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.
And cons are still beating that dead horse too. $3 trillion wasted on the Iraq war, with over 5,000 dead troops and 50,000 maimed for life, and cons obsess about Benghazi. It's like a plane flying into the WTC, and cons pointing their finger at a kid doing a drive by shooting, saying how bad liberals are. Pft!Susan Rice Still Lying About Benghazi
The comparison to WMD is to point out the hypocrisy of the liberal left.
The question still remains is why did she put out information that wasn't 100 percent true? IF they knew at the time it was not true then why would they say it knowing it would be exposed?
What was untrue about what she said ... without going over the entire Benghazi scandal head to toe.
Their WAS NO video?
The video had NOTHING to do with it?
How did she lie? Offering up an opinion, as much as you wish it were, is not lying.
A lie involves intent to deceive.
In It's absence, it isn't called lying; It's called being wrong.
If I tell a customer that I'll be there in 15 minutes and it ends yo taking 25, that's not a lie - It's called being wrong.
Now, If I'm 30 minutes away and say that I'll be there in 15 - that's a lie. reinforcments
How do you KNOW that Rice lied?
I think we are making the same point. SHE says that what SHE said wasn't 100 percent true. We all knew then that the attack was not over a video yet she said it. Now, there are two options. She lied or she was told something that was not 100 percent true and told to say it, thus not lying. Either option requires a motive. Why did she lie if she did. Or why was she told to lie? It is not like these comments were made off the cuff. She was sent out to deliver a message and that message was not 100 percent true.
We all should be asking why. What would be the importance of blaming it on something that simply wasn't true? As you see by the time line I provided there was one protest over the video on 9/11, at least one that was attributed to the video.
So, ask yourself, why the lie?
The comparison to WMD is to point out the hypocrisy of the liberal left.
The question still remains is why did she put out information that wasn't 100 percent true? IF they knew at the time it was not true then why would they say it knowing it would be exposed?
Because of their ARROGANCE!
They know that 90% of blacks and 40% of whites believe whatever comes out of his mouth. That only leaves about 5% of the rest to be fooled to have a majority.
Again, you are not answering the real question. She said what she said wasn't 100 percent true. So why did she either spread a lie or make up the lie, what was here motive?
Because of their ARROGANCE!
They know that 90% of blacks and 40% of whites believe whatever comes out of his mouth. That only leaves about 5% of the rest to be fooled to have a majority.
Again, you are not answering the real question. She said what she said wasn't 100 percent true. So why did she either spread a lie or make up the lie, what was here motive?
Just because something is untrue, does not automatically make it a lie. Why is that so hard to understand?
What was untrue about what she said ... without going over the entire Benghazi scandal head to toe.
Their WAS NO video?
The video had NOTHING to do with it?
How did she lie? Offering up an opinion, as much as you wish it were, is not lying.
A lie involves intent to deceive.
In It's absence, it isn't called lying; It's called being wrong.
If I tell a customer that I'll be there in 15 minutes and it ends yo taking 25, that's not a lie - It's called being wrong.
Now, If I'm 30 minutes away and say that I'll be there in 15 - that's a lie. reinforcments
How do you KNOW that Rice lied?
I think we are making the same point. SHE says that what SHE said wasn't 100 percent true. We all knew then that the attack was not over a video yet she said it. Now, there are two options. She lied or she was told something that was not 100 percent true and told to say it, thus not lying. Either option requires a motive. Why did she lie if she did. Or why was she told to lie? It is not like these comments were made off the cuff. She was sent out to deliver a message and that message was not 100 percent true.
We all should be asking why. What would be the importance of blaming it on something that simply wasn't true? As you see by the time line I provided there was one protest over the video on 9/11, at least one that was attributed to the video.
So, ask yourself, why the lie?
Wait a minute - we all should be asking why? You are saying that there was no video? That's a lie ... unless of course you do not have any knowledge of the video - than you would either be incorrect or correct contingent upon whether or not what you said was actually the case. I don't see the importance anyway, unless ... you know ... this whole attack is just something that is being used as political fodder in order to smear someone.
Like saying that Obama did nothing during the attack, dragged his feet, preventing help from being sent (e.g. telling the military to stand down) or somehow inferring that Hillary KNEW that the post was vulnerable and that it was HER JOB to send reinforcements.
It's abundantly apparent from cross checking that neither of these scenarios were the case.
And cons are still beating that dead horse too. $3 trillion wasted on the Iraq war, with over 5,000 dead troops and 50,000 maimed for life, and cons obsess about Benghazi. It's like a plane flying into the WTC, and cons pointing their finger at a kid doing a drive by shooting, saying how bad liberals are. Pft!Susan Rice Still Lying About Benghazi
I don't like the idea of this becoming a racial thing, but facts are facts. The first Black President has made it one. Aside from Benghazi he continues to drive a wedge between Whites and Blacks by interfering in racial incidents in an anti-white way. "The police acted stupidly", "If I had a son", "Don't punish black kids the same as white kids", and it goes on and on.
The example that's being made in his Administration is not favorable for the first Black President and his black National Security Adviser. And no FREEWILL, it's not the same as the WMD thing and Bush. The whole World knew Saddam Hussein had WMD's, so if anyone was lying it was the whole effing World.
Only a slobbering idiot could think Obama, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the Regime thought the Benghazi murders were caused by a video. If, and this is a fantasy if, the Regime really thought it was caused by the video, the whole Regime is totally incompetent! In either case it leaves a negative shadow on the first black President and his number one supporter.
Damn sure can't be good for black/white relations.
The comparison to WMD is to point out the hypocrisy of the liberal left.
The question still remains is why did she put out information that wasn't 100 percent true? IF they knew at the time it was not true then why would they say it knowing it would be exposed?
Plus, whenever they do point out the so called "lies" about wmds, they cannot handle the fact that it was democrats that propagated the existence of WMDs before Bush took office.
Like the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs signed by Bill Clinton.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=457jp8VGhEE]Bill Clinton 1998 Iraq Liberation Act - YouTube[/ame]
Of course this was fully supported by Hillary.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc]Democrats, WMD's & The Iraq War - YouTube[/ame]
A person they will gleefully vote for in 2016.
Behold the Clintons folks. Just to reiterate.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrI21UytBhw]Hillary and Bill Clinton were both for the invasion of Iraq +WMDs - YouTube[/ame]
All of this only proves one thing. Liberals stand for absolutely nothing. They just chant BOOOOOOSH!!!!! It was all BOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!
They still believe the Benghazi thing was over a fucking video. Yet, Obama called it a terror attack when that fat blob in the debates said Obama said it was an ORGANIZED terror attack. That was after of course the Obama administration systematically told the country (world) that it was a spontaneous attack. Then, the morons on the left laughed when Crowley pointed out (like the typical left wing fat hack) that Obama indeed said it was a planned terror attack. Only to later on say she was wrong, and Obama never actually said it was a planned attack.
So, where are we with this? Obama still sells that it was a spontaneous attack cause of a video AND he also claims he knew it was an organized terror attack. Both of which the liberals cheer and support. Both of which are juxtaposed opposite claims.
They will always go back to the so called lies of BOOOOSH for WMDs that the democrats propagated before BOOOOOOSH took office.
The worst part is they think they make sense, and they always think they are the smartest ones in the room.
It is pathetic isn't it?
Again, you are not answering the real question. She said what she said wasn't 100 percent true. So why did she either spread a lie or make up the lie, what was here motive?
Just because something is untrue, does not automatically make it a lie. Why is that so hard to understand?
I agree and please use that attitude in any discussion of Iraq and WMD.
That said, let's assume Bush knew and lied about WMD. His motive would have been that he wanted to go to war. Of course in the Iraq situation you would have to prove that Bush lied and wasn't just believing what he wanted to believe.
But with her not telling the truth days after the event what was the motive? Why say anything at all if you don't at least believe it to be true? I am not discounting that they all believed what she said was true and it turned out differently. But I am going to say it took a whole long time for them to realize what everyone knew from the beginning. I think they were told a false flag story to cover for what the CIA and Stevens was really doing in Benghazi.
Obama supporters entering this thread to say "Bush lied too...Republicans lie.. in 5,4,3,2,1...
Just because something is untrue, does not automatically make it a lie. Why is that so hard to understand?
I agree and please use that attitude in any discussion of Iraq and WMD.
That said, let's assume Bush knew and lied about WMD. His motive would have been that he wanted to go to war. Of course in the Iraq situation you would have to prove that Bush lied and wasn't just believing what he wanted to believe.
But with her not telling the truth days after the event what was the motive? Why say anything at all if you don't at least believe it to be true? I am not discounting that they all believed what she said was true and it turned out differently. But I am going to say it took a whole long time for them to realize what everyone knew from the beginning. I think they were told a false flag story to cover for what the CIA and Stevens was really doing in Benghazi.
I absolutely DO NOT believe that GW lied about WMD. He has to own that, though, because his being wrong came at an enormous expense.
She offered up a possible reason for the attacks - no one knows or can ever know exactly why; only the terrorist.
I still don't know how we can say with absolution that she was wrong unless WE know; and we certainly can't know.
Now wait a minute, where did I say there was no video? I said that there was one protest on 9/11 according to the source I provided. I am not really sure where you got the idea I thought there was no video. If I did then it was a mistake on my part. But it is beyond doubt, now, that the video was NOT the cause of the attack.
Let's not get distracted. This thread is about why Rice did not tell the 100 percent truth. Admitted to by her own words. What we know for absolute sure is that four men died that night and it appears they did not have to. It also appears that at least Stevens was in a place he should not have been. What happen during the raid I truly believe there is a lot of lying going on and we shall never know.
And cons are still beating that dead horse too. $3 trillion wasted on the Iraq war, with over 5,000 dead troops and 50,000 maimed for life, and cons obsess about Benghazi. It's like a plane flying into the WTC, and cons pointing their finger at a kid doing a drive by shooting, saying how bad liberals are. Pft!Susan Rice Still Lying About Benghazi
Wasted because you say so? Diminish the sacrifice our volunteer army made that is a liberal thing to do. But we achieved the objectives.
And cons are still beating that dead horse too. $3 trillion wasted on the Iraq war, with over 5,000 dead troops and 50,000 maimed for life, and cons obsess about Benghazi. It's like a plane flying into the WTC, and cons pointing their finger at a kid doing a drive by shooting, saying how bad liberals are. Pft!
Wasted because you say so? Diminish the sacrifice our volunteer army made that is a liberal thing to do. But we achieved the objectives.
The killing of a million civilians that had nothing to do with 9/11 or yellow cake is not a sacrifice it's a war crime. That's what you call achievement. You take stupid to a whole new level.
