By the way, I can't help but notice you've since backed off your insults, and instead moved to a conspiracy theory. I take it this is your concession where you realized you were wrong about what I said? I would appreciate you showing that ounce of integrity I mentioned.
My ilk? What is my ilk?It's very obvious that you and your ilk don't want to find out who's behind the curtain controlling the conversation.
The ones in the government weren't responsible for their deaths, they were responsible for the lack of support. So, as I said before, let's figure out why the support wasn't there and fix it.We prefer to hold the people responsible for these deaths accountable, including both the ones in Libya and in our government.
Why do I have to keep repeating myself for you? If you don't want me to think you lack intelligence, then demonstrate the basic ability to comprehend what you respond to. I don't like dealing with unintelligent people and I prefer not to think of anyone I interact with as unintelligent. But when you consistently demonstrate an inability to comprehend what I've said, what choice do I have?
All I'm asking is this...apologize for your obviously mistaken reaction to what I said and acknowledge I've stated on multiple occasions I believe the focus should be on fixing the process and finding those who were responsible for carrying out the attack. Do this and my opinion of you will increase dramatically, and perhaps then we can have a much better discussion.
Only if it is a Nike size 12. Any other shoe you provide probably doesn't come close.Perhaps the shoe you mentioned fits you.
It's impossible to believe that the spawn of the Chicago democrat political machine would threaten anybody, ever.
Let's say the determination was made we could not afford extra security at the compound. Is that a "who" or a why? That's a why. If the request for security didn't get passed up the chain because other intelligence said we had greater need for forces in other places, that's a why, not a who.
Unless you're alleging an intentional act of endangering Americans, the who is separated from the why.
Yes, but why? What matters more, who is in charge or why they gave the order? Do you really need to know Person A, or do you need to know what we can do to make sure Person A does a better job?The "process" in any function of government is a wholly human construction directed by humans. We know the order to assist our people in Banghazi was never given.
The why is far more important. The "who" is just what Republicans want to use to find more reasons to criticize the Obama administration. The who is political, the why is what's important.