[quote=Veritas]He lied about it being terrorism and for 2 weeks talked about the faux video. RPG’s are not something spontaneous, especially on the anniversary of 9-11.
The Ambassador died because he had inadequate security. However, nothing I say about your religious leader matters because you have made up your mind and I know I am wasting my time discussing it with you, but you obviously like to fight. So check this out and you can respond later. “Video from the compound’s cameras debunk the initial line from the Obama administration that there was a protest in front of the consulate on the night of the attacks, according to one of the U.S. intelligence officials who has seen the footage, and a senior Obama administration official familiar with what they show.”
I have to walk the dog and then I will have a glass of something and chill out. You are raising my blood pressure with your incessant harping. I will see you tomorrow and we can resume where we left off. Have a pleasant night my liberal apologist.[/quote]
He referred to as an act of terrorism at least twice in the days immediately following the attack. (Sept 12 and 13.) There is no evidence readily available to indicate it was anything other than a spontaneous attack. RPG’s take moments to launch, almost no planning is necessary. Apparently there is a train of thought that the two are incompatible. Since there is no definition of “a terrorist attack”, I’m not sure how the two can be incompatible.
The Ambassador died, so inadequate security is pretty clear, but I’m not sure where the lie is there.
I haven’t seen any comments from the administration indicating that there were protests in front of the embassay. Only that the attack was a spontaneous response to the protests in Egypt. Nothing to the effect that there were protests outside the consulate in Benghazi. Obviously, those that were involved in the attack began on the outside.
Why would disputing innacuracies make me an apologist? They’re your innacuracies, not mine.
