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

[NYcarbineer]

Oh and

14) It was the video
15) Obama really said it was terrorism!

No really, shut the fuck up, coward.

Did you prove that the video wasn't a factor?

No.

Did you disprove that Obama called it an act of terror?

No.

No is right. The video wasn't a factor. And I showed you why your "act of terror" argument was flawed. I cited an interview from the Libyan President, testimony from the CIA station chief, and from The AFRICOM General. You? You kept repeating yourself, as you are now.

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




Read it and weep, you weasel.

You're citing a bunch of opinions.

"Act of terror" is an example of terrorism.

When you call an attack that kills people an act of terror you are identifying it as terrorism.

That is irrefutable.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Did you prove that the video wasn't a factor?

No.

Did you disprove that Obama called it an act of terror?

No.

No is right. The video wasn't a factor. And I showed you why your "act of terror" argument was flawed. I cited an interview from the Libyan President, testimony from the CIA station chief, and from The AFRICOM General. You? You kept repeating yourself, as you are now.

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

Read it and weep, you weasel.

From your Washington Post link.

OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

^^^^ That's the president lying? Sounds like he was being pretty reasonable to me.

Heh, you should be reading back in this thread for that argument. Note how he dodges calling it an "act of terrorism." We in the normal world call that "obfuscation," which is another form of lying. So, now what?

 

[Vigilante]

Link to the actual order??? Would you like a youtube video in order to PROVE that the president said this? I'll work on it....

How about Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's congressional testimony on Benghazi???

Will congressional testimony from the Defense Secretary suffice or do I need to pull up the youtube vid? Also, I'll try to accommodate you further by finding a suitable right-wing-nut-job source, so that you don't start bawling.....

How links do we have to LEON PANETTA LIES do we have anyway??? 120,000,000!!!!

Leon panetta lies - Bing

Nice! If he said something that you agree with, he's a hero.

120,000,000 lies, eh? bullcrap - disagreing with someone, because YOU are a partisan hack does not make them a liar.

I can see why you would call him a liar, however ... him not toeing the company line and all.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Bush rode Clinton's good management before he found ways to fuck it up.

Clinton had a congress that helped him make the right decisions

He did in 1993 when he put in place the budgetary measures that led to a downward trend in deficits for 7 years,

until Bush and the GOP got ahold of things and put Reagan budget busting back into play.

Truthfully, it was more due to the determination of the Republican congress to balance the budget, that led to the surpluses.

Clinton's "contribution" was to threaten veto if congress went too far slashing entitlements.

Hey, just calling it like it was!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Did you prove that the video wasn't a factor?

No.

Did you disprove that Obama called it an act of terror?

No.

No is right. The video wasn't a factor. And I showed you why your "act of terror" argument was flawed. I cited an interview from the Libyan President, testimony from the CIA station chief, and from The AFRICOM General. You? You kept repeating yourself, as you are now.

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




Read it and weep, you weasel.

You're citing a bunch of opinions.

"Act of terror" is an example of terrorism.

When you call an attack that kills people an act of terror you are identifying it as terrorism.

That is irrefutable.

You're citing a bunch of opinions.

You're citing your opinions as fact. Anecdotal arguments are weak.

"Act of terror" is an example of terrorism.

"Act of terror" is a vague reference, which ironically didn't mean Obama was referring to the attack on the consulate. You must be kidding.

When you call an attack that kills people an act of terror you are identifying it as terrorism.

When you blame it on a video for 14 days after, that indicates you're blaming it on something other than terrorism. Get with the program.

That is irrefutable.

In your mind. This is an example of the opinions you value so much, yet hate with a passion. You hypocrite.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Face it liberals. You can't win. I have all the firepower.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And by the way Carbine, congressional testimonies do not qualify as "a bunch of opinions."

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did you prove that the video wasn't a factor?

No.

Did you disprove that Obama called it an act of terror?

No.

No is right. The video wasn't a factor. And I showed you why your "act of terror" argument was flawed. I cited an interview from the Libyan President, testimony from the CIA station chief, and from The AFRICOM General. You? You kept repeating yourself, as you are now.

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

Read it and weep, you weasel.

From your Washington Post link.

OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

^^^^ That's the president lying? Sounds like he was being pretty reasonable to me.

They are manufacturing a material difference between the words 'terror' and 'terrorism' and this is supposed to be the foundational argument for their case that Benghazi was politicized by the president for political gain in the campaign.

It's so daft that we may ourselves might be legitimately criticized for dignifying it with a refutation.

It's like arguing with people that the earth is not 6000 years old, when they claim so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And by the way Carbine, congressional testimonies doesn't qualify as "a bunch of opinions."

Glenn Kessler is a BLOGGER at WP. His BLOGGING is the sum total of your argument that the president did not call Benghazi an act of terror.

btw, HE doesn't deny what the President actually said. Maybe you should argue with him.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No is right. The video wasn't a factor. And I showed you why your "act of terror" argument was flawed. I cited an interview from the Libyan President, testimony from the CIA station chief, and from The AFRICOM General. You? You kept repeating yourself, as you are now.

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

Read it and weep, you weasel.

From your Washington Post link.

OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

^^^^ That's the president lying? Sounds like he was being pretty reasonable to me.

They are manufacturing a material difference between the words 'terror' and 'terrorism' and this is supposed to be the foundational argument for their case that Benghazi was politicized by the president for political gain in the campaign.

It's so daft that we may ourselves might be legitimately criticized for dignifying it with a refutation.

It's like arguing with people that the earth is not 6000 years old, when they claim so.

Resorting to ad hominem arguments means you have no argument

16) The Earth isn't 6000 years old!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Face it liberals. You can't win. I have all the firepower.

You have denial and a light saber. That's not really the ammo you need around here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And by the way Carbine, congressional testimonies doesn't qualify as "a bunch of opinions."

Glenn Kessler is a BLOGGER at WP. His BLOGGING is the sum total of your argument that the president did not call Benghazi an act of terror.

btw, HE doesn't deny what the President actually said. Maybe you should argue with him.

No, but he acknowledges is was an indirect reference, not a direct reference to Benghazi. Meaning therefore, that he did not refer to the attack on Benghazi as an "act of terror" or "terrorism."

And I see liberals like you relying on Politifact and FactCheck.org, which are also statements of opinion according to your logic. So, your argument is flawed on it's face.

Besides, so far, President George W. Bush has been the sum total of almost every liberal argument on this thread. Maybe you should try taking off the tin foil hat this time.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Face it liberals. You can't win. I have all the firepower.

You have denial and a light saber. That's not really the ammo you need around here.

And all you have is Bush. Move along.

That ammo has been spent, and yet you insist on loading your guns with it.

How sad.

 

[NYcarbineer]

From your Washington Post link.

^^^^ That's the president lying? Sounds like he was being pretty reasonable to me.

They are manufacturing a material difference between the words 'terror' and 'terrorism' and this is supposed to be the foundational argument for their case that Benghazi was politicized by the president for political gain in the campaign.

It's so daft that we may ourselves might be legitimately criticized for dignifying it with a refutation.

It's like arguing with people that the earth is not 6000 years old, when they claim so.

Resorting to ad hominem arguments means you have no argument

17) The Earth isn't 6000 years old!

There's nothing about you personally that is irrelevant to the argument in that post.

That is what ad hominem means. If your going to use that term repeatedly, for chrissake at least learn what it means.

Post the material definitional difference between 'act of terror' and 'terrorism' when used to describe the Benghazi attack.

Do that successfully and you win that argument. Otherwise you lose that argument.

It's a simple straightforward debate on a single issue.

Go.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Face it liberals. You can't win. I have all the firepower.

You have denial and a light saber. That's not really the ammo you need around here.

And all you have is Bush. Move along.

That ammo has been spent, and yet you insist on loading your guns with it.

How sad.

Bush called 9/11 an 'act of terror'. It was posted in this thread. That makes Bush relevant.

And all that posting got was stunned silence from you.

Want to try again?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I bet if I said Bush a thousand times fast, it would sound like a machine gun!

BUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSH!

 

[bedowin62]

You have denial and a light saber. That's not really the ammo you need around here.

And all you have is Bush. Move along.

That ammo has been spent, and yet you insist on loading your guns with it.

How sad.

Bush called 9/11 an 'act of terror'. It was posted in this thread. That makes Bush relevant.

And all that posting got was stunned silence from you.

Want to try again?

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

mommy mommy i cant defend obama without bringing up Bush!!

 

[bedowin62]

You have denial and a light saber. That's not really the ammo you need around here.

And all you have is Bush. Move along.

That ammo has been spent, and yet you insist on loading your guns with it.

How sad.

Bush called 9/11 an 'act of terror'. It was posted in this thread. That makes Bush relevant.

And all that posting got was stunned silence from you.

Want to try again?

================

um obama referred to acts of terror in general. bush was referring to a specific event.

a video didnt cause a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9-11; and you know it somewhere in your deluded, rabidly partisan left-wing nutjob brain

 

[NYcarbineer]

And by the way Carbine, congressional testimonies doesn't qualify as "a bunch of opinions."

Glenn Kessler is a BLOGGER at WP. His BLOGGING is the sum total of your argument that the president did not call Benghazi an act of terror.

btw, HE doesn't deny what the President actually said. Maybe you should argue with him.

No, but he acknowledges is was an indirect reference, not a direct reference to Benghazi. Meaning therefore, that he did not refer to the attack on Benghazi as an "act of terror" or "terrorism."

And I see liberals like you relying on Politifact and FactCheck.org, which are also statements of opinion according to your logic. So, your argument is flawed on it's face.

Besides, so far, President George W. Bush has been the sum total of almost every liberal argument on this thread. Maybe you should try taking off the tin foil hat this time.

Kessler is doing what you're doing. Interpreting the facts wrong.

I'm relying on the actual transcript. Kessler is wrong it was not an 'indirect reference'. It was a direct reference to several acts of terror including Benghazi.

 

[TemplarKormac]

They are manufacturing a material difference between the words 'terror' and 'terrorism' and this is supposed to be the foundational argument for their case that Benghazi was politicized by the president for political gain in the campaign.

It's so daft that we may ourselves might be legitimately criticized for dignifying it with a refutation.

It's like arguing with people that the earth is not 6000 years old, when they claim so.

Resorting to ad hominem arguments means you have no argument

17) The Earth isn't 6000 years old!

There's nothing about you personally that is irrelevant to the argument in that post.

That is what ad hominem means. If your going to use that term repeatedly, for chrissake at least learn what it means.

Post the material definitional difference between 'act of terror' and 'terrorism' when used to describe the Benghazi attack.

Do that successfully and you win that argument. Otherwise you lose that argument.

It's a simple straightforward debate on a single issue.

Go.

1) Act of terror can describe anything terrorism related. It is an inspecific reference to terrorism, and does not describe one single act of terrorism in general.

2) Act of terrorism is describing a single act. It is a more specific reference. If you read his speech carefully, he did not mention "Benghazi" or the "consulate" at all.

I've worked with the English language since I was a teenager. Obama was not referring to Benghazi. This reflects on your ability or lack thereof to read and comprehend.

You're finished.

Oh and for the record, when you attack a whole group of people or one person with descriptors such as "It's like arguing with people who think..." you are resorting to "ad hominem", understand?