CBS Apologizes for Something FOX Does Every Day - Benghazi!

BTW, try watching this video of the meeting the you heard did not occur (another liberal lie?).
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-millions-might-have-to-change-their-coverage

BTW, I was mistaken. It was mot 4-5 million. It was 8-9 million

 

I seem to recall that, thanks to the untiring efforts of those who sought the truth, Bill Clinton was exposed and subsequently impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Something tells me that you wish those truth-seekers would have just kept quiet, too... Hum?

 

What? Watch another Breitbart selectively edited video? Not likely. You complain about Obama being a liar and yet you use a video from the same organization that intentionally lied to smear someone. What? Are some liars just OK with you?

 

Clinton didn't do anything illegal until the witch hunt caught him lying about an embarrassing extra-marital affair which he did not want to come to light. If there had been no witch hunt, what would have been illegal? Nothing. No wonder witch hunts get as little cooperation as they deserve.

 

Don't let the Obama-zombies distract you!
The issues that need to be resolved center around how this telegraphed assault on our consulate was allowed to happen, why help was ordered to "stand down" and why the administration concocted (and who devised) the cover-up.

 

Wait a minute. You're saying Clinton didn't do anything wrong until he was caught? Am I hearing this correctly? Do you really believe he didn't do anything wrong until he was caught? Hoo boy, this one takes the cake!!

The "witch hunt" as you call it was actually nothing of the sort. Clinton's own actions brought about the investigation. Did you NOT want an investigation? As it turns out, the investigators found incriminating evidence which proved that Clinton lied and obstructed justice. You say that you like shining the light of truth on our leaders, but your comments would prove otherwise. I'm beginning to see the real reason why you don't want Benghazi investigated... Very interesting....

 

So try youtube. He says the same thing

 

Are you really that obtuse? Whatever.

 

It's a simple question, actually. If you'll give us a straight answer, it might reveal a lot about your principles.

 

So what is wrong now, Mr. RB? You have 2 versions of him saying that 8-9 million people will lose the health insurance. Which one do you believe? Or do you think youtube is lying also?

EITHER WAY, HE ABSOLUTELY LIED.

 

I didn't say that you changed topics in regard to this question. "Moving the goalposts," since you apparently are unfamiliar with the term, is an informal logical fallacy, also known as "raising the bar." In this fallacious type of argumentation, the evidence that has been presented which addresses one's point or points is ignored. Instead, a new criterion is presented. Basically, it amounts to "Yeah, but what about . . ." In this case, you said that no survivors had testified. When I presented evidence that survivors had indeed testified, instead of honestly admitting you were wrong, and rather than even attempting to address the evidence, you asked "So where is the transcript? Where is the film?"" That's the transparently lame and fallacious tactic known as moving the goalposts, rlm's cents. It certainly looks like an admission of failure on your part.

Defense Secretary Panetta and military commanders made the decisions on deployment, not the president. Your original question was "Who was it who decided not to get help into Benghazi?" It had nothing to do with whether President Obama was telling the truth regarding the issue of the US doing everything that could be done to help.

I answered the original question with evidence, and instead of acknowledging that, you feebly changed the subject to whether the president lied or not. Post #23 is completely irrelevant to this question anyway.

I provided evidence that it was the CIA which produced the original talking points, including the statement that "We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex." Specifically, it was the director of the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis who wrote the initial draft. Nobody who has a sound grip on reality denies this.

The timeline of the production of the talking points is publicly available to anybody capable of using a search engine. You really should try learning how some time; maybe it'd help you look less ill-informed. That timeline shows that "the White House . . did not substantively edit the talking points over the description of the attack in Benghazi or potential perpetrators." I'm sure you won't let that knock you off your seat on Bullshit Mountain though. It's completely irrelevant how many other wing-nuts agree with you, reality isn't something we get to vote on.

Your source is from September 10th of this year, while my source is dated November 3. In the article I cited, it's clearly stated that two survivors have already testified in front of Congress. It's also mentioned that more will be testifying. In fact, according to CNN, they're testifying before Congress in closed hearings right now.