It appears you spend most of your day watching Fox News and listening to Rush. You need to get a life. The Discovery and History channels are very good.
So Ben carson tried to stab a guy once....
- Thread starter RichardPeterJohnson
- Start date
It appears you spend most of your day watching Fox News and listening to Rush. You need to get a life. The Discovery and History channels are very good.
You may need to type it slowly for yourself. But, we get intelligence that suggests attacks on buildings using airplanes. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by the same group of people. But, you are right, a president with any LOGICAL SENSE would have put two and two together and began precautions at the airports in the United States. But, since the memo didn't say.....
"Dear President Bush.....planes will be flying in to the World Trade Center on September 11th around 9AM......."
So why did she and Obama's administration lie about the attack? He obviously didn't need the votes. Just to screw with people?
Who lied? Most people who have a modicum of intelligence can see that that video played a part in the attack. After all, there were protests and US embassy attacks in 20some other countries. Plus, Obama, in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, call the attackers "terrorists". So who was lying? Much ado about politics from the haters on the right. Yawn.
Ha! What else would he call them? I think everyone knows why they tried to pimp the video angle. Willful ignorance if your answer is anything other than politically driven for the election cycle.
I really hope we get a GOP President so you see I am equally critical of them when they lie and deceive.
No matter how slow I type, you still can't comprehend. Take a few months and read one sentence per day to help you better comprehend. Ask the anti-Semite, RPJ, to help you. Perhaps together you can understand what one person would normally be able to comprehend. No actionable threat and most intelligence pointed to attacks overseas.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm
Lmao. She tells both the Libyans and the Eqyptians the next day it was terrorism. She didn't equivocate with what she told us and the families. She blamed the video. No caveats. And you lie about Obama. Even the Wash Post said he lied.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html
So using your rational the following has led to the increased attacks on law enforcement officers;
Black Lives Matter Protesters Chant: ‘Pigs In A Blanket, Fry ‘Em Like Bacon’
5:04 PM 08/29/2015
Black Lives Matter protesters marching on the Minnesota state fair on Saturday spewed violent anti-cop rhetoric just hours after a Harris County, Tex. sheriff’s deputy was ambushed and executed at a Houston-area gas station.
“Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon,” activists with the St. Paul, Minn. branch of Black Lives Matter chanted while marching behind a group of police officers down a highway just south of the state fair grounds.
You've gone over the edge. Parsing over whether terror=terrorism. He said what he said. The day after the attacks in talking about what happened 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.”
So you and your kook fringe buddies think that what he said was a deflection and his message was that terrorism had nothing to do with it? You are a nut. Of course, everyone on this board already knew that. Nut.
The Wash Post called him a liar. That statement is very general. This was a preplanned, orchestrated terrorist attack. This was not spontaneous terror spawned by a video. I refuse to believe you are this stupid.
They knew that video had nothing to do with the attack and they have since admitted as much so answer the question. Why did they lie?
Last edited:
The Washington Post piece was whether he called it terrorism versus an act of terror. Semantics. Ridiculous. Only you nit-picking wingnuts could possibly think he wasn't talking about terrorism. smh
Even if he meant terrorism he sent his mouthpieces out over the next two weeks to blame the video so at best he lied and told the truth. The question is why? Perhaps he knew there was a large group of gullible folks who lack the basic intelligence to realize they are being lied to.
Mistakes aren't lies. Clinton said in the hearing last week that she still thinks the video was a component. And why wouldn't it be since there were protests all ove rthe region over the video at US facilities and attacks in Egypt and other places. What reasonable person wouldn't conclude that the attack in Libya wasn't also motivated by the video. What is so outlandish about that supposition?
As Dave notes, two weeks after the attack in a speech at the UN, he blamed the video. You need to take off those presidential kneepads.
Obama: " Here's what I'm going to do, tomorrow in the Rose Garden, I'm going to call this an act of terror. Not terrorism. That would mean I'm not keeping us safe. But an act of terror. No one will ever think act of terror means terrorism. That will fool everyone. And send Rice on Meet The Press and tell her to tell everyone that it was the video's fault. Once the investigation is concluded and we find out what really cause this attack, we'll have all bases covered"
Makes a lot of sense.
They knew immediately that it was a terror attack. They certainly knew the next day since you jovially have pointed out that apparently Barrack told the truth so why did he send out his folks to lie over the next days and weeks? Why did he wag his finger at Romney at the debate and try to shame Mitt for daring to suggest the he would lie to the American people about that.
What I find comical is that you wingnuts harp on this supposed "lie" about why 4 Americans were tragically killed after the fact. Yet 4500 Americans were killed due to the lies of the previous admin. and nothing from you guys. Go figure.
I guess they could think anything, but they have stated already that they new it was an attack and they knew pretty soon after it started who did it and they knew why because of the CIA op at the location so suggesting after the fact it was something else is less than honest, thus dishonest.
They could know the parties involved and still think it was related. In that scenario, it would still be an attack. Regardless, we have no idea what the classification level of the information regarding the attack was at that time. Maybe that was the thinking in offering the film as part of the issue. In that scenario, I think you talk about investigating the cause until you can give the cause, but that's not my call.
Hillary did not claim uncertainty. She claimed the video was to blame. Please be intellectually honest. She displayed no uncertainty either to the American people or to the families of the loved ones. She blamed the video. Any sane person knows she lied.
Oh Doc loves a despicable humane being whose crew was searching youtube for a relevant video to use while her great friend Chris Smith was being sodomized
The administration's Gestapo agents had a citizen arrested when she new the attack had nothing to do with a video.
THAT IS YOUR DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE for president and you TARDS are calling anybody stupid is a joke.
The administration's Gestapo agents had a citizen arrested when she new the attack had nothing to do with a video.
THAT IS YOUR DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE for president and you TARDS are calling anybody stupid is a joke.
It could have certainly been that. But that's not what the administration portrayed.
The administration screwed up the aftermath of the event, plain and simple.