nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Chesus.
That wasn't the fog of war. That was a well thought out lie that was twisted to go along with the election talking points. The fog of war happens on the battle ground.
GOP-led report debunks Benghazi theories
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
Chesus.
That wasn't the fog of war. That was a well thought out lie that was twisted to go along with the election talking points. The fog of war happens on the battle ground.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
The Republican Lead committee thinks otherwise
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Chesus.
I didn't read it yet. When I think of Benghazi , I think of Susan Rice with all the made up lies about the incident. If I go read it does it say Susan Rice is a truth teller?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
GO read it and come back
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Chesus.
I read it, I thought it was a link. There is nothing there about Sunsan Rice lying to the nation, only what happened on the ground that night. Gruber was right about the Dems being stupid voters. At least Gruber tells the truth when he is bragging.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
http://www.cbs58.com/story/27454757/report-sheds-new-light-on-benghazi-attack
The report, from Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, and ranking member Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, concludes there was no intelligence failure prior to the attack, no stand-down order to CIA operatives trying to go assist at the besieged consular building, and found conflicting intelligence in the wake of the attack about the motive and cause, which were reflected in early public comments by the administration.
The report, from Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, and ranking member Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, concludes there was no intelligence failure prior to the attack, no stand-down order to CIA operatives trying to go assist at the besieged consular building, and found conflicting intelligence in the wake of the attack about the motive and cause, which were reflected in early public comments by the administration.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Like a typical low information voter, you take three words out of a story's title and think you are on to something. GOP, Benghazi, debunked.
The investigation found that the military and the Central Intelligence Agency responded appropriately during the attacks.
There is nothing in the investigation refuting the BS story by Hillary Clinton, the State Dept and Obama blaming a video to cover up the terrorist attack on the consulate and saving the president from certain defeat in 2012.
I'll bet you thought you could keep your insurance and doctor if you wanted.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Well they are running it over at Fox but they are pretty much ignoring the findings and concentrating on Whether it was classified as a terrorist attack
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Pada.
You are free to watch what ever you want. If the left leaning people think there left leaning news is worth watching, go for it. If you look up a real poll you will see that fox doesn't have to worry about viewers. The nation has drawn a red line on what they like for news and there is no-one forcing anybody to watch any of them. So watch what you like and don't sweat the petty stuff.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Fox news slants , lies and obliterates the truth so their Obama hate addicted viewers can get their fix
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
You have no proof of this, it's only opinions from far left liberal websites.
Yet Fox news has more viewers than MSNBC and CNN combined.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
They have the most viewers who are also the least informed. So when you make the claim "low information voter", it's scientifically accurate to say that would be Fox News viewers. Someone who watches no news at all is more informed than people who watch Fox News.
Shocking.
Also, the average age of a Fox News viewer is 68 years old, so rofl @ that..
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Chesus.
You say that , and I say the same thing about the other net work channels. Thank God there is a channel for everybody. Watch what you want Chesus. I don't really talk about the other channels much, if I thought they were worth a shit I would be watching them instead.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So it doesn't bother you at all that watching Fox News makes you less informed than watching no news? Wouldn't you rather gather your information from unbiased sources? Why do you watch Fox News when it's been proven, just like MSNBC, to be politically biased?
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Pada.
Why would someone like you give a shit about what channel someone wants to watch? I don't care what channel you would like to watch. You are barking up the wrong tree if you think I would take any of that serious about fox news. Put a parental lock on it and relax, you don't have to watch it.
potroastV2
Well-Known Member
If people were paying attention they would know that Rupert Murdoch made the Faux News Channel solely to attract the American Idiot.
And many idiots watch his channel, so his idea worked!
And many idiots watch his channel, so his idea worked!
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Why would I care what American voters watch to get their information when the source of that information is selling an agenda?
Why the fuck do you think, dummy? Because Fox tells you humans aren't the cause of climate change, because they tell you Jesus is real and Muslims are terrorists and abortion is immoral and more guns are better, and retards who sit there and soak it up vote based on what they hear from Fox News.
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Pada.
I think there is a channel or two for you already. You should be happy about it. The left carrying on about how much one net work lie's is getting old and it won't take away any viewers. If anything it will add more viewers to fox news. Over the next two years there will be more and more people trusting Fox News as a news source. In my opinion.
Feel free to remind me next year if the ratings go down or something. Happy news watching.