U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (3 Viewers)

[pittstownkiller]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows. You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make? Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

Oh, I absolutely agree that we should research what happened to prevent future mistakes. Now, it may seem trivial to you BUT the differences between the way Obama uses "acts of terror" or "terrorist attack" matters because it's part of a pattern. He's not being forthright. We still haven't been given a sufficient answer why the administration ran with a bogus story. It matters because we aren't getting any real answers why mistakes were made.

We're getting plenty of answers...to questions that matter. Your question here doesn't matter.

Answers like... "What difference does it make??"

We're getting answers to "questions that matter". Your question doesnt' matter. One that matters is something like, oh, "Why was the security level so low around the ambassador leading up to the attack?" or "Why wasn't anyone sent in to help when the attack was under way?" or "Why were the ambassadors requests for additional security apparently not approved?"...those have answers. Your question on the other hand, really isn't important for anything other than political purposes. The questions others are asking can be used to figure out what went wrong, and to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

You can add: " why was a filmmaker dragged out of his house and arrested, in front of TV cameras, in the middle of the night?" And"Who ordered the rescue party to stand down?"

 

[Hang 10]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows.

You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make?

Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

Oh, I absolutely agree that we should research what happened to prevent future mistakes.

Now, it may seem trivial to you BUT the differences between the way Obama uses "acts of terror" or "terrorist attack" matters because it's part of a pattern. He's not being forthright. We still haven't been given a sufficient answer why the administration ran with a bogus story. It matters because we aren't getting any real answers why mistakes were made.

We're getting plenty of answers...to questions that matter. Your question here doesn't matter.

Answers like... "What difference does it make??"

We're getting answers to "questions that matter". Your question doesnt' matter.

One that matters is something like, oh, "Why was the security level so low around the ambassador leading up to the attack?" or "Why wasn't anyone sent in to help when the attack was under way?" or "Why were the ambassadors requests for additional security apparently not approved?"...those have answers.

Your question on the other hand, really isn't important for anything other than political purposes. The questions others are asking can be used to figure out what went wrong, and to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Political purposes? That's the real reason we aren't going to ever get find out the real story.

 

[adonis]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows.

You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make?

Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

Oh, I absolutely agree that we should research what happened to prevent future mistakes.

Now, it may seem trivial to you BUT the differences between the way Obama uses "acts of terror" or "terrorist attack" matters because it's part of a pattern. He's not being forthright. We still haven't been given a sufficient answer why the administration ran with a bogus story. It matters because we aren't getting any real answers why mistakes were made.

We're getting plenty of answers...to questions that matter. Your question here doesn't matter.

Answers like... "What difference does it make??"

We're getting answers to "questions that matter". Your question doesnt' matter.

One that matters is something like, oh, "Why was the security level so low around the ambassador leading up to the attack?" or "Why wasn't anyone sent in to help when the attack was under way?" or "Why were the ambassadors requests for additional security apparently not approved?"...those have answers.

Your question on the other hand, really isn't important for anything other than political purposes. The questions others are asking can be used to figure out what went wrong, and to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Political purposes? That's the real reason we aren't going to ever get find out the real story.

The real story is boring, and is pretty much out there.

It's a sucky situation, a few failures of communication, some risk taking by the ambassador, terrible tragedy, finger pointing afterwards, attempts to formulate a coherent set of talking points between multiple agencies in a short amount of time.

Personally, I'm curious where the story about the tape was interjected, but that's primarily out of curiosity rather than it being a meaningful question. The meaningful questions will help make sure this doesn't happen again. The political ones are attempting to place blame on high ranking officials. Susan Rice already lost an appointment over this...

 

[tommyboy]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows.

You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make?

Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

if you haven't learned yet, the cover up is always worse than the crime.

The only crime here is how the republicans are politicizing this tragedy to inflict political damage on Hillary Clinton, and to use it to bolster their base leading up to elections coming up.

in your mind, that makes perfect sense.

 

[adonis]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows.

You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make?

Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

if you haven't learned yet, the cover up is always worse than the crime.

The only crime here is how the republicans are politicizing this tragedy to inflict political damage on Hillary Clinton, and to use it to bolster their base leading up to elections coming up.

in your mind, that makes perfect sense.

I sure hope so. Would be odd for me to type it if it didn't.

 

[Hang 10]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows.

You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make?

Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

Oh, I absolutely agree that we should research what happened to prevent future mistakes.

Now, it may seem trivial to you BUT the differences between the way Obama uses "acts of terror" or "terrorist attack" matters because it's part of a pattern. He's not being forthright. We still haven't been given a sufficient answer why the administration ran with a bogus story. It matters because we aren't getting any real answers why mistakes were made.

We're getting plenty of answers...to questions that matter. Your question here doesn't matter.

Answers like... "What difference does it make??"

We're getting answers to "questions that matter". Your question doesnt' matter.

One that matters is something like, oh, "Why was the security level so low around the ambassador leading up to the attack?" or "Why wasn't anyone sent in to help when the attack was under way?" or "Why were the ambassadors requests for additional security apparently not approved?"...those have answers.

Your question on the other hand, really isn't important for anything other than political purposes. The questions others are asking can be used to figure out what went wrong, and to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Political purposes? That's the real reason we aren't going to ever get find out the real story.

The real story is boring, and is pretty much out there.

It's a sucky situation, a few failures of communication, some risk taking by the ambassador, terrible tragedy, finger pointing afterwards, attempts to formulate a coherent set of talking points between multiple agencies in a short amount of time.

Personally, I'm curious where the story about the tape was interjected, but that's primarily out of curiosity rather than it being a meaningful question. The meaningful questions will help make sure this doesn't happen again. The political ones are attempting to place blame on high ranking officials. Susan Rice already lost an appointment over this...

See, now this is what's so frustrating. We both want to hear answers about the bogus video story but anyone on the right asks this question and suddenly he's a kook. It's either a non-story or a call for impeachment. We deserve a simple explanation. I don't think anyone needs to shouted down for asking for one.

 

[adonis]

See, now this is what's so frustrating. We both want to hear answers about the bogus video story but anyone on the right asks this question and suddenly he's a kook. It's either a non-story or a call for impeachment. We deserve a simple explanation. I don't think anyone needs to shouted down for asking for one.

To me, there are components to this story. Some of them deal with analyzing the situation to make sure it doesn't happen again and to fix any processes that are broken to ensure safety for our folks overseas. Those are the most important questions, to me.

Then, there are political questions where blame is being attempted to be placed, and political jockeying is going on. These typically surround issues related to the language that was used one day verses a few days later, or a story immediately released after the event which was updated shortly thereafter. Were there political considerations in the shaping of the information? Were there primarily battles between agencies each seeking to evade blame (CIA/State department) by focusing folks on other things? To me...not much can be done with this information, even when we get it. Can't really use it to prevent something from happening in the future, at worst/best, it'll be political ammunition. To me, that reduces its value.

I fully expect we'll get an answer to this question, but the way this and other questions like it are being repeated and debated, it's as if this is the substance of the discussion, when it's really not.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

See, now this is what's so frustrating. We both want to hear answers about the bogus video story but anyone on the right asks this question and suddenly he's a kook. It's either a non-story or a call for impeachment. We deserve a simple explanation. I don't think anyone needs to shouted down for asking for one.

To me, there are components to this story. Some of them deal with analyzing the situation to make sure it doesn't happen again and to fix any processes that are broken to ensure safety for our folks overseas. Those are the most important questions, to me.

Then, there are political questions where blame is being attempted to be placed, and political jockeying is going on. These typically surround issues related to the language that was used one day verses a few days later, or a story immediately released after the event which was updated shortly thereafter. Were there political considerations in the shaping of the information? Were there primarily battles between agencies each seeking to evade blame (CIA/State department) by focusing folks on other things? To me...not much can be done with this information, even when we get it. Can't really use it to prevent something from happening in the future, at worst/best, it'll be political ammunition. To me, that reduces its value.

I fully expect we'll get an answer to this question, but the way this and other questions like it are being repeated and debated, it's as if this is the substance of the discussion, when it's really not.

The real question is where was Obama when this happened. People that were there said lives could have been saved. These 4 deaths are on Obama for doing NOTHING except wanting to win an election. Shame on him and you for disregarding them all.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows. You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make? Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

Oh, I absolutely agree that we should research what happened to prevent future mistakes. Now, it may seem trivial to you BUT the differences between the way Obama uses "acts of terror" or "terrorist attack" matters because it's part of a pattern. He's not being forthright. We still haven't been given a sufficient answer why the administration ran with a bogus story. It matters because we aren't getting any real answers why mistakes were made.

We're getting plenty of answers...to questions that matter. Your question here doesn't matter.

Answers like... "What difference does it make??"

We're getting answers to "questions that matter". Your question doesnt' matter. One that matters is something like, oh, "Why was the security level so low around the ambassador leading up to the attack?" or "Why wasn't anyone sent in to help when the attack was under way?" or "Why were the ambassadors requests for additional security apparently not approved?"...those have answers. Your question on the other hand, really isn't important for anything other than political purposes. The questions others are asking can be used to figure out what went wrong, and to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

You can add: " why was a filmmaker dragged out of his house and arrested, in front of TV cameras, in the middle of the night?"And"Who ordered the rescue party to stand down?"

It's astonishing to me that liberals are ok with this...

 

[sporthenry]

See, now this is what's so frustrating. We both want to hear answers about the bogus video story but anyone on the right asks this question and suddenly he's a kook. It's either a non-story or a call for impeachment. We deserve a simple explanation. I don't think anyone needs to shouted down for asking for one.

To me, there are components to this story. Some of them deal with analyzing the situation to make sure it doesn't happen again and to fix any processes that are broken to ensure safety for our folks overseas. Those are the most important questions, to me.

Then, there are political questions where blame is being attempted to be placed, and political jockeying is going on. These typically surround issues related to the language that was used one day verses a few days later, or a story immediately released after the event which was updated shortly thereafter. Were there political considerations in the shaping of the information? Were there primarily battles between agencies each seeking to evade blame (CIA/State department) by focusing folks on other things? To me...not much can be done with this information, even when we get it. Can't really use it to prevent something from happening in the future, at worst/best, it'll be political ammunition. To me, that reduces its value.

I fully expect we'll get an answer to this question, but the way this and other questions like it are being repeated and debated, it's as if this is the substance of the discussion, when it's really not.

That is most reasonable people. Most people don't care about the talking points especially in the immediate aftermath. To expect them to be completely accurate is insane. What happened before and during the attack is my main concern and so far, there isn't much there so the only thing people hang on is the talking points or him not saying "terrorism."

As for where the video was interjected, it wasn't really interjected but there the whole time. The first talking point from the CIA was that this was a spontaneous attack inspired by the events in Cairo, which were inspired by the video. Just the State Department scrubbed everything else but left that in there.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The real story is boring, and is pretty much out there.

It's a sucky situation, a few failures of communication, some risk taking by the ambassador, terrible tragedy, finger pointing afterwards, attempts to formulate a coherent set of talking points between multiple agencies in a short amount of time.

Personally, I'm curious where the story about the tape was interjected, but that's primarily out of curiosity rather than it being a meaningful question. The meaningful questions will help make sure this doesn't happen again. The political ones are attempting to place blame on high ranking officials. Susan Rice already lost an appointment over this...

See, now this is what's so frustrating. We both want to hear answers about the bogus video story but anyone on the right asks this question and suddenly he's a kook. It's either a non-story or a call for impeachment. We deserve a simple explanation. I don't think anyone needs to shouted down for asking for one.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

See, now this is what's so frustrating. We both want to hear answers about the bogus video story but anyone on the right asks this question and suddenly he's a kook. It's either a non-story or a call for impeachment. We deserve a simple explanation. I don't think anyone needs to shouted down for asking for one.

To me, there are components to this story. Some of them deal with analyzing the situation to make sure it doesn't happen again and to fix any processes that are broken to ensure safety for our folks overseas. Those are the most important questions, to me.

Then, there are political questions where blame is being attempted to be placed, and political jockeying is going on. These typically surround issues related to the language that was used one day verses a few days later, or a story immediately released after the event which was updated shortly thereafter. Were there political considerations in the shaping of the information? Were there primarily battles between agencies each seeking to evade blame (CIA/State department) by focusing folks on other things? To me...not much can be done with this information, even when we get it. Can't really use it to prevent something from happening in the future, at worst/best, it'll be political ammunition. To me, that reduces its value.

I fully expect we'll get an answer to this question, but the way this and other questions like it are being repeated and debated, it's as if this is the substance of the discussion, when it's really not.

That is most reasonable people. Most people don't care about the talking points especially in the immediate aftermath. To expect them to be completely accurate is insane. What happened before and during the attack is my main concern and so far, there isn't much there so the only thing people hang on is the talking points or him not saying "terrorism."

As for where the video was interjected, it wasn't really interjected but there the whole time. The first talking point from the CIA was that this was may have been a spontaneous attack inspired by the events in Cairo, which were inspired by the video. Just the State Department scrubbed everything else but left that in there.

You seem to be doing your best political impression now..

 

[adonis]

See, now this is what's so frustrating. We both want to hear answers about the bogus video story but anyone on the right asks this question and suddenly he's a kook. It's either a non-story or a call for impeachment. We deserve a simple explanation. I don't think anyone needs to shouted down for asking for one.

To me, there are components to this story. Some of them deal with analyzing the situation to make sure it doesn't happen again and to fix any processes that are broken to ensure safety for our folks overseas. Those are the most important questions, to me.

Then, there are political questions where blame is being attempted to be placed, and political jockeying is going on. These typically surround issues related to the language that was used one day verses a few days later, or a story immediately released after the event which was updated shortly thereafter. Were there political considerations in the shaping of the information? Were there primarily battles between agencies each seeking to evade blame (CIA/State department) by focusing folks on other things? To me...not much can be done with this information, even when we get it. Can't really use it to prevent something from happening in the future, at worst/best, it'll be political ammunition. To me, that reduces its value.

I fully expect we'll get an answer to this question, but the way this and other questions like it are being repeated and debated, it's as if this is the substance of the discussion, when it's really not.

The real question is where was Obama when this happened. People that were there said lives could have been saved. These 4 deaths are on Obama for doing NOTHING except wanting to win an election. Shame on him and you for disregarding them all.

Wait, what?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

See, now this is what's so frustrating. We both want to hear answers about the bogus video story but anyone on the right asks this question and suddenly he's a kook. It's either a non-story or a call for impeachment. We deserve a simple explanation. I don't think anyone needs to shouted down for asking for one.

To me, there are components to this story. Some of them deal with analyzing the situation to make sure it doesn't happen again and to fix any processes that are broken to ensure safety for our folks overseas. Those are the most important questions, to me.

Then, there are political questions where blame is being attempted to be placed, and political jockeying is going on. These typically surround issues related to the language that was used one day verses a few days later, or a story immediately released after the event which was updated shortly thereafter. Were there political considerations in the shaping of the information? Were there primarily battles between agencies each seeking to evade blame (CIA/State department) by focusing folks on other things? To me...not much can be done with this information, even when we get it. Can't really use it to prevent something from happening in the future, at worst/best, it'll be political ammunition. To me, that reduces its value.

I fully expect we'll get an answer to this question, but the way this and other questions like it are being repeated and debated, it's as if this is the substance of the discussion, when it's really not.

The real question is where was Obama when this happened. People that were there said lives could have been saved. These 4 deaths are on Obama for doing NOTHING except wanting to win an election. Shame on him and you for disregarding them all.

Wait, what?

You heard him.. You're a shameful disgrace... lol

 

[adonis]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows. You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make? Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

Oh, I absolutely agree that we should research what happened to prevent future mistakes. Now, it may seem trivial to you BUT the differences between the way Obama uses "acts of terror" or "terrorist attack" matters because it's part of a pattern. He's not being forthright. We still haven't been given a sufficient answer why the administration ran with a bogus story. It matters because we aren't getting any real answers why mistakes were made.

We're getting plenty of answers...to questions that matter. Your question here doesn't matter.

Answers like... "What difference does it make??"

We're getting answers to "questions that matter". Your question doesnt' matter. One that matters is something like, oh, "Why was the security level so low around the ambassador leading up to the attack?" or "Why wasn't anyone sent in to help when the attack was under way?" or "Why were the ambassadors requests for additional security apparently not approved?"...those have answers. Your question on the other hand, really isn't important for anything other than political purposes. The questions others are asking can be used to figure out what went wrong, and to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

You can add: " why was a filmmaker dragged out of his house and arrested, in front of TV cameras, in the middle of the night?"And"Who ordered the rescue party to stand down?"

It's astonishing to me that liberals are ok with this...

Last I remember hearing was that he was charged with violating probation and he plead guilty. What's the problem here? Was he not guilty? Were laws broken in arresting the guy?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

Because when Obama mentions acts of terror in his rose garden speech he's talking about 9/11 2001. He had plenty of opportunities to call Benghazi terrorism but choose not too. This is backed up with his answers to reporters the following the speech. This is also backed up with Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows. You might not think this is a big deal but to me that's proof that he's lying now and was probably lying then.

Why should anyone care? What earthly significance does this make? Answer: it doesn't matter. It's all a charade to get people worked up about something. The fact is the guy died...it sucks, it was a tragedy and there's nothing Obama could've done about it. Let's research what happened, look at processes and see if we can prevent a situation from happening again, but this harping on parsing language and the 12 revisions and all this just seems silly and pointless, unless you consider political jockeying to be a worthwhile activity.

Oh, I absolutely agree that we should research what happened to prevent future mistakes. Now, it may seem trivial to you BUT the differences between the way Obama uses "acts of terror" or "terrorist attack" matters because it's part of a pattern. He's not being forthright. We still haven't been given a sufficient answer why the administration ran with a bogus story. It matters because we aren't getting any real answers why mistakes were made.

We're getting plenty of answers...to questions that matter. Your question here doesn't matter.

Answers like... "What difference does it make??"

We're getting answers to "questions that matter". Your question doesnt' matter. One that matters is something like, oh, "Why was the security level so low around the ambassador leading up to the attack?" or "Why wasn't anyone sent in to help when the attack was under way?" or "Why were the ambassadors requests for additional security apparently not approved?"...those have answers. Your question on the other hand, really isn't important for anything other than political purposes. The questions others are asking can be used to figure out what went wrong, and to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

You can add: " why was a filmmaker dragged out of his house and arrested, in front of TV cameras, in the middle of the night?"And"Who ordered the rescue party to stand down?"

It's astonishing to me that liberals are ok with this...

Last I remember hearing was that he was charged with violating probation and he plead guilty. What's the problem here? Was he not guilty? Were laws broken in arresting the guy?

The problem is that they were seeking this guy out. There was no probable cause for an investigation. This guys rights were violated for political gain.. If you're going to enforce the law, you have to do it by the law... They needed to find something to throw this guy in jail for. Because he Hey, it's not the terrorists fault we were attacked and our people were killed, it was this patsy's fault..

The middle east wast turning upside down over this video.. This was politically driven.. If you can't see that this smells bad, then you're blind..

This is the exact type of situation a liberal should be jumping up and down over, but since the culprit is a democratic administration, we hear nothing.. A bunch of thumb twiddling..

The one thing I've always admired about liberals was the stand for civil liberties... You guys are losing it..

 

[timschochet]

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

 

[timschochet]

This is all I could find on Wiki:

On September 27, 2012, US federal authorities stated Nakoula was arrested in Los Angeles for allegedly violating terms of his probation. Prosecutors stated that some of the violations included making false statements regarding his role in the film and his use of the alias "Sam Bacile".[12] On November 7, 2012, Nakoula pled guilty to four of the charges against him and was sentenced to one year in prison and four years of supervised release.[13][14]

Now, there is no reference here to his being dragged out of his house in the middle of the night. Where did that story come from? There is also no discussion of his having been arrested for political reasons, which Carolina Hustler is claiming and says should be obvious to anyone. Who is making this claim? Finally, I have read several people asking why this guy is still in jail. Apparently the fact that he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison is beside the point; he is a political prisoner?

 

[FlapJacks]

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

I'm sure there's wiggle room, but this quote, if accurate, is troubling. At this point, I'm not sure they knew who "sam bacile" was or if he had violated any terms of probation

Charles Wood, the father of Tyrone Woods, the retired Navy SEAL who was killed in Benghazi during the September 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission there. Tyrone Woods died trying to protect U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens who also was killed along with Sean Smith and Glenn Doherty.

Charles Woods told Larson that at the receiving ceremony in the United States, when his son’s body arrived, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed grieving family members and later told Mr. Woods, that she would make sure that the filmmaker behind the “Innocence of Muslims” online video would be “arrested” and “prosecuted.”

“She came over…she talked with me. I gave her a hug and shook her hand and she did not appear to be one bit sincere at all and she mentioned about, ‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.’,” recalled Mr. Woods. “That was the first time I even heard about anything like that.”

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

I'm sure there's wiggle room, but this quote, if accurate, is troubling. At this point, I'm not sure they knew who "sam bacile" was or if he had violated any terms of probation

Charles Wood, the father of Tyrone Woods, the retired Navy SEAL who was killed in Benghazi during the September 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission there. Tyrone Woods died trying to protect U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens who also was killed along with Sean Smith and Glenn Doherty.

Charles Woods told Larson that at the receiving ceremony in the United States, when his son’s body arrived, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed grieving family members and later told Mr. Woods, that she would make sure that the filmmaker behind the “Innocence of Muslims” online video would be “arrested” and “prosecuted.”

“She came over…she talked with me. I gave her a hug and shook her hand and she did not appear to be one bit sincere at all and she mentioned about, ‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.’,” recalled Mr. Woods. “That was the first time I even heard about anything like that.”

Oh please.

 

[timschochet]

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

I'm sure there's wiggle room, but this quote, if accurate, is troubling. At this point, I'm not sure they knew who "sam bacile" was or if he had violated any terms of probation

Charles Wood, the father of Tyrone Woods, the retired Navy SEAL who was killed in Benghazi during the September 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission there. Tyrone Woods died trying to protect U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens who also was killed along with Sean Smith and Glenn Doherty.

Charles Woods told Larson that at the receiving ceremony in the United States, when his son’s body arrived, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed grieving family members and later told Mr. Woods, that she would make sure that the filmmaker behind the “Innocence of Muslims” online video would be “arrested” and “prosecuted.”

“She came over…she talked with me. I gave her a hug and shook her hand and she did not appear to be one bit sincere at all and she mentioned about, ‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.’,” recalled Mr. Woods. “That was the first time I even heard about anything like that.”

I have no idea if that is true (I don't know the source of that quote). If it is, then you're right, it's a little troubling that Clinton would say that. Even if she did, however, some of you guys make it sound like this dude was unfairly arrested, and that he is a political prisoner. There's absolutely no evidence of that.

 

[pittstownkiller]

This is all I could find on Wiki:

On September 27, 2012, US federal authorities stated Nakoula was arrested in Los Angeles for allegedly violating terms of his probation. Prosecutors stated that some of the violations included making false statements regarding his role in the film and his use of the alias "Sam Bacile".[12] On November 7, 2012, Nakoula pled guilty to four of the charges against him and was sentenced to one year in prison and four years of supervised release.[13][14]

Now, there is no reference here to his being dragged out of his house in the middle of the night. Where did that story come from? There is also no discussion of his having been arrested for political reasons, which Carolina Hustler is claiming and says should be obvious to anyone. Who is making this claim? Finally, I have read several people asking why this guy is still in jail. Apparently the fact that he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison is beside the point; he is a political prisoner?

He was arrested for the violation of his parole, he used the Internet without permission of his parole officer; there was about a dozen officer there and a half of dozen squad cars. Sorry I can't link video but I watched it in real time on one of the news channels.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

Never said he was dragged out in the middle of the night.. I don't remember all the details.. I do remember there being way too many police involved for someone who violated parole by using the internet.. The political aspect is glaring. If you can't admit that, then I can't take anything you say seriously..

The point is, this guy broke no laws making the video. Maybe he's a jackass. But being a jackass isn't probable cause. The police can't get a warrant to search your house because you're a jackass..

They wanted this guy in jail because of all the turmoil his video caused in the middle east.. So they investigated without probable cause.. Violated his civil rights..

But what was he going to do? The president of the united states wanted him in jail.. He surely took a plea..

How many guys you see have the president coming after them for using the internet?

 

[pantherclub]

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

I don't remember all the details........................................................ The political aspect is glaring. If you can't admit that, then I can't take anything you say seriously..

dear lord that is too rich

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

I'm sure there's wiggle room, but this quote, if accurate, is troubling. At this point, I'm not sure they knew who "sam bacile" was or if he had violated any terms of probation

<blockquote>

Charles Wood, the father of Tyrone Woods, the retired Navy SEAL who was killed in Benghazi during the September 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission there. Tyrone Woods died trying to protect U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens who also was killed along with Sean Smith and Glenn Doherty.

Charles Woods told Larson that at the receiving ceremony in the United States, when his son’s body arrived, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed grieving family members and later told Mr. Woods, that she would make sure that the filmmaker behind the “Innocence of Muslims” online video would be “arrested” and “prosecuted.”

“She came over…she talked with me. I gave her a hug and shook her hand and she did not appear to be one bit sincere at all and she mentioned about, ‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.’,” recalled Mr. Woods. “That was the first time I even heard about anything like that.&

rdquo;

I have no idea if that is true (I don't know the source of that quote). If it is, then you're right, it's a little troubling that Clinton would say that. Even if she did, however, some of you guys make it sound like this dude was unfairly arrested, and that he is a political prisoner. There's absolutely no evidence of that.

Do you understand how the system is supposed to work? You understand the concept of civil rights?

If anyone from Washington was after this guy, it's political.. The guy made a video that incited the middle east, making life hard for politicians, so they made an example of him..

He goes to jail for a year because he violated probation by using the internet?... And this just happens to come up in the wake of all this video nonsense.. And after Hilary Clinton vows to hunt him down and put him in jail for making a video.. What a coincidence.. You don't smelly something fishy here?

The white house was using this guy as a patsy... They blamed Benghazi on him... This is a clear cut deception and abuse of power by the white house... But hey, go on believing what you want to believe..

 

[timschochet]

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

Never said he was dragged out in the middle of the night.. I don't remember all the details.. I do remember there being way too many police involved for someone who violated parole by using the internet.. The political aspect is glaring. If you can't admit that, then I can't take anything you say seriously.. The point is, this guy broke no laws making the video. Maybe he's a jackass. But being a jackass isn't probable cause. The police can't get a warrant to search your house because you're a jackass.. They wanted this guy in jail because of all the turmoil his video caused in the middle east.. So they investigated without probable cause.. Violated his civil rights.. But what was he going to do? The president of the united states wanted him in jail.. He surely took a plea.. How many guys you see have the president coming after them for using the internet?

So this is all based on assumptions on your part, without evidence, and if I don't share your assumptions, you can't take me seriously? Also in your reply, rather than attempt to back up your assumptions, you not only double down bug make NEW assumption, mainly that Obama personally wanted this guy in jail and directed the arrest.

 

[pantherclub]

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

Never said he was dragged out in the middle of the night.. I don't remember all the details.. I do remember there being way too many police involved for someone who violated parole by using the internet.. The political aspect is glaring. If you can't admit that, then I can't take anything you say seriously.. The point is, this guy broke no laws making the video. Maybe he's a jackass. But being a jackass isn't probable cause. The police can't get a warrant to search your house because you're a jackass.. They wanted this guy in jail because of all the turmoil his video caused in the middle east.. So they investigated without probable cause.. Violated his civil rights.. But what was he going to do? The president of the united states wanted him in jail.. He surely took a plea.. How many guys you see have the president coming after them for using the internet?

So this is all based on assumptions on your part, without evidence, and if I don't share your assumptions, you can't take me seriously?Also in your reply, rather than attempt to back up your assumptions, you not only double down bug make NEW assumption, mainly that Obama personally wanted this guy in jail and directed the arrest.

thats going to leave a mark

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

I'm sure there's wiggle room, but this quote, if accurate, is troubling. At this point, I'm not sure they knew who "sam bacile" was or if he had violated any terms of probation <blockquote> Charles Wood, the father of Tyrone Woods, the retired Navy SEAL who was killed in Benghazi during the September 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission there. Tyrone Woods died trying to protect U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens who also was killed along with Sean Smith and Glenn Doherty.Charles Woods told Larson that at the receiving ceremony in the United States, when his son’s body arrived, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed grieving family members and later told Mr. Woods, that she would make sure that the filmmaker behind the “Innocence of Muslims” online video would be “arrested” and “prosecuted.”“She came over…she talked with me. I gave her a hug and shook her hand and she did not appear to be one bit sincere at all and she mentioned about, ‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.’,” recalled Mr. Woods. “That was the first time I even heard about anything like that.”

Oh please.

Choose an option: 1) You are really such a lemming, so willing to believe anything they say, that you can't see when your team is ****ing up.2) You know they're wrong but you just won't admit it to the opposite team.3) You're just trolling

 

[pantherclub]

o'irony

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

Never said he was dragged out in the middle of the night.. I don't remember all the details.. I do remember there being way too many police involved for someone who violated parole by using the internet.. The political aspect is glaring. If you can't admit that, then I can't take anything you say seriously.. The point is, this guy broke no laws making the video. Maybe he's a jackass. But being a jackass isn't probable cause. The police can't get a warrant to search your house because you're a jackass.. They wanted this guy in jail because of all the turmoil his video caused in the middle east.. So they investigated without probable cause.. Violated his civil rights.. But what was he going to do? The president of the united states wanted him in jail.. He surely took a plea.. How many guys you see have the president coming after them for using the internet?

So this is all based on assumptions on your part, without evidence, and if I don't share your assumptions, you can't take me seriously?Also in your reply, rather than attempt to back up your assumptions, you not only double down bug make NEW assumption, mainly that Obama personally wanted this guy in jail and directed the arrest.

Assumptions?

Hilary Clinton said she was going to put him in jail. Days later he's in jail.. Coincidence?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

o'irony

I've understood you were option 3 for at least 7 months now..

 

[timschochet]

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

Never said he was dragged out in the middle of the night.. I don't remember all the details.. I do remember there being way too many police involved for someone who violated parole by using the internet.. The political aspect is glaring. If you can't admit that, then I can't take anything you say seriously.. The point is, this guy broke no laws making the video. Maybe he's a jackass. But being a jackass isn't probable cause. The police can't get a warrant to search your house because you're a jackass.. They wanted this guy in jail because of all the turmoil his video caused in the middle east.. So they investigated without probable cause.. Violated his civil rights.. But what was he going to do? The president of the united states wanted him in jail.. He surely took a plea.. How many guys you see have the president coming after them for using the internet?

So this is all based on assumptions on your part, without evidence, and if I don't share your assumptions, you can't take me seriously?Also in your reply, rather than attempt to back up your assumptions, you not only double down bug make NEW assumption, mainly that Obama personally wanted this guy in jail and directed the arrest.

Assumptions? Hilary Clinton said she was going to put him in jail. Days later he's in jail.. Coincidence?

Well that's what Flapjacks posted. I still have no idea where he got that quote, and I'd like to verify that it actually happened. Do you have a source?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Carolina Hustler, do you have a link to a story that asserts that the director of the video was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and arrested for political purposes? Because frankly I've never heard any of that until just now.

Never said he was dragged out in the middle of the night.. I don't remember all the details.. I do remember there being way too many police involved for someone who violated parole by using the internet.. The political aspect is glaring. If you can't admit that, then I can't take anything you say seriously..The point is, this guy broke no laws making the video. Maybe he's a jackass. But being a jackass isn't probable cause. The police can't get a warrant to search your house because you're a jackass..

They wanted this guy in jail because of all the turmoil his video caused in the middle east.. So they investigated without probable cause.. Violated his civil rights..

But what was he going to do? The president of the united states wanted him in jail.. He surely took a plea..

How many guys you see have the president coming after them for using the internet?

So this is all based on assumptions on your part, without evidence, and if I don't share your assumptions, you can't take me seriously?Also in your reply, rather than attempt to back up your assumptions, you not only double down bug make NEW assumption, mainly that Obama personally wanted this guy in jail and directed the arrest.

Assumptions?Hilary Clinton said she was going to put him in jail. Days later he's in jail.. Coincidence?

Well that's what Flapjacks posted. I still have no idea where he got that quote, and I'd like to verify that it actually happened. Do you have a source?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/25/picket-audio-father-killed-navy-seal-hillary-told-/

 

[timschochet]

OK thx. So what we have is a Wahington Times phone interview with the father of one of the victims, who states that Hillary was "insincere" and then relates this claim. That's not exactly what I would consider incontrovertible evidence...

 

[Slapdash]

OK thx. So what we have is a Wahington Times phone interview with the father of one of the victims, who states that Hillary was "insincere" and then relates this claim. That's not exactly what I would consider incontrovertible evidence...

That's just because you are a shill for Obama!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

OK thx. So what we have is a Wahington Times phone interview with the father of one of the victims, who states that Hillary was "insincere" and then relates this claim. That's not exactly what I would consider incontrovertible evidence...

Because unless we have a video of it coming out of her mouth, and her signed confession, it never happened..

-Controversy surrounding the video causing problems for the white house in the middle east

-White house condemns and blames video maker for Benghazi incident

-Victim's father say's Clinton told him video maker is going to jail

-Shortly after, video maker is in jail

Wow, I can't believe anyone can really understand this and be ok with it. Is this really the way you want things going down in your country?

If you chose to believe that this was a coincidence, then have at it..

 

[timschochet]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).

But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

 

[pittstownkiller]

OK thx. So what we have is a Wahington Times phone interview with the father of one of the victims, who states that Hillary was "insincere" and then relates this claim. That's not exactly what I would consider incontrovertible evidence...

I love this shtick; ask for a link and then deny the validity of the link. The father of a slain Seal made this statement on a nationally syndicated radio show; now you may want to deny its validity but it isn't like it is some pure speculation made by someone not intimate with the attack either. I cannot find a YouTube video of the filmmaker's arrest but the photos easily show that it is nighttime and surrounded by cops; tell me how a parole violation warrants that - not to mention the giant gaggle of press there to record it.

 

[Hang 10]

OK thx. So what we have is a Wahington Times phone interview with the father of one of the victims, who states that Hillary was "insincere" and then relates this claim. That's not exactly what I would consider incontrovertible evidence...

Woods father made the claim. You either believe him or don't. There's audio. Not sure why you're trying to bring the credibility of the Washington Times into this.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Link?

 

[timschochet]

OK thx. So what we have is a Wahington Times phone interview with the father of one of the victims, who states that Hillary was "insincere" and then relates this claim. That's not exactly what I would consider incontrovertible evidence...

I love this shtick; ask for a link and then deny the validity of the link. The father of a slain Seal made this statement on a nationally syndicated radio show; now you may want to deny its validity but it isn't like it is some pure speculation made by someone not intimate with the attack either. I cannot find a YouTube video of the filmmaker's arrest but the photos easily show that it is nighttime and surrounded by cops; tell me how a parole violation warrants that - not to mention the giant gaggle of press there to record it.

O didn't deny the validity. But by itself, the link doesn't prove it either.

 

[timschochet]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Link?

If someone is arrested for political reasons, he is by definition a political prisoner, isn't he?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Probable cause down?

And how do you think they found out he used the internet or made the video? Why would they be investigating him?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Link?

If someone is arrested for political reasons, he is by definition a political prisoner, isn't he?

No... He was obviously arrested by 12 officers for using the internet without permission... That makes it a probation violation.. The guys rights were violated, and he was used as a patsy. There would have been no motivation for him to be investigated if there were no political implications to the video.. So, it's inconceivable to you that in light of the need for a patsy in this situation, and the lightning rods this video was for the white house, that someone from the white house would say, see what we can find on this guy. Because they obviously couldn't arrest him for making a video.. You even have witness account of Clinton saying she was going after him.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Link?

If someone is arrested for political reasons, he is by definition a political prisoner, isn't he?

If he is being punished in a way different than 99% of how other criminals would be punished, refused bail on a trumped flee concern, and was the target of a phony scapegoating escapade by the Administration , then yes he is a political prisoner; since these things may have happened, investigation by Congress is applicable. The video was out for months, why wasn't he arrested then if he was such a detriment to society?

 

[Ghost Rider]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Considering you are the king of "Here is what I think, even though I have zero proof to back it up yet" shtick, I find that comment from you hilariously ironic.

 

[timschochet]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Considering you are the king of "Here is what I think, even though I have zero proof to back it up yet" shtick, I find that comment from you hilariously ironic.

I don't often accuse specific politicians, of any stripe, of conspiratorial actions, especially without proof.

 

[timschochet]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Link?

If someone is arrested for political reasons, he is by definition a political prisoner, isn't he?

If he is being punished in a way different than 99% of how other criminals would be punished, refused bail on a trumped flee concern, and was the target of a phony scapegoating escapade by the Administration , then yes he is a political prisoner; since these things may have happened, investigation by Congress is applicable. The video was out for months, why wasn't he arrested then if he was such a detriment to society?

Again, how do we know this to be true?

I'm really not trying to diminish your argument, because you're quite correct that if the dots can be connected, then he is a political prisoner and we have a very bad situation which ought to be investigated and dealt with. But again, I just don't see the evidence.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Considering you are the king of "Here is what I think, even though I have zero proof to back it up yet" shtick, I find that comment from you hilariously ironic.

I don't often accuse specific politicians, of any stripe, of conspiratorial actions, especially without proof.

No, just that George Bush single-handedly killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Link?

If someone is arrested for political reasons, he is by definition a political prisoner, isn't he?

If he is being punished in a way different than 99% of how other criminals would be punished, refused bail on a trumped flee concern, and was the target of a phony scapegoating escapade by the Administration , then yes he is a political prisoner; since these things may have happened, investigation by Congress is applicable. The video was out for months, why wasn't he arrested then if he was such a detriment to society?

Again, how do we know this to be true? I'm really not trying to diminish your argument, because you're quite correct that if the dots can be connected, then he is a political prisoner and we have a very bad situation which ought to be investigated and dealt with. But again, I just don't see the evidence.

Have you seen the evidence that the filmmaker deserves to be in jail; you seem fine with that outcome.