Col. Wilkerson, John McCain, Benghazi and Bush.....

Remember.

Colonel Wilkerson is a Republican.

 

Yes there are questions - many that remain unanswered
For starters (off the cuff by me being uneducated in Algerian foreign affairs);
Who changed the story to blame the film?
Where are the survivors/evacuees from Benghazi?
Why was there no preparations for September 11th? Even I know the meaning of that date.
What was Obama aware of/participating in that night?
Were arms being funneled thought Benghazi?

 

Take The Ed Show with a grain of salt (or, better yet, with a truckload of salt). It's one of the most biased "comedy" shows that tries to pass for media these days.

 

Certainly biased as are so many other shows both right and left.

What about Col. Wilkerson though?

 

I appreciate his military service but he, in his own words, stated that he "participated in a hoax on the American people" when it came to assembling data to present to President Bush leading up to the Iraq war. He said that he "regrets not resigning" over it. If he felt that strongly about it and regrets not resigning, he should have been man enough at the time to resign. I put little credence in his statements.

 

Because he was a good soldier at the time and didn't resign at some point, the hoax isn't true? How is that even logical in anyway?

 

He's the one who said it.

 

AND???

 

Attention! HE is the one who said he was participating in a hoax and should have resigned because of it.

 

How does that disprove the fact that a hoax was perpetrated? Whether he resigned or not proves nothing. Again, your attempt to distract from the real issue makes you sound completely foolish. You just can't deal with what is so you prefer to deal with what should have been...in your opinion anyway. You're funny to watch but I really can't take you seriously.

 

It's what HE called a hoax and, whether or not it really was, he apparently believed strongly in the fact that he was perpetrating a hoax. So strongly, in fact, he felt that he should have resigned but didn't have the courage to do so. Why should I listen to man who had no qualms in perpetrating what he called a "hoax" against the American people?

 

You must just love losing arguments of you have a natural gift for doing so.

A. He did not perpetrate a hoax, he participated in the hoax.
B. Yes, he DID believe then as now that he was involved with a hoax.
C. In retrospect, he felt that he probably should have resigned.
D. You should only listen to him if you believe in redemption.

Nobody with an iota of credibility believes the reasons that were given for sending this country to war. NOBODY! Do you? Which reasons do you still believe? 3 trillion dollars later, almost 5,000 dead U.S. soldiers, over 32,000 U.S. soldiers injured, close to 3/4 of a million dead Iraqis, millions of refugees, and which reasons are you still adhering? Geesh!

 

I will bite. Just what do you think the difference is between " perpetrate a hoax" and "participated in the hoax"?

 

Maybe you should just try and judge people less. Unless you yourself happen to be perfect.

 

I'm just saying that it's difficult to believe someone who has admitted to participating in what he calls a "hoax" on the entire American population.

 

So Bush was that clueless?

 

But Clinton was clueless first. Really! It was his administration that "discovered" the WMD's.

 

If the information was a "hoax" (as this guy has admitted), what can we expect? You probably make decisions based on what the local weatherman tells you. Then you might verify the information on a national weather channel. Then you might check an online weather source. If they're all forecasting rain, it's a pretty good chance it's going to rain. Wear a raincoat.

 

Why? The hoax is well documented at this point. Seems like that adds credibility to this guy's statements.