No surprise here. When the BENGHAZI happened, HILLARY CLINTON DROPPED OUT OF SIGHT FOR MONTHS. She was on FOX NEWS with Bret Baier TONIGHT

2seaoat wrote:It is hard to comprehend that intelligent people would make this argument.  You either raise question about PK's intelligence, or you take a second look at the thesis of his argument and hope maybe you have misunderstood some component wherein it is simply semantics.   It is not semantics.   The argument PK is attempting to advance is simply without merit, and frankly dishonest.  He has become so tained in his dogma, he can no longer discern simple facts and logic, and expects any thinking human being to buy into his fantasy.   Thank you.....but I will pass......that Chit sandwich is inedible.

2seaoat wrote:The entire fabricated controversy rests on the theory that what caused the attack and death of Four Americans must be ENTIRELY one or the other theory and that any concept of blending causes is a manipulation of the weak of mind, and therefore a politically motivated action.......because before the smoke had cleared and with differing intelligence reports the White House did not exclusively give the cause.   This theory is so fundamentally flawed to any thinking person, that it is borderline comedy, but by the responses evidenced here, there are many many stupid people that did not understand that the attack could be the terrorist attack which the President spoke about in the Rose Garden, and it could have been a response to the video, and these were NOT mutually exclusive.  So in conclusion, the controversy rests on the thesis that Americans are stupid, that within a few days our intelligence was clear that 100% of the attack with no other contributing factors was caused by X factor which we knew immediately, but because Americans are stupid, a range of factors were given to somehow make the fact that four of our agents had been killed disappear and gain political advantage.   You really cannot make this up.
Now the guy who lead the attack says it WAS the video.

boards of FL wrote:

2seaoat wrote:It is hard to comprehend that intelligent people would make this argument.  You either raise question about PK's intelligence, or you take a second look at the thesis of his argument and hope maybe you have misunderstood some component wherein it is simply semantics.   It is not semantics.   The argument PK is attempting to advance is simply without merit, and frankly dishonest.  He has become so tained in his dogma, he can no longer discern simple facts and logic, and expects any thinking human being to buy into his fantasy.   Thank you.....but I will pass......that Chit sandwich is inedible.

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Where did Mr. Markle run to now........did he not read or listen to the interview.  Is there any confusion still?

Sensationalist pap...... Just look at the thread title.... He does this quite often....

I post the facts.  IF that appears "sensational" to you, then it must suck to be you.

PkrBum wrote:

Sal wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Well I'm not moving around very well today... but my mind is clear. The cover story was a deliberate attempt to cover what had been a primary theme during the election campaign... terror was on the run. That they were naive if not incompetent... was the incidental part.

Weird ....

.... I notice you didn't include the anti-Islam video angle of the "cover story" that you've been wailing about for nearly two years ....

.... why is that?

rotflmao

The youtube was the cover story... would my repeating it one more time have sunk it into your brain?

I think not.

Ti wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Sal wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Well I'm not moving around very well today... but my mind is clear. The cover story was a deliberate attempt to cover what had been a primary theme during the election campaign... terror was on the run. That they were naive if not incompetent... was the incidental part.

Weird ....

.... I notice you didn't include the anti-Islam video angle of the "cover story" that you've been wailing about for nearly two years ....

.... why is that?

rotflmao

The youtube was the cover story... would my repeating it one more time have sunk it into your brain?

I think not.

They found a martyr to go down for them.

either way, it does matter if it was the movie or not. They didn't prepare for extra protection in a country that we just helped remove its gov, knowing there were massive protest etc and it was 9/11 anniversary. I call that stupid.  

so I guess they are going to try this scape goat out in hopes to sugar coat at least one turd this admin has crapped out.

Wordslinger wrote:

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Where did Mr. Markle run to now........did he not read or listen to the interview.  Is there any confusion still?

Sensationalist pap...... Just look at the thread title.... He does this quite often....

I post the facts.  IF that appears "sensational" to you, then it must suck to be you.

The truth (do you understand that word Herr Markle?) is, the only facts you ever present are those that agree with your political perspective -- all Nazi.

And virtually ever fact that refutes and demolishes one of your threads or comments, is disavowed because you didn't like it.

Perhaps we should all bow down to your superior intellect.


The trouble is, we think you're too stupid and irrational to deserve our respect or our credibility.

Reality.  

Reality

Dreamsglore wrote:This is the facts of who's responsible for the lack of security at Benghazi. Not Hillary or the Obama administration. Let's go right to the top where the money stops.



Statement:

Biden: "The congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for."

The facts:

According to Democratic House Oversight Committee staff, the amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).

A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

However, the final bill, after being worked on by the Democratic-led Senate, put in more money than what had passed in the House. The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the administration had requested.

Conclusion: The GOP-led House did initially approve about $330 million less than what the administration requested, but in the final bill, passed with bipartisan support after adjustments by the Senate, put the amount a little closer to the administration's target.

Complete coverage of CNN's Fact Checks

CNN's Mike Mount, Deirdre Walsh, Jason Hanna, Jill Dougherty, Elise Labott and Tom Cohen contributed to this report.
From Around the Web

Floridatexan wrote:
I actually feel sorry for you, Markle.  You work so hard, and to what avail?  It's going to be a long haul from now til November.