First, the 100 dead terrorists number was taken from a book, cited above. It appears to be the only estimate I've found. It never occurred to me that people would really care how many terrorist were killed given that it was less than all. You got a better figure, go for it!
Yes, the number is 4 dead and 10 injured.
So are you retracting that claim?
[ETA: You're not relying on this book even though it's not corroborated and conflicts with all other sources, are you?
"It appears to be the only estimate I've found." What the hell does that even mean? I've linked to credible sources that show that 4 people were killed and a total of 10 injured. Originally, there were reports of some Libyan deaths, but those were false reports that were corrected.]
Second, people deflect responsibility for lots of reasons short of treason,
So? Americans do not overtly lie to deflect responsibility for the deaths of agents of the U.S. in attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities without it being treason.
and there are different types of responsibility shrt of intentional treason.
No. If the Obama administration was responsible for the deaths, that would be treason. If they're lying for the purpose of protecting those who are responsible for the deaths, that would be treason.
Here they wanted to deflect responsibility because they were grossly incompetent, because their soft foot print theory was silly, and because they wanted to win an electon. An investigation is ongoing.
I see what you're doing. You're hoping you can get away with arm-waving some sort of general deflection of responsibility without it being actual responsibility for the deaths. That way it sounds horrific and scandalous without it being any real claim at all.
Claiming they overtly lied to cover up incompetence isn't the claim you made earlier. But even so, you've failed yet to show they "overtly lied" at all.
But, specifically, have you retracted the claim you made that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths?
You don't seem the least bit interested in defending that specific claim.
By he way, calling yourself a skeptic in a "politics" thread is hilarious, doubly so when one is fanatically partisan and endeavoring to disrupt the thread.
This personal attack does nothing whatsoever to support your unsubstantiated claims.
[ETA: And you consider my repeated calls for you to either substantiate or retract claims you made in this thread to be disrupting the thread? Really?]
This thread is primarily to discuss facts in an ongoing investigation.
What rubbish.
You yourself made these claims in this thread. If the claims weren't off topic, then challenging you to support or retract these claims isn't off topic.
What part of the ongoing investigation revealed that 100 people were killed in Benghazi or that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths?
- why does this thread remain painfully active. It's been proven Over and Over, for how many days now? He has nothing that critical though can't disprove.
