question for cons

[Lapcat]

Talking to yourself there, Judy? Well, dementia notwithstanding.....

for once....you're right! LMAO!!!

Now do you see how ridiculous you sound?

 

[Lapcat]

Nobody has to "create" anything. It IS what it IS. Barack Hussein Obama lied about the cause of the Benghazi attack....which was radical Muslim terrorism on the anniversary of 9/11, with aholes coming into the compound chanting "We are ALL Osamas, Obama"....

just like he lies about everything ELSE that comes out of his mouth.

You're just pissed that, unlike the lame/mainstream "in the tank for Obama" media outlets, Fox News actually reports what REALLY happened.

Tough shit.

Of course it's ridiculous, but that's not the point. Fox News and their associates have been on a mission to create a counter-story to distract from Mitt's stupid remarks made on the eve of the event. This was all they could come up with. It doesn't have to be legit -- it only has to fit.

 

[IrishOne]

Simply not true. A LIE. Date: 9/11/2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nu6VZ9DeVc

 

[IrishOne]

Simply not true. A LIE. Date: 9/11/2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nu6VZ9DeVc

There is no "IF":

Obama 2012

 

[Dino]

Of course, you'd be right if he SPECIFICALLY mentioned this act as a terrorist act. He didn't. He called it an attack, and then went into remembrances of 9/11. THAT is when he first mentioned "acts of terror", and not before.

And even if he had, it wouldn't explain why the story suddenly switched to a protest over a "film" over the next two weeks. The story was put in context of the movie by the president's spokesman, spokespeople for the State Dept. and of course, the president himself. For two whole weeks this was "under investigation" when they knew within two hours what was happening there.

Why was there that stone-walling and smokescreens to deflect from the actual motive?