Charles Krauthammer: 'The Clock Has Run Out On Benghazi'

There was never an 'Embassy' or 'Consulate' in Benghazi...........this was a CIA mission post supplying arms to somebody......probably the Syrians......the government is never gonna talk about it.......its a dead story.........the Repubs just need to let it die.

 

I don't know that many who got into the birther thing but then I am an independent, you know those who decide elections.

 

and nobody ever wins every independent vote. She's lost you? I think she'll survive that.

 

so um... providing material support and arming our enemies isnt a story?

 

Your crocodile tears for those who died that day are pathetic. There were a dozen Benghazi like attacks during Bush's terms and not a peep from the right. The country realized your false outrage and dismissed you. The nation has moved past the right wing - your political capital is spent.

 

There were none that went on for hours while the commander in chief slept or worked on his college basketball predictions without lifting a finger to help.

 

Oh, yeah... sure. I can still hear Bush's shameful words ringing in my ears -- "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!", just after he was suddenly, and very conveniently, too "incapacitated" by some weird, mystery affliction that kept him from responding SPECIFICALLY to pointed questions about any of these so-called "incidents"...?

Go peddle that **** to your own cohort, Channe, OR, tell me exactly when it was that Bush lied like a damn dog, covering up a murderous attack on an American Consulate that resulted in the murder of an American Ambassador and three brave men who tried to save his life. C'mon... I KNOW you can do it! I'm ready to confess that Bush is just as big a dirty, lying, deceitful son-of-a-***** as either Obama or Hillary are -- just tell me when and where this attack on some other American Consulate happened, with the resulting murder of an American Ambassador. I'll be waiting with bated breath ​beneath my "crocodile tears"....

 

over 150,000 INNOCENT Iraqis died due to Bush's war.
the pretense was WMDs and later "for democracy for the Iraqis."
the US lost our innocence in 2003.
you can't compare Hillary and Obama to Bush in terms of the damage done to the world.

 

You accuse me of shedding "crocodile tears" over the murder of an American Ambassador and three men who tried to rescue him from an organized attack by Islamo-Nazis, but you REFUSE to respond to my challenge --

"Tell me exactly when it was that Bush lied like a damn dog, covering up a murderous attack on an American Consulate that resulted in the murder of an American Ambassador and three brave men who tried to save his life. C'mon... I KNOW you can do it! I'm ready to confess that Bush is just as big a dirty, lying, deceitful son-of-a-***** as either Obama or Hillary are -- just tell me when and where this attack on some other American Consulate happened, with the resulting murder of an American Ambassador. I'll be waiting with bated breath ​beneath my "crocodile tears"....

Instead, all you produce is information about casualties during the IRAQ war, the misinformation about WMD's (which was promoted by ALL the "intel" agencies, and supported by Demo's, too), and some abstruse drivel about when "we lost our innocence". You think you can seriously compare that to a deliberate campaign to lie, deceive, mislead and re-direct attention by the Obama regime? Ha! We probably "lost our innocence" in the fathomless stupidity of the Vietnam War, but the conduct of Hillary and that idiot she worked for was remarkably similar to the lies and deceit Americans were subjected to during Vietnam.

But don't worry. We've still got another 3 1/2 years more of the agony of Obama to endure before we can finally pack his jive ass back off to the golf course circuit, permanently. And then you on the Left would give us "what-difference-does-it-make" Hillary? Better dream up even more welfare programs to buy her election with....

 

Got any evidence? Anything at all?

No.

It was covered until it was proven that there was no story there. And FOXNEWS beats this dead horse daily.

So you're wrong. But I still enjoy laughing at you.

 

No, no!!!! They can't do that!

(one wonders who they will use a front man for the campaign once Daryll Issa loses his committee).

They know that a lot of the audience is too young or too tired of Monica and Vince Foster.

They have to have something! And they know that their audience doesn't care if they make it up!

 

When asked what the US was going to do in retaliation for the bombing of the USS Cole, the reply was, "that happened on Clinton's watch, it's not our problem"

 

Put the blame where it belongs, on Saddam. 150,000 or more would have died under the murderous lunatic anyway.

 

Under Saddam about a hundred extra judicial executions a year were going on, in the years before the war.
It will take 1500 years before the number "saved" equals the number "killed" by Bush.....

 

Your numbers don't add up to the 1M he killed throughout his reign. Most seem to agree, the number is around 1M. That doesn't include the Iran war. Divide that by each year he reigned, and it is much more than 100 per year.

 

That wasn't what Bush prevented, Bush prevented a few hundred deaths of prostitutes and drug dealers, the targets of Saddam's thugs in the years leading up to the invasion, in exchange for hundreds of thousand innocent lives.

 

Laugh your head off, HT... after all, like Hillary said, "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!" Moreover, no matter how much "evidence" anyone supplies the Obama/Hillary-lovers, it will never be enough, and it'll never be accepted as conclusive. But, you can start here:
http://onenewsnow.com/national-secu...i-cover-up-meant-to-help-hillary#.U1GJfPm-0RQ
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...sh-backfires-spotlights-obama-clinton-coverup
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?hp#/?chapt=0
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=14465

Had enough? Not convinced yet? Why doesn't THAT surprise us... but there's LOTS more. You go find the next batch....

 

Oh, by that time Saddam was done murdering as much? You will be hard pressed to find any numbers outside of 500k-1M dead under his reign.

 

Unless of course Republicans come up with any type of positive agenda to run on.

 

why should they ? throwing spit balls and hating on gays, minorities, women, and non-Christians is so much easier than actually coming up with ideas.

- - - Updated - - -

nice deflection - Saddam was a sociopath, but let's not act like Bush invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people.

 

And that claim is based on what?

Oh, that's right. You made it up!

 

Saddam had settled down to write romance novels, Amnesty International reported about 100 extrajudicial deaths per year in the years leading up to the invasion.
That is what Bush stopped, the killing of about 100 prostitutes and drug dealers and petty criminals by Saddam's goon squads every year.

The other stuff had already happened, and it wasn't happening anymore and murdering a couple of hundred thousand civilians wasn't going to do anything about the things that happened in the past.
Bush is a war criminal, who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, it's his legacy, along with the huge financial collapse.

 

By the way, how many people are dying per year now that we aren't in Iraq? We responsible for those too huh? The war with Saddam was justified by his murder, and his constant breaking of UN resolutions for over a decade, and the general threat he represented. You think the ME would be doing great with Saddam in there right now?

 

I think a couple of hundred thousand people would be alive who aren't alive now.
I don't think the Iraqi people would be any better off or worse off than they are now.
I think there would be thousands of American people alive who are dead now, tens of thousands who would not have severe physical handicaps and hundreds of thousands who would not be suffering from PTSD, and the debt would be a couple of trillion lower.
So I think America would be better off with Saddam in there right now, which is probably a more important question to ask....

 

The reasons to go to war were many. Saddam defied the UN many times. Even if he didn't have WMD's, he sure as hell acted like it. Also the civilized world relies on oil; I'd prefer if religiously insane, murderous dictators didn't run the countries from where we get it. I was around at the time. I didn't hear too many alternatives, just same thing as always, a bunch of people arguing to do nothing. In the real world, tough decisions need to be made.