--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <richard@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first sentence is a generalization about acts of > > > > > terror; the next three sentences make it crystal clear > > > > > that he was considering the Benghazi attack to be one > > > > > of those acts of terror. > > > > > > > > wgm4u: > > > > Actually he specifically refers to Benghazi here as > > > > "this terrible act", that's NOT a generalization. > > > > > > > What we want to know is why the White House tried to > > > change the narrative by claiming that the video caused > > > an armed riot in Benghazi, which led to the attack - > > > apparently they didn't get that information from the > > > intelligence agency, because intelligence knew from the > > > first hour there was no demonstration at the embassy. > > > > BINGO! > > Actually, no. The New York Times confirmed early reports that there was > *also* a protest outside the Benghazi consulate over the anti-Muslim YouTube > video that had sparked riots in Cairo and elsewhere on Sept. 11. > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&;
And of course, Obama gets all of his intelligence reports right from the New York Times, makes perfect sense Raunchy, good of you to point that out! Who's President these days anyway, anybody know?
