- Joined
- Mar 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 13,844
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say
I wasn't attacking the article, I was attacking the ridiculous idea one should not question a possibly biased source.
What we need to know is WHY the process broke down and what can be done (if anything) to prevent in the future. The YouTube thing is nothing but a red herring. It was a red herring when presented by Democrats immediately after and it is a red herring now by Republicans to push a "cover-up" narrative. The YouTube discussion is a waste of time and the fact you're still talking about it is a waste of both of our time.
And we know why troops weren't sent in after we began received word of the assaults, we've already been told why. It was during the testimonies. So what we need to do is figure how the logistics to be better equipped for the future. That's what matters.
I disagree with part of your statement. The "who" is arbitrary, the why is what's important. We have already investigated the why and have already begun making those changes.You cant fix what was ****ed up til you know who ****ed up, how, and why.
Those who are in need to know already know plenty, as evidenced by the mountains of documents and testimony transcripts, etc.And right now...we know precisely jack and dammit about any of the details as to who what and why.
No, I wasn't. I was attacking the notion people should not be allowed to question the validity of a source, especially given the dubious nature of this source.You actually were attacking the source of the article and not the content thereof.
I wasn't attacking the article, I was attacking the ridiculous idea one should not question a possibly biased source.
A little worrisome, yes.And, yes. I made a fondue in my short typing that. Is that a bad thing?
A) not really and B) this article does that in what way? It doesn't. It just fans the flames. It's meant for people just like you, who only want to listen to that which you already agree with, not something which might provide the slightest bit of objectivity.No, its about finding out who was responzible for ignoring their request for more security, for ignoring the danger of keeping the Ambasador there, after a hole was blown in their compound wall and for the lies about the You-Tube Video.
What we need to know is WHY the process broke down and what can be done (if anything) to prevent in the future. The YouTube thing is nothing but a red herring. It was a red herring when presented by Democrats immediately after and it is a red herring now by Republicans to push a "cover-up" narrative. The YouTube discussion is a waste of time and the fact you're still talking about it is a waste of both of our time.
And we know why troops weren't sent in after we began received word of the assaults, we've already been told why. It was during the testimonies. So what we need to do is figure how the logistics to be better equipped for the future. That's what matters.
I'll make you a deal. The moment you quit thinking everything a Democrat/liberal does is wrong, evil and scummy, I'll consider taking advice from you. Until that time comes, you'll just be another incredibly biased poster in my eyes.Aren't you folks getting tired of trying to defend dirt bags and scum of the earth liars ?
While it really is irrelevant to this particular thread, feel free to watch more Jon Stewart or check out LiberalViewer on YouTube. There's no doubt they have their biases as well, but you cannot ignore the video evidence they provide.Please provide your proof that Fox News regularly lies. If you can't tell the difference between their hard news segments and their infotainment, that's on you.