Benghazi attack - Terrorists or unruly crowd?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Yes, the onion is peeling back a little at a time. The admin has obviously decided that's less damaging than stating the facts.

I hope you're noticing that the criticism from some members of this forum is leveled at you and Fox, with very little commentary or curiosity about the facts that ARE in evidence. There doesn't even seem to be any inclination of the part of some in this forum to stop for a moment and ask themselves why the administration's response to the chain of events that started on 9/11/12 in Benghazi appear, to be kind, strange.

Further, I suspect that if this happened under GW Bush's watch, the mantra by some in this forum would be "Bush lied after people died."

[JBS...]

Originally Posted by whell

I hope you're noticing that the criticism from some members of this forum is leveled at you and Fox, with very little commentary or curiosity about the facts that ARE in evidence. There doesn't even seem to be any inclination of the part of some in this forum to stop for a moment and ask themselves why the administration's response to the chain of events that started on 9/11/12 in Benghazi appear, to be kind, strange.

Further, I suspect that if this happened under GW Bush's watch, the mantra by some in this forum would be "Bush lied after people died."

Shit, someone in this thread already brought up the "The Pet Goat" and GW responce on 9/11.... Then gives Obama a pass on getting on a airplane and flying off to a fund fundraiser.

Fn hypocrites.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

I hope you're noticing that the criticism from some members of this forum is leveled at you and Fox, with very little commentary or curiosity about the facts that ARE in evidence. There doesn't even seem to be any inclination of the part of some in this forum to stop for a moment and ask themselves why the administration's response to the chain of events that started on 9/11/12 in Benghazi appear, to be kind, strange.

Further, I suspect that if this happened under GW Bush's watch, the mantra by some in this forum would be "Bush lied after people died."

How's kicking that straw man goin' for you, Whell?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by JBS...

Shit, someone in this thread already brought up the "The Pet Goat" and GW responce on 9/11.... Then gives Obama a pass on getting on a airplane and flying off to a fund fundraiser.

Fn hypocrites.

What's Fn, Jb? Beside the obvious fact that Bush was sitting there with his thumb up his ass, finishing a cynical photo op in Florida school after having the election stolen by the skank SOS for Florida, while the terrorists were flying planes into the WTC towers and the Pentagon?

The fundraiser wasn't going to raise anyone from the dead and the dead Ambassadors father insisted that Obama continue campaigning rather than suspend his campaign?

You guys like to conveniently forget that it was Romney who broke the truce of no campaigning on 9/11? Why is that?

[d-ray657]

I have identified facts, but because they were not from the right wing noise machine, they were rejected by those who are addicted to such warped sources. Much of the story line advanced by Fox is: i) from unnamed sources; ii) fabricated; or iii) bits and spits taken out of context. Breitbart, Drudge, and Fox are non-starters as sources.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I have identified facts, but because they were not from the right wing noise machine, they were rejected by those who are addicted to such warped sources. Much of the story line advanced by Fox is: i) from unnamed sources; ii) fabricated; or iii) bits and spits taken out of context. Breitbart, Drudge, and Fox are non-starters as sources.

Regards,

D-Ray

If the mainstream press is burying a story, then it's up to other sources to report on it. However, most of the content of my post earlier this afternoon was sourced from mainstream sources. Are those non-starters as well?

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

How's kicking that straw man goin' for you, Whell?

Must be doing pretty well since you're avoiding the topic.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I have identified facts, but because they were not from the right wing noise machine, they were rejected by those who are addicted to such warped sources. Much of the story line advanced by Fox is: i) from unnamed sources; ii) fabricated; or iii) bits and spits taken out of context. Breitbart, Drudge, and Fox are non-starters as sources.

Regards,

D-Ray

Why are Breitbart, Drudge, & Fox non-starters?

Chas

[Charles]

Originally Posted by whell

If the mainstream press is burying a story, then it's up to other sources to report on it. However, most of the content of my post earlier this afternoon was sourced from mainstream sources. Are those non-starters as well?

I have to hand it to you, you never give up.

No offense, but perhaps you should ask yourself the same question I have asked of myself.

What's the point to argue with a liberal?

Chas

[finnbow]

I wonder now if Faux will cover this breaking news with equal zeal as they did with their out-of-context red meat morsels for their salivating audience:

"The CIA rushed security operatives to an American diplomatic compound in Libya within 25 minutes after it had come under attack and played a more central role in the effort to fend off a night-long siege than has been publicly acknowledged, U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday.

The agency mobilized the evacuation effort, took control of an unarmed U.S. military drone to map possible escape routes, dispatched an emergency security team from Tripoli, the capital, and chartered aircraft that ultimately carried surviving U.S. personnel to safety on Sept. 12, U.S. officials said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...a24_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...3_story_1.html