quote:

Now, which of the 13 events listed in the OP were covered up by Bush, or, were blamed on anything other than terrorism? No one is addressing that question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Now, which of the 13 events listed in the OP were covered up by Bush, or, were blamed on anything other than terrorism? No one is addressing that question.

Perhaps because it is of no interest to anyone but you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Now, which of the 13 events listed in the OP were covered up by Bush, or, were blamed on anything other than terrorism? No one is addressing that question.

Perhaps because it is of no interest to anyone but you.

Considering the subject of the thread is that they are "Benghazi's," it sure seems like it interested someone else...

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Now, which of the 13 events listed in the OP were covered up by Bush, or, were blamed on anything other than terrorism? No one is addressing that question.

Perhaps because it is of no interest to anyone but you.

Considering the subject of the thread is that they are "Benghazi's," it sure seems like it interested someone else...

The fixation on the manditory use of the word terrorism by the president is what no one cares about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
What were the attacks 'really were'?  Fill us in on the missing and credibly cited causation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
OK.  The 13 Benghazis under W were from a youtube video.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
You are the one harping to stay on the subject.  As for stick and move, you don't have anything that sticks, and you never address the subject directly, you always move.
We are talking about 13 Benghazis that W covered up without a peep from the teabaggers or teabagger media.  I assumed wrongly that you were addressing the subject and that these 13 Benghazis were because of a youtube video. 
So, I guess you need to work on your schtick some, because it is looking rather pathetic in its uncraftiness, as usual, and you gotta come up with something else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
How can you argue that it wasnt the video without proof, but it was something else without proof and then disparage it?  Have you no sense of reality?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Why should that be accepted without proof?  Are you saying al-Queda has no recourse to youtube?   Cuz I remember Osama doing some gameshows on there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I answered the question, the thirteen cases of cover up by Bush were not because of a Youtube video.
Now, There is no dodge here, I demand the same proof here as you are demanding on the bigotry asshole thread, and I am too lazy to look it up like you.   Show me credible citations that it was not caused by the youtube video and that video played no part in it.
al-Quada having premeditation is hardly a 'cover up' as you have asserted.  It changes nothing in basis of fact.
So, since I do not see a credible citation by real people, not some politico spin, I do not know it to be a cause or not.

quote:

Is it not accepted that the youtube video wasn't the cause of the Benghazi attack, and that it was a premeditated attack by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists?