More breaking news on Libya, about how help was denied

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

Considering you inferred I'd take the word of a terrorist over that of dedicated Americans I could have chosen much more appropriate words than ass.

Out of respect for the years in this forum I was trying to be a gentleman.

You still didn't make any sense BTW.

-spence

Bronko is making perfect sense. You are jumbling together concepts to try to tell a story that is not working. You are struggling to come to the administrations defense. More and more revelations are coming out that paint a pretty bad story for how this was handled. Its odd you dont see this. This event did not take place in some remote jungle. OUR people were on the ground. You are dismissing their view and you actually note the views of the attacker. You don think thats odd?

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Bronko is making perfect sense. You are jumbling together concepts to try to tell a story that is not working. You are struggling to come to the administrations defense. More and more revelations are coming out that paint a pretty bad story for how this was handled. Its odd you dont see this. This event did not take place in some remote jungle. OUR people were on the ground. You are dismissing their view and you actually note the views of the attacker. You don think thats odd?

I'm citing what's been reported and what the CIA has referenced in their findings.

Were there emails as the attack was unfolding that reveal the motivation of the attackers? You guys are clinging to a simplistic narrative that assumes evidence which doesn't appear to exist.

-spence

[Bronko]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Bronko is making perfect sense. You are jumbling together concepts to try to tell a story that is not working. You are struggling to come to the administrations defense. More and more revelations are coming out that paint a pretty bad story for how this was handled. Its odd you dont see this. This event did not take place in some remote jungle. OUR people were on the ground. You are dismissing their view and you actually note the views of the attacker. You don think thats odd?

Thanks Jimmy. I thought I was being clear. But the facts aren't helping him cling to the "movie protest" so he got personal.