Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: KansasGirl

I’m a little unclear, if she was taken out of context, then the tape had to have been edited, because if he didn’t have access to the tape in full, then ergo, he had snippets, which means edited to me. Hence this returns me to my first two questions. Find the answer to these, and we get to the bottom of it.

The fact that the liberals in the guise of Saint Shirley want to shut Breitbart up, after the “vicious slander” of a federal official! Says to me that they’re not really interested in the truth, they’ve already got their guilty party. Which means to me, the “trigger men” are walking away whistling innocently as they go.


204 posted on 07/22/2010 9:55:01 AM PDT by Braak (The US Military, the real arms inspectors!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies ]


To: Braak

The entire speech was 17 minutes. Breitbart had only a snippet of it which he released. To me, editing means changing the tape to make it appear she said something that she didn’t say. Breitbart didn’t do that.


232 posted on 07/22/2010 10:20:23 AM PDT by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson