XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   From: dead@gone.com   
      
   On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:10:36 -0400, Scout wrote:   
      
   > "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?   
      
   What else would he have been talking about?  You're just desperate now.   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   I don't care what you do for a living, sport.   
   >   
   > 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)