New Benghazi E-mails Link White House to Doctoring of Talking Points

[Oldstyle]

[

Like I said before, you need it to be the video. It has to be the video, or your world will be turned upside down. That would mean that your guy is indeed fallible, that people within the Obama administration lied about the attacks, and were directly responsible for the issuance of these misleading talking points.

You keep referring to irrelevant topics, other people, anyone and anything that would keep people from acknowledging the facts of the matter. That e-mail I just posted from the State Department says a terrorist group was responsible for the attack, that it wasn't a spontaneous protest, nor was it because of a video.

Moreover, the Middle East was in the throes of the Arab Spring, which you two conveniently forget. I'm sorry, as much as you want me to be wrong, I have all the facts and the evidence. All you have is your emotions. Bush can't save you from the truth.

When did I ever claim that Obama was "infallable". Or anyone else, for that matter.

I think Obama has a bunch of flaws and he's made a lot of mistakes. One of them was going along with the European Union's plan to oust Qadaffi, which started this whole mess.

The E-mail you posted just says that Ansar Al Sharia was involved. It does NOT dismiss the video being a factor.

Obviously, the Administration was walking a tightrope between condemning these terrible attacks but acknowledging that most of the Islmaic world was rightfully upset about this horrible video that portrayed Mohammed as a child molestor.

It's amazing that some of you are STILL trying to portray the attack in Benghazi as a protest when it's been obvious for a long long time that what took place that day was a planned terrorist event on the anniversary of 9/11! This was NOT about a YouTube video. That narrative was the lie that the Obama Administration used to hide the truth from the American people.

 

[paulitician]

Obama lied, people died. It is what it is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why is it so difficult to understand -- when it comes to crowds gathered / protests / attacks, it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

Sure, some where there to attack, some were there to protest, some where there watch, some where there to loot.

This isn't a difficult concept.

That video spurred shit everywhere with extremists and hard line Muslims freaking out because that video was like making a movie about Jesus fucking a pig, to them anyway.

Those nutcakes flip wigs if you depict their Prophet like that -- even in a newspaper cartoon, it sends 'em flyin...It did, in 54 Countries/locales.

Did some of them plan it prior? Sure. Crowds, nutcakes, crowds, encompass individuals.

"However, according to witnesses, a number of Libyans showed up on the day of the attack on their own to protest the video and, later, as a result of rumors that the Americans were killing protesters. Though Abu Khattala and members of Ansar al-Sharia were spotted at the scene, "Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack," the Times reports."

Times Deals Another Blow to Benghazi Truthers -- NYMag

The New York Times? Who was dealt a devastating blow by the State Department? Who this January acknowledged that it was a terrorist attack and not a video?

"Ansar al-Shari'a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari'a in Darnah have been involved in terrorist attacks against civilian targets, frequent assassinations, and attempted assassinations of security officials and political actors in eastern Libya, and the September 11, 2012 attacks against the U.S. Special Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya."

U.S. State Department

Moreover, the Times is playing cover for Hillary Clinton. You must be joking.

The President called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened.

All of your bullshit was debunked years ago. I realize you're late to this party because you're now trying belatedly to earn your rightwing nut new member badge, but jesus, listen to yourself.

But then his administration sent Susan Rice out to contradict him in 5 different appearances that following Sunday.

Listen to yourself. Nothing of mine has been debunked. I appear to be the one posting all the links, facts, evidence and testimony. Not you. Besides, the Washington Post debunked that claim of yours a long time ago:

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.


But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.



Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Obama's claim he called Benghazi an 'act of terrorism' - The Washington Post

 

[Oldstyle]

The fact is...people in this Administration have so few morals that they had no problem standing next to the caskets of a murdered US Ambassador and 3 other Americans who died in service to their country and lying to the families of those men about what happened. Once again...watch that video from Andrews Air Base and listen to what Hillary Clinton SAID that day as she stood in front of Barack Obama. It's a display of who they both are and what they are both willing to do to stay in power.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Another day, another slew of liberal lies debunked.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The New York Times? Who was dealt a devastating blow by the State Department? Who this January acknowledged that it was a terrorist attack and not a video?

Moreover, the Times is playing cover for Hillary Clinton. You must be joking.

The President called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened.

All of your bullshit was debunked years ago. I realize you're late to this party because you're now trying belatedly to earn your rightwing nut new member badge, but jesus, listen to yourself.

But then his administration sent Susan Rice out to contradict him in 5 different appearances that following Sunday.

Listen to yourself. Nothing of mine has been debunked. I appear to be the one posting all the links, facts, evidence and testimony. Not you. Besides, the Washington Post debunked that claim of yours a long time ago:

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.


But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.



Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Obama's claim he called Benghazi an 'act of terrorism' - The Washington Post

The facts I posted debunking all this bullshit was done months ago. A year ago. More than a year ago. Your using the classic rightwing forum tactic,

dredge up some old story that got debunked months or years ago, and then claim it was never debunked. Then if the debunkers repost all the facts that debunked the bullshit, you'll just disappear and then come back months later with a new thread about it claiming it was never debunked.

 

[paperview]

The President called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened.

All of your bullshit was debunked years ago. I realize you're late to this party because you're now trying belatedly to earn your rightwing nut new member badge, but jesus, listen to yourself.

But then his administration sent Susan Rice out to contradict him in 5 different appearances that following Sunday.

Listen to yourself. Nothing of mine has been debunked. I appear to be the one posting all the links, facts, evidence and testimony. Not you. Besides, the Washington Post debunked that claim of yours a long time ago:

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.


But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.



Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Obama's claim he called Benghazi an 'act of terrorism' - The Washington Post

The facts I posted debunking all this bullshit was done months ago. A year ago. More than a year ago. Your using the classic rightwing forum tactic,

dredge up some old story that got debunked months or years ago, and then claim it was never debunked. Then if the debunkers repost all the facts that debunked the bullshit, you'll just disappear and then come back months later with a new thread about it claiming it was never debunked.

I call it conesia.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The New York Times? Who was dealt a devastating blow by the State Department? Who this January acknowledged that it was a terrorist attack and not a video?

Moreover, the Times is playing cover for Hillary Clinton. You must be joking.

The President called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened.

All of your bullshit was debunked years ago. I realize you're late to this party because you're now trying belatedly to earn your rightwing nut new member badge, but jesus, listen to yourself.

But then his administration sent Susan Rice out to contradict him in 5 different appearances that following Sunday.

Listen to yourself. Nothing of mine has been debunked. I appear to be the one posting all the links, facts, evidence and testimony. Not you. Besides, the Washington Post debunked that claim of yours a long time ago:

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.


But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.



Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Obama's claim he called Benghazi an 'act of terrorism' - The Washington Post

The President called it an act of terror the day after it happened.

You have to be mentally retarded to dispute that, or mentally retarded even more to claim that an 'act of terror' is not synonymous with a 'terrorist act'.

But, by all means, proceed.

 

[natstew]

Why is it so difficult to understand -- when it comes to crowds gathered / protests / attacks, it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

Sure, some where there to attack, some were there to protest, some where there watch, some where there to loot.

This isn't a difficult concept.

That video spurred shit everywhere with extremists and hard line Muslims freaking out because that video was like making a movie about Jesus fucking a pig, to them anyway.

Those nutcakes flip wigs if you depict their Prophet like that -- even in a newspaper cartoon, it sends 'em flyin...It did, in 54 Countries/locales.

Did some of them plan it prior? Sure. Crowds, nutcakes, crowds, encompass individuals.

"However, according to witnesses, a number of Libyans showed up on the day of the attack on their own to protest the video and, later, as a result of rumors that the Americans were killing protesters. Though Abu Khattala and members of Ansar al-Sharia were spotted at the scene, "Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack," the Times reports."

Times Deals Another Blow to Benghazi Truthers -- NYMag

The New York Times? Who was dealt a devastating blow by the State Department? Who this January acknowledged that it was a terrorist attack and not a video?

"Ansar al-Shari'a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari'a in Darnah have been involved in terrorist attacks against civilian targets, frequent assassinations, and attempted assassinations of security officials and political actors in eastern Libya, and the September 11, 2012 attacks against the U.S. Special Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya."

U.S. State Department

Moreover, the Times is playing cover for Hillary Clinton. You must be joking.

The President called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened.

All of your bullshit was debunked years ago. I realize you're late to this party because you're now trying belatedly to earn your rightwing nut new member badge, but jesus, listen to yourself.

NYcarbineer,
That is a goddam lie and you are a liar!
Obama was not talking about the Benghazi attack, he was talking in general terms. He still hasn't called the Fort Hood shootings by a muslim radical a terrorist attack.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama still lying

 

[TemplarKormac]

The President called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened.

All of your bullshit was debunked years ago. I realize you're late to this party because you're now trying belatedly to earn your rightwing nut new member badge, but jesus, listen to yourself.

But then his administration sent Susan Rice out to contradict him in 5 different appearances that following Sunday.

Listen to yourself. Nothing of mine has been debunked. I appear to be the one posting all the links, facts, evidence and testimony. Not you. Besides, the Washington Post debunked that claim of yours a long time ago:

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.


But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.



Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Obama's claim he called Benghazi an 'act of terrorism' - The Washington Post

The facts I posted debunking all this bullshit was done months ago. A year ago. More than a year ago. Your using the classic rightwing forum tactic,

dredge up some old story that got debunked months or years ago, and then claim it was never debunked. Then if the debunkers repost all the facts that debunked the bullshit, you'll just disappear and then come back months later with a new thread about it claiming it was never debunked.

You haven't posted any 'facts' in this thread. Move along.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But then his administration sent Susan Rice out to contradict him in 5 different appearances that following Sunday.

Listen to yourself. Nothing of mine has been debunked. I appear to be the one posting all the links, facts, evidence and testimony. Not you. Besides, the Washington Post debunked that claim of yours a long time ago:

Obama's claim he called Benghazi an 'act of terrorism' - The Washington Post

The facts I posted debunking all this bullshit was done months ago. A year ago. More than a year ago. Your using the classic rightwing forum tactic,

dredge up some old story that got debunked months or years ago, and then claim it was never debunked. Then if the debunkers repost all the facts that debunked the bullshit, you'll just disappear and then come back months later with a new thread about it claiming it was never debunked.

I call it conesia.

I call it cognitive dissonance.

 

[paperview]

The facts I posted debunking all this bullshit was done months ago. A year ago. More than a year ago. Your using the classic rightwing forum tactic,

dredge up some old story that got debunked months or years ago, and then claim it was never debunked. Then if the debunkers repost all the facts that debunked the bullshit, you'll just disappear and then come back months later with a new thread about it claiming it was never debunked.

I call it conesia.

I call it cognitive dissonance.

Yeah, you got a shitton of that too.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The President called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened.

All of your bullshit was debunked years ago. I realize you're late to this party because you're now trying belatedly to earn your rightwing nut new member badge, but jesus, listen to yourself.

But then his administration sent Susan Rice out to contradict him in 5 different appearances that following Sunday.

Listen to yourself. Nothing of mine has been debunked. I appear to be the one posting all the links, facts, evidence and testimony. Not you. Besides, the Washington Post debunked that claim of yours a long time ago:

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.


But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.



Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Obama's claim he called Benghazi an 'act of terrorism' - The Washington Post

The President called it an act of terror the day after it happened.

You have to be mentally retarded to dispute that, or mentally retarded even more to claim that an 'act of terror' is not synonymous with a 'terrorist act'.

But, by all means, proceed.

You have to be mentally retarded to deny that the White House doctored the talking points. This is why you consistently deflect from the topic.

But by all means, continue to be wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But then his administration sent Susan Rice out to contradict him in 5 different appearances that following Sunday.

Listen to yourself. Nothing of mine has been debunked. I appear to be the one posting all the links, facts, evidence and testimony. Not you. Besides, the Washington Post debunked that claim of yours a long time ago:

Obama's claim he called Benghazi an 'act of terrorism' - The Washington Post

The facts I posted debunking all this bullshit was done months ago. A year ago. More than a year ago. Your using the classic rightwing forum tactic,

dredge up some old story that got debunked months or years ago, and then claim it was never debunked. Then if the debunkers repost all the facts that debunked the bullshit, you'll just disappear and then come back months later with a new thread about it claiming it was never debunked.

I call it conesia.

lol

Or Templarary Insanity.

They do this all the time. PoliticalChic is the resident 'expert' at it. She starts essentially the same thread about once a week, about welfare, etc., with nothing in the new thread that hasn't been proven to be bullshit in the last 20. But then of course if someone doesn't REPOST all of the refutations that render her rants nonsensical,

then of course it's supposed to look like it all stands unrefuted.

 

[paperview]

Still haven't found a job yet,eh Templar?

Tsk.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I call it conesia.

I call it cognitive dissonance.

Yeah, you got a shitton of that too.

I have a "shitton" of facts and evidence. So, what about you?

 

[paperview]

I call it cognitive dissonance.

Yeah, you got a shitton of that too.

I have a "shitton" of fact and evidence. So, what about you?

1000 times more credibility than you'll ever have, kiddo.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yeah, you got a shitton of that too.

I have a "shitton" of fact and evidence. So, what about you?

1000 times more credibility than you'll ever have, kiddo.

Really, so lies have more credibility than the truth? You're certifiably insane. Please, I invite you to continue inflating your ego to cover for the fact you're wrong.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Still haven't found a job yet,eh Templar?

Tsk.

And alas, your argument is done. You are entirely too predictable. I can always tell when I've won.

"Go get a job"
"Have you found a job yet?"

Come now. Sticks and stones, sticks and stones.

Get out of my sight.