Crowley and the Benghazi statements: the debate and mistruths

By | October 16, 2012

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Crowley and the Benghazi statements: the debate and mistruths”.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

4 thoughts on “Crowley and the Benghazi statements: the debate and mistruths

  1. janbrown

    “acts of terror” is a broad term without assignment to any particular deed….”terrorism” is dedicated to a specific action. Rich, appreciatd that your piece concentrted on direct quote as opposed to being stricly opinion. Happy to hitch my wagon to yours

    1. Jon

      Wouldn’t you say that a definition of terrorism is an act of terror? This is a desperately silly argument from Republicans…

  2. Martijn

    So when the president says: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” it must have been a totally unrelated comment to the events the speech talks about…. Yeah, right. I think you can safely say who’s lying here.

  3. Matt

    The idea that you would print this with your name attached to it is quite remarkable. I’m still waiting for the distinction between an “act of terror” and “terrorism” (as if one isn’t the definition of the other).

Comments are closed.