XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   From: dead@gone.com   
      
   On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:00:05 +0000, Malcolm McMahon wrote:   
      
   > On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:26:09 -0400, Scout wrote:   
   >   
   >> "Steve"  wrote in message   
   >> news:8732p8d4g208n7nlbjmj4bts2rerk1j3v0@4ax.com...   
   >>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 15:22:29 +0000 (UTC), Zepp  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Jason wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> In article , RD Sandman   
   >>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Jeanne Douglas  wrote in   
   >>>>>> news:hlwdjsd2-3FE0AA.21083112052013@news.giganews.com:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> > In article , Zepp    
   >>>>>> > wrote:   
   >>>>>> >   
   >>>>>> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 19:57:25 -0700, Wayne wrote:   
   >>>>>> >>   
   >>>>>> >> > On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT), Davej   
   >>>>>> >> >  wrote:   
   >>>>>> >> >> On May 12, 9:50 am, Kurt Nicklas    
   >>>>>> >> >> wrote:   
   >>>>>> >> >> > [...]   
   >>>>>> >> >> > There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama   
   >>>>>> >> > administration   
   >>>>>> >> >> > did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from   
   >>>>>> >> >> > accounts of   
   >>>>>> >> > the   
   >>>>>> >> >> > attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission...   
   >>>>>> >> >   
   >>>>>> >> >   
   >>>>>> >> >   
   >>>>>> >> >   
   >>>>>> >> >> Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still   
   >>>>>> >> >> waiting for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so   
   >>>>>> >> >> important to   
   >>>>>> >> > give   
   >>>>>> >> >> terrorists the publicity they crave.   
   >>>>>> >> >   
   >>>>>> >> > The whole thing could be put to bed if Obama/Clinton would   
   >>>>>> >> > just fess up.   
   >>>>>> >>   
   >>>>>> >> Ah, the old "if they weren't guilty of something, why would we   
   >>>>>> >> be accusing them?"   
   >>>>>> >   
   >>>>>> > These Republican assholes are obsessing over the process for how   
   >>>>>> > talking points are created.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> No, most of the problems are the lies about who created what.  Big   
   >>>>>> difference between what Hillary and the White House claim they did   
   >>>>>> and what the CIA and FBI claim they did.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>  They go back and forth and everybody puts   
   >>>>>> > their 2 cents in and, eventually, the final version is produced.   
   >>>>>> > NOTHING before that means a damned thing; it was just the point   
   >>>>>> > of the view of the first people to start the ball rolling.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Do you honestly believe that it took them a week to realize that   
   >>>>>> video didn't have a damn thing to do with it?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> They knew they were lying. They just wanted to make it past the   
   >>>>> election before revealing the truth.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the attack   
   >>>>> so they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>And said so within hours of the attack.   
   >>>   
   >>> Liar...   
   >>   
   >> "(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were   
   >> advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission   
   >> in Benghazi,   
   >> Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed   
   >> credit for the attack, official emails show."   
   >>   
   >> "The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m.   
   >> Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic   
   >> mission allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic   
   >> Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning   
   >> "Sensitive But Unclassified." "   
   >>   
   >> "A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time,   
   >> carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims   
   >> Responsibility for Benghazi Attack." The message reported: "Embassy   
   >> Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and   
   >> Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli." "   
   >>   
   >> Seems they were told about 2.5 hours after the start of the attack.   
   >>   
   >>   
   > A claim of responsibility is evidence, but not confirmation.   
      
   There's another element being reported today by McClatchy, UPI and   
   Murdoch: that the Ambassador twice refused offers of beefed up security   
   in the month prior to the attack.   
   http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-   
   military.html#.UZU2nBWp25k   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)