THIS is what the dimwits are celebrating? Q: Did he say why it was taken out of the talking points that [the attack] was al Qaeda affiliated? KING: He didn’t know. Q: He didn’t know? What do you mean he didn’t know? KING: They were not involved—it was done, the process was completed and they said, “OK, go with those talking points.” Again, it’s interagency—I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies.So let's stop here. They ask Petraeus if he knew who took the talking points out. DP says he doesn't know. Meaning it wasn't the CIA. This is consistent with everything posted thus far: somebody in either Clapper's office or the White House did it.Let's continue: Q: Did he give you the impression that he was upset it was taken out? KING: No.This tell us that DP wasn't upset about it. More: Q: You said the CIA said “OK” to the revised report – KING: No, well, they said in that, after it goes through the process, they OK’d it to go. Yeah, they said “Okay for it to go.”And THIS is what PA liberals are claiming as vindication? How dumb do you have to be?The CIA put the terror connection into the talking points *themselves*. Meaning they were okay with the idea that hey, it was a terrorist attack going public. Because anybody with half a brain knew it was (which excuses PA liberals from knowing that it was terror). And so some White House doof yanks the terror connection out, shows the memo back to the CIA, who approves it. Well of course they're going to approve the cut-down version because they approved the other one in the first place.I've never seen so many PA liberals completely break down with regards to critical thinkin...oh, wait. Yes I have.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M