XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message
news:kn33al$hi$2@dont-email.me...
> 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.
Well, it's got a lot more going for it than some BS claim about a video and
an impromptu demonstration that just happened to include RPGs and mortars.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
