appears you recognize you are without the ammunition to do so
all we have are lies from the reich wing media and a disgruntled employee who insists he was demoted when the facts tell us otherwiseJust a quick look at the number of lies told,
hicks and the reich wing propaganda organs have the freedom to lie... the people who told them,
and yet you are able to provide no facts to discount one syllable of what was posted; hence, your inclination not to... and the frequency with which they were delivered is enough to discount much of what you contend.
no. forgiving stupidity only breeds more stupidityForgive me for mentioning that the help sent was useless.
it would be stupid to place more American lives at risk for an adventure that faces no prospects for success
that means we would have to borrow your crystal ball, so that we could have known the attack was imminentYou're all about not understanding that an effort should have been mounted the moment the attack began.
you advocate stupidityNobody guarantees success, but I can guarantee failure if nothing is done.
placing more lives at risk when the calculus showed there was no possibility for success
that stupid action would be the essence of failure
common sense is not BS; unfortunately, it is not all that common ... as your posts evidenceAnd stop with the common sense BS.
those with common sense and the powers of observation can see for themselves that hicks and faux news are lyingCommon sense dictates that one should refuse to believe a known liar - or in this case, liars.
hicks for insisting he was demoted when the facts prove that he was not
and faux news for pushing such unsubstantiated tripe in its efforts to gin up opposition to the Obama administration
but it does require common sense to understand that
it isIt's all unraveling Sly.
not a single revelation has come out of the benghazi hearings
excellent pointIf you have a shred of decency, you'll stop defending the indefensible.
only stupid people would continue to believe the faux news propaganda when the factual circumstances are known
Look all you had to do.....was to Admit all New Sources were NOT Represented. Wasn't that difficult to do. So truly it doesn't matter how many Right leaning News Sources.
Like I said could you change that fact.....which truthfully we already know you couln't.
Also Next time look around in all the Benghazi threads......that way you wont be confused at to who was putting Up Conservatives New Sources. While I pound away with Fact Checkers and overseas Sources. That which many cannot get round.
but where were they and their outrage during the republican administration when our diplomats were under attack:
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.
February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.
February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.
July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.
December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.
March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomat directly targeted by the assailants.
what we have is a rovian effort to preempt hillary's 2016 presidential bid
that it also enables the wingers to fleece their ignorant sycophants is only a GOP bonus
Are you doing it under heavy fire? Do you know if your airport in LA is secure? Do you have to fuel and plan attacks? Do you need to get permission from Los Angeles before you do? Do you have to assess where you'll land, how you'll land and how you'll make it to an area under attack?That's not only false Sly, it's downright stupid.I can buy a ticket, pack, get to the airport, and arrive in LA in less than 7 hours from right now here on the east coast. That's civilian aircraft, Sly.
The fact you think going into to a fluid situation is the same as getting on civilian aircraft shows you've not really thought this through.
Yes, it's awful when people use logic and common sense to get in the way of partisan political attacks. I can't help but notice you've not ONCE addressed the article I posted earlier, and your entire argument is now based around the fact you apparently know more than everyone else. Read the article, pay attention to the details and then get back to me.Anyhow, continue without me. I've reached my BS exposure limit for the day.
"Did you figure out that part of the Meeting being with only certain media sources?"
So now you're upset I didn't answer a question you didn't ask?
Yes, it does. The implication was that the White House and the "liberal media" were in cahoots in trying to cover this story up. The presence of right leaning news sources, which do not have an interest in covering anything up when it deals with the President, shows there was no conspiracy at the meeting. Thus, as for why the certain news agencies were chosen, the answer was probably far more innocuous than implied and you'd have to ask the White House why.So truly it doesn't matter how many Right leaning News Sources.
This really isn't difficult.
I have no idea what you're talking about. All you ever do is post a bunch of articles, with an incredibly annoying amount of colorization and bolding which distracts from any argument being made. I was replying to the implication this was a conspiracy between the White House and the media. Perhaps you should do a better job following along?Also Next time look around in all the Benghazi threads......that way you wont be confused at to who was putting Up Conservatives New Sources. While I pound away with Fact Checkers and overseas Sources. That which many cannot get round.
.....The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations......
John F. Kennedy: Address "The President and the Press" Before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, New York City.
Spinning Benghazi: The C.I.A.'s Talking-Point Edits : The New Yorker
The Administration really should have come clean on Day One, and not played PC politics with this.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)