Reply With Quote
Huh? I must have missed this part of the story...
cool story. who needs evidence when you can assume whatever you want?
Huh? I must have missed this part of the story...
Why should they tell the truth when the White House can lie and get away with it? I can't believe you blue teamers still believe their story...
"I can't believe you blue teamers still believe their story..."
maybe because you and your ilk haven't proved WH is lying?
Condi Rice did, and does. She's certainly no blue teamer.
Sure I can. Ten days after the ambassador was killed the White House was still claiming it was a protest over the video gone bad and not a terrorist act. They clearly knew that from their own briefing from the CIA that that was a lie.
Are you saying that you still believe that the ambassador was killed when a protest over a video escalated to violence by a few extremists?
Are you saying that ten days after the attack the White House still didn't know it was a terrorist attack?
I always suspected it was planned given the date, but people kill people in the middle east for much less, spontaneously or otherwise.
I still don't understand what you think was to be gained from outright lying about whether it was planned then covering up that lie per your conspiracy theory.
Why would they lie and cover up something that made no difference in the election whatsoever?
You never explained that part of the conspiracy.
You are being intentionally obtuse when logic discredits blue team. The day that the ambassador was killed Obama was on TV saying he killed Bin Laden and had Al Quaeda "on the run". Admitting that Al Quaeda killed the Libyan ambassador in a planned attack on US soil put the outright lie to that claim.
How do you know it wouldn't have made a difference in the election? It wasn't like the election was a complete blowout.
Bin Laden was still dead.
Al Qaeda was still on the run.
Romney was going to lose regardless.
Electorally speaking, it was a landslide by red team's own metrics.
I do applaud your final descent into truther level conspiracy mongering.
Dude was killed by Muslims. That's all people care about. Turns out they didn't care as much as you hoped they would.
Just as Cosmored is en led to his opinion about moon landings.
Wouldn't you prefer to base your opinions on things that have a bit more evidence to support them than partisan innuendo?
Or is that all that is needed these days for you?
You really want to look like some nutty conspiracy dork, that is your business, I guess. Just don't be butthurt when you get lumped in with the twoofers. Well meant and freely given.
Electorally? chump. Swing states can swing. That's why they are called that. If Obama had had to spend the last month explaining why he let an unprotected ambassador get killed after he asked for more protecting instead of being able to spend the last month demonizing rich people a few of those swing states could have swung differently.
Uhhhhh...I don't see Congress holding closed door hearings on Cosmoreds theory on moon landings...it appears they are holding hearings on the Benghazi coverup. Hardly a twoofer issue.
Well, at least we know why you are so inclined to make up conspiracy theories.
So if Petraeus says the talking points were not changed for political purposes in his testimony, do you believe him?
Yes or no.
Does calling it a coverup make you think everyone else thinks its a coverup?
Petraeus didn't say that mr. strawman.
i think the ambassadors killing was an elaborate scheme to win romney the election.
i think its also clear that israel is shooting rockets at themselves......from the moon.
Are you sure he didn't say that, Mr. Twoofer?
What word would you prefer? Incompetent?
If he said it it wasn't reported Mr. Strawman.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
