Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So who were they?
Issa did all that 'vestigating.
Who were these Yemeni dudes?
Terrorists, operatives from Al Qaeda. What else would they be?
Yep, you lose. I obliterated your premise. What of this, then?
Consulate Attack Preplanned, Libya's President Says : NPR
Now it's just laughable.
You can't name them, and post an article from 9/16/12???
Seriously?
There were a ton 'O 'vestigating by Issa's publicans. Who? Who? Who?
You can't name them, Kenya? You just repeat the Foxy angle, with nothing to show for it, after alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll this time.
Comedy, at its finest.
According to an interview investigators conducted with Greg Hicks, a foreign service diplomat of 22 years, "everybody in the mission" in Benghazi believed the events of Sept 11, 2012, constituted a terrorist attack and we're not the result of spontaneous demonstrations as the administration portrayed the situation in the aftermath of the attack.
Benghazi Attack Appeared 'A Terrorist Attack From The Get-Go,' Says U.S. Official
You are a little confused, Mr. Dante. Michelle Obama is the Kenyan birther.go ahead attack the source without referring to any of the info contained...
what a loser you show yourself to be
Because Dante say so!
Now that's funny
Hey Dante, answer this question will ya?
No military aide was sent to the ambassador. The reason appears to be that the closest aide available was seven hours away.
How could the administration know that the attacks would last less than seven hours?
what in the world are you talking about? you sound a a 911 truther or worse...a Kenyan Birther
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg9m1F8B2_c]65 Outrageous Lies by President Obama - YouTube[/ame] here you go
A joke made the rounds this week, which resonated with me. It goes like this: a man dies, goes to heaven, stands before St. Peter, and see a huge wall of clocks. The man asks what all the clocks are for and St. Peter explains, “These are lie clocks. Everyone on earth has a lie clock. Every time a person lies, the clock hands move.”
Pointing to one, the man says, “Whose clock is that?”
“That’s Mother Teresa’s,” St. Peter answers. “The hands have never moved, indicating she never told a lie.”
“Incredible,” the man responds. “And whose clock is that?”
St. Peter responds, “That’s Abraham Lincoln’s. The hands moved twice telling us he told two lies in his entire life.”
“Where is Mitt Romney’s clock?” the man asks.
“Romney’s clock is in Jesus’ office,” St. Peter says. “He’s using it as a ceiling fan.”
It’s obviously just a joke, but it reinforces an increasingly common observation about Romney’s casual relationship with the truth. Consider, for example, the 40th installment of my weekly series, chronicling Mitt’s mendacity.
Without going through the mess in this thread ... just looking at the title and wondering what Obama was supposedly correct about.
He wasn't correct about the cause of the attack in Benghazi. He was a shameless liar about that. Was he actually correct about something?
Without going through the mess in this thread ... just looking at the title and wondering what Obama was supposedly correct about.
He wasn't correct about the cause of the attack in Benghazi. He was a shameless liar about that. Was he actually correct about something?
Did you read the article in the OP?
Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.
fox news should have done it.
And the rightwingers wonder why most Americans think they're nuts?
Can you provide some definitions and then the polls that support your claim ?
It would be really nice to know that you are not talking out your backside.
People lie all the time. Like remember that time you lied about leaving the board if Romney lost?
Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.
fox news should have done it.
That would be amazing. If they actually did in-depth journalistic reporting? I think I'd go into shock. But I would be much happier about them being a news agency than entertainment (what they went to court to be, so they couldn't be held to a standard of truth.)
Yes.
Okay, so skipping the craziness of the thread, what did you take away from reading the article.
Yes.
Okay, so skipping the craziness of the thread, what did you take away from reading the article.
Can you provide some definitions and then the polls that support your claim ?
It would be really nice to know that you are not talking out your backside.
People lie all the time. Like remember that time you lied about leaving the board if Romney lost?
AHA!! But s/h/it didn't say they wouldn't come back!!!
Yes.
Okay, so skipping the craziness of the thread, what did you take away from reading the article.
As one Democrat, Adam Schiff, said, the article has interesting details but it is incomplete. It is the reporting of one man who did not have access to all the players or all the intelligence.
The article contradicts past NYT reporting.
I do not understand how anyone can take it to mean "Obama was correct", unless they are looking for any cover no matter how flimsy for response to accusations regarding Obama's fudging of facts.
Not as bad as I can bump it tomorrowOkay, so skipping the craziness of the thread, what did you take away from reading the article.
As one Democrat, Adam Schiff, said, the article has interesting details but it is incomplete. It is the reporting of one man who did not have access to all the players or all the intelligence.
The article contradicts past NYT reporting.
I do not understand how anyone can take it to mean "Obama was correct", unless they are looking for any cover no matter how flimsy for response to accusations regarding Obama's fudging of facts.
Bad choice of titles then.
The President didn't lie....he stated that it was a terrorist act, even though the right tried so hard to say he didn't. And, he didn't rush to make a claim, because he's not like the "right" who makes a claim and then has to swallow it.....because it turns out to be wrong.Scandal? That happened when the President (yet again) lied to the American people about the incident at Benghazi. The fact that the NYT's and the left are trying to parse the difference between al-queada and an affiliated terror cell as meaning that there was no lie and no terrorist affiliation, is simply amusing.
I think this thread just shows the depths the conservatives will go to try and hold on to their imaginary theories.......will have to come up with a new one, now that this one has been dissected....It shows the depths that the progressives will go to in order to defend their POS President.
Obama called it an 'act of terror,' which is different than calling it a 'terrorist act.' I realize that being a liberal makes distinctions difficult, but please try to keep up. This was even brought up during the debates... oh wait, you probably didn't watch those either. Just support the God-King thru every endeavor!
The story changes depending on who and when they need to not look incompetent. When a terrorist attack made Obama look incompetent, it was a "spontaneous response to a video". When DENYING it was a terrorist attack made Obama look incompetent (debate with Romney), it was a "terrorist attack". Now that the election is over and Hillary needs to not look incompetent, It's a "spontaneous response to a video" again. Only idiot liberals (like the ones on this site) believe whatever the "official excuse" is at any given time from the left.
The President didn't lie....he stated that it was a terrorist act, even though the right tried so hard to say he didn't. And, he didn't rush to make a claim, because he's not like the "right" who makes a claim and then has to swallow it.....because it turns out to be wrong.
I think this thread just shows the depths the conservatives will go to try and hold on to their imaginary theories.......will have to come up with a new one, now that this one has been dissected....
Obama called it an 'act of terror,' which is different than calling it a 'terrorist act.' I realize that being a liberal makes distinctions difficult, but please try to keep up. This was even brought up during the debates... oh wait, you probably didn't watch those either. Just support the God-King thru every endeavor!
Ha,ha, that's rich......"an act of terror" is not "a terrorist act".......wow.....now that's a backward notion.....you'd only get that from Faux News...............
