The Left likes to control language and its meaning. Thus homosexual became gay. Liberal, which meant something different years ago, now is coopted, as is progressive. Jihad has a negative connotation so they’ve devalued it to use as a pejorative anti-Republican word. It also steals its real meaning and makes it impossible to describe a real jihadist with any sense of what that means. Now by using it thusly a jihadist will no longer be viewed as somebody who will kill innocent parade goers but it’s a man in a suit and tie who you don’t agree with.
An out and out lie. What fueled the Republican charge of cover up was watching the President of the United States and his Secretary of State trip over themselves to blame bizarrely an obscure video, while no member of the press corps even asked them where they had been during the fateful hours of the attack. This was on the heels of their glorifying their minute- to- minute control of the Osama bin Lasden raid.
The Democrats control the senate and it is easy to ignore inconvenient facts. For instance. The 6th Fleet was monitoring the events in Benghazi from the beginning. The Commander had an intervention plan ready to execute within twenty minutes. He was ordered to stand down. Thus far that commander and other senior military have been silenced. The Democrat controlled Senate absolutely refused to investigate and was fully cooperating with the Obama administration to block meaningful inquiries.
That should pretty well bring the controversy to an end.
Everyone knows that no government official would lie to cover up government misconduct.
Especially in the Obama era with "the most transparent administration" ever.
/s
Remember how the Leftist media eviscerated Mitt Romney for speaking about the massacre of our ambassador in Benghazi the morning after the attack? They screamed that he had no business commenting before The First Dictator had made a statement.
Of course, their hero was MIA, jetting off to Vegas to campaign, but Romney was supposed to shut up about the matter until Obumbles had time to think up a lie big enough to fit the occasion. So much for freedom of speech for anyone except the anointed ones on their side. They make a mockery of the Bill of Rights for everyone else.
When the Muzzies take over, they will behead all of the MSM, and Dimocrats in Sodom on the Potomac. They will do it on the Washington Mall and leave the heads on the ground.
Sigonella Naval Air Station is 470 miles from Bengazi. Maybe the media should realize that not everyone is as stupid as they would like us to be.
Oh, what am I thinking, the is the Washington Post. Anyone who questions any of the lies of the Obama Administration is either an Islamaphobe, a jihadist or both. There is no longer any honest or intelligent public debate in Washington. It is only name calling and lies.
“...s claim was promptly rebutted by CIA officials”
Well then, of course it must be false! What a laugh.
CIA and NSA have paraded people in front of congress to lie.
Apparently he has a hard time doing both jobs and separating fact from fiction.
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.
obama is king jihadist... you morons at the compost really need help.
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.