- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 33,522
- Reaction score
- 10,826
- Location
- Between Athens and Jerusalem
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Subjective? Is the mandate subjective? Its you coloring reality, its called liberalism.
That is subjective and demonstrates how you color everything. And for all intents and purposes, it has already gone away. The mindless fanatics who cling to it matter far less than you think.
So according to your post Clinton said it was a terrorist attack ten days after the terrorist attack. None of what you posted supports your earlier positions at all.
And do you still believe that terrorists used the video for 'an excuse'? Where is the evidence for that??
Subjective? Is the mandate subjective? Its you coloring reality, its called liberalism.
Do you even know what I posted? Go back and read.
Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’
Sept. 21: Clinton Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’
Sept. 21: Clinton, speaking to reporters before a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, calls it a “terrorist attack” for the first time. She says, “Yesterday afternoon when I briefed the Congress, I made it clear that keeping our people everywhere in the world safe is our top priority. What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”
Sept. 26: ‘Let’s Be Clear, It Was a Terrorist Attack’
Sept. 26: Carney is asked at a press briefing aboard Air Force One en route to Ohio why the president has not called the Benghazi incident a “terrorist attack.” He said, “The president — our position is, as reflected by the NCTC director, that it was a terrorist attack. It is, I think by definition, a terrorist attack when there is a prolonged assault on an embassy with weapons. … So, let’s be clear, it was a terrorist attack and it was an inexcusable attack.”
So, at first there are questions, then on the 18th Obama says it's the tape. Then on 21st Clinton corrects him. That's 3 days. On the 26th, less than 10 days, Obama says it was a terrorist attack. I think that clearly shows it was not a long interval.
Yes, the opinion that is was a lie of convince is subjective. The mandate, a republican idea originally, is not as you paint it either. You should change your name to wild partisan exaggeration.
The 21st is 10 days after the terrorist attack and the 26th over two weeks. By this time Clinton and Obama were only verifying what everyone else knew as soon as the news was out. It was indeed a very long interval, and based on lies! The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on
So the push back to after the November elections was a coincidence, and then the White House floating the idea of putting off some of the mandates until after 2016 is also a coincidence. I got a bridge for sale, buddy-the left doe sent want to take its medicine for the trainwreck law IT ALONE passed. Own it.
The ACA is NOT living up to what was presented to the American people, and its STILL a mandate.
Thats NOT subjective, your view of reality must be, though.
Of course you don't care. If you did, you'd do better. And frankly, some things are so silly that to even give them credence demeans us all. Truthers and birthers fall under that category, as does almost anything from the American non-Thinker. It is also not profitable to debate a source that has proven inaccurate, like NRO. And yes, I have shown that in the past, promptly ignored. Like I said, if you cared about this, you wouldn't use it.
I'm sorry, but it is not a long interval. Read the time line. It's not quite 16 days, but even 16 days would not be a long interval. As I said, Hillary was fairly quick. You are exaggerating by calling it a very long interval. It's silly hyperbole on your part.
You have absolutely NO standing to link me to "truthers, or birthers".... That is just inflammatory language designed to upset me, and drag me off topic...As for "showing" anything, that you have not...Anyone can pick an opinion here or there that they don't agree with, and use a broad brush to paint a picture of systemic inaccuracy, that doesn't mean that they are right...You rail against opinion pieces and their authors rather than address the points they are making, and it is weak at best...Joe, I don't care what your opinion of more conservative sources are because they are in many cases boiler plate pap, and lazy pseudo intellectualism. You don't think before you speak, and further you don't read anything you don't agree with before responding. Nothing about that approach is academic at all, and your tactic of using emoticons and jabbing thinly veiled insults to keep your opponent off the subject when your arse is getting kicked with facts is not only hackish, but reveals much about you as a person.
You did much better when you were thoughtful some years ago, now you have devolved into really little more than arrogant insult, and invective. I hope you change back.
It is an eternity when you are told in real time that it was a coordinated attack, and the truth was that you couldn't be bothered to do your job as CiC during a campaign, so you ignored it, and thought you could come up with the silliest of excuses for over two weeks....! The sad part is that you still to this day defend their cover up.
That is subjective. It is not uncommon for things to be muddy at first. Ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin? Or Salmon Pak (still misunderstood by some today)? But by any reasonable measure, even if we accept the less than accurate 16 days, it is not an eternity, or even excessively long. It was corrected. Stated clearly, especially by Clinton.
So, your SecDef tells you that it is a terror attack, you are watching it in real time on video, you do nothing about it, and instead come up with a stupid, poorly produced video to blame it on, and send out your UN Sec to further the lie for weeks? Bull **** Joe....
Again not weeks. I have the timeline above. Clinton corrected earlier. Three days after Obama said it was related to the tapes. Prior to that Obama was going with the information isn't in yet. I posted it earlier. Linked it.
Wrong....Just plain wrong....
Again, look at the time line.
You can go back and look at the entire timeline, which is not different than what you posted. But this is the key:
Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’ (when Obama said it)
(snip)
Sept. 21: Clinton Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’ (when Clinton corrected it)
Incredibly annoying visual with nothing that disputes the timeline I gave.
So, it took three days to correct it, when what it was was known on the night it happened....And that's fine with you. Got it.
So tell me Joe, How many of the terrorists that were responsible that night have been caught, and "brought to justice"? As Obama promised? Hint....ZERO!
But they have been able to sit down with the NYTimes and give interviews over a latte.....:roll:
I quite agree.
As for the no names, I'm sure the parties know who they are. And Hillary does have a major role in that. I seem to recall she even stated that herself. So I don't think this is shocking.
I do find this important: The report found no evidence of the kind of political coverup that Republicans have long alleged.
It's not the big cover up you guys suggest. Seriously.
Different issue, and the interviews have nothing to do with. The Bush administration too gave interviews with misinformation (see Judith Miller), and that didn't bother you at all. The point is, there is nothing but the same business as usual here. not the monster scandal you want. Nothing to brag about either. Certainly worthy of some criticism. But not the exaggerated excess you guys try to heap on. Why isn't the truth enough? You'd get less crap if you stuck to the actual truth.
It takes 16 days to admit to something they knew hours after the attack? This situation was not muddy at all, though they tried to make it so.That is subjective. It is not uncommon for things to be muddy at first. Ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin? Or Salmon Pak (still misunderstood by some today)? But by any reasonable measure, even if we accept the less than accurate 16 days, it is not an eternity, or even excessively long. It was corrected. Stated clearly, especially by Clinton.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?