Please see GaussianInteger's post. Where is the lie Hmmm?
Considering you've got nuthin, isn't it time for you to go back to the street corner with your sandwich board yelling about Obama care? Make sure you wear your disingenuous baffoon shoes, they fit you to a 'T'.
Ha ha, this coming from someone who gives the Texas Mafia a pass for wars for profit, mass death and the greatest 'intelligence' failure in US history. Have another bite of 'yellow cake'.
Like I've said before, a black holes got nuthin on you.
Read my 2 PM post you thick headed half wit!
The disingenuous buffoonery of the right never fails to entertain. If they understood what the word hypocrisy meant they might not use it so often. This is especially true of Jack_Dennis.
Rank & file cranky know nothings say this is (or are desperately making it) a "smoking gun" of a White House cover-up on Benghazi. But is it?
1.First things first: this memo should have been released earlier, and conservatives are fully justified in asking why it took a FOIA request to finally shake it loose.
2.That said, as an adviser for "strategic communication"—what the rest of us call spin—Ben Rhodes' job is explicitly political, providing guidance on how to put the administration's foreign policy actions in the best light.
3.Nine hours before Rhodes sent his email, the CIA had provided its assessment of what caused the attacks in Benghazi: "We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US consulate and subsequently its annex."
4.The Cairo protests, in turn, were inspired by the YouTube video "Innocence of Muslims," which is why Rhodes mentioned the video in his memo.
5.As it happens, it turned out that there were no protests earlier in the day in Benghazi—but at the time, that was what the CIA believed.
6.However, multiple sources—including McClatchy, Al Jazeera, the New York Times, and then deputy CIA director Michael Morell—have confirmed that anger toward the YouTube video did play a role in motivating the initial attacks.
7.Multiple sources also confirm that that the Benghazi attacks were opportunistic—organized hastily to take advantage of the Cairo protests, not planned days or weeks ahead of time.
8.Susan Rice, in all her Sunday show appearances, was properly cautious about the role of the video, the nature of the attacks, and the fact that everything she said was tentative and based on "the best information we have to date."
9.Like any administration, the Obama White House wanted to put the best face on its Middle East policy, and there's no question that their public statements were designed to do just that.
10.Nevertheless, the Republican theory that Obama was afraid to blame Benghazi on terrorism has never really made any sense; there's simply never been any evidence of anything more than a fairly routine amount of spin in the aftermath of the attacks.
IT’S THE SMOKING GUN! A huge Obama cover-up? Not effing Hardly. Even George Will doesn't believe that, but Jack Dennis is sure about it!! The video really did play a role in the Cairo protests and then the Benghazi attacks, and there was never anything wrong with saying so. It's bizarre that Republicans think this proves anything more damning than that. But then again, This is their last ditch attempt at, We gotcha now ya Kenyan Socialist! Which will FAIL - like all their other childish witch hunts & obstructionisms.
"Given the liberal bent of the media"
Uh OH - Conservative’s late for a meeting…with God. Luckily, he is taken aloft in the Rapture.
About a 1minute 40seconds.
late for meeting
Oh I agree with you about Islam. It’s lucky Limric isn’t here now, I’ve heard him GO OFF on Muslims big time! I think he lived in the Middle East for a while or something.
However, I said, ” if given a free hand, (rabid Christians) would implement a Saudi Arabian style Christian nation right here.” Key here are two words ‘free hand’.
You stated: ” If you don't accept Christ by free will, then it means nothing.” History has shown that to be idealistic at best and downright false most of the time.
The greatest quote about Christians (not Christianity) came from the Shawnee chief Tecumseh:
”When Jesus Christ came upon the earth, you killed him, the son of your own God, you nailed him up! You thought he was dead, but you were mistaken. And only after you thought you killed him did you worship him, and start killing those who would not worship him. What kind of person is this for us to trust?”
”Erecting a wall of separation between church and state is absolutely essential in a free society.”
Guess who said that?
”We establish no religion in this country. We command no worship. We mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state MUST remain separate”
As you did not specify what, when or where, you’re not right. But as you later defined it, I’ll give you a pass.
No, Libs do not lump ”Bible Belt Christians, or denominations” generally speaking in the same category as Islam. Some (like Conservative’s cult) are however. And I have no doubt, if given a free hand, would implement a Saudi Arabian style Christian nation right here.
"Islam is has been killing in the name of Allah since 500 a.d."
Christians however have been at it (in the name of Jesus) for way over a thousand years.