Robert DeLong wrote: “Why are you so adamantly fighting this, are you afraid to have a fiull audit of the records on Obama. You must be one of those who hold Obama on a messianic pedestal.”
There you go again imagining things that aren’t there. Pointing out the faulty logic in an article that is based upon imagination instead of facts isn’t the same thing as thinking Obama is a saint.
Without the ‘hack’ to change Obama’s passport records is the basis of this article. Without it, the rest is nothing but aimless speculation. To some, the lack of evidence is why it is so ‘compelling’.
Had he said it is not a strtch of possibilities, because that is my take on him stating it is not a stretch, but even you have to admit that he didn't say anything that provides yyou proof that he thinks this is a conclusion that he buys as being definitive.
So, you can't state that it is a conspiray theory.
It's a theory, and he obviously thinks it deserves to examine further, which incvludes looking back to the backup files to see if there are differences found.
obviously, he does not have acces to do so, thus there is no way he can provide the evidence.
If you looked at that reality, you would instantly see that he is merely raising the possibilty that the same record was accessed three times might be the explanation for doing so, was to alter records.
That is compelling thought, because it still needs to be examined to rpovide the actual proof that you desire.
At this moment it is a conspiracy theory.but that doesn't mean that it should be dismissed & ignored, as you ignoratnly claim is to be. Truth is that you have no cluse if his theory is what happened or didn't happen, because it needs to be examined much closer than it has beenso far.
We know that the records for his passport were accessed illegally, and that Condie Rice offered her apologies. So, using the word hack, is not the compelling information he brought forth
You just refuse to accept that he provided compelling reason to investifate that act further.