she could not be confirmed until Congress was provided more information from the FBI investigation into the Benghazi attack.
“I remember the John Bolton episode pretty well,” he pointed out. “Our Democrat friends felt like John Bolton — they didn’t have the information needed to make an informed decision about Ambassador Bolton’s qualifications — John Bolton to be ambassador — and Democrats dug in their heels and said, ‘We’re not going to vote, we’re not going to consider this nomination until we get basic answers to our concerns.’”
“All I can tell you is that the concerns I have are greater today that they were before. We’re not even close to getting the basic answers.”
In 2005, President George W. Bush recess-appointed Bolton to the post of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations after Democrats filibustered the nomination because the White House refused to provide information about his mishandling of N.S.A documents and his questionable assessment of Syria’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.
“This is about partisan politics, not documents,” White House spokesperson Scott McClellan said at the time. “They have the information they need.”
After Bolton was forced to resign as ambassador, Graham opined that the Democrats’ filibuster “unfairly undermines President Bush’s prerogative to appoint his own people to his team.” ||