Why do we accept the behavior so willingly? Do you teach your kids that it's wrong to lie and if so, why do you do that? Why would you not expect the same behavior from adults in your employ that you do your children?
Why would anyone feel that the deaths of four people in a far off land justifies fabricating stories for political purposes? The revelation that the video was a lie is not a new development. But we now know for certain with the release of emails, the release of which have been sandbagged for a long, long time, that it can not be disputed that it was a lie fabricated as part of a conspiracy for political purposes.
I respect your opinions. I find you to be fully capable of holding a meaningful conversation without all the extreme partisanship and theatrics we have here. But I am tired of the people I pay to represent me, the people I pay to represent me on the world stage, behaving in a fashion that we would consider outrageous if they were someone within our own families. It is not acceptable to me. It is not behavior that deserves to be condoned and rewarded. If you are OK with it, if you are OK with your children telling outrageous lies, please, don't bother responding to my post as there is no point continuing further.
At every election I must choose between one of two liars for every office on that ballot. I am sick and tired of picking the one that lies the least, or tells lies that even though I know they're lies, I feel I can or must believe because I have to make a choice. It's not how I live my life and I don't think it's too much to expect the same from people that I pay to represent my interests.
By accepting the behavior we both condone it and the escalation of it. When, if ever, do we say enough?
Why do we accept the behavior so willingly? Do you teach your kids that it's wrong to lie and if so, why do you do that? Why would you not expect the same behavior from adults in your employ that you do your children?
Why would anyone feel that the deaths of four people in a far off land justifies fabricating stories for political purposes? The revelation that the video was a lie is not a new development. But we now know for certain with the release of emails, the release of which have been sandbagged for a long, long time, that it can not be disputed that it was a lie fabricated as part of a conspiracy for political purposes.
I respect your opinions. I find you to be fully capable of holding a meaningful conversation without all the extreme partisanship and theatrics we have here. But I am tired of the people I pay to represent me, the people I pay to represent me on the world stage, behaving in a fashion that we would consider outrageous if they were someone within our own families. It is not acceptable to me. It is not behavior that deserves to be condoned and rewarded. If you are OK with it, if you are OK with your children telling outrageous lies, please, don't bother responding to my post as there is no point continuing further.
At every election I must choose between one of two liars for every office on that ballot. I am sick and tired of picking the one that lies the least, or tells lies that even though I know they're lies, I feel I can or must believe because I have to make a choice. It's not how I live my life and I don't think it's too much to expect the same from people that I pay to represent my interests.
By accepting the behavior we both condone it and the escalation of it. When, if ever, do we say enough?
So what? Are you inferring that the diary entry was falsified in some way?
Can't we do something to demand reimbursement by these Republican cronies?????
And tack onto that the 65th repeal vote of the ACA is today.
It's a CRYIN' SHAME that those taxpayer dollars could be feeding families or educating the kids with much needed school books.
You haven't proven any lies, so the rest of your argument is irrelevant. What does that say about your party?
she said the attack was due to a video, when she knew it was a terrorist attack.
your right, she lies so much no one cares anymore.
And the dem's are so stocked with people to lead the country that the best they can do is put up a serial liar.
If she's the best the dems have to lead the country what does it say about the party?
she said the attack was due to a video, when she knew it was a terrorist attack.
she said the attack was due to a video, when she knew it was a terrorist attack.
For one thing it gives you a little insight into her character by her contriving and perpetuating a false narrative.
The video talking points "controversy" is irrelevant to the tasks of this so called "committee":
Finding out why Benghazi happened: It didn't happen because of talking points after the fact.
Preventing another Benghazi: Correct talking points aren't going to prevent another incident like Benghazi.
So the only reason for bringing them up is politics, which confirms that this is purely a taxpayer funded political exercise for the benefit of Republicans. But it even failed at that, since Hillary Clinton ripped them a new one yesterday. So why were those millions of taxpayer dollars wasted?
That's totally lame, a second hand account that simply cannot be verified as accurate.
I thought you were waiting for the witch to float. It looks more like you're stacking wood for the fire...
The upshot from the hearing?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-campaign-benefits-benghazi-hearing-215107
One of her best fundraisers yet. Thanks, Republicans!
Really? Please post the quote where she said this and a link to the source.
Just to clarify the whole 'the movie was the reason' or 'the movie had nothing to do with it' argument...
First, the terrorists that attacked the compound on 9/11/12 began there planning, as best we can tell, before the movie came out so the movie can not be the cause of the attack! That's just plain fact...
OTH, the movie DID cause a lot of people in Benghazi to protest the movie in front of the compound and as the days passed the size of the crowds and the aggressiveness of them increased.
So, on the day of the attack and prior to the actual attack which took place at night, there were large crowds of angry people protesting around the compound and the terrorists took advantage of them to provide cover for the attack. This was not the first time someone took advantage of an event to further there military/terrorist plans.
Throughout history men have waged war on one another and occasionally a battle would be preceded or coincide with the passing of a comet. Usually the warring factions would both take the comet as an omen and decide to not fight at that time, but there have been generals that took advantage of the comet and proclaimed to his troops that this was a sign from god and went into battle. No, the generals had no control over the comet but its role in the battle can not be denied.
During the American Civil War the Confederate made use of deception a great deal and would frequently have a single division march near the front lines in a way that made the Union forces think there were more of them. They'd march near the front lines, loop around, then march passed the front lines again.
So, on 9/11/12 the protesters were once again surrounding the compound and in greater number than ever. The Ambassador, apparently hoping to cool off the situation didn't want the US forces to engage in any aggressive activities with the protesters and early that night, when the terrorists arrived to do there thing, the US forces didn't know as soon as they might have that this was something else.
So, in summary, the movie did not motivate the terrorists but DID play a role in the attack by providing cover for the terrorists. It's possible that without the protesters the security team could have defended the compound and the American lives might have been saved. So in the end, the stupid fucks that made that movie DO have blood on there hands by providing the circumstances that gave the terrorist cover.
Brian