You are wrong, but I see your problem. You have no clue about what a lie is. You could use your computer to fact check the dufus and get quite the education on LIES.
|
You are wrong, but I see your problem. You have no clue about what a lie is. You could use your computer to fact check the dufus and get quite the education on LIES.
That's alright. I know your fantasy world is very comfortable for you.
Works for me. Glad you're comfortable with your beach house on DENIAL as well.
Denial? The guy who makes the crazy, completely unfounded claim that Obama was honest about Benghazi and Obamacare wants to talk about denial? Do you have sandy beaches in that fantasy world as well? Look, if you want to say that Trump has told some whoppers, then I'm with you on that, but when you then turn around and act like Obama was totally honest, then your credibility goes out the window. It's a dumb, baseless belief since his falsehoods about Benghazi and Obamacare are well known and well documented. I mean he told all of America that Benghazi was due to a video when he knew all along that it was a well-planned, concerted terrorist attack. Time for a little honesty here.
It's established fact Obama said Benghazi was a terrorist attack the Monday after, and you may have a case for the half truth you can keep your doctor. Neither of which comes close to the dufus steady stream of whoppers for years. There was a video protests at our other embassies across the world already on high alert on EVERY 9/11. I didn't appreciate the attacks on Susan Rice for delivering the preliminary intel assessment, nor fringy wingers like you politicizing it then or now. That's dishonest in my book, but no surprise, and no excuse to keep gorging yourself on those dufus whoppers.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I see you grasshopper minds have converted the thread to nostalgia once again
You're back on those sandy beaches. That "preliminary intel"? You do realize it was delivered FIVE times on Sunday morning news programs, and it was delivered nearly two weeks after Obama SORT OF said it was a terrorist attack. You can't have it both ways. That's why I say you remind me a lot of Trump in the way in which you tell a whopper or two yourself. Your statement makes no sense at all. And in what way were his promises about keeping your doctor and keeping your existing policy some sort of "half truth"? Which half was true?Quote:
I didn't appreciate the attacks on Susan Rice for delivering the preliminary intel assessment, nor fringy wingers like you politicizing it then or now.
now grasshopper if you can just snatch this pebble from my hand
You can keep your doctor, but he might not want to keep you. The rest of your gobble-de-goop is irrelevant and totally inaccurate. Obama set the record straight Monday the 13th of September, after more became known. Yeah we had 4 casualties, but 30 survivors.
First of all, 9/13/12 was a Thursday and not a Monday. Unfortunately, the rest of your statement is equally wrong. You can keep your doctor but he can't keep you? Yeah. That makes a lot of sense.
If Obama "set the record straight" on 9/13 (wrong date), then why did the story change with Rice on 9/16? Hello??? What a great job he did of setting "the record straight". You act more like Trump every day.
Only four dead? Well glory, glory!! There were only four dead because there were some private security personnel there who had more courage in their little fingers than your hero had in his entire body. But you can try going to the family of Ambassador Stevens and assuring them that there is no reason for mourning since, after all, there were merely 4 dead. Good grief. What an attitude. Is there anything you won't say or believe in order to prop up your political hero?
You can beat the dead horse all you want but this is the timeline
https://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
Controversial for sure, and tragic. Now what?
OK. So let's take a look at that timeline since you have posted a link to a LOT of data that you hope we will not bother to read as you have not bothered to read it.
OK. It's an act of terror. Got it.Quote:
Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’
Still an act of terror.Quote:
Sept. 12: Obama delivers a morning speech in the Rose Garden to address the deaths of U.S. diplomats in Libya. He said, “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.” He also makes reference to the anti-Muslim video when he says: “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. None.” He uses the term “act of terror” later that night when talking about the attack at a campaign event in Las Vegas.
And now it's too early to tell, so we can't call it terrorism or and act of terror? Got it.Quote:
Sept. 12: After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for “60 Minutes.” Obama says he didn’t use the word “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.”
This is 9/13, the day YOU told us that your hero made it clear what had happened. Sound clear to you?Quote:
Sept. 13: At a daily press briefing, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland is asked if the Benghazi attack was “purely spontaneous or was premeditated by militants.” She declines to say, reiterating that the administration did not want to “jump to conclusions.”
Whoops! We're back to an act of terror. Magic!Quote:
Sept. 13: At a campaign event in Colorado, Obama again uses the phrase “act of terror.” He says: “I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.”
Well, this guy, whoever he was, hits the nail on the head. At least SOMEONE in the admin knew the truth.Quote:
Sept. 14: A State Department public information official writes in an email: “[I]t is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence. It is our opinion that in our messaging, we want to distinguish, not conflate, the events in other countries with this well-planned attack by militant extremists.”
Well golly. Now we've changed our minds. After all, it just wouldn't do for the pres to have to admit that they allowed a premeditated terrorist attack on a woefully underdefended consulate. The election is just weeks ahead.Quote:
Sept. 17: State Defends Rice and ‘Initial Assessment’
Sept. 17: Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, is asked about Rice’s comments on “Face the Nation” and four other Sunday talk shows. Nuland says, “The comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government’s initial assessment.” Nuland uses the phrase “initial assessment” three times when discussing Rice’s comments.
Thank you for helping to prove my point. Accidentally, I suppose, but it worked anyway.
Your stuck on the term terror as opposed to terrorism? What a maroon!
Congratulations on completely ignoring the fact that your own link showed your hero lied.
Terror as opposed to terrorism? How would terrorism not include terror?
How would terror not include terrorism?
Congratulations for showing the foolishness of your own statement.Quote:
How would terror not include terrorism?
Condolences for showing yours.
Boys there are more important things than your pissing contest
No it isn't. We both enjoy the rock chunking and conflict between us.
well get your own thread
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:31 PM. |