So, as regards Benghazi, let’s just say I won and move on.

Just kidding about the who won part.

Fell for it, as I thought you would.

There was NO comparison made, just a reference — which you fell for.

I suspect that the audience is sick of the two of us jousting for the last word, so I am going to move on.

You can do as you want, and I suspect your ego is too fragile to not want the last word.

“There are many corollaries to Godwin’s law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.” –Wikipedia

Please play again. However, this loss will be a part of your permanent record.

I just think this particular thread has gone on way too long and wanted to invoke Godwin’s Law.

Go see Argo by the way — great story, even greater film, and they take the time at the front for some well-needed “re-education” on how we helped make the entire Iranian mess in the first place by putting (along with the Brits) the Shah into power through a forced coup in 1953 after they (the Iranians) elected a secularist head of state in 1950.

What she said (poor syntax and all):

“It- he did in fact, sir…he did call it an act of terror…It did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out.”

Obama used the phrase “acts of terror” in his rose garden remarks. He did not specifically say “this was an act of terror,” but the context was obviously the event in Benghazi.

Crowley took Romney’s side when she said that it took two weeks to change the story about there being a riot inspired by the video.

Crowley did not lie about anything. But, if she got anything factually wrong, it was the part that supported Romney’s comments about the two weeks. That part was somewhat wrong, in that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and others never, ever portrayed Benghazi as “either/or” — either a demonstration gone wrong about the video or a pre-planned 9/11 terrorist attack related to the 9/11 date rather than the video. They always framed their comments in terms of the still emerging intelligence.

As of yesterday, it still appears there was never any demonstration, just the attack. But it appears that attack was not a pre-planned attack related to 9/11 but rather an opportunistic attack inspired by the demonstrations in Cairo, which were indeed triggered by the video.

“Since it now appears that the first two presidential debates did very much indeed have a resounding effect on the state of the race, Team O can’t afford to take any chances with Monday’s foreign-policy debate.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/20/obama-admin-recalibrating-benghazi-narrative-again-before-fp-debate/

The dissembler in chief said he was opposed to terrorism.

He did not say until much later that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack with AK-47s RPGs and mortars which went on for hours.

The administration hung with the absurd story about the inflaming video for days.

Where I come from, to lie means to willfully convey untruthful “information” with the intent of misleading.

Never mind the intent part, what is the untruthful part?

non sequitur
 
1.
Logic . an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
2.
a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

You seem to specialize in these.

So did Nixon, Reagan, and Shrub — but that didn’t stop you from supporting and referencing THEM.

Talk about easy…thanks for playing, but you lose…again.