| Benghazi Testimony By Petraeus Shreds GOP Attack On Rice | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 17 2012, 07:59 PM (1,929 Views) | |
| The SOLE Controller | Nov 18 2012, 10:38 PM Post #11 |
![]()
|
Mal, catdaddy... I got a email saying it's the same gaylias behind both of yall's login acct...so I got confused for a second there via the similar posting styles. But that has nothing to do with my accurate words on Petreaus, nope, so please stay on topic boys. Edited by The SOLE Controller, Nov 18 2012, 10:39 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| The SOLE Controller | Nov 18 2012, 10:43 PM Post #12 |
![]()
|
You are also Mal, I'm not fooled. Same slogans same party line same method of ignoring of the same realities |
![]() |
|
| TommyT | Nov 19 2012, 02:02 AM Post #13 |
![]()
|
How would anyone besides a moderator know this? But, whatever.......
Uhh....The original article I posted provided evidence that acknowledged that the people responsible might have had links with Al Qaeda, here, I'll quote it: "On Sept. 28, a spokesman for the director of national intelligence issued a statement calling what happened "a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists," some with Al Qaeda links or sympathies. The spokesman, Shawn Turner, said the intelligence community first believed the attack "began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo" but that it had revised that initial assessment. " So, I'm not sure get what you're insinuating. My article said the same thing Petraeus did. Unless you want to go full swing (as desperate Republicans have) and indicate that being affiliated/linked means you're full blown "Al Qaeda" (even though Petraeus indicated they were also affiliated with other groups). That's your prerogative. I just prefer my name not to be brought up in this nonsense. Thank you. BTW, Petraeus said the info about terrorist was removed in order to not tip them off and claimed the administration had no influence in the reports. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/11/16/us/politics/ap-us-libya-attack.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes So, I'm not sure how he agrees with Republican sentiments, but meh. Of course, I'm certain some people won't believe this. I really don't care. Edited by TommyT, Nov 19 2012, 02:40 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| catdaddy25 | Nov 19 2012, 03:06 AM Post #14 |
|
LOL, You wrong about the President and you wrong about me. I have no reason to lie to you man or to pretend to be another person. You the one trying to make something stick on Obama. |
![]() |
|
| Snidely Whiplash | Nov 19 2012, 03:10 AM Post #15 |
![]()
|
Tommy, Tommy. I know you think you're being clever with your lies but this is me you're addressing, not one of your obamabot lemmings. First, this is the title of the thread we're referencing that you created: There goes the "Al-Qaeda" attack argument. http://s1.zetaboards.com/Express_Yourself/topic/4969127/1/#new Next, the portion you quoted from the article linked in your thread was mentioned to suggest that that those Al Queda statements were incorrect. The article as it's title stated "No evidence found of Al Qaeda role in Libya attack" and your thread was aimed at saying no al queda terrorist role. If you're outraged, it's because you're busted lying. And spare me the hogwash about keeping your name out of nonsense. It's nonsense you created. Your post aren't sacrosanct. Once placed in the public domain they are subject to review and reference. Man up. If you're afraid your lies might ensnare you, don't post. Edited by Snidely Whiplash, Nov 19 2012, 03:31 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| TommyT | Nov 19 2012, 03:25 AM Post #16 |
![]()
|
LOL. You seem to be very confused.
You don't say? There hasn't actually been any evidence of Al-Qaeda being responsible for the attack, as the article and Petraeus claims. It's the Republicans who made the claim that Al-Qaeda were responsible. The white house/CIA simply said it was a terrorist attack, and that the terrorist might have been affiliated with Al-Qaeda. BTW, they both said the same thing: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/clinton-suggests-libyan-consulate-attack-was-work-al-qaeda-affiliate/ LMFAO!
LOL. Where does it indicate that? Quote it for me. The only thing incorrect is the confirmation from Republicans that Al-Qaeda was responsible. That quote reinforces the notion of the people responsible as being affiliates.
What did I lie about? It's the Republicans who are making the claim that it was an Al-Qaeda attack, Petraeus said it was a group that might have connections with them. Elaborate on my "lie" please.
LOL! I'll await you proving me lying before responding. Edited by TommyT, Nov 19 2012, 04:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Snidely Whiplash | Nov 19 2012, 03:29 AM Post #17 |
![]()
|
^^^ I suppose that is the best you can offer up. I'll avoid getting caught up in you web of lies, deceit, and obfuscation. I made my point. |
![]() |
|
| TommyT | Nov 19 2012, 03:29 AM Post #18 |
![]()
|
Yeah, run along now. I love how it's no longer a big deal after you wrote a moderately long post referencing to how my devious nature "ensnares" me, and makes my contradictions open to criticism. LOL. If we want to discuss lies, how about people claiming that Petraus proved Republicans right about the administration hiding facts, despite him claiming they didn't. Was that a lie? Late edit: Here's the argument for those confused (in addition to): Guy accuses me of lying/backtracking on my previous assertion that Al-Qaeda was not involved; despite me blatantly saying in my first response that they were affiliates and not Al-Qaeda, which means--and it doesn't take a modicum of critical thinking to realize this---that Al Qaeda wasn't proven responsible for the attack. Petraeus never said Al-Qaeda were responsible, but indicated (if I'm to believe Republicans) that potential affiliates did, and that these affiliates affiliate with "other" groups. My accuser further didn't realize my original post provided a link to an article that refuted the definitive Republican claim that Al-Qaeda was responsible, particularly when the incident in question is still under investigation and the previous assertions claim they "might" be affiliates (NOT PROOF THAT AL-QAEDA WAS RESPONSIBLE). How Al-Qaeda being responsible or not changes the original claim that it was a terrorist attack, which Obama openly admitted initially, confuses me. But I get a kick of this silliness/desperation. Edited by TommyT, Nov 19 2012, 07:00 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| The SOLE Controller | Nov 19 2012, 06:39 AM Post #19 |
![]()
|
Niiiiice.
Edited by The SOLE Controller, Nov 19 2012, 06:43 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| TommyT | Nov 19 2012, 06:43 AM Post #20 |
![]()
|
Niiicce.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/16/us-usa-benghazi-idUSBRE8AF03L20121116 "Petraeus told lawmakers "there were extremists in the group" that launched the attack on the diplomatic mission, describing them as affiliates of al Qaeda and other groups, said Representative C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives intelligence committee." Even niiiccer. Edited by TommyT, Nov 19 2012, 06:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics & Government · Next Topic » |










2:49 PM Jul 11