Definition of LIE
intransitive verb
1
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
Link/source to intent to lie? Wimp can't man up and link? Thought so.
Who's in charge of the CIA ? Who's the Commander-in-Chief?
Idiot.
Ah...retarded it is.
The CIA is a separate agency, it reports to the executive AND the legislative branches. The president doesn't run the CIA.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an independent civilian intelligence agency of the United States government. It is an executive agency and reports directly to the Director of National Intelligence...
Fuck you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
lie
 
lie
1 [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.
4.
the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
This just in http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/31/benghazi-explanations-report/1801655/
"According to a senior IC (intelligence community) official, the timeline has not been delivered as promised because the administration has spent weeks debating internally whether or not it should turn over information considered 'deliberative' to the Congress," the report said."
Translation: can I exercise executive privilege over this like I did Fast and Furious?
Fixed.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retarded
Retarded
1: The mental state of monovillage
2: The intellegence level from monovillage's posts
3: A form of thinking that doesn't allow one to be wrong or to accept new facts to change ones opinion
Fuck you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
lie
 
lie
1 [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.
4.
the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
and for fucks sake if you want to insult my intelligence at least spell it right.
Sorry I'm typing this from my phone, mistakes will happen, should we start a new conspiracy about it?
Its funny how you can't even defend your own stupidity.
It wasn't a typo you lying weasel, you misspelled it and then you lie about it. Pretty typical for you.
Did you find where Obama lied yet? No? Then go fuck yourself
Ah...retarded it is.
The CIA is a separate agency, it reports to the executive AND the legislative branches. The president doesn't run the CIA.
the CIA is a government agency. Who is the boss of All government agencies? And who appoints the director of the cia?
Head injuries are no joke, but the backlash against those who initially questioned whether Hillary Clinton’s concussion was for real seems like an overreaction, too; you don’t have to be hateful to have wondered if she really had the flu and fell down right before she was supposed to testify about the security situation at our consulate that was really just a house in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans were killed by terrorists in September.
After all, public officials are routinely less than forthcoming about their health, even if we do know more now than we did when Edith Wilson was secretly running the country after her husband Woodrow’s stroke. Or when the public was protected from the sight of FDR’s wheelchair. Or when John F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign flatly denied perfectly accurate, LBJ-inspired reports that JFK suffered from Addison’s disease. (Of course we also had no clue that as president, Kennedy took both Ritalin and sleeping pills, plus codeine, Demerol and methadone for debilitating back pain, librium for anxiety and at one point, an anti-psychotic for depression. And maybe it would do us good to review the contents of his well-stocked White House medicine chest — and if we do finally get around to addressing long-ignored mental health issues in the new year, post-Newtown, begin by taking a minute to mull the fact that yes, one of our most beloved presidents struggled with mental illness. Take that, stigma.)
I also can’t get too outraged by the early skepticism that Hillary had a blood clot in her brain yet was also doing just great because those two reports don’t seem to mesh. The latter certainly didn’t match the expression of worry on her daughter Chelsea’s face as she left the New York hospital where the secretary of state was admitted on Sunday.
And finally, it isn’t as though Clinton has never shaded a fact in her 65 years; she’s been rightly hailed for a remarkable tenure at the State Department, winning over many critics and probably even avoiding more of the blame for Benghazi than she should have. At this point, it’s the Clinton fatigue that many felt at the end of her husband’s presidency that’s fatiguing to recall, and I hope the most admired woman in the world in 2012 does run for president again in 2016.
But without dragging the ancient White House travel office scandal or the Rose Law Firm into this century, she’s still the same person who repeatedly described coming under fire on a runway in Bosnia. During her ’08 campaign, she was eventually forced to apologize for saying, ”I remember landing under sniper fire,” in Tuzla back in 1996. “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” That never happened, though the greeting ceremony did.We know now that Clinton did not pull a Ferris Bueller to avoid testifying about the attack that killed our ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans. But if she had, would we really have thought so much less of her for it? She was praised for having sense enough to let Susan Rice take the Sunday shows right after the attack, and I’m not sure there wasn’t a little admiration in those “Benghazi flu” comments from the right.
Already, reports that describe Clinton’s right transverse sinus venous thrombosis as potentially life-threatening, though apparently caught in time, sound a lot more serious than the word from her doctors that “The secretary is making excellent progress and we are confident she will make a full recovery. She is in good spirits, engaging with her doctors, her family and her staff.” Would we really be shocked to learn down the road that reports during her hospitalization had put a positive spin on her condition?
It isn’t only the pope who’s always in excellent health, according to his doctors, anyway — right up until he dies. Lots of us still prefer “passing away” to plain old death, and news reports persist in relaying that sick people are “resting comfortably,” which nobody in a hospital ever did. Such neatening up of the facts isn’t convincing, though, and when we read that the Indian woman brutally raped on a bus “died peacefully,” we’re right to think no, she didn’t; she was beaten into a coma, which isn’t the same thing.
Our public officials have trained us to take everything they say with a healthy dose of skepticism, and on a matter as sensitive as a head injury followed by denials of any neurological symptoms, I’m not sure why we would or should unquestioningly accept the word of any politician. After all she’s been accused of — and will be again if she runs next time — this is nothing.
I almost missed this piece from the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...llary-clintons-concussion-and-other-outrages/
Questioning Hillary Clintons concussion, and other outrages
Good stuff.
You guys are like little kids with a slingshot in their pocket telling their parents "we didn't throw the rock that broke the window!!" and think they're getting away with it.
The Obama administration lied, it fucked up in Benghazi and now it's stone walling about it and covering it up. No reasonable person trusts the Obama administration to investigate itself so we all wait until the House and the Senate does a complete job of it.
And so far not a thing coming of it, outside of you and the other fringe loons frothing.
Keep at it, dogs chasing their tails is funny shit.
The lie has already been pointed out numerous times that the Obama administration lied to the American public about it being a protest against the video instead of an organized terrorist attack on 9-11 in Benghazi.
You're just lying about the lie.
Yes, it was an extremely violent organized protest, described as a terrorist attack.
That's not in dispute, although the facts were hazy in the beginning. That's pretty much to be expected under the circumstances.
Lyndon Johnson, step aside. Barack Obama is far more deserving than you ever were of the term "credibility gap."
The latest Benghazi lie to crumble like a cigar ash was the assurance from White House spokesman Jay Carney that four State department employees had been fired for their mishandling of the situation following an internal report that found security to have been "grossly inadequate." On Dec. 20, Carney told reporters "Accountability has been brought to bear with regard to four individuals, who are very senior." Major news organizations reported that Eric Boswell, assistant secretary of state in charge of security, had resigned along with three others.
Less than a week later, the New York Post revealed that Boswell wasn't actually leaving at all. He had resigned his post as assistant secretary, a spokesman explained, but would continue his other duties at state. As for the other three, they were found to have "performance inadequacies" but not "willful misconduct" and would therefore face no discipline.
So, one official changed desks, and the rest remained in place. That's accountability Obama-style. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and other major news outlets have not bothered to report this.
The secretary of state, who on Oct. 15 made the utterly vaporous and content-free claim of "responsibility" for the Benghazi debacle (but chose not to speak for her department on Sept. 16 when the president needed someone to do the rounds of the Sunday talk shows), was at last scheduled to testify before Congress on Dec. 20. Her health problems have sidelined her for now. Whether she will testify in January remains an open question. Republican senators have vowed not to confirm John Kerry until she testifies. But if her health remains fragile, Republicans will be portrayed as brutal for insisting. Bed-side testimony anyone?
Meanwhile, President Obama's great billowing smoke machine chugs on. Appearing on "Meet the Press" on Dec. 30, the president again expressed anger that questions had been asked of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. Characterizing reasonable inquiries about the deaths of Americans as "politically motivated attacks," the president insinuated a racial animus. "Why she was targeted individually for this kind of attack was puzzling to me." She, of all members of his administration, he stressed "had the least to do with Benghazi."
If that is so, why was she the designated spokesman for the administration? Isn't it just possible that she became a lightning rod because the president made her one? If, as Henry Wotton put it, an ambassador is a man "who is sent abroad to lie for his country," an Obama administration diplomat is a person who is sent to the Sunday shows to lie to his own country.
Nearly everything Ambassador Rice said during that Sunday farrago has been shown to be false. We know that there was no protest -- and that the administration knew this, too. Rice has since admitted that she saw classified documents linking the attacks to Al-Qaeda before doing the shows.Secretary Clinton should be under a cloud for failing to prevent the deaths of these Americans and for misleading the nation afterwards. Instead, she is lofted skyward with talk of 2016. A just-released Senate report slams the State Department for ignoring "flashing red" reports of increasing Al-Qaida activity in that part of Libya. Oh well, she failed at a key aspect of her job -- nothing to see here.
The most opprobrium, though, belongs to the president. As the new Senate report makes absolutely clear, the White House knew within hours of the Benghazi attack that it was a terror attack and not a protest that became violent. "There was never any doubt among key officials ... that the attack in Benghazi was an act of terrorism. For example, two emails from the State Department Diplomatic Security Operations Center on the day of the attack, Sept. 11, and the day after, Sept. 12, 2012, characterized the attack as an initial terrorism incident and as a terrorist event." Yet, when the president appeared on "60 Minutes," he said it was "too early" to know whether it was terror attack. On Sept. 18, he said "extremists and terrorists used this (the video) as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya."
The president persisted in this lie personally and through his surrogates for weeks, even as the contrary evidence became a tsunami. The lies were Nixonian in audacity, Johnsonian in scope. The president is right about one thing -- it isn't Susan Rice who should take the fall.
Return of the Credibility Gap
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/01/return_of_the_credibility_gap_116557.html
This issue is good and over, it's amazing how much can be spun out of nothing. But, partisan hacks of all stripes are good at that kind of nonsense.