Mitch McConnell: “Cover up? I never said anything about a cover-up. That was…er…other people. People I’ve never met before in my life. But there’s probably something somewhere that we should look into, just to be safe. Yeah, that’s the ticket.”
“Inconvenient?” For whom, Mitch?
You can play-test cards online here.
You say changed from ‘accurate’ to misleading.
The CIA wrote the originals claiming a crowd and a demonstration and protests were at the Consulate before extremists came and launched the attack.
Are you saying that the protest/crowd account is ‘accurate’? Most Republicans say there was no crowd or demonstration or protest prior to the attack by extremists.
Hover? Really? Where SAM’s might be ready to use. How many Americans would be on board?
You totally miss the reference to the Firefly class transport named Serenity and its operational characteristics? You’re dead to me.
Doorhinge could be excused for being uninformed because this was before we all got to read the Talking Point Emails for ourselves.
But we didn’t need the emails released to know that no one blamed the attack on the movie.
So there is no excuse for Doggo to be uninformed after Obama released the talking points emails. And most of us knew by the 18th of May that the Jon Karl emails were a bogus Republican altered con job on ABC News.
That did not stop Doggo though did it.
Rice did not blame the movie Doggo:
Here is what she actually said. It is not what you think she said.
Rice blamed the ‘extremists’ – exactly as the CIA talking points allowed. She blamed the CIA assessed “crowd” or “protest” or “demonstration” on the Movie.
ABC for you:
A. Rice blamed ‘extremists’ for the attack…just like the CIA advised.
B. Rice blamed a protest on the video, just like the CIA advised.
C. Rice did not blame the movie for the attack. She blamed the protest on the video and then the CIA changed their view later that a protest didn’t happen. And then so did Rice.
Here are the transcripts:
Let’s be fair to adaher: he’s assured everyone over in the Elections forum that 2012 was an abberation and he’s been consistently right in every previous election. Unfortunately, those accurate predictions are off in Canada with his girlfriend. Or maybe it was on another unnamed message board, I forget which.
Didn’t he say at one point he was going to go check our predictions to the 2004 election and see how we all did? I wonder how that’s going.
I know! It’s almost like there are people on this messageboard who don’t understand that reference. Is that even possible? Weird.
And you believe that because they are generals they never make a mistake. If that were true, Vietnam would have been a huge success instead of the f’up it was. A general was in charge of that, or did it slip your mind?
How come liberals think that the military are stupid imbiciles most of the time, but infallible geniuses when it suits them?
Unfortunately for you, there was never a spontaneous demonstration sparked by a VDO, so for Rice to state that it was so is not the truth.
If the CIA agreed with the final version of the talking points, why did Petraeous not sign off on them?
And, you still haven’t said why Obama told the UN it was the VDO, when he knew it was not.
And you haven’t told us why we should give a shit.
You’re angry and stupid, and I’m sure that makes things hard.
Let me say this slow, so it can penetrate…
I’m not saying generals and SoDs are infallible. Got it?
I’m not saying that generals and SoDs can’t make mistakes. Got it?
I’m saying that generals and SoDs know standard policy. I’m saying that people expert in the real world deployment of soldiers know more about standard policy, than adaher, who is a known dumb-head. And certainly more than Doggo, who, as you demonstrate in this very post, is too stupid to keep up with a fairly simple conversation.
You may now return to whatever menial tasks the people who take care of you give you to structure your day.
Do you know a single fucking thing about Vietnam? Because the above makes you out to be a total idiot. It was certainly a stupid war engaged for stupid reasons and entered into under cover of lies. And there were endless instances of stupid tactics employed by General officers on down.
But the big fuckups, the enormous fuckups, the strategic and conceptual fuckups that led to the deaths of 50,000 of my contemporaries (and seven actual friends) were all made by politicians, not by generals. Had the generals had their way, it wouldn’t have been a ‘limited war’, a war of pulled punches. They would have bombed, napalmed, and ‘Agent Orange’d the country into a smoking crater. There wouldn’t have been any of the ‘Take this hill; now give it back; now take it again’ chickenshit that cost so many American lives. Note, I do not suggest it would have made the Vietnam folly into a success for even limited values of success. But if given free rein by the politicians, the generals would surely have fought it in a completely different way. As for how this particular liberal feels about the military or about generals – well, suffice it to say that you haven’t a clue.
[/hijack]
Because we’re capable of critical thinking, rather than relying upon enormous overgeneralizations?
That much has been obvious from the beginning.
He did sign off on them and Obama never blamed the video for that attack at the UN. He blamed the video for an attack on our embassy, which he knew didn’t exist in Benghazi. Here’s a hint, the conservative echo chamber has created numerous straw men over Benghazi. Many of them numerous times. They each get knocked down so a new one comes along to replace it, but what they’re not telling you is that they have already been discussed. Many have been investigated and testified over in Congress, but none of that has hindered the right from bringing them up as if they were fresh.
The latest is the where was Obama cry. Disregard that this has never been asked of a President. It was, testified about in Congress by Panetta, but yesterday a Republican congressmen sent a series of already answered questions as if the White House is stonewalling. Here’s the rub, they know the answers, but they also know their base has the intellectual curiosity of a slug and will not only buy whatever new line they’re selling, but will also inadvertently participate in a misinformation campaign by their crap all over.
He did sign off on them and Obama never blamed the video for that attack at the UN. He blamed the video for an attack on our embassy, which he knew didn’t exist in Benghazi. Here’s a hint, the conservative echo chamber has created numerous straw men over Benghazi. Many of them numerous times. They each get knocked down so a new one comes along to replace it, but what they’re not telling you is that they have already been discussed. Many have been investigated and testified over in Congress, but none of that has hindered the right from bringing them up as if they were fresh.
The latest is the where was Obama cry. Disregard that this has never been asked of a President. It was testified about in Congress by Panetta, but yesterday a Republican congressmen sent a series of already answered questions as if the White House is stonewalling. Here’s the rub, they know the answers, but they also know their base has the intellectual curiosity of a slug and will not only buy whatever new line they’re selling, but will also inadvertently participate in a misinformation campaign by repeating their crap all over.
Why should I care? When people go off the radar of civilization to terror, they are functionally insane. They may not be cognitively impaired, they may not hear voices, but I’m damned if I care what their “motivations” may be. They’re nuts, their motivations are nuts.
They did it because of a video? Track them down. Because we killed ObL? Track them down. Because America broadcast Twilight? Track them down, commend them for their good taste, and then kill them.
Look, nobody said he had to pull them up to his chin.