'haha, dream on. some of you have completely lost touch with reality. i know, i’m repeating myself.'
- sesquipedalian on May 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM
Because your grasp of reality has been so strong in the past…
'another fake scandal bites the dust. yawn.'
- sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM
In response to this:
'Why did the Administration watch the attack and do nothing?'
- Washington Nearsider on November 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM
Sesqui wrote:
'this is a slanderous accusation without any evidence.'
- sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 2:29 PM
Except for the fact that Deputy Secretary of State Charlene Lamb and others testified that they watched the attack in ‘real time’ back in Washington because a drone was flying overhead.
Next, we get this bit of 'brilliance':
'rice communicated the cia’s talking points. those
did not include a reference to any particular terrorist group,
apparently due to lack of sufficient evidence and/or tactical
considerations. that does not contradict the fact that attacking the
consulate and killing the ambassador and three others was an act of
terror. again, why is this important?'
- sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 2:21
LMFAO! Rice did not communicate CIA talking points. She communicated talking points that had been stripped of any reference to Al Qaeda and terrorism, as demonstrated by the three versions and the emails of Victoria Nuland and Ben Rhodes.
To this:
'The video nonsense has all been debunked. Try again, idiot.'
- JPeterman on November 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM
Sesqui goes off the deep-end:
'show me where, ’cause you’re now just digging yourself deeper into bullshit. '
- sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM
But, it was debunked then - by many, including myself - and has been acknowledged as wrong and false by Democrats…
'Absolutely, [the Benghazi talking points]
were false, they were wrong. There were no protests outside the Benghazi
compound there. This was a deliberate and strategic attack on the
consulate there. It was false information. There’s no excuse for that.’
- Democratic Congressman Stephen Lynch (MA), 5 May 2013
'in any case, these are indeed the altered talking points, as approved by the intelligence community. who altered them and why remain completely inconsequential and uninteresting questions.'
- sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 1:23 PM
Wrong.
And, the slave of her Love God marches on...
'obama said it was “an act of terror.” it’s different
from specifically naming aq as the culprit. the first was obvious to
everyone and never really disputed. the second was not supported
sufficiently by evidence available at the time.'
- sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 1:33 PM
Really?
‘We all knew it was a terrorist attack from the get-go.'
- Greg Hicks, second-highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya, who
spoke with Ambassador Stevens and others on the ground in Benghazi
'La-la-la, I can't hear you and I am putting my hands over my eyes so that I can't read what you post either!'
To this:
'The during is a bit more “tenuous”, but the stand down
order clearly was meant to prevent folks going from the Annex to the
Consulate to help as was requested. The stand down was ignored.'
- Jabberwock on November 20, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Sesqui flails...
'in other words, you created a narrative but are having real trouble piecing together the details to support it.'
- sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Except it was Sesqui that had 'real trouble piercing together the details' of what was going on because she was in 'Protect Obama at all costs' mode and 'It's time to Move On...Nothing to see here... Benghazi happened a long time ago.'
Bob Scheiffer on Face the Nation: ‘Cover-up’
Here comes Sesqui proving that her grasp on reality is tenuous, at best...
'Why did King Obama blame it on the video in his speech at the UN 2 weeks later?'
- JPeterman on November 20, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Now, she's just farcical.
'he didn’t.'
Yes, he did. He did six times during his speech at the United Nations Speech on 25 October 2012:
'The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree:
There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words
that excuse the killing of innocents. THERE IS NO VIDEO THAT JUSTIFIES AN ATTACK ON AN EMBASSY...Nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful
speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming
majority of Muslims any more than the views of the people who produced
this video represents those of Americans...The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.'
- President Barack Obama, speech to the United Nations General Assembly, 25 September 2012
But he only mentioned 'terrorism' once - in the context of Iran...
'In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and
unaccountable ideology leads. The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient
history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their
neighbors. But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian
government continues to prop up a dictator in Damascus and supports TERRORIST
groups abroad.'
- President Barack Obama, speech to the United Nations General Assembly, 25 September 2012
And, Sesqui, the personification of the LoInFo voter continues...
'Why did the State Dept. spend $70,000 in Pakistan to run ad’s denouncing the video?'
- JPeterman on November 20, 2012 at 12:07 PM
To which, the genius replies:
'it didn’t.'
- sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 12:28 PM
From the WaPo:
Trying to blunt street protests surrounding a YouTube video that mocks the prophet Muhammad, the Obama administration paid $70,000 to buy ads on Pakistani television disavowing the video, the State Department said Thursday.
Now...
'Why did Hillary blame on the video as the 4 dead bodies arrived in the U.S.?'
- JPeterman on November 20, 2012 at 12:07 PM
...it's just being pathetic:
'nope, no luck again.'
sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 12:28 PM
From Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's remarks at Andrews AFB, as she stood by the coffins of 4 brave Americans:
'...Today, we bring home four Americans who gave their lives for our country and our values. To the families of our fallen colleagues, I offer our most heartfelt condolences and deepest gratitude. ... This has been a difficult week for the
State Department and for our country. We've seen the heavy assault on
our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We've seen
rage and violence over an awful internet
video that we had nothing to do with. ... So we will wipe away our tears, stiffen our
spines and face the future undaunted. And we will do it together
protecting and helping one another. Just like Sean, Tyrone, Glen and
Chris always did. May God bless them. And grant their families peace and
solace. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.'
- Hillary Rodham Clinton, 14 September 2012
She brought up the video in her remarks at the State Department two days earlier:
'Who, Meh?'
'i’m sure the American people will care a great deal about how the incident was designated. i think this is a winning issue for you.'
- sesquipedalian on September 27, 2012 at 12:52 PM
'Cuz, like, Americans don't care about lies, cover-ups and the incompetence of their government, especially when their fellow citizens are killed.
Moving on...
'i think you’re ignoring how difficult it was to
immediately assess what had happened and who were involved. you’re also
overstating the importance of what rice said on that tv show.'
-sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 1:54 PM
They knew what happened and lied to the American people. Some of us were smart enough to know what was going on…unfortunately, you were not.
Witness: The attempted deflection by yawn...
'it’s not going away, sissyhooligan.'
- kingsjester on November 20, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Whenever will the scales fall from the eyes...
'IT’S DISAPPEARING IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES. YOU’RE CHASING A
MIRAGE.'
- sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:14 AM
- sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:14 AM
LOL! Epic fail.
Indifference...
'You seem to ignore that Obama is responsible for the lives of all Americans serving our country, at home or abroad.'
- kingsjester on November 20, 2012 at 11:27 AM
Callousness...
'so?'
- sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:33 AM
If the President doesn’t care about those he puts into harm’s way, why would you ever think he cares one iota about you?
'spare me your fake concern for the four dead. it’s insulting. the election is over, sucker.'
- sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Tell it to the families...
‘I CAN’T IMAGINE
ANYONE WITH ANY HEART THAT WOULD WATCH A BATTLE RAGE FOR SEVEN HOURS KNOWING
THAT HEROES WERE THERE THAT WERE GOING TO BE SLAUGHTERED IF YOU DIDN’T HAVE
HELP SENT IN. Because we know that C130s could have been sent there in less
than an hour, jets could have been scrambled in minutes from many different
parts of the globe. THE ORDER WAS ‘DON’T HELP THEM, LET THEM DIE.'
- Charles Woods,
the father of murdered Benghazi SEAL Tyrone Woods, 31 October 2012
Yeah, tell it to Charles Woods.
'this is the difficulty you’re facing when your beautiful story line falls apart in the face of facts.'
- sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Res ipsa loquitur.
Sesqui's Old/busted:
'So did Obama initially blame terrorists or the video?'
- weaselyone on November 20, 2012 at 1:15 PM
'obama said it was “an act of terror”…'
- sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 1:33 PM
Sesqui's New Hotness:
'He didn’t call Benghazi a terrorist attack on 12 September 2012…'
- Resist We Much on April 16, 2013 at 12:40 AM
'of course, since it clearly wasn’t an act of terrorism…'
- sesquipedalian on April 16, 2013 at 12:48 AM
Sesqui will say whatever it needs to for any scenario at any given time to protect its Love God.
And, she's not the only flip-flopper:
BTW:
The whole 'video' excuse - that the attack in Benghazi was a spill over from the protests over the video in Cairo - doesn't even pass muster, if you bother to learn what actually happened in Cairo.
The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, especially the Salafists, had
planned the protest on Cairo for weeks. The stated reason was simple:
TO DEMAND THE RELEASE THE BLIND SHEIKH.
I am not in the intelligence community nor employed by the government, BUT I KNEW ABOUT THE PROTEST BEFORE IT HAPPENED.
I have laid out the timeline here:
The Saturday before the protest, 8 September 2012, the protest
planners had aired a snippet of the video on a show hosted by Sheikh
Khalid Abdallah, a firebrand extremist, on the Salafist television
station Al-Nas, which is owned by a Saudi media group. Al-Nas has been
regularly described as a channel known for ‘promoting religious or
sectarian hatred.’ It was thusly labelled by the Mubarak government and
was and has been described as such by governments, organisations, and
those that cover Egyptian news for years.
EVEN THOUGH THIS ‘VILE, DESPICABLE, AND DISGUSTING’ VIDEO
WAS AIRED ON SATURDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2012, THERE WERE NO PROTESTS OR
OUTRAGES ON THAT DAY, SUNDAY, OR MONDAY.
Just
‘coincidentally’ the crowd that was already planning on protesting at
the American Embassy in Cairo on 11 September 2012 to demand the release
of the Blind Sheikh ‘spontaneously protested’ and expressed their
‘outrage’ over the ‘youtube video’ ONLY on the day they were ALREADY planning a protest.
The Egyptian government was aware of the planned protest days before
the video was ever aired on television and notified the US government.
The video NEVER had ANYTHING to do with what happened in Benghazi. Furthermore, it is a demonstrable LIE
that there were ‘protests happening at American embassies and other
installations over the youtube video’ on 11 September 2012. The
protests that spread around the world did NOT happen until AFTER
Benghazi took place and the US government set out to rend its garments
over the constitutionally-protected speech of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.
Indeed, the administration sought its censorship and was denied. Then,
it had Nakoula arrested in the middle of the night by 10 Federal
agents, perp-walked, and thrown in solitary confinement in a Federal
detention centre on a probation violation, without bail, where he would
remain until his court date: THE DAY AFTER THE AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. He is still in jail.
I laid out all of this not long after Benghazi with the links where the information was available BEFORE 11 September 2012. If I knew, why didn't they?
The arguments made by the administration and Sesqui, literally, make no sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment