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

[TemplarKormac]

Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzi

No one knows what was in the black hearts of those who murdered our Ambassador and three other Americans. We do know the video created an emotional outburst throughout the Muslim World and efforts to pin the blame on the Obama Administration and in particular Sect. Clinton is wholly partisan. These are the known knowns (to paraphrase Sect. Rumsfeld, who sent men and women into harms way without the proper equipment necessary to keep them safe).

The most fascinating aspect of the history of the 21st Century is the abject mendacity of the right wing in America. Never will they admit to a mistake, and always they will blame the other side for everything which goes wrong. 20-years from now, as the seas rise, they will blame Obama for doing nothing to prevent the erosion of not just beaches, but cities.

"Nobody knows", "this is old news", "this is propaganda"

Is this how you ignore the truth? With that? Are you nuts?

I'm quite sane, but thanks for the personal attack. Since you have no way of knowing what was in the hearts and minds of those who attacked and murdered our personnel I'll posit they did so because Bush in his 'wisdom' used the word "Crusade" shortly after the WTC attack, or that he challenged "evil doers" to "bring it on". AND THEY DID!

None of what I suggested is propaganda, they're facts easily seen with a simple Google search. Though I suppose you've been conditioned to ignore anything on the Internet as one more liberal source of left wing propaganda (which I why I believe you're a fool).

If you were sane at all, you would admit the White House played a direct role in altering the talking points. When I called you nuts, it was a statement of fact, not an insult. You proved to me just now how certifiably insane you must be, that you would be scared of acknowledging the facts.

But once again, you liberals cannot refrain from bringing up Bush. Do this all you want to, but the truth is immutable. Bush has nothing to do with this. Obama does.

And as for these so called 'facts'; please, post the links to your Google search queries. I'd love to see where you got your 'facts' from. Refusal to do so is a direct admission of defeat.

 

[NYcarbineer]

See the youtube video. It was most likely a Freudian slip. He makes the assumption that it WAS a terrorist attack, then is shepherded into the opposite direction by his advisers. Notice how he PIVOTS.

Now if you will excuse me. Have the class and decency to know and admit when you're wrong, Carbine.

I proven to you, with the transcript, that the president called Benghazi an act of terror on September 12th.

You can go birther, and deny that, or, you can concede I'm correct, and we can move on based in FACT,

not having to accept your denial as an alternative to the fact.

Like I told you before, "act of terror" does not mean "terrorist attack." I beg of you to understand the English language before debating me further.

'

It doesn't? So when Bush called 9/11 an act of terror he was denying it was a terrorist attack?

Can you describe an act of terror involving armed men killing civilians for a political/ideological cause that was not a terrorist attack?

Or vice versa?

 

[depotoo]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf?D=1
link to pdf of all the emails going back and forth. Very disturbing.

See the youtube video. It was most likely a Freudian slip. He makes the assumption that it WAS a terrorist attack, then is shepherded into the opposite direction by his advisers. Notice how he PIVOTS.

Now if you will excuse me. Have the class and decency to know and admit when you're wrong, Carbine.

I proven to you, with the transcript, that the president called Benghazi an act of terror on September 12th.

You can go birther, and deny that, or, you can concede I'm correct, and we can move on based in FACT,

not having to accept your denial as an alternative to the fact.

Like I told you before, "act of terror" does not mean "terrorist attack." I beg of you to understand the English language before debating me further.

Play it again, Sam!


"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence."

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

Please explain the contradiction to me. Explain why Susan Rice was sent out to lie to the American people, blaming it on a video. For 14 days after, the White House hushed all mention of the possibility of it being an 'act of terror.'

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone answer? Isn't the answer zero?

It is zero. Because our State Department was too feckless to dispatch assets to the scene. They all went to Tripoli instead.

That being the case, how was it established beyond a reasonable doubt that the video in question was in no way a factor in motivating the perpetrators to act as they did?

Answer that, lawyer wannabee.

Can someone help TK out with this one? He appears stumped.

 

[Theowl32]

See the youtube video. It was most likely a Freudian slip. He makes the assumption that it WAS a terrorist attack, then is shepherded into the opposite direction by his advisers. Notice how he PIVOTS.

Now if you will excuse me. Have the class and decency to know and admit when you're wrong, Carbine.

I proven to you, with the transcript, that the president called Benghazi an act of terror on September 12th.

You can go birther, and deny that, or, you can concede I'm correct, and we can move on based in FACT,

not having to accept your denial as an alternative to the fact.

Like I told you before, "act of terror" does not mean "terrorist attack." I beg of you to understand the English language before debating me further.

Play it again, Sam!


"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence."

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

Please explain the contradiction to me. Explain why Susan Rice was sent out to lie to the American people, blaming it on a video. For 14 days after, the White House hushed all mention of the possibility of it being an 'act of terror.'

It is the artful way liberals try to be on both sides of every issue, that way they can always claim they meant this when they meant that and vice versa.

Democrats propagated wmds and signed the Iraq Liberation Act for wmds before Bush took office, voted for the LIBERATION (liberals call it an invasion, I guess America "invaded" Germany in 1945) and then they artfully speak out against the war they voted for.

I mean yes to normal thinkers like us, we understand we cannot do that. We need to pick and side and argue accordingly.

The fact is liberals are on both sides of every issue. To a moronic thinker like NY Cabineer, the fact he said an "act of terror" dismisses the fact that they claimed it was spontaneous attack caused by a video. In his cognitive dissonance, he squirms away and avoids all of the facts that are coming out. That had come out then. They ignore everything.

Some how this works on their minds.



It is remarkable really. Humorous? Yeah that too.

In this case here, NY cabineer embarrassingly keeps making the same futile point.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I proven to you, with the transcript, that the president called Benghazi an act of terror on September 12th.

You can go birther, and deny that, or, you can concede I'm correct, and we can move on based in FACT,

not having to accept your denial as an alternative to the fact.

Like I told you before, "act of terror" does not mean "terrorist attack." I beg of you to understand the English language before debating me further.

'

It doesn't? So when Bush called 9/11 an act of terror he was denying it was a terrorist attack?

Can you describe an act of terror involving armed men killing civilians for a political/ideological cause that was not a terrorist attack?

Or vice versa?

Acts of terror can be as insignificant as a threat of violence, not an act of violence. You can point a gun in someone's face and never pull the trigger, thus it's an 'act of terror' not a 'terrorist attack.' Bin Laden planned the attack, hence 'act of terror.' The men who flew the planes into the buildings? That's a 'terrorist attack.'

Kapische?

Ah the nuances of the English lexicon.

 

[RKMBrown]

I proven to you, with the transcript, that the president called Benghazi an act of terror on September 12th.

You can go birther, and deny that, or, you can concede I'm correct, and we can move on based in FACT,

not having to accept your denial as an alternative to the fact.

Like I told you before, "act of terror" does not mean "terrorist attack." I beg of you to understand the English language before debating me further.

'

It doesn't? So when Bush called 9/11 an act of terror he was denying it was a terrorist attack?

Can you describe an act of terror involving armed men killing civilians for a political/ideological cause that was not a terrorist attack?

Or vice versa?

How about when Obama used drones to kill American Citizens?

 

[percysunshine]

When confronted with an impossible mission, deflect to Bush.

Heh...

 

[Navy1960]

Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes, or in their offices; secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. 9-11-2001 Pres. George W. Bush

While I believe President Obama did mention in the same context on the 12th President Bush did it still remains that several Americans have died in attacks on Embassies and Consulates over the years due to several factors , among them , not providing enough funding for protection for those men and women who put themselves in harms way for this nation and using these good people as political pawns for the same reason. It's a real shame the focus is not on the people who lost their lives for this nation rather than the political aspects of this.

 

[Theowl32]

When confronted with an impossible mission, deflect to Bush.

Heh...

He thumbs through the liberal script and uses that play book to deal with his inability to handle the truth.

The race card is their most powerful, most pathetic play.

He will eventually be using that. Morons on the left have already used the race card in this thread.

 

[Katzndogz]

To liberals anything was permissible if it got obama reelected. If people died, they died for the noble cause of obama. The cover up should never have been necessary if Americans would only do the right thing and recognize how vital obama is.

 

[Plasmaball]

Watch the video. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BfiUQASpVdc

I said you admit the truth about Obama calling it an act of terror, otherwise fuck off.

And once again when you know you are wrong you resort to insults. It is a real easy pattern to follow.

fuck off isnt an insult.

 

[Theowl32]

Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes, or in their offices; secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. 9-11-2001 Pres. George W. Bush

While I believe President Obama did mention in the same context on the 12th President Bush did it still remains that several Americans have died in attacks on Embassies and Consulates over the years due to several factors , among them , not providing enough funding for protection for those men and women who put themselves in harms way for this nation and using these good people as political pawns for the same reason. It's a real shame the focus is not on the people who lost their lives for this nation rather than the political aspects of this.

Well, we are focusing on the cause of their lives being lost. That, being that they played politics and abandoned them to their fate.

A series of errors, beginning with the fact they were denied extra security that was clearly being requested.

Then they deliberately abandoned them and the lied to the American people, including the families of the slain.

All for political expediency.

Not sure what you mean we should focus on the victims, and not the reality of this tragedy. Should we just stare at their pictures and remain silent?

Not sure what you want exactly.

 

[percysunshine]

When confronted with an impossible mission, deflect to Bush.

Heh...

He thumbs through the liberal script and uses that play book to deal with his inability to handle the truth.

The race card is their most powerful, most pathetic play.

He will eventually be using that. Morons on the left have already used the race card in this thread.

There is no 'they' and 'us'.

We live in a causal universe. Some people find that uncomfortable.

.

 

[Theowl32]

I said you admit the truth about Obama calling it an act of terror, otherwise fuck off.

And once again when you know you are wrong you resort to insults. It is a real easy pattern to follow.

fuck off isnt an insult.

What is the definition of IS?

You know we win the debate when they are resorting to this type of shit.

 

[Plasmaball]

See the youtube video. It was most likely a Freudian slip. He makes the assumption that it WAS a terrorist attack, then is shepherded into the opposite direction by his advisers. Notice how he PIVOTS.

Now if you will excuse me. Have the class and decency to know and admit when you're wrong, Carbine.

I proven to you, with the transcript, that the president called Benghazi an act of terror on September 12th.

You can go birther, and deny that, or, you can concede I'm correct, and we can move on based in FACT,

not having to accept your denial as an alternative to the fact.

So now you find yourself in the position of explaining Obama sending Susan Rice out to five Sunday network talk shows to spin the story differently.

Insert 'Mission Impossible' theme music...


.

which was what story? that they needed more evidence before they where committed to what really happened?

 

[Plasmaball]

And once again when you know you are wrong you resort to insults. It is a real easy pattern to follow.

fuck off isnt an insult.

What is the definition of IS?

You know we win the debate when they are resorting to this type of shit.

sure

 

[TemplarKormac]

I said you admit the truth about Obama calling it an act of terror, otherwise fuck off.

And once again when you know you are wrong you resort to insults. It is a real easy pattern to follow.

fuck off isnt an insult.

Calling him crazy via that emoticon is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Like I told you before, "act of terror" does not mean "terrorist attack." I beg of you to understand the English language before debating me further.

'

It doesn't? So when Bush called 9/11 an act of terror he was denying it was a terrorist attack?

Can you describe an act of terror involving armed men killing civilians for a political/ideological cause that was not a terrorist attack?

Or vice versa?

How about when Obama used drones to kill American Citizens?

When those citizens are part of an enemy force those are acts of war.

 

[Plasmaball]

And once again when you know you are wrong you resort to insults. It is a real easy pattern to follow.

fuck off isnt an insult.

Calling him crazy via that emoticon is.

hey look you got something right! About time.
I hope you are enjoying your fake scandal.