The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

So, according to the CIA fellow, he reached the conclusion that the attack was a spontaneous demonstration by NOT taking the word of multiple sources in Benghazi who said there were no protests.

Who did he listen to? Well, analysts in Langley who had NOT talked with those actually IN Benghazi.

Anyhow, that was today's sequence of lies about Benghazi.

So you're saying Obama actually thought it was a spontaneous demonstration from the intel he had received.

Wow, that's quite an admission coming from you.

What I was saying:

So, according to the CIA fellow, he reached the conclusion that the attack was a spontaneous demonstration by NOT taking the word of multiple sources in Benghazi who said there were no protests.

Who did he listen to? Well, analysts in Langley who had NOT talked with those actually IN Benghazi.

Anyhow, that was today's sequence of lies about Benghazi.

^^^^In other words, johnforbes' posts have no meaning, they cannot be interpreted or understood or have implications drawn from them. They contain no facts (by his own standards) and they're just a bunch of words strung together.
Even johnforbes cannot explain his own point.
Got it.

"Yada, yada, yada"-johnforbes

Let me explicate.

What I was saying:

So, according to the CIA fellow, he reached the conclusion that the attack was a spontaneous demonstration by NOT taking the word of multiple sources in Benghazi who said there were no protests.

Who did he listen to? Well, analysts in Langley who had NOT talked with those actually IN Benghazi.

Anyhow, that was today's sequence of lies about Benghazi.

johnforbes needs to get a dictionary and look up the word "explicate".

A repetition is not an explication, dimwit.


And he criticizes Bilbo for not knowing about the words he uses. :roll:

No, Lucky Junkie, Pothead Stoner ClownDicker, Obongo DID NOT think it was a spontaneous demonstration. Obongo's handlers decided to try to sell the Useful Idiots (such as yourself) on the IDEA it was a spontaneous demonstration because they had previously insisted that U.S. embassies were totally secure and the area was peaceful. When an organized, coordinated attack was launched, it made them look stupid, again, and they had to come up with another lie the Useful Idiots (such as yourself) would buy.
They did, and you did.
How does it feel to be so owned and used?



Winning.

Poor Unlucky Jughead Puta Insipid, thinks it would make a bit of difference whether it was a demonstration or a planned attack.

Any President who would say our embassies are "not totally secure" would be a moron.
Anyone who believes someone saying that embassies can be made "totally secure" is a moron.
Since I am not as stupid as the Insipid's and johnforbes' of the world, the nature of the attack is irrelevant to me.
I never believed the embassies were totally secure in the first place. I'm would never be that stupid.
I also knew from the start that Obama saying they were totally secure is for the consumption of morons like Insipid and johnforbes who think our leaders should always tell us (and by extension, the rest of the world) the truth at all times.

By the way, Insipid, why have you started signing off with the tag line "Whining"?
We already know every post you make is nothing but angry, impotent whining.

Let us explicate for young master Clownhick.

A re-explication is indeed an explication, and such is crucial given the brain of Clownhicker, which resembles nothing so much as a sodden pancake.

johnforbes needs to learn that a two-line synopsis (the opening post) of an event is not an explication.

It is not an analysis.
It does nothing to explain why something is the way it is.
It does not make anything clear.
It does not "unfold" or develop an understanding of the events.
It only leaves questions.

Maybe this explains why johnforbes was such a crappy lawyer.

When a mind is a tabula rasa, as is the vast depth of Clownhicker's ignorance, pretty nearly anything is tantamount to explication.

Let us explicate for young master Clownhick.

A re-explication is indeed an explication, and such is crucial given the brain of Clownhicker, which resembles nothing so much as a sodden pancake.

So, according to the CIA fellow, he reached the conclusion that the attack was a spontaneous demonstration by NOT taking the word of multiple sources in Benghazi who said there were no protests.

He lied to Congress, even if he was appointed by Obama, he was told with 15 minutes of the attack the head of the CIA in Benghazi they were under a organized terrorist attack, not an out of control protest. For him to say some desk jockey analysis in a cubicle with no windows in VA convinced him his agents in Benghazi were wrong is to much to accept. He went along with the White House talking points and threw his people under the bus. He should be prosecuted.

johnforbes needs to learn that a synopsis of an event is not an explication.

A synopsis of Clownhicker: He is a dope.

When a mind is a tabula rasa, as is the vast depth of Clownhicker's ignorance, pretty nearly anything is tantamount to explication.

Let us explicate for young master Clownhick.

A re-explication is indeed an explication, and such is crucial given the brain of Clownhicker, which resembles nothing so much as a sodden pancake.

johnforbes needs to learn that a synopsis of an event is not an explication.

So, according to the CIA fellow, he reached the conclusion that the attack was a spontaneous demonstration by NOT taking the word of multiple sources in Benghazi who said there were no protests.

Who did he listen to? Well, analysts in Langley who had NOT talked with those actually IN Benghazi.

Anyhow, that was today's sequence of lies about Benghazi.

johnforbes needs to learn that a synopsis of an event is not an explication.

Who did he listen to? Well, analysts in Langley who had NOT talked with those actually IN Benghazi.

Actually Langley analysts are saying they knew it was a terrorist act within hours, one was even so brazen as to say his former boss probably got his talking points from a White House political analysis. In other words he didn't lie before Congress when he said he got his information from analysis.