>>now you expect everyone to make the inferences you would like made
I have no expectations or concerns about what inferences anyone makes. There is nothing to this. Nothing will come of it.
>>your inferences about knowing exactly what was in both Romney and Obama's heads.
I've said repeatedly, and I'm saying again, that I don't know and I don't care what Romney thinks or what facial expressions he makes. His statement following the attacks was … well, let's see: how about obscene? Dishonourable? Contemptible? Despicable? Surely worse than scandalous, in my mind. Great crew he had helping him. Too bad we didn't get to see them in action on Pennsylvania Avenue.
>>A now-murdered Ambassador who begged multiple times for security
Begged? Let's hear the details on that.
>>initial inquiries reveal the attack was entirely preventable
Yep, just like the original 9/11. Who had a clearer warning? I can't recall a memo about "AQ affiliates determined to attack inside Libya." I guess you figure we didn't torture enough people to find out. Of course, no torture was employed to know that they were coming here to attack us.
>>the White house line contradicts the evidence it only released when it was forced to
The Rhodes memo changes nothing. It was not included because it was not about Benghazi. There was no interest to be served by withholding it.
>>an increasing presence of Radical islamists under this President
Perhaps in response to events in Iraq after March 2003.
>>>until we find out what happened so no more are killed under this failed policy.
We already know what happened. What failed policy? Having diplomatic stations in very dangerous locations?
>>you can cling to arguments not even Clinton is making
What arguments are those?
>>hope people make the same inferences as you