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

[NYcarbineer]

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

BUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSH!

Why would Bush call 9/11 an act of terror if it wasn't an act of terror?

What was Bush trying to cover up?

That is the argument you are trying to make against Obama, that he used 'act of terror' as some sort of misrepresentation.

Bush is either as guilty as you would have Obama, or, both of them were accurate and appropriate and therefore your argument is demolished.

Which is it? You like to claim to be non-partisan. Prove it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

I'm relying on the transcript too. I'm also relying on everything else but my emotions. Clearly, that is why your argument is flawed.

"HE'S WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

Please. You are entirely too predictable.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

BUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSH!

Why would Bush call 9/11 an act of terror if it wasn't an act of terror?

What was Bush trying to cover up?

That is the argument you are trying to make against Obama, that he used 'act of terror' as some sort of misrepresentation.

Bush is either as guilty as you would have Obama, or, both of them were accurate and appropriate and therefore your argument is demolished.

Which is it? You like to claim to be non-partisan. Prove it.

What I want to know is why you can't debate the subject matter of this thread? Why has it been Bush this entire time?

And you are the last person to lecture me on partisanship, Mr. "I am more non partisan than all of you combined."

Yeah, I remember what you said in Foxfyre's thread last year.

 

[mudwhistle]

Post my arguments, coward.

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.

So we have to prove a lie isn't a lie now?

Well, no proof seems to matter to you, even when you can print it out on your printer and read it for yourself.

Obama didn't call IT an act of terrorism, he was speaking in general terms, and let's face it, calling it terrorism does excuse the lie that it was because of a video. Obama and his administration admits they were wrong and just were using the best information available. This excuse was blown out of the water when they were forced by a court order to come up with the emails in question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

I've worked with the English language since I was about 1 or 2. You should have started sooner.

The use of act of terror was made IN REFERENCE to a specific act, so there is no generalization involved.

As in the Oxford dictionary, which you Mr. English speaker, might have to agree has some weight when it comes to the English language:

1.1 The use of terror to intimidate people, especially for political reasons; terrorism:

No. I made an analogy to an argument where one side was so completely wrong in their position that it was not an arguable point.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

BUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSH!

Why would Bush call 9/11 an act of terror if it wasn't an act of terror?

What was Bush trying to cover up?

That is the argument you are trying to make against Obama, that he used 'act of terror' as some sort of misrepresentation.

Bush is either as guilty as you would have Obama, or, both of them were accurate and appropriate and therefore your argument is demolished.

Which is it? You like to claim to be non-partisan. Prove it.

No, Obama ignored the evidence and created a false narrative design to cast his administration in a better light than it deserved.

Terrorism seems to be an elusive thing to this crew. They can't seem to call a duck a duck much less identify the root causes of terrorism.

 

[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.

So we have to prove a lie isn't a lie now?

Well, no proof seems to matter to you, even when you can print it out on your printer and read it for yourself.

Obama didn't call IT an act of terrorism, he was speaking in general terms, and let's face it, calling it terrorism does excuse the lie that it was because of a video. Obama and his administration admits they were wrong and just were using the best information available. This excuse was blown out of the water when they were forced by a court order to come up with the emails in question.

Your argument requires the premise that terrorism could not be caused by a video.

Prove that.

 

[The T]

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.

​

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

BUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSH!

Why would Bush call 9/11 an act of terror if it wasn't an act of terror?

What was Bush trying to cover up?

That is the argument you are trying to make against Obama, that he used 'act of terror' as some sort of misrepresentation.

Bush is either as guilty as you would have Obama, or, both of them were accurate and appropriate and therefore your argument is demolished.

Which is it? You like to claim to be non-partisan. Prove it.

No, Obama ignored the evidence and created a false narrative design to cast hit administration in a better light than it deserved.

Terrorism seems to be an elusive thing to this crew. They can't seem to call a duck a duck much less identify the root causes of terrorism.

Terror and terrorism are synonymous in the context of describing a specific act.

You can't deny that 9/11 was terror.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

I've worked with the English language since I was about 1 or 2. You should have started sooner.

The use of act of terror was made IN REFERENCE to a specific act, so there is no generalization involved.

As in the Oxford dictionary, which you Mr. English speaker, might have to agree has some weight when it comes to the English language:

1.1 The use of terror to intimidate people, especially for political reasons; terrorism:

No. I made an analogy to an argument where one side was so completely wrong in their position that it was not an arguable point.

Sorry, but the administration doesn't use your definition.

One explaination was if it didn't fall inside the tight confines of their narrow-minded ideology it's not terrorism. Political-correctness comes into play....

al Qaeda wasn't involved because they were destroyed in the minds of the Obama staff. The video had to be the cause, not armed militants bent on some payback. It was a harmless protest that went terribly wrong. Protesters always bring RPGs and mortars to a rally. Everyone knows this. Duh!!!

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

No.

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

No.

So we have to prove a lie isn't a lie now?

Well, no proof seems to matter to you, even when you can print it out on your printer and read it for yourself.

Obama didn't call IT an act of terrorism, he was speaking in general terms, and let's face it, calling it terrorism does excuse the lie that it was because of a video. Obama and his administration admits they were wrong and just were using the best information available. This excuse was blown out of the water when they were forced by a court order to come up with the emails in question.

Your argument requires the premise that terrorism could not be caused by a video.

Prove that.

First of all, you are ignoring mudwhistle's correct assertion that this attack was carried out in retaliation of the killing of an Al-Qaeda leader. The argument is that the attack was preplanned (as confirmed by President Magariaf), and was not motivated by a video.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I'm relying on the transcript too. I'm also relying on everything else but my emotions. Clearly, that is why your argument is flawed.

"HE'S WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

Please. You are entirely too predictable.

No he's wrong because it is irrefutable fact that 'terror' and 'terrorism' are synonymous when used to describe a specific act.

If they weren't then it would be wrong to call 9/11 'terror'.

We would have to call it 'terrorism' in order to be accurate.

That, at this point, is your claim. You are so wrong.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Carbine, your sarcasm only shows how weak your argument is. In addition to learning how to speak English, I studied it in broader, deeper detail. Meaning I know how to discern the differences between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism."

Pick up a dictionary.

 

[mudwhistle]

Why would Bush call 9/11 an act of terror if it wasn't an act of terror?

What was Bush trying to cover up?

That is the argument you are trying to make against Obama, that he used 'act of terror' as some sort of misrepresentation.

Bush is either as guilty as you would have Obama, or, both of them were accurate and appropriate and therefore your argument is demolished.

Which is it? You like to claim to be non-partisan. Prove it.

No, Obama ignored the evidence and created a false narrative design to cast hit administration in a better light than it deserved.

Terrorism seems to be an elusive thing to this crew. They can't seem to call a duck a duck much less identify the root causes of terrorism.

Terror and terrorism are synonymous in the context of describing a specific act.

You can't deny that 9/11 was terror.

We aren't arguing that point. The causes of the violence are at question.

There my have been protests elsewhere possibly worsened by rumors of a video, but the actions in Benghazi were not a simple protest. The violence in Benghazi showed our president is lying to us about the threat. That's it in a nut-shell.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

I'm relying on the transcript too. I'm also relying on everything else but my emotions. Clearly, that is why your argument is flawed.

"HE'S WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

Please. You are entirely too predictable.

No he's wrong because it is irrefutable fact that 'terror' and 'terrorism' are synonymous when used to describe a specific act.

If they weren't then it would be wrong to call 9/11 'terror'.

We would have to call it 'terrorism' in order to be accurate.

That, at this point, is your claim. You are so wrong.

It's really sad to see, you can't acknowledge this revelation. The White House played a part in shaping the narrative. That's it. That's all. But alas, it was spun into "a video caused an act of terror." This exemplifies nothing more than a contradiction in your own argument anyhow.

First you say he called it terrorism, then you go on to say the video caused it. I have used multiple sources, interviews, and testimonies to prove my side. You don't know what to believe anymore do you? You can't have it both ways. And you can't keep debating minutia either.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So far in the almost 50 pages of this thread, I have seen nothing but abject liberal desperation in trying to deflect away from the topic. First it was Bush, then it morphed into his dealings with Saddam Hussein and WMD, then it was whether or not Obama said "act of terror" or not, then it went to Reagan, then it was BUSH AND REAGAN.

Sigh. I should find a liberal thread and do stuff like this. I wonder how it would be received?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[NYcarbineer]

So we have to prove a lie isn't a lie now?

Well, no proof seems to matter to you, even when you can print it out on your printer and read it for yourself.

Obama didn't call IT an act of terrorism, he was speaking in general terms, and let's face it, calling it terrorism does excuse the lie that it was because of a video. Obama and his administration admits they were wrong and just were using the best information available. This excuse was blown out of the water when they were forced by a court order to come up with the emails in question.

Your argument requires the premise that terrorism could not be caused by a video.

Prove that.

First of all, you are ignoring mudwhistle's correct assertion that this attack was carried out in retaliation of the killing of an Al-Qaeda leader. The argument is that the attack was preplanned (as confirmed by President Magariaf), and was not motivated by a video.

Now we're back to who carried out the attack. You can't name them, so you can't claim anything about them as fact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So far in the almost 50 pages of this thread, I have seen nothing but abject liberal desperation in trying to deflect away from the topic. First it was Bush, then it morphed into his dealings with Saddam Hussein and WMD, then it was whether or not Obama said "act of terror" or not, then it went to Reagan, then it was BUSH AND REAGAN.

Sigh. I should find a liberal thread and do stuff like this. I wonder how it would be received?

In order for your main argument to hold any water, you first have to acknowledge that 9/11 was not an act of terror.

Have you done that yet?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm relying on the transcript too. I'm also relying on everything else but my emotions. Clearly, that is why your argument is flawed.

"HE'S WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

Please. You are entirely too predictable.

No he's wrong because it is irrefutable fact that 'terror' and 'terrorism' are synonymous when used to describe a specific act.

If they weren't then it would be wrong to call 9/11 'terror'.

We would have to call it 'terrorism' in order to be accurate.

That, at this point, is your claim. You are so wrong.

It's really sad to see, you can't acknowledge this revelation. The White House played a part in shaping the narrative. That's it. That's all. But alas, it was spun into "a video caused an act of terror." This exemplifies nothing more than a contradiction in your own argument anyhow.

First you say he called it terrorism, then you go on to say the video caused it. I have used multiple sources, interviews, and testimonies to prove my side. You don't know what to believe anymore do you? You can't have it both ways. And you can't keep debating minutia either.

Your main argument is that the President intentionally used 'act of terror' as some sort of misrepresentation of the attack in Benghazi that he didn't want people to believe was terrorism.

If that is true, then any reference to 9/11 as an 'act of terror' HAS to be a misrepresentation,

because, presumably, 9/11 was not actually an act of terror.

Either that is your preposterous position or it isn't. Stop dodging.