Obama Lies Again

[hal lillywhite]

Anybody surprised that Obama told another flagrant lie, about
Benghazi?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Washington Post, hardly a right-wing publication gives him four
Pinocchios. Now he claims that he labeled those murders terrorism
very early but in fact he was still blaming the video.

[Moder@tor]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 15:36:40 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com>
wrote:

Except it isn't a lie. Obama said those words.....twice.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/13/2002871/issa-obama-covered-up-benghazi-terrorism-by-calling-it-an-act-of-terror/

'In the day following the Benghazi attacks, Obama appeared at the White House
Rose Garden alongside then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In his remarks,
Obama referred to the incident as an “act of terror” and used the phrase again
at a campaign rally the day after in Denver, CO. “I want people around the world
to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go
unpunished,” he said.'

[hal lillywhite]

On May 14, 11:35 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 15:36:40 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com>

> wrote:
>
> >Anybody surprised that Obama told another flagrant lie, about
> >Benghazi?
>

> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he...

>
> >Washington Post, hardly a right-wing publication gives him four
> >Pinocchios.  Now he claims that he labeled those murders terrorism
> >very early but in fact he was still blaming the video.
>
> Except it isn't a lie. Obama said those words.....twice.
>

> http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/13/2002871/issa-obama-cover...

>
> 'In the day following the Benghazi attacks, Obama appeared at the White House
> Rose Garden alongside then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In his remarks,
> Obama referred to the incident as an “act of terror” and used the phrase again
> at a campaign rally the day after in Denver, CO. “I want people around the world
> to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go
> unpunished,” he said.'

An attempt by an untrustworthy leftist source to hide the sins of
their messiah. Where are the links to the actual videos of Obama
allegedly saying that? Or at least to a trustworthy source with full
quotes?

Yes, I believe think[regress] is being dishonest if not outright
lying.. The entire administration attempted to maintain the fantasy
that the whole thing was a spontaneous reaction to a video for over
week after the event. With all the accusations flying around during
that time, nobody produced any white house reference to terrorism in
relation to the event till well after it was over.

Get real, *every* public statement Obama makes is recorded on video.
If he really blamed terrorism in the two days after Benghazi, those
videos would have been available then.

[Moder@tor]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:26:11 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com>
wrote:

Boy, when you are stupid, you really are stupid, Hal. It took all of 10 seconds
to find the Benghazi Rose Garden press conference video on YouTube. There he
makes the first statement quoted above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDdrpXGrA2M

Perhaps you should pull your head out of your sphincter and get a clue. Dissing
publications because you don't believe they follow the same politics you do is
beyond imbecile.

And just to rub your nose in it further, here is the second time he said, the
following day from the press conference, not in Denver, but Golden, CO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sTWymHqDbQ

Care to try and rebutt now, fool?

[Sancho Panza]

On 5/15/2013 3:28 PM, Moder@tor wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:26:11 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On May 14, 11:35 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 15:36:40 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anybody surprised that Obama told another flagrant lie, about
>>>> Benghazi?
>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he...
>>>
>>>> Washington Post, hardly a right-wing publication gives him four
>>>> Pinocchios. Now he claims that he labeled those murders terrorism
>>>> very early but in fact he was still blaming the video.
>>>
>>> Except it isn't a lie. Obama said those words.....twice.
>>>
>>> http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/13/2002871/issa-obama-cover...
>>>
>>> 'In the day following the Benghazi attacks, Obama appeared at the White House
>>> Rose Garden alongside then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In his remarks,

>>> Obama referred to the incident as an �act of terror� and used the phrase again
>>> at a campaign rally the day after in Denver, CO. �I want people around the world

>>> to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go

>>> unpunished,� he said.'

>>
>> An attempt by an untrustworthy leftist source to hide the sins of
>> their messiah. Where are the links to the actual videos of Obama
>> allegedly saying that? Or at least to a trustworthy source with full
>> quotes?
>>
>> Yes, I believe think[regress] is being dishonest if not outright
>> lying.. The entire administration attempted to maintain the fantasy
>> that the whole thing was a spontaneous reaction to a video for over
>> week after the event. With all the accusations flying around during
>> that time, nobody produced any white house reference to terrorism in
>> relation to the event till well after it was over.
>>
>> Get real, *every* public statement Obama makes is recorded on video.
>> If he really blamed terrorism in the two days after Benghazi, those
>> videos would have been available then.
>
> Boy, when you are stupid, you really are stupid, Hal. It took all of 10 seconds
> to find the Benghazi Rose Garden press conference video on YouTube. There he
> makes the first statement quoted above.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDdrpXGrA2M
>
> Perhaps you should pull your head out of your sphincter and get a clue. Dissing
> publications because you don't believe they follow the same politics you do is
> beyond imbecile.
>
> And just to rub your nose in it further, here is the second time he said, the
> following day from the press conference, not in Denver, but Golden, CO.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sTWymHqDbQ
>
> Care to try and rebutt now, fool?
>

In the Rose Garden statement -- not a news conference -- Obama avoided
the word "terrorist" and its derivatives more than a half-dozen times
before two and a half minutes of encomiums for the victims and only in
the last 30 second uttered the platitudinous words, "No act of terror
will shake this nation," before resuming the denuded phraseology with
"terrible acts" and other non-terroristic references. The same occurred
in the campaign speech in Golden, Colo. -- again not a news conference
-- when he offered another single platitude, "No act of terror will go
unpunished," (0:45) and proceeded directly to a standard stump speech
without mentioning terror or its derivatives.

[Moder@tor]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:45:33 -0400, Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/15/2013 3:28 PM, Moder@tor wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:26:11 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 14, 11:35 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 15:36:40 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anybody surprised that Obama told another flagrant lie, about
>>>>> Benghazi?
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he...
>>>>
>>>>> Washington Post, hardly a right-wing publication gives him four
>>>>> Pinocchios. Now he claims that he labeled those murders terrorism
>>>>> very early but in fact he was still blaming the video.
>>>>
>>>> Except it isn't a lie. Obama said those words.....twice.
>>>>
>>>> http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/13/2002871/issa-obama-cover...
>>>>
>>>> 'In the day following the Benghazi attacks, Obama appeared at the White House
>>>> Rose Garden alongside then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In his remarks,

>>>> Obama referred to the incident as an �act of terror� and used the phrase again
>>>> at a campaign rally the day after in Denver, CO. �I want people around the world

>>>> to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go

>>>> unpunished,� he said.'

So you agree that he said it in the Rose Garden statement on Benghazi. Duly
noted. A public statement no less.

> before resuming the denuded phraseology with
>"terrible acts" and other non-terroristic references.

Since when are terrorist acts not 'terrible?' Another spin doctor trying to deny
what he said.

> The same occurred
>in the campaign speech in Golden, Colo. -- again not a news conference

Never said it was. The original statement that Hal questioned stated it as a
campaign rally. Just happened that the rally fell two days after Benghazi.

>-- when he offered another single platitude, "No act of terror will go
>unpunished," (0:45)

So you agree that he mentioned it as an act of terror in another public
statement, but...

>and proceeded directly to a standard stump speech
>without mentioning terror or its derivatives.

So how did he mention it and not mention it at the same time, Mr. Spin Doctor?
Both cites are legitimate examples of where he called it an act of terror.
You've got nothing but spin. Seems you, like Hal, should pull your head out of
your ass and stop lying.

[hal lillywhite]

It always helps when you are losing to resort to ad hominem, right?

> It took all of 10 seconds
> to find the Benghazi Rose Garden press conference video on YouTube. There he
> makes the first statement quoted above.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDdrpXGrA2M

In which he mentions terrorism but *never* applies it to the Benghazi
murderers. In fact he starts with yet another reference to respecting
others' religions, a clear reference to the fantasy of the reaction to
the video.

> Perhaps you should pull your head out of your sphincter and get a clue. Dissing
> publications because you don't believe they follow the same politics you do is
> beyond imbecile.
>
> And just to rub your nose in it further, here is the second time he said, the
> following day from the press conference, not in Denver, but Golden, CO.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sTWymHqDbQ

Mentions terrorism but *not* Benghazi in the clip linked. Again no
statement that the Benghazi murderers were terrorists or al Queda.

Face it, for many days after the murders the Obama administration
tried to maintain the fantasy that it was just a demonstration against
the video that got out of hand. That when it was quite clear that
such was not the case. Either they were incredibly ignorant or out
and out lying. When Obama claims he quickly labeled the murders
terrorism he is lying. He labeled them reaction to the video and used
the word terror only with no statement that those murderers were
terrorists.

[Sancho Panza]

On 5/15/2013 5:07 PM, Moder@tor wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:45:33 -0400, Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/15/2013 3:28 PM, Moder@tor wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:26:11 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 14, 11:35 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 15:36:40 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anybody surprised that Obama told another flagrant lie, about
>>>>>> Benghazi?
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Washington Post, hardly a right-wing publication gives him four
>>>>>> Pinocchios. Now he claims that he labeled those murders terrorism
>>>>>> very early but in fact he was still blaming the video.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except it isn't a lie. Obama said those words.....twice.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/13/2002871/issa-obama-cover...
>>>>>
>>>>> 'In the day following the Benghazi attacks, Obama appeared at the White House
>>>>> Rose Garden alongside then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In his remarks,

>>>>> Obama referred to the incident as an �act of terror� and used the phrase again
>>>>> at a campaign rally the day after in Denver, CO. �I want people around the world

>>>>> to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go

>>>>> unpunished,� he said.'

Not at all. That is what Obama said. That is all he said. He did not
call Benghazi a terrorist attack. He scrupulously avoided that terminology.

>> -- when he offered another single platitude, "No act of terror will go
>> unpunished," (0:45)
>
> So you agree that he mentioned it as an act of terror in another public
> statement, but...

He once again scrupulously avoided classifying Benghazi as a terrorist
attack. He used that word ONLY in the most general term. Double check
the meaning of platitude before interpreting definitions on my behalf.

>
>> and proceeded directly to a standard stump speech
>> without mentioning terror or its derivatives.
>
> So how did he mention it and not mention it at the same time, Mr. Spin Doctor?
> Both cites are legitimate examples of where he called it an act of terror.
> You've got nothing but spin. Seems you, like Hal, should pull your head out of
> your ass and stop lying.

The lies were Obama's when he appeared on "60 Minutes" and "The View,"
as well as at the U.N., as he cited the pathetic YouTube video.

>

[Sancho Panza]

On 5/16/2013 8:01 AM, hal lillywhite wrote:
> On May 15, 12:28 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:

>> Boy, when you are stupid, you really are stupid, Hal.
>
> It always helps when you are losing to resort to ad hominem, right?

That's a major indicator of a classless adversary.

[Moder@tor]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 05:01:33 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com>
wrote:

If the shoe fits.....

>
>> It took all of 10 seconds
>> to find the Benghazi Rose Garden press conference video on YouTube. There he
>> makes the first statement quoted above.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDdrpXGrA2M
>
>In which he mentions terrorism but *never* applies it to the Benghazi
>murderers. In fact he starts with yet another reference to respecting
>others' religions, a clear reference to the fantasy of the reaction to
>the video.

The whole speech is about Bengahzi. Do you think he was talking about golf or
shopping? All of the references in his speech were about Bengahzi. Get real,
Hal. You lied about him lying and now you're trying to spin it.

>> Perhaps you should pull your head out of your sphincter and get a clue. Dissing
>> publications because you don't believe they follow the same politics you do is
>> beyond imbecile.
>>
>> And just to rub your nose in it further, here is the second time he said, the
>> following day from the press conference, not in Denver, but Golden, CO.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sTWymHqDbQ
>
>Mentions terrorism but *not* Benghazi in the clip linked. Again no
>statement that the Benghazi murderers were terrorists or al Queda.

Now here you *might* get away with saying he doesn't mention Bengahzi
specifically. It was, after all, an election rally. But to all but the spinning
Righturds, the reference was crystal clear. Are you part of them?

>Face it, for many days after the murders the Obama administration
>tried to maintain the fantasy that it was just a demonstration against
>the video that got out of hand.

Doesn't seem so from either video. Spin again, doctor?

>That when it was quite clear that
>such was not the case.
>Either they were incredibly ignorant or out
>and out lying.

When such an event happens, one must first lok at what happened. There was a
demonstration against the video happening. The terrorists used that as an
opportunity to launch the attack.

>When Obama claims he quickly labeled the murders
>terrorism he is lying.

Twice I proved otherwise, spun by you. You have nothing, Hal. Nothing. You lose.
You can continue to lie about this. It will only sit on your conscience.

>He labeled them reaction to the video and used
>the word terror only with no statement that those murderers were
>terrorists.

An act of terror can only be done by terrorists. Get a dictionary, grow up a bit
and get back to us when you have any semblance of a clue, Pal. This thread is
toast.

[hal lillywhite]

On May 16, 6:08 am, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:

> >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDdrpXGrA2M
>
> >In which he mentions terrorism but *never* applies it to the Benghazi
> >murderers.  In fact he starts with yet another reference to respecting
> >others' religions, a clear reference to the fantasy of the reaction to
> >the video.
>
> The whole speech is about Bengahzi.

Which is certainly why he brings in the video which didn't cause the
riot that never happened.


...

> >Mentions terrorism but *not* Benghazi in the clip linked.  Again no
> >statement that the Benghazi murderers were terrorists or al Queda.
>
> Now here you *might* get away with saying he doesn't mention Bengahzi
> specifically. It was, after all, an election rally. But to all but the spinning
> Righturds, the reference was crystal clear. Are you part of them?

It was certainly not clear from that video clip. Remember, he was
still blaming the riot that never happened.

...

> >Either they were incredibly ignorant or out
> >and out lying.
>
> When such an event happens, one must first lok at what happened. There was a
> demonstration against the video happening.

What???????? Are you deliberately lying or just ignorant. There was
no such riot. cf

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/09/state_department_no_video_protest_at_the_benghazi_consulate

> The terrorists used that as an
> opportunity to launch the attack.
>
> >When Obama claims he quickly labeled the murders
> >terrorism he is lying.
>
> Twice I proved otherwise, spun by you.

You have proven nothing except that you are a liar. Of course we
already knew that, IIRC you started posting here claiming you intended
to vote for Romney. Nobody believes that.

[Moder@tor]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 12:27:45 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com>
wrote:

>On May 16, 6:08 am, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>
>> >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDdrpXGrA2M
>>
>> >In which he mentions terrorism but *never* applies it to the Benghazi
>> >murderers.  In fact he starts with yet another reference to respecting
>> >others' religions, a clear reference to the fantasy of the reaction to
>> >the video.
>>
>> The whole speech is about Bengahzi.
>
>Which is certainly why he brings in the video which didn't cause the
>riot that never happened.

GOP Altered Benghazi E-Mails To Suggest A Cover-Up

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/17/2027861/gop-sources-altered-benghazi-e-mails-to-suggest-a-cover-up-reporter-confirms/

Since September, Republicans have claimed the Obama administration
covered up the truth about the attack on the American consulate in
Benghazi, Libya by altering the talking points Susan Rice used on the
Sunday morning talk shows. To bolster the story, Republicans misquoted
or significantly embellished the emails officials used to draft Rice’s
remarks, the CBS Evening News reported Thursday.

CBS News’ Major Garrett confirmed that it was a GOP source who leaked
the altered emails.

The miscast quotes affect at least two emails that include a State
Department spokesperson and a White House deputy adviser — the two
parties GOP lawmakers insist were trying to engage a cover-up on
behalf of the Obama administration to protect the president’s chances
of re-election.

So who lied, Hal?

[Sancho Panza]

That's a hoot. Susan Rice as a reliable source of anything. And to imply
that the paraphrases below are anything comparable to the 100 percent
fictional story about the the YouTube video is beyond a very very far
stretch.

"A leaked email adds new language to State Department spokesperson
Victoria Nuland’s email, including a specific reference to al-Qaeda:
“The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the
previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda’s presence
and activities of al-Qaeda

The actual email read:
“The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State
Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.“

and

"A leaked email written by deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes
suggests that he asked for the final draft to remove references to
warnings about specific attacks, a demand made by the State Department:
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency
equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to
undermine the FBI investigation.”

But the actual email did not mention the State Department:
“We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant
equities, particularly the investigation.”

Virtually no changes in meaning or nuance. You probably still maintain
that Obama actually called Benghazi a terrorist attack the day after he
came out of hiding from his trip to Las Vegas. Different standards of
precision in language for different sides.

[Moder@tor]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:37:10 -0400, Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com>
wrote:

You cannot possibly be serious. Of course there is a change in meaning in both
instances. In the first, the change was made to reflect only Al-Qaeda
activities. Get real, Sancho. Your Righturds changed the emails and call Obama a
liar? LOL.

>You probably still maintain
>that Obama actually called Benghazi a terrorist attack the day after he
>came out of hiding from his trip to Las Vegas.

Gave the cite showing that he did so twice, both in context. That you remain in
denial is no surprise. You and Lillyput remain unencumbered by a clue.

>Different standards of
>precision in language for different sides.

Precision is a word never associated with the Right.

[Sancho Panza]

Time to learn the meaning of paraphrase. After all, you do it regularly.

[Moder@tor]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:21:18 -0400, Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com>

Since paraphrasing is restating something WITHOUT changing the meaning, it
doesn't apply here. But nice try at spinning. You're not very good at this, are
you?

[Sancho Panza]

Paraphrasing sure beats weasel evasion like this one:

Last Thursday at the President’s press conference with the Turkish prime
minister, Julianna Goldman of Bloomberg News asked:

“Mr. President, I want to ask you about the IRS. Can you assure the
American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s
actions before your Counsel’s Office found out on April 22nd? And when
they did find out, do you think that you should have learned about it
before you learned about it from news reports as you said last Friday?
And also, are you opposed to there being a special counsel appointed to
lead the Justice Department investigation?”

The response?
“But let me make sure that I answer your specific question. I can
assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG
report before the IG report had been leaked through the press.”

The question was:
“Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House
knew about the agency’s actions before your Counsel’s Office found
out on April 22nd?”

Obama evaded by answering:
“I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the
IG report…..”

The question was not whether he knew about the IG report ahead of time.
The question was whether he could “assure the American people that
nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions."

[Moder@tor]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:46:33 -0400, Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com>

Nice evasion. Both by Obama and by you. The subject is Obama lying, as put forth
by Hal. Seems he didn't lie. No evidence whatsoever. But the GOP? Definite
evidence that they changed the emails. No paraphrase, simply a blatant attempt
at putting blame where it doesn't belong. And being the sucker you two are, you
bought it hook, line and stinker.

[hal lillywhite]

On May 20, 7:53 am, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:

> Nice evasion. Both by Obama and by you. The subject is Obama lying, as put forth
> by Hal. Seems he didn't lie.

It is solidly established that the administration continued for at
least a week the fiction that the murders a protest that got out of
hand and that the protest was over that video. It is also solidly
established that such was not the case, this was a terrorist operation
from the get-go.

[Sancho Panza]

It was actually two weeks later when the president made his video spiel
to the U.N. General Assembly. Imagine lying to the world after he had
said so early on that it was a terrorist attack. Does he think that the
rest of the world is as blindly ignorant as his devoted acolytes?

[Moder@tor]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com>
wrote:

Oh, so now you move the goal posts to say the administration and not Obama. You
might look at your own subject in this thread Hal. You're becoming a
pathological liar.

[hal lillywhite]

On May 20, 11:55 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On May 20, 7:53 am, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>
> >> Nice evasion. Both by Obama and by you. The subject is Obama lying, as put forth
> >> by Hal. Seems he didn't lie.
>
> >It is solidly established that the administration continued for at
> >least a week the fiction that the murders a protest that got out of
> >hand and that the protest was over that video.  It is also solidly
> >established that such was not the case, this was a terrorist operation
> >from the get-go.
>

And you think Susan Rice etc. went off and told the fantasy to the
world without Obama's approval? She was just parroting what she was
told, the lies came from higher up and there is essentially no
probability Obama didn't know that.

And he still lied when he claimed to have blamed terrorism instead of
the video soon after the murders.

> You
> might look at your own subject in this thread Hal. You're becoming a
> pathological liar.

Again, you are showing your desperation by ad hominem lies.

[Moder@tor]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:52:43 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com>
wrote:

>On May 20, 11:55�pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 20, 7:53�am, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Nice evasion. Both by Obama and by you. The subject is Obama lying, as put forth
>> >> by Hal. Seems he didn't lie.
>>
>> >It is solidly established that the administration continued for at
>> >least a week the fiction that the murders a protest that got out of
>> >hand and that the protest was over that video. �It is also solidly
>> >established that such was not the case, this was a terrorist operation
>> >from the get-go.
>>
>
>And you think Susan Rice etc. went off and told the fantasy to the
>world without Obama's approval?

Unless you have hard, cold proof, one would assume that she is answerable for
her own statements. Do you understand delegation at all, or are you the dictator
type?

>She was just parroting what she was
>told, the lies came from higher up and there is essentially no
>probability Obama didn't know that.

So prove your claim here with a cite if you know this. Otherwise it is just an
opinion. And you know what they say about those.....

>And he still lied when he claimed to have blamed terrorism instead of
>the video soon after the murders.

You can believe what you want. I supplied two video cites of him addressing
Benghazi as an act of terror and you didn't believe either of them. Either you
are stupid, or just plain so partisan that even if it was proven beyond a shadow
of a doubt you wouldn't believe it. And that is also stupid.

>> You
>> might look at your own subject in this thread Hal. You're becoming a
>> pathological liar.
>
>Again, you are showing your desperation by ad hominem lies.

No desparation necessary. You continue to lie, at some point it becomes
pathological. Your idiocy as a partisan hack is showing through pretty strongly.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:09c1cfda-df42-4473...@z10g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...

>And you think Susan Rice etc. went off and told the fantasy to the
>world without Obama's approval? She was just parroting what she was
>told, the lies came from higher up and there is essentially no
>probability Obama didn't know that.

>by ad hominem lies.

Hal's rightard world requires that people always follow orders and never
think for themselves.

[Sancho Panza]

On 5/21/2013 3:19 PM, Moder@tor wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:52:43 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On May 20, 11:55 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 20, 7:53 am, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nice evasion. Both by Obama and by you. The subject is Obama lying, as put forth
>>>>> by Hal. Seems he didn't lie.
>>>
>>>> It is solidly established that the administration continued for at
>>>> least a week the fiction that the murders a protest that got out of
>>>> hand and that the protest was over that video. It is also solidly
>>>> established that such was not the case, this was a terrorist operation
>>> >from the get-go.
>>>
>>
>> And you think Susan Rice etc. went off and told the fantasy to the
>> world without Obama's approval?
>
> Unless you have hard, cold proof, one would assume that she is answerable for
> her own statements. Do you understand delegation at all, or are you the dictator
> type?

It is what said on "The Daily Show":
During the interview, Stewart presented his own summary of the timeline,
bringing up former CIA Director David Petraeus, Acting CIA Director
Michael J. Morell, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and Sens. John
McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

“There is an undercurrent in the Republican opposition that suggests a
malevolence to this. But here is just what from my perspective does
strike me as odd,” Stewart said. “So, you get talking points. On Nov.
16, Petraeus told Congress the CIA didn’t change the talking points.
White House and State said they didn’t do it. CIA told CBS News changes
were made at senior level and interagency process because they didn’t
want al Qaeda being tipped off. Then the director of the Office of
National Intelligence told CBS they made the changes, the al Qaeda links
were too tenuous. Then the CIA director told McCain and Graham the FBI
did it. Then Morell said, ‘Did I say FBI? I didn’t mean FBI, I meant
CIA.’ Then Panetta said he believed at the time that it was a
pre-planned terrorist attack.”

Stewart asked, “So, you can see for people, it does look like there is a
great deal of confusion there. Yes?”

Rice responded by calling the focus on talking points tragic.

“There’s always confusion when you have a tragedy of that sort and
Americans are killed,” Rice said. “The bigger tragedy, Jon, is we've
spent all of these months trying to figure out the origin of some
talking points which were cleared at the highest levels of the
intelligence community and, in my opinion, not enough time doing the
service that we owe to our fallen colleagues.”