Search results

The blonde Stepford twit currently on Focks Nooz ... has just just breathlessly reported the CIA and DoD timelines DO NOT AGREE !!!! Apparently the CIA timeline said the attack started at 9:40 ... and DoD's says 9:42 ... Oh the horror !!! But hey - it's Nooz u can use ... :rolleyes: I think...

Ok mutt, You wanted a little neocon - we got a little neocon - here ya go. Seems like ol' D.P. was havng all kinds of trouble with his emails - including forwarding them to the wrong folks: Behind Petraeus’s Resignationn

Might be ... who knows where them little stinkers have gotten off to now that Mitt no longer needs 'em and has cut 'em loose ... We'll be keepin' an eye out for 'em though ... BTW - that timeline thingie - it looks like it was briefed ... so the AP tweet may be reflecting a time after that...

Probably the most detailed report (in terms of precise times) that I've seen thus far, courtesy of AFPS: DOD Releases Detailed Timeline for Benghazi Response

Be sure to check under your bed for the bogey-man before you go nite-nite ... I think Ed just reported he saw him there ...

Hey bob, Thanks for substantively addressing my previous reply to you ... oh wait ... nevermind ...

Yes, really - examine Fox's coverage re: the rooftop defenders @ the annex in Benghazi "lasing" the attackers for starters ... They ended up doing a "limited walkback"/"clarification" on that one ... ;) The original amorphous reporting was then used to drive a lot of speculation (conspiracy...

The sentiment above might just be characterized by ... dumber than dir ....

So did you apparently ... Ooops ! As I do yours ... ;)

So am I - when I refer to inaccurate and misleading ... other folks take care the hysterical ranting with what JG and KH provide.

Are you kidding ? Scope out WaPo's Eric Wemple's multi-part series (think it's up to 11 now) on Fox News' "reporting" on Benghazi for starters ... My advice to you would be to never confuse hysterical ranting (a good bit of which actually turns out to inaccurate or misleading) with actual news...

And people in the GOP actually wonder why they lost ...

I had assumed that actually consulting a dictionary was probably not gonna happen - thanks for confirming the assumption. Yeah ... exactly ... that certainly is problematic, in and of itself ... (particularly in light of Fox's reporting on Benghazi ... let alone anything else ...)

Oh, I can explain it ... it's just that it's been my experience that you (in particular) tend to be somewhat resistant to considering alternatives. I will throw you a bone however (try not to break your teeth while gnawing on it): It is certainly true that one is likely to get more of what one...

No, not really ... People who are tasked to brief the White House might rightly be referred to as "White House (Intelligence) Briefers" ... but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually a part of, or from, the White House ... Understanding the history of the PDB (President's Daily...

Not worth the T&E ... ROTFLMAO ... I doubt it ... Hey buddy I think you should just stick with what ya got goin' on there ... After all, it's working out soooo well ...

Yeah ... it's old, old news ... :rolleyes:

Hey mutt ... maybe you can help me out here ... and point me to where in that article it is in any way implied that the alleged leak was from the WH ... Or was that just something you decided to pull out of your *** ?

Might wanna clear up the difference between a security threat ... and a security risk ... He may have been a security risk ... She may be, or have been, a security threat (honey trap) You got a link reporting where he actually said that ? Perhaps ... My guess is that, on Benghazi, there is...

Ahhh ... it happens periodically ... Evidently you've never heard of Thad Viers ? or Anthony Weiner ? or David Wu ? or Chris Lee ? or Herman Cain ? or Mark Souder ? or Eric Massa ? or Tom Ganley ? And that's just pols at the federal level over the ;ast two years ... Well ... just...