XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Zepp"  wrote in message news:kmtru0$au6$12@dont-email.me...   
   > On Tue, 14 May 2013 12:04:49 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >   
   >> Zepp  wrote in news:kmtnme$au6$7@dont-email.me:   
   >>   
   >>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:15:31 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Zepp  wrote in news:kms9fk$s25$16@dont-email.me:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:55:03 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Zepp  wrote in news:kms653$s25$11@dont-email.me:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:48:35 -0800, linuxgal wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> deep wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> Somebody working for Obama make a bad error in judgement an you   
   >>>> want   
   >>>>>> to   
   >>>>>>>>> crucify Obama for FOUR American deaths.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> No, I want to crucify Obama for covering up an al-Qaeda attack by   
   >>>>>>>> running a narrative it was just a protest in response to a YouTube   
   >>>>>> video   
   >>>>>>>> because it was the eve of the election and he was running as the   
   >> guy   
   >>>>>> who   
   >>>>>>>> killed bin Laden.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I'm sure you want to crucify him, but it's pretty hard to claim a   
   >>>> cover   
   >>>>>>> up when the NEXT DAY he's talking about it being an act of terror.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>> No, he didn't.  He was talking about terror in general.  Listen   
   >>>>>> carefully to that video of him in the Rose Garden.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Given that nobody knew exactly who was behind the attacks, how   
   >> specific   
   >>>>> could he get?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> You missed the point.  His comment about terror attacks was about them   
   >>>> in general, not Benghazi.  A week later he was still claiming that   
   >>>> Benghazi was the result of the video.   
   >>>   
   >>> He was talking about Benghazi.  Unless there were some OTHER attacks of   
   >>> which we are unaware...?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >> Not when he used the term "terrorism" or "terrorist attack".  As I said   
   >> listen closely to the audio.   
   >   
   > So where there a whole bunch of other attacks in the previous 24 hours?   
   > You're picking nits and you know it.   
      
   How do you know he was only talking about the last 24 hours?   
      
   Remember, you're talking about a lawyer here who is trained to mislead you   
   by saying things that sound like what you want to hear but actually don't   
   say what you assume they do.   
      
   Indicate exactly where he is specifically and ONLY talking about Benghazi.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)