Hillary says grieving mother is wrong!

Gotcha. So your source, which concludes there was evidence presented to Clinton that tied it to the video, supports your position that there was no evidence presented to her that linked it to the video. Originally Posted by eatfibo

Again, eatbibeau, it was your source, and you cannot quote a single line from that article that states that any intel from Libya reported that it was caused by a video; whereas, I can quote multiple lines from the article that state that the whole "it was a video" concoction was fabricated by people who were not in Libya, eatbibeau.

Sept. 11, 2012: Hildabeast issued a statement that didn’t indicate a cause for the attack but said, "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."

Now it's your turn to cite from YOUR SOURCE article where someone actually in Libya blamed the Benghazi attack on a video, eatbibeau.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Originally Posted by eatfibo

That would be the mantra of lib-retards, eatbibeau. If you will recall, Odumbo, et al, maintained that launching cruise missiles against Kadaffyduck didn't constitute an act of war.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I'm really so confused, it says, right there, in the conclusion "Rubio exaggerates when he said there wasn’t a 'single shred of evidence.' There were several suggestions that it was because of a protest."

Why on earth would I need to cite your own source? Why do I have to copy something from your source?

I'm telling you bro, go straight to "chicken dick." Trust me on this.

I'm telling you bro, go straight to "chicken dick." Trust me on this. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I'm really so confused, it says, right there, in the conclusion "Rubio exaggerates when he said there wasn’t a 'single shred of evidence.' There were several suggestions that it was because of a protest."

Why on earth would I need to cite your own source? Why do I have to copy something from your source? Originally Posted by eatfibo

Cite from YOUR source where the article backs up its position with a substantive example that someone on the ground in Libya claimed that the attack escalated from a protest against a video, eatbibeau. BTW, we've established that you'll blatantly lie, eatbibeau: it is YOUR source, and it doesn't support your POV.

That's a fucking lie. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

No, it's not. You didn't answer the question. Now AssupLiar, quit calling names. Eatfido doesn't like it.

Cite from YOUR source where the article backs up its position with a substantive example that someone on the ground in Libya claimed that the attack escalated from a protest against a video, eatbibeau. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You originally said there was no "There's no evidence -- nada -- that any state department personnel or intelligence agents reporting from Libya ever attributed the Benghazi assault as a response to a video, eatbibeau." I posted a link that dismantled this claim.

You then cited it as evidence of your position. So it is your source. I don't know why this makes you so upset that I keep referring to your source as your source. If you don't want something to be called "your source," don't use it as a source.

You originally said there was no "There's no evidence -- nada -- that any state department personnel or intelligence agents reporting from Libya ever attributed the Benghazi assault as a response to a video, eatbibeau." I posted a link that dismantled this claim.

You then cited it as evidence of your position. So it is your source. I don't know why this makes you so upset that I keep referring to your source as your source. If you don't want something to be called "your source," don't use it as a source. Originally Posted by eatfibo

You're lying again, eatbibeau. I most obviously quoted a Hildabeast remark from the article, and everyone knows Hildabeast was not in Benghazi that night ... though many, many wish she had been. Meanwhile, you cannot produce one single quote from your source to back up your POV that someone on the ground in Libya that night blamed the Benghazi attack on a video, eatbibeau. Until you do so, eatbibeau, you're conceding that you've lost that point and have refuted absolutely nothing.

[COLOR="Black"][SIZE="3"]You're lying again, eatbibeau. I most obviously quoted a Hildabeast remark from the article, and everyone knows Hildabeast was not in Benghazi that night ... though many, many wish she had been. Meanwhile, you cannot produce one single quote from your source to back up your POV that someone on the ground in Libya that night blamed the Benghazi attack on a video, eatbibeau. Until you do so, eatbibeau, you're conceding that you've lost that point and have refuted absolutely nothing. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The whole point of this thread is that Clinton is a liar, Benghazi used as an example. Your source and another source I provided both demonstrate the opposite. You can keep screaming "someone on the ground in Libya that night blamed the Benghazi attack on a video" until you a blue in the face, but how does that make Clinton a liar? Especially when you consider that your own source says otherwise? Are you suggesting that the only place there can be an intelligence failure is "on the ground?"

You originally said there was no "There's no evidence -- nada -- that any state department personnel or intelligence agents reporting from Libya ever attributed the Benghazi assault as a response to a video, eatbibeau." I posted a link that dismantled this claim.

You then cited it as evidence of your position. So it is your source. I don't know why this makes you so upset that I keep referring to your source as your source. If you don't want something to be called "your source," don't use it as a source. Originally Posted by eatfibo

C'mon fido. Stop fucking around. You know full well IB said there was no intelligence FROM LIBYA. You deliberately failed to highlight the FROM LIBYA part. I fixed it for you in the above quote. We know what you're up to here.

And then there's this gem - you post a link, IB takes the time to read it and turns it against you, and now you want to disown it and claim it was HIS source all along? You're kidding, right?

You're not arguing in good faith anymore (assuming you ever were). You're just playing games. Probably because you know you've lost the argument.

The whole point of this thread is that Clinton is a liar, Benghazi used as an example. Your source and another source I provided both demonstrate the opposite. You can keep screaming "someone on the ground in Libya that night blamed the Benghazi attack on a video" until you a blue in the face, but how does that make Clinton a liar? Especially when you consider that your own source says otherwise? Are you suggesting that the only place there can be an intelligence failure is "on the ground?" Originally Posted by eatfibo

Hildabeast lied, eatbibeau, and you'd be the one lying until you are blue in the face to defend Hildabeast. Websters' definition of lie is as follows, eatbibeau:

lie
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

Hildabeast put forth the video lie with the intent to deceive the American people the night of the attack and again the following morning. Simultaneously, Hildabeast pointedly stated that the attack was a terrorist attack that had nothing to do with the video to another, select group of people, eatbibeau. That makes Hildabeast a liar, eatbibeau.

And you're lying when you claim the source wasn't yours, eatbibeau.

Furthermore, there is substantive evidence that Hildabeast personally disavowed, within mere hours of the attack, the notion that the attack in Benghazi was in response to a video while she simultaneously told a different story to the American public, eatbibeau.

No, there isn't... Originally Posted by eatfibo

Are you seriously stupid? I will post this Hildabeast quote for the THIRD TIME in this thread. Can you not read? Can you not comprehend? This is what is known as “substantive evidence”. It is so substantive that it is also referred to as a SMOKING GUN. And all you can do is deny it exists? That's beyond pathetic.

“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.”

- Hillary Clinton speaking to Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil on September 12, 2012.

No, it's not. You didn't answer the question. Now AssupLiar, quit calling names. Eatfido doesn't like it. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes I did, whiny bitch.

Quit lying about your own lies.

C'mon fido. Stop fucking around. You know full well IB said there was no intelligence FROM LIBYA. You deliberately failed to highlight the FROM LIBYA part. I fixed it for you in the above quote. We know what you're up to here. Originally Posted by lustylad

Sorry, I was talking the debate in context. This thread is about Clinton lying. Whether the failure of intelligence happened in Libya or here doesn't change the fact that evidence doesn't support the claim that she lied or intentionally misled anyone.

And then there's this gem - you post a link, IB takes the time to read it and turns it against you, and now you want to disown it and claim it was HIS source? You're kidding, right?

Where, exactly, did I say it wasn't my source? The fact that it is my source doesn't change the fact that he also cited it, making it his source too.

You're not arguing in good faith anymore (assuming you ever were). You're just playing games. Probably because you know you've lost the argument.

The discussion was about whether or not Clinton lied or misled anyone. Please answer this question, if you don't, it is you not debating "in good faith." Why does it matter where the conflicting information originated when it comes to determining whether or not Clinton lied? Unless the conflicting information came from her herself (it did not), then it matters not where it originated.

Simultaneously, Hildabeast pointedly stated that the attack was a terrorist attack that had nothing to do with the video to another, select group of people, eatbibeau. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Untrue. Your link and my link both debunk this claim.

And you're lying when you claim the source wasn't yours, eatbibeau.

Where, exactly, did I say the source wasn't mine?

“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.”

- Hillary Clinton speaking to Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil on September 12, 2012. Originally Posted by lustylad

Already debunked.

The whole point of this thread is that Clinton is a liar, Benghazi used as an example.... Originally Posted by eatfibo

Wrong, fido... everyone already knows she's a liar. That's why her "untrustworthy" rating is through the roof. The whole point of this thread is to show the Hildabeast is a MEGA-LIAR. She is in a league with Josef Goebbels. There is simply no limit to how vile she can be when it comes to lying. She even lies about her lies and calls out the families of the victims of her lies as liars. How low down and slimy can a liar get? Watch Hildabeast and find out. Even the most jaded student of American politics has to lift an eyebrow when they hear Hillary lie. She does it almost effortlessly.

The problem for Hildabeast is her lies have spiraled totally out of control and she doesn't know when to stop. She now has a Benghazi Mom Problem.

"It’s one thing to deny lying about classified emails or to stonewall the Clinton cash scandals by claiming it’s just another plot by the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that is still out to get Bill and Hillary. But it is quite another to basically accuse a gold star mother of an American hero of lying, as Hillary did of Mrs. Smith last night. If she thinks that will sit well with voters who already doubt her honesty, then she has badly miscalculated. As bad as her Bernie Sanders and FBI worries may be, her Benghazi mom problem may prove even more harmful."

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/p...i-mom-problem/
.