- Joined
- Mar 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 13,844
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists
Like I said, you obviously have no ability to be objective on this issue.
By the way, you still haven't apologized. Does this mean you lied when you said you would?
No, YOU should read the transcript I linked to. She said American EMBASSIES were the target of rage and violence because of the video, which was 100% true. But the attack in Benghazi was at the CONSULATE, not the EMBASSY.
You are 100% wrong.
You don't really understand things very well, now do you?
Good job on exposing yourself as just another person interested in mindless political attacks. When you thought you could attack her for not making a promise you did, and when you realized you had to say she made a promise, you still twisted that to attack her. You people crack me up. Never interested in the truth, only political spin.
You're right, it's VERY obvious from whom the untruths come.
It was lost in the bureaucracy of government, but yes, you're not wrong about this in general.Let's see.
She ignored indications that more security was necessary
She didn't, that's been established. Furthermore, Stevens twice refused security.denied more security
That's not her job. Secretaries of state don't engage active military personnel. Furthermore, the attack WAS responded to. The 4 man team from the Annex (and the Libyan security team) responded to the attack at the consulate and the 6 man team from Tripoli responded to the situation as well.failed to respond to an attack
She repeated what the intelligence had initially told her, which we now know was wrong.lied about the info concerning the attack, gave a fake reason for the attack
This is just a lie, and such an obvious one I don't know why you said it. The whole "what difference does it make" quote came from her Congressional testimony.sent an underling to the lions to face questions about the attack
Except we all know now who and why, so it would seem kind of stupid at this point to still be asking questions.and isn't much interested in figuring out why the attack happened or who attacked us.
Like I said, you obviously have no ability to be objective on this issue.
It is, as evident by this very post.Yeah, it's my objectivity that is in question.
You don't seem to understand that context is not opinion, it's truth. You've already admitted you're proudly ignorant of the context, so the only one being partisan here is you.I'm certainly not interested in your partisan opinion as "truth."
No, people who willfully ignore context in order to push their political agenda, regardless of the facts, are the dangerous ones. People who parse words and meanings accurately and as they were intended are the ones who preserve the liberty in this country.To, honestly, that makes you dangerous.
I'm not passing my opinion as fact, I'm passing facts as facts. Just because you're ignorant to them, it doesn't make them any less true.Anyone who believes their opinion is the "fact" (a word you use routinely along with "truth") is someone I wish to have nothing to do with on an anonymous forum.
By the way, you still haven't apologized. Does this mean you lied when you said you would?
:lamo:lamo:lamoYou should read the transcript you linked to:
Clinton knew she was lying when she said this. The State Department sent emails to the Libyan government within hours of the attack informing them that Ansar al-Shariah was responsible.
No, YOU should read the transcript I linked to. She said American EMBASSIES were the target of rage and violence because of the video, which was 100% true. But the attack in Benghazi was at the CONSULATE, not the EMBASSY.
You are 100% wrong.
It's an injustice he violated the law and was punished in the manner he knew he'd be punished?Yes he did, which is another injustice. The man went to jail for a petty parole violation because he accessed a computer.
You don't really understand things very well, now do you?
Most likely. Doesn't change the fact he was the one violated the law. :shrug:We all know he actually went to jail because the administration insisted he be punished one way or the other.
Wait, wait, wait...let's go back...You said:Yes, primarily by Clinton and Obama, yet they've not lifted a finger to actually do anything.
And now you're saying Clinton has promised them that! :lamoWhat about the people that actually murdered their sons ??? Why not promise to bring them to justice ??
Good job on exposing yourself as just another person interested in mindless political attacks. When you thought you could attack her for not making a promise you did, and when you realized you had to say she made a promise, you still twisted that to attack her. You people crack me up. Never interested in the truth, only political spin.
Yes, yes it very much is. It came from the person who falsely attributed to Hillary something she didn't say and then later tried to criticize Hillary for something you now say she's done.It is obvious who the untruths came from here.
You're right, it's VERY obvious from whom the untruths come.
Last edited: