Skip to comments.Derailing the GOP Jihad (Washington Post)
Posted on 01/19/2014 6:32:34 AM PST by Innovative
Driving the Republican jihad was a claim, first reported in October 2012 by Fox News, that CIA personnel had wanted to respond more quickly to the Benghazi attack but were ordered to "stand down," perhaps by political higher-ups. Although this claim was promptly rebutted by CIA officials, it was repeated by Fox at least 85 times, according to a review by the liberal advocacy group Media Matters. This barrage fueled Republican charges that the Democrats were engaging in a cover-up.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
You are correct. Boehner will never be confused with Peter Rodino.
Simple question: Where was the little islamist?
IIRC, a general testified under oath that the order was to “Stand By” (resulting in no rescue mission, when they had stood by until everything was over). So Fox News and GOP use of the words “Stand Down” (resulting in no rescue mission) is unmitigated evil. The WP wants you to know that this choice of words renders the GOP into “jihadis”. The Islamist terrorists who attacked the mission, on the other hand, were really just film critics. The organized coverup campaign of “film” lies orchestrated by Obama, Hillary, Susan Rice, et al., and their gross dereliction of duty that let the attack succeed — well, it’s not like they closed a traffic lane or something.
I wonder if the muzzies are familiar with the expression, “if we invade America, there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass”?
BTW, thank you for your service. In fact, here’s a thought I would like for you to consider, it came to me yesterday:
Remember during the Cold War how many liberals were soft on communism? Nowadays, progressives are soft on Islam & routinely demand that we “not judge an entire religion by the actions of a few nuts”.
They would never show this kind of solicitude about Christianity. Nor would the gungrabbers among them “not judge all gun owners by the actions of a few nuts”.
Liberals once soft on communism, now soft on Islam. For the same reason, with the same instinctual hatred for America and our founding values. Make sense?
obama is king jihadist... you morons at the compost really need help.
All that I see in the compost comments are insane idiots that are going to cause this republic to split.
Let's wait a little while before we counter-attack.
"And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand?"
David Ignatius has always been a shill for the "progressives". This is what he wrote a few days after the Banghazi murders:
Read it all and don't miss this:
The analysts seem confident that al-Qaedas new leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, played no direct role in the Benghazi events, even though he called on Sept. 10 for revenge attacks against the United States. Hes not a manager, hes not a planner, hes not an operator. Hes a theologian, and that doesnt have much resonance now. Hes almost irrelevant, hes so concerned about his security, so hunkered down, said the senior official.
What Ignatius did not write was that the Zawahiri's video called for attacks on Americans in Libya as noted by both CNN:
On September 10 -- at least 18 hours before the attack -- al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, in a video timed for the anniversary of 9/11, called for attacks on Americans in Libya to avenge the death of al-Libi.
and Reuters. (The post contains the direct link to Reuters.)
So here we have a little down-loaded video clip (though quoted on Egyptian television 9/9/12) and another video demnding "direct action" against Americans in Libya by a senior al-Qaida operative. Difficult chioce, but the "senior CIA analyst" and Ignatius immediately come down on the side of the Muhammed video. Of course!
There just are too many trees to see the forrest, aren't there?
Personally, I'm of the opinion that if there really was a real "CIA analyst" whowas interviewed by Ignatius that analysis was a case of self-serving CYA. And a journalist who had had another agenda than protecting the adminstration would have seen that.
Placemark, thank you very much, ScaniaBoy!
It’s hard to tell from this article who the quotes are attributable to.
This is the new double speak. Levy a charge and the administration will promptly rebuff it. End of story. Must be false. Nevermind that it is the CIA rebutting the charges against the CIA.
I saw the same thing on CNN the other day. While someone was being torn up over handgun rights, he refer to an article published by his organization that support his position. Therefore he was right. The lady he was debating scoffed at his "source". Later the "independent" journalist came on and claim the guy who wanted to curb hand guns was correct and the other had her fact wrong. The reasoning was because he accurately cited his "source". Nevermind his source was the organization that he was head of.
Yeah. Here’s one from the report:
The committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated.
Considering that NO military relief effort was actually started or completed, I would say the report fails to prove that statement.
When Christ comes for His church, I will be gone with those that are going. THEN the muzzies and the antichrist will take over. THAT is when all hell will break loose and all that will happen. I happen to believe that He is coming for His church and I am a blood bought Christian, thus I will go right along with all the other Believers and meet Him in the air.
Be careful. When antiChrist comes, he's going to be pretending he's Jesus, so watch out for the first entity that comes and says that he is going to take you away.
I want to stay here during the reign of antiChrist, broadcasting against him after going to our place mentioned in Revelation 12, or testifying against him in his own court.
Sorry friend. I will not be here to see who the antichrist is. The church will be raptured before he is revealed. So, don’t care who he is, I won’t be here to see him. No one who accepts Christ will be.
You might. I won’t. If you are here looking for the antichrist, that is a grave problem for you. Myself, I am looking for Jesus Christ. I won’t see because I won’t be here. End of story and I am finished with the argument.
What argument? We will all see the antiChrist. I want to be one of the 7000 that stand against him.
IF you are a Christian, a true Believer in Jesus Christ, YOU will not see the antichrist. You will be gone in the Rapture. Simple as that. Read 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thes 4. You say 7,000. Are you speaking a Jewish person? If you are a Jewish person and think you will be standing against him, you might want to rethink that. NOTHING guarantees YOU will survive the years of the Trib. Thus, if you are Jewish my friend, I will say to you to seek your true Messiah, our LORD Jesus Christ. Yeshua to you my friend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.