Anonymous wrote:Face it Conservatives: you have been hoisted by your own petard. There is no way to wiggle out of this.

Of course there is a way -- they tell you that you don't know what you're talking about and repeat their interpretation. Haven't both sides been doing that on most DCUM threads for years?

Go read the report. It said there was disagreement about the actions at the annex in Benghazi. It agreed that some wanted to go sooner. Some thought peoples lives would have been saved.

Anonymous wrote:Face it Conservatives: you have been hoisted by your own petard. There is no way to wiggle out of this.

Of course there is a way -- they tell you that you don't know what you're talking about and repeat their interpretation. Haven't both sides been doing that on most DCUM threads for years?

Face it Conservatives: you have been hoisted by your own petard. Tgere is no way to wiggle out of this.

concludes that there was no aborted rescue attempt

It also states that there were those who wanted to go sooner. Read the report.

Anonymous wrote:

So the people who were anonymous until they became celebrities for coming up with this story have nothing to gain from their version,

Oh, that's great rationale. We cannot hear the stories of those who did the actual fighting because--of course- they only did it for fame.

Who said we couldn't hear them? All I said was that when the 7th investigation, which had full access to classified information-- including information those guys did not have-- concludes that there was no aborted rescue attempt it's insane to argue that the truth is being suppressed because the committee has an incentive to issue a report favorable to the Administration but these guys-- who are trying to make money off their stories-- have no incentive to do anything but tell the truth.

exonerated

Wrong. Quit relying on media and read the report.

Anonymous wrote:

This is criminal.

Yes. Lying to the American people about a video in order to win an election is criminal.

He has been exonerated by a Republican led committee with access to classified intelligence. Checkmate.

This is criminal.

Yes. Lying to the American people about a video in order to win an election is criminal.

How will the republicans paid back the tax payers money spent on this investigation? This is criminal.

Anonymous wrote:

So the people who were anonymous until they became celebrities for coming up with this story have nothing to gain from their version,

Oh, that's great rationale. We cannot hear the stories of those who did the actual fighting because--of course- they only did it for fame.

Well, money really. They didn't need to write a book. They could have just done an interview like anyone else.

So the people who were anonymous until they became celebrities for coming up with this story have nothing to gain from their version,

Oh, that's great rationale. We cannot hear the stories of those who did the actual fighting because--of course- they only did it for fame.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The typical conservative will trust any book on the shelve of Barnes an Noble before an investigation led by its own party.

I trust the men who were there. Not tbe politicians who have something to gain

So the people who were anonymous until they became celebrities for coming up with this story have nothing to gain from their version, but the politicians who would love nothing better than to take down Obama and HRC have something to gain from stifling the version that makes those two look bad? That's the definition of wingnutty.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The typical conservative will trust any book on the shelve of Barnes an Noble before an investigation led by its own party.

I trust the men who were there. Not tbe politicians who have something to gain

So the people who were anonymous until they became celebrities for coming up with this story have nothing to gain from their version, but the politicians who would love nothing better than to take down Obama and HRC have something to gain from stifling the version that makes those two look bad? That's the definition of wingnutty.

Anonymous wrote:

You'll never know because you'll never read the report.

Already read it. Suggest you do so. You can find it on the House Intelligence committee website.

Great. So then you can stop asking about the other statements besides the ones you read in Barnes and Noble. Because you already know better.

You'll never know because you'll never read the report.

Already read it. Suggest you do so. You can find it on the House Intelligence committee website.