Trump in bed during botched Yemen raid?

Thing1 said:
You know, that's exactly how I remember conservatives - and Fox News - when it came to Benghazi. Patiently waiting for the facts.
Click to expand...
Don't let this one fool you Thing, he's as big a hack as Nova! He just has better writing skills.
 
sear said:
Secretary Clinton NEVER said that.
Click to expand...

of course she did you dimwitted fuck....
we know now that everything she said in this testimony was a lie.....she was aware it was a terrorist attack before the ambassador was even dead.......the difference it made was that she lied about Benghazi, the YouTube video and the fact that the talking points came from her.....

she was asked why false information was given.....false information that we now know came directly from her.......her answer was what difference does it make......the difference it made was President Trump instead of President Hillary........
 
domer76 said:
Let's go over this one more time, a little more slowly so you might be able to understand.

The claim made by Trump as you made in your first post is a lie. And the article articulates why.

Secondly, a big fuck you on what you think I do or don't care about. You haven't demonstrated shit that you can comprehend a simple article, much less about my beliefs.
Click to expand...
Allow me to go more slowly, since you're the only one having trouble here...

In my first post to this thread, I said: "I think he said"... and then proceeded to loosely paraphrase general points I recall Trump making about Hillary's basic corruption and incompetence. I never directly quoted Trump.

The Washington Post never even says that Trump "lied", nor does it suggest he intentionally misled anyone.

The WP only used ONE quote from Trump to write an entire article with more than 25 paragraphs. Their article's main beef seems to be with the people who first used the figures that Trump appeared to be citing from, like the House Select Committee, Megyn Kelly, etc. The article itself goes off on endless tangents, and actually makes a mockery of their original intentions in the process.

The one quote that the WP does use of Trump does not include the words "requests" or "concerns", nor does he give a single number, but instead says "500 or 600", which implies that he isn't sure of the exact number but that he is estimating and gathering his number from other sources (where they used similar rounded figures).

Again, this is not evidence of a "lie", but rather a casual recollection of documented statements from others, where he was intending to convey a much larger and more important message to the public... that Hillary Clinton is corrupt, complacent, and/or incompetent because she ignored several security messages and covered up her failures with intentional lies.
 
Last edited:
"of course she did you dimwitted ..." PP

I'll quote YOUR original allegation in PP #51, quoted as follows: "..then said what difference did it make that she lied.....".

Secretary Clinton wouldn't have referred to herself with a 3rd person pronoun. The custom is to use the personal pronoun "I".

So you're already wrong on the wording, before we get to the meaning.

The precise wording, according to a 14/01/15 NBC-TV News report of the Benghazi Investigation by Senate Intelligence Committee:

"What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again Senator." Secretary Clinton as reported 14/01/15 NBC-TV News

"of course she did you dimwitted ..." PP

Again, absolutely not. Secretary Clinton NEVER claimed that she had lied about it; not in the third person, and not in the first person either.

Also regarding findings in the investigation of this 9/11 anniversary attack:

- A major new finding: Ambassador Stevens "declined two specific offers" from Gen. Carter Ham, for more military support.

- With U.S. military fighter jets 5 hours away, the U.S. military was not prepared to respond to the attack.

"of course she did you dimwitted ..." PP

So lemme see. Your idea of a " dimwitted fuck " is a person that quotes in text HER EXACT WORDS with source reference.
Excellent.
In that case the finest journalists and cyber-journalists in the world are all " dimwitted fuck ".

In that case I appreciate your flattering me.
 
sear said:
"of course she did you dimwitted ..." PP
Click to expand...

I stated that because you are a dimwitted fuck who can't even listen to the full exchange without getting confused....
sear said:
Again, absolutely not. Secretary Clinton NEVER claimed that she had lied about it
Click to expand...

of course she didn't......the lying bitch denied it and had to be proven as a liar

sear said:
"of course she did you dimwitted ..." PP
So lemme see. Your idea of a " dimwitted fuck " is a person that quotes in text HER EXACT WORDS with source reference.
Excellent. .
Click to expand...

my idea of a dimwitted fuck is someone who 1) can listen to the question asked her and the answer she gave and still deny what she said and 2) can't figure out how to use the quote feature.....
 
Last edited:
blacknwhite321 said:
Allow me to go more slowly, since you're the only one having trouble here...

In my first post to this thread, I said: "I think he said"... and then proceeded to loosely paraphrase general points I recall Trump making about Hillary's basic corruption and incompetence. I never directly quoted Trump.

The Washington Post never even says that Trump "lied", nor does it suggest he intentionally misled anyone.

The WP only used ONE quote from Trump to write an entire article with more than 25 paragraphs. Their article's main beef seems to be with the people who first used the figures that Trump appeared to be citing from, like the House Select Committee, Megyn Kelly, etc. The article itself goes off on endless tangents, and actually makes a mockery of their original intentions in the process.

The one quote that the WP does use of Trump does not include the words "requests" or "concerns", nor does he give a single number, but instead says "500 or 600", which implies that he isn't sure of the exact number but that he is estimating and gathering his number from other sources (where they used similar rounded figures).

Again, this is not evidence of a "lie", but rather a casual recollection of documented statements from others, where he was intending to convey a much larger and more important message to the public... that Hillary Clinton is corrupt, complacent, and/or incompetent because she ignored several security messages and covered up her failures with intentional lies.
Click to expand...

One more time, even s-l-o-w-e-r. The claim made by Trump in your first post is a lie. Comprende?
 
domer76 said:
Why do you RW morons have such a propensity to lie?

"We’re using this Donald Trump quote as a jumping-off point to explore a figure that has been widely cited since the House Select Committee on Benghazi held a hearing in October featuring former secretary of state Hillary Clinton — that there were “600 requests” for security upgrades from U.S. officials based in Benghazi, Libya."

"As usual, Trump wildly exaggerated the figure. A key point that Republicans on the committee have tried to make was that Ambassador Chris Stevens — who perished in the 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities that left three others dead — did not directly communicate with Clinton on her private email system. (Generally, ambassadors would send messages through the chain of command.) So none of these came directly from Stevens to Clinton, “asking for help,” as Trump put it."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...er-security-what-this-statistic-really-means/
Click to expand...

Simple, because their causes are unjust and immoral. They require constant unmitigated mendacity to support the program of hate, intransigence and pure concentrated evil.
 
Thing1 said:
You know, that's exactly how I remember conservatives - and Fox News - when it came to Benghazi. Patiently waiting for the facts.
Click to expand...

Well, the first things we heard about Benghazi were all scripted lies, so, our BS detectors went quickly into overdrive. People tend to get pretty jumpy when that happens.
 
It ain't Bengazi...It's Libya that is the persistent problem-and that goes directly to Hillary advocacy.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23898
From: Jake Sullivan [mailtc
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 7:40 PM
To: Mills, Cheryl D; Nuland, Victoria
Subject: tick tock on libya
this is basically off the top of my head, with a few consultations of my notes. but it shows S' (Clinton) leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country's libya policy from start to finish. let me know what you think. toria, who else might be able to add to this?
 
PP's initial lie:
"..then said what difference did it make that she lied...." #51 / #60

PP's revised position:
"of course she didn't......the lying bitch denied it" PP #66

There you have it ladies & gents.
PP has firmly taken BOTH sides of the argument, guaranteeing being at least half right.
Guess what PP.
In any school I've ever attended, a 50% score is a failing grade.

You lose.
Thanks for playing.
 
blacknwhite321 said:
I'm sure your memory is just as strong as it was remembering how intent Democrats were to just win the Election of 2012 without exposing the truth of their failures...
Click to expand...
What failures were those? Obama was re-elected, it appears the electorate thought he was doing good enough to be re-elected.
 
sear said:
PP's initial lie:
"..then said what difference did it make that she lied...." #51 / #60

PP's revised position:
"of course she didn't......the lying bitch denied it" PP #66

There you have it ladies & gents.
PP has firmly taken BOTH sides of the argument, guaranteeing being at least half right.
Guess what PP.
In any school I've ever attended, a 50% score is a failing grade.

You lose.
Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...
if you would like me to continue to humiliate you as I do whenever we meet, learn to fucking quote......I hate lazy posters......
 
the purpose of that mission now that we have no bases in Yemen, or since Pesident Hadi fled to Aden..It helps if one knows why the mission failed.
Villagers noticed more drone coverage then usual, and ( I believe) lower drone flights ( to support the US.landing) which tipped off the mission..
Recovery missions are inherently difficult -one under Obama in Somali aslo was a failure-though the SEALS were able to make it back to shore for extraction

It's yet another counter-terrorism OP -no derelictions here. It wasn't even a signature strike. The strategy was sound-the logistics went bad.
 
Queen Snowflake said:
What failures were those? Obama was re-elected, it appears the electorate thought he was doing good enough to be re-elected.
Click to expand...
Wow, do you really not already know? The failure I've consistently been referring to is their failure to protect or even show a desire to help the four Americans killed in Benghazi. Democrats were intent to change the narrative of Benghazi from "Wow, we really messed up in Libya" to "it was a spontaneous 'response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet' and we couldn't help it". Their intentional deceit manipulated enough default Democrats to believe the latter, false narrative, which helped Obama get re-elected.
 
Thing1 said:
[h=2]Trump in bed during botched Yemen raid[/h]Quick - anyone remember what he said about Hillary & Benghazi?
Click to expand...

The raid took place in Yemen around the time that Mr. Trump was signing a directive in Washington on Saturday afternoon ordering Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to devise within 30 days a more aggressive plan to defeat the Islamic State.:palm:

laughing.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top