This should be interesting ...


http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/10/08/investigation-being-sought-against-gop-leaders-for-violating-fed-law-with-benghazi-committe

I don't endorse the source FYI. Just this article
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think everyone knew it was a sham from the beginning, but I didn't think they'd just come out and admit it.

Going to be the same thing for the Planned Parenthood investigation. Just keep rehashing discredited stories to whip the sheep into a frenzy.

Yeah. No surprise here either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think everyone knew it was a sham from the beginning, but I didn't think they'd just come out and admit it.

Going to be the same thing for the Planned Parenthood investigation. Just keep rehashing discredited stories to whip the sheep into a frenzy.
Sheep...you want to talk about sheep...what kind of people vote back in a Governor who increases sale tax by 25%? The sheep bought the "sale tax hasn't gone up in over 30 year crap.....if the price of the item went up so did the amount of tax paid..stupid sheep of Massachusetts thanks a lot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't endorse the source FYI. Just this article
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it's very unethical for anyone to hold pointless hearings for no reason other than party politics. I didn't like it when the Dems did it to Clarence Thomas, and I wouldn't like it in this case. Let's see if that's what happened. I thought Mccarthy connected the dots between Hilarys polling drop and the hearings, but I didn't think he said that was the only reason for the hearings.

Alan Grayson is maybe the biggest kook in Congress. He said that the GOP healthcare plan is "for sick people to die fast", and I think he genuinely believes that, which makes him psychotic.

I think everyone knew it was a sham from the beginning, but I didn't think they'd just come out and admit it.

Going to be the same thing for the Planned Parenthood investigation. Just keep rehashing discredited stories to whip the sheep into a frenzy.

Discredited? The Planned parenthood videos have been discredited? I missed that. The recordings were fabricated?

Politicizing an investigation? Nooooo!!! That's never happened before has it?

Hello Pots Meet the Kettles you can bang heads and make noise.

Everything that happens in Washington is Politically based. This country is insane!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it's very unethical for anyone to hold pointless hearings for no reason other than party politics. I didn't like it when the Dems did it to Clarence Thomas, and I wouldn't like it in this case.

Actually Jim, a Congressional hearing is standard process to confirm the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice.

Discredited? The Planned parenthood videos have been discredited? I missed that. The recordings were fabricated?
1) Rock 2) Move rock 3) Crawl out from under rock 4) Open eyes

Let me personalize this for you. When I see this thread's title all I can think of is Glen Doherty. His and the other three deaths there were preventable, but I am not going there. I have known his parents since 1976. His sister lives here in town. Watch the video. Tell me you wouldn't have wanted someone like this as a close friend. Loss was preventable, but he knew that risk. I have read just about as much as I can and feel justified where I lay the blame for what happened. Just makes me want to puke when I see all the politicizing being used for these Washington asshats, on both sides of the aisle..... That is all I will say.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/26/who-was-glen-doherty/

Ross, I had no idea you knew someone who was there and I'm sorry if I offended you.

I won't bring this subject up again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not offended, just want to refocus the attention on the leaders we should be looking at to lead a faltering nation and send outstanding men and women like Glen out to meet the challenges of the nation and the world. We need leadership, not politics. And I still don't see anyone I am willing to throw my vote towards.....

He was a great person by any measuring stick......

I was speaking to a workmate yesterday, he's a very bright guy, and couldn't believe how he still steadfastly believed most of the Benghazi conspiracy theories that have been shot down in investigation after investigation.

Personally I think some develop an addiction to the hate and just can't quit it.

I was speaking to a workmate yesterday, he's a very bright guy, and couldn't believe how he still steadfastly believed most of the Benghazi conspiracy theories that have been shot down in investigation after investigation.

Personally I think some develop an addiction to the hate and just can't quit it.


Similar to how most Tina Fey quotes are attributed to Palin. People love to beleive what they think should be correct.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Similar to how most Tina Fey quotes are attributed to Palin. People love to beleive what they think should be correct.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No, not really like that at all.

Actually Jim, a Congressional hearing is standard process to confirm the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice.

True, good point. But when the process turns into an exercise of painting a black man as someone who can't be trusted around women, when there's all kinds of evidence saying the charges were baseless, one could argue it was a political exercise, couldn't one?

Jim, I think you need to read up on Judge Thomas' hearing. It was totally different from Bengazi. It wasn't about rape and was sch. due to his confirmation. There was little opposition until people heard about Anita Hill. She came forward reluctantly.

Maybe the Bengazi investigation will find that Pres. Clinton had sez with a 2nd intern.

Ross, In your opinion are they using the deaths for political motives?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/us/politics/clinton-emails-became-the-new-focus-of-benghazi-inquiry.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Ross, In your opinion are they using the deaths for political motives?

Hell, yes. How many months, or now years, does it take any of these committees of elected officials to reach a conclusion on what happened on the ground there and in Washington? Oh, wait. The agenda changed. Make that multiple agendas, as they "took a turn." The dead and their families deserve better. I hate politics , and politicians even more.

Jim, I think you need to read up on Judge Thomas' hearing. It was totally different from Bengazi. It wasn't about rape and was sch. due to his confirmation. There was little opposition until people heard about Anita Hill. She came forward reluctantly.

Maybe the Bengazi investigation will find that Pres. Clinton had sez with a 2nd intern.

It was a necessary, legitimate exercise that, as usual, immediately descended into pure partisan attacks. Hill came forward reluctantly, because nobody believed her, unless they had a political benefit to supporting her.

My point was, it shouldn't be acceptable to us that both parties use these things for petty partisan attacks. We should demand more.

Thomas' confirmation hearing was legitimate. So is asking the SecState to testify about the disaster that happened on her watch in Libya. Biut politics sems to always get in the way, because we don't elect people who genuinely know how to solve problems and get things done.

I agree once Hill came forward politics prob. took over and unfortunately that always happens. However, at this point 7-8? investigations have found nothing and the time to drop it has long past by (not move on to looking at emails). I don't think there was ever any evidence Clinton ordered the military to stand down.

I agree once Hill came forward politics prob. took over and unfortunately that always happens. However, at this point 7-8? investigations have found nothing and the time to drop it has long past by (not move on to looking at emails). I don't think there was ever any evidence Clinton ordered the military to stand down.

Has Hilary testified under oath, about Benghazi yet? I doubt she told the military to stand down. I'd like to know why she authorized the State Dept to say it was all a reaction to a youtube video, when no one in their right mind really thought that. That's a fair question (I think), and she has to explain her actions on that front if she wants to be POTUS.

If it turns out to be nothing more than a political witchhunt, the Republicans should have to answer for that. We have too many huge problems to fix, to spend resources on a political attack.

Of course this is a political witch hunt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Has Hilary testified under oath, about Benghazi yet? I doubt she told the military to stand down. I'd like to know why she authorized the State Dept to say it was all a reaction to a youtube video, when no one in their right mind really thought that. That's a fair question (I think), and she has to explain her actions on that front if she wants to be POTUS.

If it turns out to be nothing more than a political witchhunt, the Republicans should have to answer for that. We have too many huge problems to fix, to spend resources on a political attack.
Perhaps we need an investigation to uncover why so many people continue to believe non-scandals that have already been investigated. Hell, even the GOP led House investigation cleared the White House and CIA...yet you still believe.

And in the past two weeks:

1) The man in line to take the Speaker's gavel admits the Select Committee is politically motivated

2) A former investigator of the Select Committee admits it's politically motivated

3) Another GOP House member admits the Select Committee is politically motivated

What a waste of taxpayer money. Where's the order to stand down???

Perhaps we need an investigation to uncover why so many people continue to believe non-scandals that have already been investigated. Hell, even the GOP led House investigation cleared the White House and CIA...yet you still believe.

And in the past two weeks:

1) The man in line to take the Speaker's gavel admits the Select Committee is politically motivated

2) A former investigator of the Select Committee admits it's politically motivated

3) Another GOP House member admits the Select Committee is politically motivated

What a waste of taxpayer money. Where's the order to stand down???

Had she previously testified under oath? It's a simple question.

The fact that it's politically motivated, doesn't mean there isn't anything to see there. The hearings against Nixon and Clinton were also politically motivated, that doesn't mean there wasn't genuinely something there.

Perhaps we need an investigation to uncover why so many people continue to believe non-scandals that have already been investigated. Hell, even the GOP led House investigation cleared the White House and CIA...yet you still believe.

And in the past two weeks:

1) The man in line to take the Speaker's gavel admits the Select Committee is politically motivated

2) A former investigator of the Select Committee admits it's politically motivated

3) Another GOP House member admits the Select Committee is politically motivated

What a waste of taxpayer money. Where's the order to stand down???

In one of these threads, you said the Planned Parenthood videos had been discredited. Funny, since PP just announced that they will no longer be engaging in the exact behavior that the videos revealed.

In other words, PP basically said "we didn't do any of those things that are in the videos, and in addition, we won't be doing those things anymore."

Makes sense.

In one of these threads, you said the Planned Parenthood videos had been discredited. Funny, since PP just announced that they will no longer be engaging in the exact behavior that the videos revealed.
The videos were edited to imply a profit motive that doesn't exist.

The decision to deny reimbursement isn't an admission, it's asserting their position that this is about science and not money.

You can still be against abortion and admit you're 100% wrong here.

The videos were edited to imply a profit motive that doesn't exist.

The decision to deny reimbursement isn't an admission, it's asserting their position that this is about science and not money.

You can still be against abortion and admit you're 100% wrong here.

So it all comes down to whether or not there was profit, or just enough to cover expenses?

I have no problem with valid scientific research, and the tissue has to come from somewhere. What repulsed me, and many others, was the casual, inhuman attitude of the ghouls that work there, talking flippantly about butchering babies over wine, while discussing sports cars. Maybe that's what all scientists do. It was ugly. And I'm not wrong in stating that.

That is exactly it - expenses. They just said they would not even ask for any $ to cover their expenses now.

Now if only Carly would admit that her accusations where out and out lies.

That is exactly it - expenses. They just said they would not even ask for any $ to cover their expenses now.

Now if only Carly would admit that her accusations where out and out lies.
I'm just surprised Jim could have been complaining so long about this and not taken the time to understand the key accusation.

As for Carly, it's scary to think someone who wants to be POTUS would bone up on the issues by buying into the equivalent of Facebook memes.

One of the big issues is that entire gaps in her emails around Benghazi were missing. Before people were on to her having her own server (that she is not supposed to). Seeing that she may have conducted her own extragovernmental intelligence in Libya, hidden on her email server, outside of proper and official channels, where people died - yeh it is important.

Even if she is completely clean wrt Benghazi (in the realm of possibility) she may have been covering for her server that she should not have had.

I'm just surprised Jim could have been complaining so long about this and not taken the time to understand the key accusation.

As for Carly, it's scary to think someone who wants to be POTUS would bone up on the issues by buying into the equivalent of Facebook memes.

I understood that there was little if any evidence that they profited by it, but rather, just covered their expenses. My concern was how ghoulish they acted, and whether or not they altered abortion procedures to maximize the harvest.

Furthermore, I didn't like the way they claimed the tapes were "edited", yet never denied the accuracy of what was on the tapes.

Again, how do you take an organization seriously that says "those tapes were edited. Besides, what was shown on there, we promise not to do again".

It seems that what was on those tapes (as opposed to claims of profiteering) was exactly accurate. Yet you claimed the videos were "discredited". Since PP promises not to do it again, that seems to imply that they were engaged in that practice up until now, which seems to imply that the tapes were perfectly accurate.

One of the big issues is that entire gaps in her emails around Benghazi were missing. Before people were on to her having her own server (that she is not supposed to). Seeing that she may have conducted her own extragovernmental intelligence in Libya, hidden on her email server, outside of proper and official channels, where people died - yeh it is important.
Curious as to why 7 previous investigations didn't find any gaps. Perhaps it's because the initial Daily Caller piece that made the accusation more recently ended up walking it back.

Actually the number of stories, let by many in the NYT have been corrected because they contained bad information.

The DOJ has made a statement her use of private email and choosing which emails to file was within the law.

The Blumenthal thing doesn't appear to implicate her. The one incident of him passing along a CIA source could get him in trouble but I don't see how she is tarnished.

I don't see how she is tarnished.

blind devotion

Curious as to why 7 previous investigations didn't find any gaps. Perhaps it's because the initial Daily Caller piece that made the accusation more recently ended up walking it back.


The top House Republican Benghazi investigator says the emails Hillary Clinton has handed over for review have “huge gaps” that challenge her credibility over what happened in the 2012 attacks in Libya.
“There are gaps of months and months and months,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said on Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/trey-gowdy-sees-months-long-gaps-in-clinton-emails-115871#ixzz3opmwSLSg



The DOJ has made a statement her use of private email and choosing which emails to file was within the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html?_r=0
“I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He said it had been a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”


Those statements angered F.B.I. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) agents who have been working for months to determine whether Mrs. Clinton’s email setup did in fact put any of the nation’s secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials.


.......

“Injecting politics into what is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry leaves a foul taste in the F.B.I.’s mouth and makes them fear that no matter what they find, the Justice Department will take the president’s signal and not bring a case,” said Mr. Hosko, who maintains close contact with current agents.


The Blumenthal thing doesn't appear to implicate her. The one incident of him passing along a CIA source could get him in trouble but I don't see how she is tarnished.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/#Sidney%20Blumenthal



What? A former journalist, Blumenthal was a top aide in the second term of the Bill Clinton administration and helped on messaging during the bad old days (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/#Bad%20Old%20Days). He served as an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and when she took over the State Department, she sought to hire Blumenthal. Obama aides, apparently still smarting over his role in attacks on candidate Obama, refused the request, so Clinton just sought out his counsel informally. At the same time, Blumenthal was drawing a check from the Clinton Foundation. (Jr - emphasis mine)

How serious is it? Some of the damage is already done. Blumenthal was apparently the source of the idea that the Benghazi (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/#Benghazi) attacks were spontaneous, a notion that proved incorrect and provided a political bludgeon against Clinton and Obama. He also advised the secretary on a wide range of other issues, from Northern Ireland to China, and passed along analysis from his son Max (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-sidney-blumenthal-emails-213206), a staunch critic of the Israeli government (and conservative bête noire). But emails released so far show even Clinton’s top foreign-policy guru, Jake Sullivan, rejecting Blumenthal’s analysis, raising questions about her judgment in trusting him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html?_r=0
This is from March. How many more have been released? How many stories of missing emails have been pulled back? Reading online quite a few.

And given the revelations of the last week as to the true nature of the investigation I'm not sure I'd believe anything Trey Gowdy says. How much of the poor reporting do you think came from misleading leaks from his investigation?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us...uiry.html?_r=0
This is a completely different topic. I said the DOJ remarked it was legal. Your post is that Obama's remarks rankeled the FBI if there was a possible security breech.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/#Sidney%20Blumenthal
I'm shocked, shocked that Clinton would have any communication with a longtime friend and confidant.

About the only thing here that could have legs is the naming of a covert CIA agent, but the source of that leak at the CIA is now deceased. Otherwise all you've got is a lot of shoulda coulda woulda.

And that, Spence, is why the FBI does its investigation - hopefully without external pressures.

And that, Spence, is why the FBI does its investigation - hopefully without external pressures.

Such as Obama saying the accusation is politically motivated, rather than valid. I'm sure the FBI loved that. The guy can't ever shut his yap - always wrong, yet never in doubt.

Such as Obama saying the accusation is politically motivated, rather than valid. I'm sure the FBI loved that. The guy can't ever shut his yap - always wrong, yet never in doubt.

The fact that you and other republicans are so interested in this investigation proves at the very least that your interest is politically motivated. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

About the only thing here that could have legs is the naming of a covert CIA agent, but the source of that leak at the CIA is now deceased. Otherwise all you've got is a lot of shoulda coulda woulda.

Or not. This weekend we learned the CIA said the name wasn't even classified. Why would Gowdy redact it from the email unless they were trying to give the impression ... ... ...

The fact that you and other republicans are so interested in this investigation proves at the very least that your interest is politically motivated. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, i don't beleieve she has testified under oath, yet, abiytthe attack. I am interested in hearing her side of the story. Is that political? I don't think so.

My side doesn't need manufactured evidence of why she's nowhere near fit to be POTUS, the facts speak for themselves.

She claimed that Bill didn't cheat on her, but rather, he was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Consider that. If she genuinely believes that Bill was framed by the GOP, she's too stupid for the job. If she doesn't believe it, but said it for political purposes, then she's too dishonest for the job.

If there's a 3rd possibility, well, I am all ears.

Then there's that whole "on a trip to Bosnia, I had to DIVE into the trucks because I came under sniper fire."

The unfortunate thing is that the committee has lost sight of what they were originally set up to do - look at the security for our overseas facilities.

The unfortunate thing is that the committee has lost sight of what they were originally set up to do - look at the security for our overseas facilities.


No ,it's just the fact that the illegal server and e mails came up during the committee investigation. The FBI doesn't get involved in these things unless
they are sure there is really something to investigate.

Nebe, i don't beleieve she has testified under oath, yet, abiytthe attack. I am interested in hearing her side of the story. Is that political? I don't think so.

My side doesn't need manufactured evidence of why she's nowhere near fit to be POTUS, the facts speak for themselves.

She claimed that Bill didn't cheat on her, but rather, he was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Consider that. If she genuinely believes that Bill was framed by the GOP, she's too stupid for the job. If she doesn't believe it, but said it for political purposes, then she's too dishonest for the job.

If there's a 3rd possibility, well, I am all ears.

Then there's that whole "on a trip to Bosnia, I had to DIVE into the trucks because I came under sniper fire."
In regards to her saying that he didn't cheat on her and it was a conspiracy- maybe a better way of saying it would have been that he was seduced. I'm with you though..I don't think she would make a good president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No ,it's just the fact that the illegal server and e mails came up during the committee investigation. The FBI doesn't get involved in these things unless
they are sure there is really something to investigate.

Illegal? I didn't know they were "illegal". Do you have a link to anything that says they were "illegal"?

So you don't care that nothing will be done to prevent the future death/destruction of our embassies and personnel?

Illegal? I didn't know they were "illegal". Do you have a link to anything that says they were "illegal"?
I'm pretty sure Sean Hannity said it was illegal.

Oops...

http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2015_10_18_EEC_to_TG_re_CIA_Source.pdf

Illegal? I didn't know they were "illegal". Do you have a link to anything that says they were "illegal"?

So you don't care that nothing will be done to prevent the future death/destruction of our embassies and personnel?

The FBI, currently headed by Barack Obama (who last time I checked, was registered in the same party as Hilary), has decided that there's sufficient likelihood laws were broken, to launch an investigation.

The FBI doesn't launch an investigation just because one asks them to.

I cannot believe she's going to get indicted. But I really, really hope she does.

The KilderBeast stormed into Kissys office and demanded call off your dogs Biraq!
What other proof does one need to know this is a political WITCH hunt?

I cannot believe she's going to get indicted. But I really, really hope she does.
I think our nation will be much better off if she's not...the partisan payback would be hell and just continue to rip this country apart.

Why is it that some seem to think bringing the Clinton's down will bring about the second coming of Jesus Christ?

I think our nation will be much better off if she's not...the partisan payback would be hell and just continue to rip this country apart.

Why is it that some seem to think bringing the Clinton's down will bring about the second coming of Jesus Christ?

What if the FBI determines she broke the law? Why shouldn't she face the consequences?

I don't necessarily want to "bring her down", but does that mean we can't "tell the truth" about her actions and her values (or lack thereof)?

She may agree with you on every issue that matters to you, but she's a repugnant, morally bankrupt, pathological liar.

She claimed the GOP framed her husband to make it look like he cheated on her. You're OK with a POTUS who is either a world-class liar (if she knew that was crap), or a world-class moron (if she genuinely believed her accusation)?

She goes on and on about the evils of hedge fund managers, yet guess what her son-in-law does for a living?

Illegal? I didn't know they were "illegal". Do you have a link to anything that says they were "illegal"?

Check out:
Slate March 3 2015
This will show all you need to know about the illegal vs should have known as it was Protocol.
IMHO she should have known the dangers of a private server vs a government server with all it's privacy, in her position. If she didn't I would have to question her decesion and
common sense.

Servers aren't illegal. Agree using private email was stupid
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jeepers? It looks like the State Department JUST turned over 1300 email documents concerning OUR dead Ambassador Chris Stevens.

I wonder if these papers where found in the same wash room as the KilderBeast Whitewater documents?

I think the Whitehouse and Hildabeast are protesting just a little too much hoping that Tyranny of the Press will make this go away..

Did Gowdy really release the name of a CIA agent?

Did Gowdy really release the name of a CIA agent?

He did reveal the name of a CIA source, but it doesn't matter because it was an accident right :smash:

Here's what it looks like actually happened.

The investigation found an email from Sid Blumenthal that named a CIA source in Libya, a source mind you that was publicly known at the time. Hillary forwarded that email to someone at State. In an attempt to provide proof to the media Clinton had indeed passed along "classified" information -- as well as likely trying to distract from all the Republicans admitting the investigation is a partisan hit job --Gowdy actually made his own redactions to the email and made it public.

After that blew up he then made public several more emails one of which had the CIA source's name uncensored.

The CIA has reviewed all the emails from Blumenthal and found none contained classified information. The State Department did redact the name of the CIA contact on most emails just so they wouldn't be pulled into the mess.

So Gowdy screwed up twice. 1) He manipulated a Clinton email in an attempt to mislead people and 2) He then accidentally revealed the source he wrongly stated was classified.

What a joke.

Glad to hear it was an accident. Repubs. do have a history of revealing CIA agent names for political purposes.

Now look what THEY have done!

Those fachachin Pubes have exposed the KilderBeast's State Department had a California Company running guns in Libya!

Darn them.

Jeepers! Wikileaks also hacked into the CIA's emal account!

Wonder if he had one of those ILLEGAL servers in his barn too?

Glad to hear it was an accident. Repubs. do have a history of revealing CIA agent names for political purposes.
But only for retribution which is OK in my book.

great article re: today's hearings from Andy McCarthy

Hillary Clinton’s Appearance Before the Benghazi Committee
By Andrew C. McCarthy — October 21, 2015

Hillary Clinton has done Trey Gowdy an enormous favor. In anticipation of her testimony on Thursday before the Benghazi select committee he chairs, and with a lot of Republican help, she has framed the committee as a partisan political witch-hunt obsessed with dashing her presidential ambitions.

To regain credibility, all Gowdy needs to do is demonstrate that it is not. Meaning: all Gowdy needs to do is focus on why the United States had its officials stationed in Benghazi, one of the world’s most dangerous places for Americans.

What mission was so essential that it was necessary to keep Americans on-site when the jihadist threat had become so intense that other nations and organizations were pulling their people out?

These questions implicate disastrous policy that was, very much, bipartisan policy: (a) withdrawing American support for the Qaddafi regime that our government was funding and allied with against jihadist terror; (b) switching sides to aid and arm the jihadist-rife “rebels” who opposed Qaddafi; (c) waging a war under false pretenses – i.e., working for Qaddafi’s ouster, without congressional authorization, under the guise of a U.N. mandate that only permitted the protection of civilians; and (d) transitioning from support of Libyan jihadists to support for Syrian jihadists – i.e., transitioning from the policy that has left Libya a failed state with a growing ISIS and al Qaeda foot print, to a policy that contributed to the ascendancy of ISIS – by among other things, abetting the shipment of weapons from Libya to Syria.

Getting answers on how and why these actions were taken is the business of statesmanship, not partisanship. It is a business for which the committee, to this point, has shown little zest.

Well, on Thursday, Chairman Gowdy will have the nation’s attention. It’s now or never.

Camp Clinton’s relentless attacks on the committee should have had little persuasive force. The Clintons exude partisan hardball, a fact only highlighted by the herculean efforts Mrs. Clinton has made to impede fact-finding. That she is nevertheless getting traction owes to three factors.

The first two are obvious. There is the stunning cluelessness of Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.), who discredited the committee by publicly suggesting – bragging might be a better way of putting it – that it has succeeded in damaging Clinton’s presidential campaign. Then there are committee Democrats, who have maintained from the start, in naked partisanship, that the GOP-ordained panel is a farce.

For the third, Gowdy has no one to blame but himself. He has insisted that the committee do almost all of its work behind the scenes, despite the fact that this is not a criminal investigation of private wrongdoing shrouded in grand jury secrecy rules but, rather, an investigation by the people’s representatives to establish public accountability for government derelictions of duty.

There is, of course, a place for doing private interviews. They can be more productive than the posturing and sometime-circus atmosphere of open congressional hearings. But if you do virtually everything in secret, you give your opposition the opportunity to define your actions and motives without adequate rebuttal – a lesson a lawyer as sharp as Gowdy should have learned from the number Camp Clinton did on Ken Starr.

In the absence of open committee hearings that could have proved the good faith of committee Republicans to the public, we got months upon months of silence. Gowdy, inadvertently or not, then fueled the witch-hunt accusations by seeming to come to life only after news of Clinton’s lawless private server system surfaced in the spring.

There are extraordinarily good reasons for pouncing on Clinton’s obstruction: No fact-finding investigation can be competent and complete unless the investigators get access to the relevant evidence – and obstruction by key players is itself important evidence of their state of mind, shedding critical light on their actions.

Gowdy, however, did not stir until the Clinton private email scheme surfaced – a lapse compounded when the chairman conceded that he’d known about private system for months before news of it broke publicly, yet had failed either to (a) use his subpoena power to compel production of the emails, or (b) raise holy hell in Congress and the media – something he is quite good at – that would have shamed the Justice Department into seizing the private servers months earlier.

By doing next to nothing in public for over a year and then quite publicly complaining about the emails only after they became a subject of controversy, Gowdy has helped Democrats portray his investigation as political opportunism only tangentially related to the only thing that makes the emails pertinent – what they tell us about the security failures that led to the Benghazi massacre and the “blame the video” fraud that followed it.

Thursday, Chairman Gowdy has the chance to make things right. He will fail, however, if he does not tightly focus on the flawed policies and serious errors in judgment for which not only Mrs. Clinton but the Obama administration and congressional leaders of both parties are responsible.

Six more pieces of unsolicited advice for the committee:

1. The Accountability Review Board: be ready to destroy its credibility in the first five minutes, or just adjourn the hearing.

Mrs. Clinton is nothing if not utterly predictable. She and the State Department have been touting the ARB to anyone who would listen – from the time its report was issued in 2012 through her most recent dismissive comments about Gowdy’s committee. But the ARB investigation is a patent joke. It was the State Department investigating itself: Giving the ARB the undeserved benefit of the doubt, its purpose was not to establish accountability but to posit curative steps that would prevent a similar debacle from happening in the future. So even if the ARB were not a farce, it had a very different purpose from the Gowdy committee’s.

But it was a farce. Mrs. Clinton hand-picked the investigators, who conveniently and compliantly did not bother to interview her and other key Benghazi players. Moreover, it is abundantly clear that Mrs. Clinton withheld hundreds of her own emails from the ARB and that it did not have access to other highly relevant information. Further, a top State Department official has publicly stated that he walked in on an effort led by then-secretary Clinton’s staff to conceal unflattering information from the files being amassed for review by the ARB.

Clinton is going to keep hammering at the talking-point that there is nothing to see here because the ARB already did a thorough investigation, which – surprise! – cleared her. Gowdy and other committee Republicans have to be prepared to destroy the ARB as a sham. If, in the Washington way, they tip-toe around the sham because Hillary’s carefully chosen investigators were – surprise! – old Washington hands, the ballgame is over. The ARB can’t just be bruised; it has to be, and deserves to be, beaten to a pulp.

2. Mrs. Clinton’s soliloquies have to be mocked.

One of the reasons Clinton shrewdly declined to submit to a private committee interview is the calculation that she can control the public forum. There is no judge at a congressional hearing – no impartial presiding official who can order and shame witnesses (or, for that matter, questioners) to stick to the subject and not use the proceeding as a soap box. The former secretary and senator figures she can run the clock making long speeches spiced with faux indignation (“What difference, at this point, does it make …?”), with the Congress critters eventually becoming bored, frustrated, and ready to pack it in.

The way good trial lawyers deal with this tactic is to mock it. When Clinton starts this routine, probably in the first few minutes, somebody has to be ready to ask her how many times she practiced that speech in front of the mirror before coming to the hearing. They have to be ready to remind her of the question she has failed to answer – and that she has failed to answer it. Either the questioners control the witness or the witness controls the hearing. There’s no middle ground.

3. Similarly, committee Republicans have to be ready for the shenanigans of committee Democrats in service of Mrs. Clinton’s evasions.

Someone needs to be armed with the number of witness interviews committee Democrats have skipped, the documents they’ve not bothered to review.

Gowdy has said the reason for all the committee’s behind the scenes work was to assemble and master the facts of the case. Well, now’s the time to show you’ve mastered them: call your adversaries on their misstatements, show everyone that there is a real investigation here that they are trying to obscure. Be ready with the endorsements of Clinton’s candidacy they’ve touted. And while marshaling all this information, it would be effective to remind people that this is about murdered Americans who deserved the Democrats’ attention, not their gamesmanship.

4. The thousands of recently produced emails and documents.

As late as this week, the Obama State Department dumped 1300 of Ambassador Stevens’ emails on the committee. This stonewalling has gone on for years.

Mrs. Clinton is going to be ready to catalogue the investigations by the executive branch and several congressional committees in order to suggest that Benghazi has already been exhaustively probed. Gowdy’s committee, she’ll repeat, is unnecessary – just a Republican stunt to derail her campaign.

To refute this effectively, committee Republicans have to be ready to list, in exacting detail, the mounds upon mounds of evidence that was never reviewed – emails hidden, witnesses ignored – in those investigations. Incomplete, incompetent investigations get to the bottom of nothing, no matter how impressive-sounding the investigative body. And again, the Americans killed and wounded, their loved ones, and the country deserved better from Washington.

5. Remember Gregory Hicks.

Mrs. Clinton, the State Department, and the White House have their story down on the “Blame the Video” fraud they perpetrated: “We had determined that the anti-Muslim video was responsible for the rioting at the American embassy in Egypt earlier on September 11, 2012; in the fog of war, it was reasonable to presume that the video had the same instigating effect when it came to the violence in Libya.”

Committee Republicans must be armed with the facts that show the White House and State Department knew from the first minutes that the Benghazi siege was a terrorist attack, and that intelligence community talking points were willfully edited to conceal that fact. The CIA did not believe the video had anything to do with the violence. More significantly, Greg Hicks – the senior State Department official on the ground in Libya that night after Stevens was killed – was categorical is asserting that the video “was a non-event” in Libya. The video story appears to have been concocted for public consumption late on the night of the attacks … very shortly after Secretary Clinton and President Obama spoke on the phone.

6. Leave the criminal investigation to the FBI.

Mrs. Clinton’s reckless mishandling of national defense information is not the subject of the committee’s inquiry. Congress does not have the legal means or authority to resolve whether laws were broken. To give the appearance that this is what the committee is trying to do would play into the Clinton narrative that the committee is a partisan witch-hunt.

The emails are relevant to the cause of political accountability: showing what actually happened in the key Benghazi events and illustrating that Mrs. Clinton and the State Department had a motive – their disastrous performance of their duties – to withhold evidence. That’s what the committee is there to explore. Leave the criminal case to the FBI and the Justice Department.

Hillary Clinton has done Trey Gowdy an enormous favor. In anticipation of her testimony on Thursday before the Benghazi select committee he chairs, and with a lot of Republican help, she has framed the committee as a partisan political witch-hunt obsessed with dashing her presidential ambitions.
I love it, so Hillary is in cahoots with the Republicans to discredit the committee.

To give the appearance that this is what the committee is trying to do would play into the Clinton narrative that the committee is a partisan witch-hunt.
Which Gowdy has been caught red handed doing...

Spence, you have said, maybe with some merit, that there is no valid reason for th ehearing today, because there are no unanswered questions, no new additional information.

From Gowdy's opening statement...

"Just last month, three years after Benghazi, top aides finally returned documents to the State Department. A month ago, this Committee received 1500 new pages of Secretary Clinton's emails related to Libya and Benghazi. 3 years after the attacks. A little over two weeks ago, this Committee received roughly 1400 pages of Ambassador Stevens' emails. 3 years after the attacks"

Is Gowdy lying here? Or were you, as always, putting your personal spin on your statements?

If Gowdy isn't lying, why does it take 3 years to get that information to the Committee?

Spence, you have said, maybe with some merit, that there is no valid reason for th ehearing today, because there are no unanswered questions, no new additional information.
I've listened to a lot of the hearing today and have yet to see any new information from any new emails. The Republicans are very angry though. I thought this wasn't supposed to be about Hillary but wow, they sure have mounted a carefully planned attack against her character. I'm glad my tax dollars are paying for this.

They have been fruitlessly trying to push the Blumenthal conspiracy theory of what I don't really understand.

It's not over but Clinton is winning here big time.

6 hours of interrogation with hopes of Hillary providing some magical sound bites to use against her.
What a joke and what a dishonor to those who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And then just like ground hog day the kilderbeast regurgitates the horrible video lie!

Ahhh but the email to her daughter states the attack in Libya was known to be an AQ affiliate and not video based, on the night of the event, and in the weeks before the debates. So there was emails from HRC regarding Benghazi.

So, 1400 emails/documents (with more reportedly on the way) dumped the night before the testimony. Yes, this the previous investigations have all been above board with all of the information made available /sarc

Ahhh but the email to her daughter states the attack in Libya was known to be an AQ affiliate and not video based, on the night of the event,
Did you listen to her response?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you listen to her response?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What was her response to that? I didn't hear it.

During her tenure as Secstate, many nations had evacuated their diplomats from Benghazi, because of the danger. We didn't. The ambassador repeatedly asked for more security, which he never got, which cost him and 3 other Americans, their lives. There were no effective military contingency intervention plans either, obviously.

Then after it happened, they tried to dodge guilt by saying it was an unplanned response to a video. They said that, because that was easier for them to admit, than to tell the truth, which was they got caught with their pants down, when other nations clearly saw the danger and got their people the hell out of there.

Leading the State Dept isn't an exact science. You make a lot of judgment calls, and it's really easy to second-guess with the benefit of hindsight. However, in this case, it's clear the decision-making was awful, and 4 Americans are dead as a direct result.

She deserves to get promoted for that? She should've gotten fired.

We've come a LONG WAY from "the buck stops with me".

Did anyone mention the serviceman who died in Iraq the day before? A moment of silence? anything?

Did anyone mention the serviceman who died in Iraq the day before? A moment of silence? anything?

If they didn't, they could have and should have.

Clearly there was a significant political angle to this on both sides. The GOP wants her head on a platter, the Dems will do anything to avoid criticizing her.

Politics aside, I dont know how you can argue that the State Dept didn't screw up royally. Other nations pulled their people out of Benghazi because it was too dangerous. Not only did we leave our people there, but Stevens' multiple requests for additional security were ignored. That is a major, major screw up. Other groups saw this coming, and her State Dept did not.

If she's that inept at keeping people alive who she puts in harm's way, she's not remotely fit for the job she seeks.

Wasted time and resources to put a head on the chopping block. 3 investigations with the same results. A terrible thing happened, let's take a moment and remember what happened and do our best as a nation moving forward. Those millions of tax dollars on this last investigation should have been used for food for the poor in MHO.

Wasted time and resources to put a head on the chopping block. 3 investigations with the same results. A terrible thing happened, let's take a moment and remember what happened and do our best as a nation moving forward. Those millions of tax dollars on this last investigation should have been used for food for the poor in MHO.

So true
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wasted time and resources... Those millions of tax dollars on his last vacation should have been used for food for the poor in MHO.

fixed it...

"It’s hard to imagine how Democrats complaining about the cost of the House Special Committee on Benghazi manage to keep a
straight face. After all, the total cost to date is under 5 million dollars, not even close to the actual cost of a weekend Obama family
getaway. Even more to the point, Elizabeth Harrington of the Free Beacon took a look at what the federal government pays for
other kinds of information:
The amount of taxpayer funding that has gone toward the investigation into the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, is
less than the amount the federal government has invested in “Origami condoms” and studies on why lesbians are
obese. (snip)
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave $2,466,482 to Daniel Resnic to develop three versions of the Origami
condom, including the “first of its kind” anal condom. Resnic was later accused of wasting the money on full#^&body
plastic surgery, trips to Costa Rica, parties at the Playboy mansion, and patents for inventions such as “rounded
corners.”
The NIH has also given $3,531,925 to researchers to determine why lesbians are obese and gay men are not. Results
have included: gay men have a “greater desire for toned muscles” than straight men, lesbians have low “athletic selfesteem,”
and young men think about their muscles.
The Democratic members on the Benghazi committee also like to point out that the Benghazi investigation has lasted
532 Days, “longer than the investigations of Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination, Iran#^&Contra, and Hurricane
Katrina.”
The federally funded investigation into lesbian obesity has lasted for 1,460 days, or four years since it began in
September 2011.
These two projects cost taxpayers $5,998,407."

Under Bush there was 13 embassy attacks and 60 Americans died.
Where was the republican outrage then?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Under Bush there was 13 embassy attacks and 60 Americans died.
Where was the republican outrage then?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

check your facts

So true
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The US State Dept left those people in Benghazi when other countries correctly sensed the danger and pulled out. After leaving thos epeople in harm's way, the state dept then rejected multiple requests from Stevens for more security.

Now, is it a waste of time to ask the person who ran the State Dept at that time, WTF happened, how could we have been so wrong? That's a perfectly fair question, and she hadn't been asked that under oath until yesterday.

Her answer was "we did the best we could". Well, if that's true, her best wasn't NEARLY good enough. Other countries did much better, as did the Red Cross, which also got their people the hell out of there BEFORE any of them got killed.

If her "best", results in Americans getting killed when everyone else was smart enough to get out of there before their people got hurt, how in God's name is she fit to be POTUS?

So now when other countries do something we need to do it too? How funny is that. Let France decide our foreign policy.

Pure pathetic politics. Using the death of American's for politics.

There needs to be more hearings and investigations since this one (like all the others) didn't turn anything up. Use the same reasoning that was used for this investigation. There must be something there other than some misstatements made during the 1st few days w/a fluid situation. Why didn't they look into why Congress turned down requests for more $ to strengthen the defenses of our embassies?

70% of the American public thinks this is political and the results proved that.

what to do...what to do....

By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, Americans say they're unsatisfied with Hillary Clinton's response to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, according to results from a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

But a plurality of respondents believe that the congressional investigation into the attack is unfair and politically motivated.

The new national poll, conducted by Quinnipiac, asked voters to name the words that came to mind when the Democratic presidential frontrunner was mentioned. After “liar,” the word most commonly associated with Clinton was “dishonest.” The third-ranked word was “untrustworthy.” 61 percent of respondents said Clinton was not “honest and trustworthy,” her “lowest score ever” by that metric, according to the pollster.


Hillary blamed an assortment of "enemies" and "conspiracies" for her liar label and dishonesty problems....:rotflmao:

11 hours of interrogation with hopes of Hillary providing some magical sound bites to use against her.
What a joke and what a dishonor to those who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fixed.

I watched a lot of the coverage and frankly it was shameful. Gowdy's assertion they were out for the truth was a total lie. What's really insulting to the American public is that all this energy did nothing to further any understanding of the event.

The mockery and insults, including the 11th hour barrage of questions intended to trip her up when she's exhausted were pretty pathetic. They clearly tried to tire her out and go for the kill.

Unfortunately for the GOP their failed efforts simply made Republicans look foolish and Clinton to be the smartest and most capable person in the room.

So now when other countries do something we need to do it too? How funny is that. Let France decide our foreign policy.

Pure pathetic politics. Using the death of American's for politics.

There needs to be more hearings and investigations since this one (like all the others) didn't turn anything up. Use the same reasoning that was used for this investigation. There must be something there other than some misstatements made during the 1st few days w/a fluid situation. Why didn't they look into why Congress turned down requests for more $ to strengthen the defenses of our embassies?

70% of the American public thinks this is political and the results proved that.

"when other countries do something we need to do it too?"

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Liberals tend to have a really hard time responding to what has actually been said, instead, they like to but radical jibberish in the mouth of whoever is asking the question.

Why did other countries, and the Red Cross, know enough to get their people out of Benghazi? Why was Hilary's State Dept so less aware of the danger on the ground? Is that unfair to ask? If other countries clearly outperform us (in any area), you're saying there's no value in figuring out why that is?

Let me slow this down for you. I am not saying we do everything other countries do. But I'd like to know why other countries had a much better appreciation for the reality of th ethreat in Benghazi, than we did. Am I going too fast for you?

"How funny is that. "

Not very, especially for the families of the dead.

"Let France decide our foreign policy. " Not remotely what I said. But if we all agree that our foreign policy needs to be superior to that of the French, how do we achieve that by electing someone who can't do as good a job at foreign policy, as the French? Our foreign policy status has been clobbered since she was Sec State. Is none of that her fault? How is that worthy of a promotion?

"Pure pathetic politics"

Your limitless defense of her, I agree, is pathetic politics. Asking why other nations got out of Benghazi, while only Americans were left to die, is not a fair question in your mind? Your refusal to ask her any questions, seems fairly political, as no reasonable person would argue that we screwed up there, and she was in charge of the agency that screwed up.

"Why didn't they look into why Congress turned down requests for more $ to strengthen the defenses of our embassies?"

If that's true, we need to look into that. Fair enough?

Fixed.

I watched a lot of the coverage and frankly it was shameful. Gowdy's assertion they were out for the truth was a total lie. What's really insulting to the American public is that all this energy did nothing to further any understanding of the event.

The mockery and insults, including the 11th hour barrage of questions intended to trip her up when she's exhausted were pretty pathetic. They clearly tried to tire her out and go for the kill.

Unfortunately for the GOP their failed efforts simply made Republicans look foolish and Clinton to be the smartest and most capable person in the room.

now I'm positive that Spence has a creepy Hillary shrine in his closet

It would be really nice if the GOP congress and senate removed their heads from their asses and actually focus on running this country with the focus of prosperity for all and not focus on destroying the dems. And vice versa. It's like watching two rats fight to the death on a log that is being washed out to sea. If they both worked together they could get back to land.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fixed.

Gowdy's assertion they were out for the truth was a total lie. .

probably because when dealing with Clinton's, you are never going to get any truth...I see what you did there :eyes:

Clinton to be the smartest and most capable person in the room.

Tell that to the families of the 4 dead Americans.

The hearing was motivated, to a large degree, by politics. No question.

That doesn't mean that her state department didn't drop the ball in Banghazi, and then attempt to lie about what caused their deaths, rather than admit that they failed.

I agree she probably comes out of this the winner. Not because she's smart or capable, but because sheep like you are incapable of questioning her explanation, that she did the best she could.

Let me re-state. I believe she did the best she could. In this case, her best was a pathetic, abject disaster, compounded by the fact that she tried to dodge guilt by saying it was a spontaneous response to a video, rather than a terrorist attack that was foreseen by everyone who had people in Benghazi, except her.

Others saw the danger and evacuated Benghazi. She failed to do so, and people died. Rather than admit she fu**ed up, she lied about what happened. And that's someone who we want to elevate, to give her more chances to screw up on a bigger stage?

Sorry. If you get your clock cleaned at Pop Warner football, you aren't ready for the NFL.

If they both worked together they could get back to land.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agreed.

But it's almost impossible to work together, because I honestly don't have a clue what unites us anymore.

In San Francisco, an innocent, beautiful girl is murdered, as a direct cconsequence of the sanctuary city policy. What do they do? They uninamously vote to remain a sanctuary city, and pat themselves on the back for not letting Foxnews tell them what to do (they actually did this in speeches after the vote, as if mentioning a TV station that 1% of the nation watches, has any place in forming public policy).

If you think that's asinine, your are a conservative. If you think that it's great to give Foxnews and federal law enforcement the middle finger, even if it means sacrificing the occasional innocent person, you are a liberal.

Not much common ground anymore.

Did anyone mention the serviceman who died in Iraq the day before? A moment of silence? anything?

I just read he was a Delta Force master sgt with 11 bronze stars.

Special place in heaven for that guy.

The Repubs. have turned into the party of "if I can't get my way, I'm taking my ball and going home". They don't have any ideas and can't agree on anything. Their idea of government is throwing insults.

Pathetic

Under Bush there was 13 embassy attacks and 60 Americans died.
Where was the republican outrage then?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But Bush? How pathetic!

The Repubs. have turned into the party of "if I can't get my way, I'm taking my ball and going home". They don't have any ideas and can't agree on anything. Their idea of government is throwing insults.

Pathetic

you have a remarkable blind spot for the antics and shortcomings of the folks on the other side of the aisle..pretty sure the deaths of Americans and the lies and obfuscation by Hillary and the Admin. had a lot to do with the hearings...how about some accountability for the liars and obfuscators?

Under Bush there was 13 embassy attacks and 60 Americans died.
Where was the republican outrage then?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

did you check your facts yet?

The Repubs. have turned into the party of "if I can't get my way, I'm taking my ball and going home". They don't have any ideas and can't agree on anything. Their idea of government is throwing insults.

Pathetic

Sigh. Again, rather than responding to what the other side is actually saying, you say we have no ideas. I guess demonizing the opposition is a whole lot easier than responding to what they are actually saying, especially when what they are saying, is so rooted in common sense.

"Their idea of government is throwing insults."

Yawn. Obama says that Republicans "gotta stop just hatin' all the time", I guess we should look to his example on how to include and tolerate the opposition.

The senate Repoublicans just had an idea that if cities want to reject duly constituted federal laws, there would be consequences for that. In other words, the GOP had an idea that federal laws apply to all of us, equally. Shocking, I know. The Senate democrats blocked it, because that idea is offensive to Democrats. Funny, I didn't hear anyone caling them the party of opposition for blocking that.

I agree that the GOP Congress needs to propose more bills articulating their positions, and let the Dems block them all, and let Obama veto the ones the Dems can't block.

fixed it...

"It’s hard to imagine how Democrats complaining about the cost of the House Special Committee on Benghazi manage to keep a
straight face. After all, the total cost to date is under 5 million dollars, not even close to the actual cost of a weekend Obama family
getaway. Even more to the point, Elizabeth Harrington of the Free Beacon took a look at what the federal government pays for
other kinds of information:
The amount of taxpayer funding that has gone toward the investigation into the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, is
less than the amount the federal government has invested in “Origami condoms” and studies on why lesbians are
obese. (snip)
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave $2,466,482 to Daniel Resnic to develop three versions of the Origami
condom, including the “first of its kind” anal condom. Resnic was later accused of wasting the money on full#^&body
plastic surgery, trips to Costa Rica, parties at the Playboy mansion, and patents for inventions such as “rounded
corners.”
The NIH has also given $3,531,925 to researchers to determine why lesbians are obese and gay men are not. Results
have included: gay men have a “greater desire for toned muscles” than straight men, lesbians have low “athletic selfesteem,”
and young men think about their muscles.
The Democratic members on the Benghazi committee also like to point out that the Benghazi investigation has lasted
532 Days, “longer than the investigations of Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination, Iran#^&Contra, and Hurricane
Katrina.”
The federally funded investigation into lesbian obesity has lasted for 1,460 days, or four years since it began in
September 2011.
These two projects cost taxpayers $5,998,407."

I said it is a waste of funds and resources. Never mentioned Democrats or Republicans. Let's read and stay on track. with all do respect.

From what I understand (didn't watch any of it, but read summaries), ther ewas evidence presented which might suggest that Hilary suspected this was a planned terrorist attack, while saying pubicly (to cover her azz) that it was a spontaneous response to the video.

Let's remember that the video was made by an American citizen. Hilary is supposed to be working for that person. Instead, she (and Obama) gleefully threw him under the bus, for political expediency.

From what I understand (didn't watch any of it, but read summaries), ther ewas evidence presented which might suggest that Hilary suspected this was a planned terrorist attack, while saying pubicly (to cover her azz) that it was a spontaneous response to the video.

Let's remember that the video was made by an American citizen. Hilary is supposed to be working for that person. Instead, she (and Obama) gleefully threw him under the bus, for political expediency.
Actually she explained pretty well why that wasn't the case.

Not to mention the previous investigations that went deep on the topic and found no intentional misrepresentation.

I said it is a waste of funds and resources. Never mentioned Democrats or Republicans. Let's read and stay on track. with all do respect.

on the big scale of needless federal waste of funds and public resources which could have fed hungry children, this is pretty low in terms of cost and outrage, much of which could have been avoided if the folks under scrutiny had been more cooperative and honest .... but that's not in their nature

Not to mention the previous investigations that went deep on the topic and found no intentional misrepresentation.

:rotflmao:

Actually she explained pretty well why that wasn't the case.

Not to mention the previous investigations that went deep on the topic and found no intentional misrepresentation.

Her explanation that I saw, was that they were getting conflicting data from outside intelligence at the time. If that's true, why was she (and Obama) sticking with the video story? In the days following the attack, the administration wasn't being guarded or ambiguous in their assertion that it was the video. I never heard anyone, in the 3 days after the attack, say they didn't know what happened. All I heard, was that it was a spontaneous reaction to a video. And by an amazing coincidence, that explanation absolves her from any blame for what happened, becaue that explanation, as opposed to the truth, would make it impossible for anyone to have predicted the attack. How fortunate for her!

Is her explanation, especially when it contradicts her previous actions, always enough for you?

Yesterday's hearing referred to some pretty blunt private communications from Hilary, within 48 hours of the attack, that she thought it was a planned terrorist attack. Yet every public statement from Hilary, Obama, Jay Carney, and Susan Rice, blamed the video, thus blaming an American citizen.

In my opinion, she stuck to the video story, knowing that there was at least a great chance it was false, to paint a picture that no one could have reasonably foreseen the attack. It wasn't true, and it threw an American citizen under the bus, But you have no concerns, because unless she openly admits she was lying, then she couldn't possibly have been lying.

much of which could have been avoided if the folks under scrutiny had been more cooperative and honest .... but that's not in their nature

Bingo. Why did it take Hilary 3 years to turn over the last batch or emails?

pretty much sums it up....

Hillary Clinton showed us a glimpse of her soul at Benghazi
hearings. It was chilling

By K.T. McFarland

Published October 23, 2015

I did not watch the Benghazi hearings, unlike many others, in hopes of catching Secretary Clinton out, with my ears perked up for
some admission that could sink her presidential ambitions.
Secretary Clinton did not disappoint in her performance on Thursday.
She admitted to no wrongdoing, nor to breaking any laws.
Mistakes were made by others, the fault lies elsewhere.
Secretary Clinton was far more adept at bobbing and weaving than the members of Congress who questioned her were at
pinning her down.
She put up with hours and hours of questions, and no one laid a glove on her.
She brushed off blame by saying security decisions were handled at lower levels of the State Department professional staff, not
by the secretary.
She didn't receive Ambassador Stevens' requests for more security #^&#^& implying that if only she had things might have turned out
differently.
It was a masterful performance. She showed enormous discipline and nearly super#^&human stamina.
She let nothing slip. But in the end she let everything slip. She got a perfect score, but failed the test.
She didn't mean to, but she showed us a glimpse into her soul.
It was chilling.
We now know that when Secretary Clinton met the plane carrying the bodies of the four Americans who died at Benghazi she lied
about what happened.
Hillary Clinton showed us a glimpse of her soul at Benghazi hearings. It was chilling.
She stood over the flag#^&draped coffins of four dead Americans and blamed their deaths on an Internet video, which caused a
demonstration outside the consulate to turn into a deadly attack.
She looked into the eyes of the families of the fallen heroes and swore she would bring the videomaker to justice. But she was
lying .
She knew they died from a planned terrorist attack from an Al Qaeda#^&like group. That's what she told her family and foreign
leaders according to newly released emails.
Why? Because the Obama administration had an election to win eight weeks later, and a terrorist attack that killed four
Americans didn't fit into that plan.
President Obama asked voters to reelect him because he had killed Usama bin Laden. Al Qaeda was on the ropes. Qaddafi was
dead and the Libyan war a success. The wave of war was a receding. President George W. Bush's War on Terror was over
because Obama and Clinton had won it.
A terrorist attack that killed Americans at Benghazi did not fit into that campaign narrative, so it had to be retold and spun into a
different story. It wasn't radical Islamist terrorists, but a spontaneous demonstration that got out of control in reaction to an
obscure Internet video.
In the end, the Benghazi hearings probably didn't change many minds.
Secretary Clinton's supporters will say it was a waste of time, a politically motivated witchhunt.
Secretary Clinton's detractors will say she never answered the questions.
But for me it wasn't the questions or the answers that mattered.
It wasn't about negligence or criminality or incompetence.
Instead it was #^&#^& and still is #^&#^& about character. And Secretary Clinton has been found wanting.

pretty much sums it up....
Sounds like another crybaby who's astonished their scandalous narrative isn't supported by any facts.

Here's an even more accurate version.

http://www.theonion.com/article/benghazi-committee-instructs-hillary-clinton-limit-51708

Sounds like another crybaby who's astonished their scandalous narrative isn't supported by any facts.

Here's an even more accurate version.

http://www.theonion.com/article/benghazi-committee-instructs-hillary-clinton-limit-51708

Spence, without quoting MSNBC or anyone like that, just your thoughts...

(1) do you agree that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the administration was sticking to the "video" theory? Was there any hint, in the first 48 hours, that they weren't confident it was the video? For God's sake, one of the victim's father, said that Hilary told him that they were going to arrest the guy who made the video.

(2) do you believe, based on Hilary's private communications that have come to light, that she must have though there was a chance it was a planned terrorist attack?

If you agree with (1) and (2), how can you not hold her accountabke for blaming an innocent US citizen, for 4 murders? How would you like it is teh SecState went on national TV and called you out for something you didn't do?

It's not like her word is all that credible at this point. She's a pathological liar (I was shot at in Kosovo, Bill didn't cheat on me but was framed by the GOP, there were no work emails among what I deleted from my server). So why do you continue to accept everything she says, as God's word?

Sounds like another crybaby who's astonished their scandalous narrative isn't supported by any facts.

Here's an even more accurate version.

http://www.theonion.com/article/benghazi-committee-instructs-hillary-clinton-limit-51708

nope...just stunned at the incredible dishonesty of this woman and that she still garners any support despite all of the years of evidence...very disturbing.....facts are irrelevant to her, the "facts" are what she says they are..shifting sands of political convenience, she is everything that you feign to abhor but "seem" to approve because you share some political views I guess, or perhaps have "enemies" in common...but hey...it works for her, and maybe you....and fools continue to support and defend her

Spence, without quoting MSNBC or anyone like that, just your thoughts...

(1) do you agree that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the administration was sticking to the "video" theory? Was there any hint, in the first 48 hours, that they weren't confident it was the video? For God's sake, one of the victim's father, said that Hilary told him that they were going to arrest the guy who made the video.

(2) do you believe, based on Hilary's private communications that have come to light, that she must have though there was a chance it was a planned terrorist attack?

If you agree with (1) and (2), how can you not hold her accountabke for blaming an innocent US citizen, for 4 murders? How would you like it is teh SecState went on national TV and called you out for something you didn't do?

It's not like her word is all that credible at this point. She's a pathological liar (I was shot at in Kosovo, Bill didn't cheat on me but was framed by the GOP, there were no work emails among what I deleted from my server). So why do you continue to accept everything she says, as God's word?
I don't take everything she says as God's word, I'm taking what she has said in context of the investigations on the matter.

The evidence after the attack was all over the map. Militants taking credit then not taking credit. Attackers claiming the video was indeed their motivation etc...the next day both Obama and Clinton referred to the attackers as terrorists and heavily armed militants. This is with over a dozen video protests in the region many of which were violent.

The emails presented last night have to be put in context of the thinking at that moment which by Clinton's admission went back and forth.

Add to that the multiple investigations which concluded the talking points were led by the CIA and not manipulated for political purposes.

I know you just don't want to let go, perhaps this will help. Nobody at the IRS broke the law either :smokin:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/lois-lerner-no-charges-doj-tea-party/index.html

I don't take everything she says as God's word, I'm taking what she has said in context of the investigations on the matter.

The evidence after the attack was all over the map. Militants taking credit then not taking credit. Attackers claiming the video was indeed their motivation etc...the next day both Obama and Clinton referred to the attackers as terrorists and heavily armed militants. This is with over a dozen video protests in the region many of which were violent.

The emails presented last night have to be put in context of the thinking at that moment which by Clinton's admission went back and forth.

Add to that the multiple investigations which concluded the talking points were led by the CIA and not manipulated for political purposes.

I know you just don't want to let go, perhaps this will help. Nobody at the IRS broke the law either :smokin:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/lois-lerner-no-charges-doj-tea-party/index.html

"The evidence after the attack was all over the map"

But. That's. Not. What. She. Said. At. The. Time.

She said, repeatedly, that it was the video. If she had said, "we're trying to figure it out", I would have no issue with that. She knew there was plenty of evidence that it was something other than the video, but that explanation would paint her in the best possible light, so who cares if it involved publicly blaming a citizen she swore to serve?

Do you listen to yourself?

"The evidence after the attack was all over the map"

But. That's. Not. What. She. Said. At. The. Time.

She said, repeatedly, that it was the video. If she had said, "we're trying to figure it out", I would have no issue with that. She knew there was plenty of evidence that it was something other than the video, but that explanation would paint her in the best possible light, so who cares if it involved publicly blaming a citizen she swore to serve?

Do you listen to yourself?
I don't think you've paid any attention to what she actually said...then or now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Repubs. have turned into the party of "if I can't get my way, I'm taking my ball and going home". They don't have any ideas and can't agree on anything. Their idea of government is throwing insults.

Pathetic
How about the Democrats having 2 years of complete control under Obama and not doing squat. It's the Democrats who won't reach across the isle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think you've paid any attention to what she actually said...then or now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree one of us hasn't paid any attention to it.

Days after the attack, she said "We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with." (so don't blame me!)

http://www.redstate.com/2015/10/22/hillary-lied-benghazi-terror-attack/

Yet the day after the attack (according to the hearings yesterday) she told the Egyptian Prime Minister Kandil "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest."

https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/22/hillary-clinton-knew-benghazi-video

How many more do you want?

You said I don't want to let it go. Wrong. The issue, is that you don't want to go near it, because she has a "D" after her last name.

How many lies are told by politicians every day? The whole Iraq war was based on a lie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many lies are told by politicians every day? The whole Iraq war was based on a lie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) How many presidential candidates have lied about the deaths of Americans in their employ at the time?

You don't justify awful behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

(2) only the tin foil hat crowd thinks Bush lied. He was wrong, as were many, many people. No evidence that he intentionally lied, if there were, he would have been crucified by everyone, and I would have been leading the charge. Being wrong, isn't the same as lying.

According to the father of one of the victims, as his son's body was taken off plane, draped in the flag, Hilary told the father that she was going to arrest the filmmaker who was responsible for his son's death.

We know that Hilary told the Egyptian prime minister that she knew it was a planned terrorist attack. That email was revealed in the hearing yesterday. Yet after that, in public, the administration (you know, the most open and honest administration ever) claimed it was the video.

And Hilary is declared the winner by her PR folks such as Spence.

I don't get it. If someone is liberal, they cannot be called a liar when they are a liar?

How many lies are told by politicians every day? The whole Iraq war was based on a lie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Congress reviewed the Iraq War documents.
Among them where Senator Hillery Clinton and Senator John Kerry, both of whom voted YES to go to war.

No #^&#^&#^&#^& Sherlock. I said politicians. Not republicans. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They all lie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's some position you have there!

You find no redeeming value in ANY elected official?

They why do YOU post down here?

They all lie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe,I agree some politicians do lie, but if ALL politicians lie we are doomed as a country because without truth we are not living in reality. There is no way I could ever vote for a known liar.

Fixed.

Clinton to be the smartest and most capable person in the room.

That is the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing funniest thing I've read in days.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe,I agree some politicians do lie, but if ALL politicians lie we are doomed as a country because without truth we are not living in reality. There is no way I could ever vote for a known liar.

Time to face facts......we are doomed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Time to face facts......we are doomed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know how to refute that. We are on the verge of a decline of historic magnitude - a decline of economy, culture, values, and of our historic exceptionalism.

How many lies are told by politicians every day? The whole Iraq war was based on a lie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

which lie specifically?

have you checked your facts yet regarding the 60 Americans supposedly killed in embassy attacks during the Bush years?

if you believe that they all lie how can you conceivably support someone who promises to grow the size and scope of the government exponentially funneling greater sums of the nations wealth though it's organs and out it's orifices....you'd think you want to take as much money and power away from the liars as possible

Tyrone Woods' father, Charles, recalled meeting Clinton when his son's body arrived at Andrews Air Force Base two days after the attacks.

"I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand and she said, 'We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son," Woods said, reading the account from his journal.

"That was a complete bald-faced lie," he told FoxNews.com Friday. "The day after the attack, she was talking to the Prime Minister of Egypt and she said the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the video."

Also...

"The thing that was shocking – one of the pinnacle moments – was the revelation she told her family there was a terrorist attack while she told America something else," Smith's uncle, Michael Ingmire, told FoxNews.com. "Mrs. Clinton is a serial liar."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/24/families-benghazi-victims-say-clinton-dishonest/?intcmp=hpbt2

she said, "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son"


Presidential material right there....


so much wrong with that...hard to fathom...

we are in very troubling times

she said, "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son"


Presidential material right there....


so much wrong with that...hard to fathom...

we are in very troubling times

Right. She was saying she was going to arrest the guy (an American citizen), KNOWING that there was at lest a great chance that he had nothing to do with tit, so that no one could blame her for the attack.

THAT'S who Spence wants to be President? Someone who will put you in jail, for no reason, for political gain?

what you need to understand and accept is that it does not matter...this stuff is accepted and condoned, HRC understands that she will never be held accountable and not only that, the MSM and Spence types will dutifully defend her...

great line I read this morning

"The point is that when it comes to Clinton's lying and the press not caring and turning their derision on those who do, it’s déjà vu for as far as the eye can see."

what we are on the verge of is a state of irreconcilable differences that will not be solved politically or peacefully...we have opposing views that would like us to start over as a nation...one would like to dissolve what we have been in terms of founding principles and institute their own version which will be much smarter and more efficient because they fancy themselves much smarter and more efficient...the other side would like to dissolve what we've become and return to our founding principles and has no interest in being dragged down the path of smarter living through some incarnation of socialism.....I suppose there are a bunch in the middle who have absolutely no clue what's going on......the Constitution guarantees that we will not be dragged down the path were government rules the individual... and it provides the remedies. At some point there(and I suspect sooner than later) will be an event which allows the one side to announce that the guarantees are no longer operable and at that point the other side will have had enough....won't be the first time in history...or the last....

Right. She was saying she was going to arrest the guy (an American citizen), KNOWING that there was at lest a great chance that he had nothing to do with tit, so that no one could blame her for the attack.

THAT'S who Spence wants to be President? Someone who will put you in jail, for no reason, for political gain?
At the time she was likely getting information from the CIA that they were leaning toward the video motivation. If this was the case I could certainly believe the Administration would be looking for legal options to arrest the offender.

You keep pretending like there's zero evidence the video had a role in the attack...

At the time she was likely getting information from the CIA that they were leaning toward the video motivation. don't think so


If this was the case I could certainly believe the Administration would be looking for legal options to arrest the offender. "offender"?

You keep pretending like there's zero evidence the video had a role in the attack...

it's not pretending...the only "role" was as a purposeful lie the admin could and did disseminate...happily

At the time she was likely getting information from the CIA that they were leaning toward the video motivation. If this was the case I could certainly believe the Administration would be looking for legal options to arrest the offender.

You keep pretending like there's zero evidence the video had a role in the attack...

Again you ignore the post stating the FACT that the Administration perused YouTube, video shopping, and finally settled on the video the Administration ran with.

it's not pretending...the only "role" was as a purposeful lie the admin could and did disseminate...happily
So was General Petreaus lying when he initially told Congress the video was largely to blame. There were some 20 intelligence reports that pointed to the video at the time.

Did Hillary make all these up? I'm not sure even Bill Belichick could pull that off.

If this was the case I could certainly believe the Administration would be looking for legal options to arrest the offender.
Do you certainly believe that it is OK for an administration to "look" for legal options to prosecute someone who made a video which did not violate the law?

Uh . . . don't bother to answer that . . . you certainly believe an administration that you favor should "look" for ways to create a narrative which will absolve it from incompetence.

So was General Petreaus lying when he initially told Congress the video was largely to blame.

"Lying" . . . or "mistaken"? Hillary contradicts that testimony in her emails to her family and to the Egyptian government.

"Lying" . . . or "mistaken"? Hillary contradicts that testimony in her emails to her family and to the Egyptian government.

While I think that this investigation is rediculous, I agree with you here.

What's shocking to me is the great surprise here as every politician in the world says one thing and does another.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Lying" . . . or "mistaken"? Hillary contradicts that testimony in her emails to her family and to the Egyptian government.
That depends on the context of what the current thinking was when the email was sent. I'd note the formal investigations into the general matter found that communication to Congress and the public was consistent with the state of the intelligence at that time.

At the time she was likely getting information from the CIA that they were leaning toward the video motivation. If this was the case I could certainly believe the Administration would be looking for legal options to arrest the offender.

You keep pretending like there's zero evidence the video had a role in the attack...

Oh, she was "likely" getting info that it was the video? You're getting a tad desperate now.

Let's assume she was getting conflicting data, which is certainly plausible. If that's true, why didn't she say, at the time, "we aren't sure what triggered this, we are looking into it". Instead, her public statements put the blame squarely on the guy who made the video (thus shielding herself from any culpability), yet in private she seemed to be saying it was a planned terrorist attack.

Why the conflicting statements, Spence? Why didn't she just say "we're looking into it"?

Isn't it also "likely" that she was very specific in her public statements, that it was the video, because that explanation suggests that the State Dept didn't do anything wrong? You think it's a coincidence, that even though she was getting conflicting reports as to what triggered the attack, that she settled on the possibility that paints her in the best possible light? That wasn't "likely" a deliberate calculation on her part?

Don't blame me that I'm proving my case that she's a lying witch who was willing to throw an American citizen under the bus, and make him a target for terrorists, to cover up the fact that her Agency badly mishandled security in Benghazi.

Look, I don't think the SeState personally makes every decision on where to deploy finite security assets. And no one has a crystal ball. This isn't an exact science, mistakes happen.

It's her lying, and the cover-up to make it seem like it was a spontaneous (thus not forseeable) event, that tells us exactly who she is.

While I think that this investigation is rediculous, I agree with you here.

What's shocking to me is the great surprise here as every politician in the world s ays one thing and does another.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The surprise is that this is something we, the public didn't know before. It is not old news. And it is evidence, smoking gun if you will, that she knew she was lying.

If, indeed, all politicians in the world say one thing and do another, that is not quite the same as saying, portraying, one thing to the public to hide, or deflect from, what she knows truly happened. That would be called a cover-up. Which, ironically, is what she helped nail Nixon for. A cover-up.

But, apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander here. Nixon was forced to resign from the presidency or be impeached. HRC gets to run for President.

Another link- looking for more answers.

http://www.dailydot.com/lol/hillary-clinton-fugazi-hearings/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd note the formal investigations into the general matter found that communication to Congress and the public was consistent with the state of the intelligence at that time.

The formal investigation did not have the emails by HRC noted here at that time.

The surprise is that this is something we, the public didn't know before. It is not old news. And it is evidence, smoking gun if you will, that she knew she was lying.

If, indeed, all politicians in the world say one thing and do another, that is not quite the same as saying, portraying, one thing to the public to hide, or deflect from, what she knows truly happened. That would be called a cover-up. Which, ironically, is what she helped nail Nixon for. A cover-up.

But, apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander here. Nixon was forced to resign from the presidency or be impeached. HRC gets to run for President.

Hillary Rodham was expelled from the Nixon Investigation for lying.

What's shocking to me is the great surprise here as every politician in the world says one thing and does another.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we're not talking about every politician in the world...we're talking about HRC....I think the great surprise for many here...is that for this particular politician, whose lies can be chronicled for decades and whose lies have been egregious and repetitive to the degree that a healthy % in the country when polled come up with the word "liar" to describe her (I'm not sure what you've got in terms of actual evidence for your "every politician in the world" hypocrite contention)...the surprise is that she is so aggressively defended and championed as someone who should be our President...

no Eben, we're not surprise that Hillary lies(it's actually expected at this point).... nor that politicians the world over lie or are hypocrites, or that people the world over lie or are hypocrites, but lying...particularly when it involves someone in a position of power and trust and involves great consequences should carry a stigma and even penalty, for some it appears to be an asset...you can't continue to claim the government is corrupt if you don't hold politicians or appointees of politicians accountable( if you haven't noticed the money, power and influence that currently exists in Washington makes it almost impossible to hold anyone accountable *note Justice Dept re: IRS and Lois L)....you can't continue to complain about corporate welfare etc.. while supporting and voting for someone who promises to grow the size and scope of government and funnel more of the country's resources through it (which will only exacerbate the problems that you currently see)...

"The point is that when it comes to Clinton's lying and the press(and others) not caring and turning their derision on those who do, it’s déjà vu for as far as the eye can see."

"We’ve grown accustomed to public officials lying to us, but the fabric of society requires we maintain a reasonable level of trust in those we’ve elected to protect our interests. When you’ve abused that trust, you invite chaos and misery."

What's shocking to me is the great surprise here as every politician in the world says one thing and does another.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Eben, as I've tried to explain regarding the above, can you explain to me how someone, who acknowledges the inherent dishonesty and current lack of accountability that exists through politics and government here and elsewhere, can possibly support a candidate whose plan is to grow the size and scope of the government full of corrupt and dishonest individuals and funnel more of the country's wealth through their fingers????

Democrats HATE Government and then DEMAND more of it!

The formal investigation did not have the emails by HRC noted here at that time.
I believe they would have had the communication with Egypt as that wasn't an email but rather notes from a call. The email doesn't suggest a heck of a lot. Early that evening al Nusra took credit for the attack (later taking this back). They always stated that militants were involved and the notes given to Clinton before her call was based on the current thinking it was a well planned attack. This, was later revised.

Then more evidence suggesting the video was a key motivator came forth and I'd assume this was part of General Petreaus's first testimony to Congress where he stated just this...was the General in on the ruse as well?

When you look at what Clinton herself said on Sept 12th

Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together. Four Americans were killed. ... This is an attack that should shock the conscience of people of all faiths around the world. We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence, and we send our prayers to the families, friends, and colleagues of those we’ve lost. ...There will be more time later to reflect, but today, we have work to do. There is no higher priority than protecting our men and women wherever they serve.
We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear—there is no justification for this, none. Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith. And as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace.

I don't see much inconsistency.

Interestingly, Rep. Jim Jordan who led the email attack was on Fox News this morning claiming the administration was trying to cover up a Libyan failure.

Why in the hell is someone who's supposed to be "investigating" the incident, on TV pushing conspiratorial "conclusions?"

Odd I don't seem to remember you bringing up when Biraq OweBlamerLiar put his entire hand on the Justice System Scales during the O'Reilly interview, saying "not a smidgen of corruption" of the IRS.
Or more recently doning the same thing during the 60 Minutes interview commenting on the FBI investigation of the KilterBeast.

Odd I don't seem to remember you bringing up when Biraq OweBlamerLiar put his entire hand on the Justice System Scales during the O'Reilly interview, saying "not a smidgen of corruption" of the IRS.
Or more recently doning the same thing during the 60 Minutes interview commenting on the FBI investigation of the KilterBeast.
Can anyone translate this?

if anyone watched the documentary last nite of 13 hours at Benghazi there is and was a cover up....according to the 3 courageous security team members that were told to stand down by a CIA director and then defied the order and went to help, them 4 lives could have been saved if the first stand down order was not given.....where is the liar with her pants on fire in all of this?.....did Clinton aides meet to scrub damaging documents?....who gave the CIA officer orders to stand down?....there will always B blood on the present administrations hands

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3793874919001/13-hours-at-benghazi-the-inside-story/#sp=show-clips&v=3793874919001

if anyone watched the documentary last nite of 13 hours at Benghazi there is and was a cover up....
I highly suggest not watching FOX News documentaries.

Can anyone translate this?

Git er done.. Durka durka!! Freedom!!!!!! (Or something like that)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why in the hell is someone who's supposed to be "investigating" the incident, on TV pushing conspiratorial "conclusions?"

Check with Nebe. He has the answer. Everyone does it.

I highly suggest not watching FOX News documentaries.

I understand your thinking SPENCE.....UUUUUU would rather have me just listen to MSN,CBSand NBC.....they really tell it like it is....I do not know who lies more them or Hillary.....:)

[QUOTE/Spence]:
When you look at what Clinton herself said on Sept 12th:

"Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together.

Makes it sound as if there was adequate security personnel (even though there was not), but it was simply overwhelmed by unnamed "armed militants "(even though on the same day she said it was al-Qaeda affiliates). And the American security, if I recall correctly, was in a different compound and didn't arrive in time. And the Libyan security, if I recall correctly, mostly did not put up a sustained fight, some even joined in the attack on the consulate.

"Four Americans were killed. ...

Yeah, the Ambassador, an aide, and two American soldiers who were not part of the consulate security. Had there been the adequate American military security needed in a dangerous place (a hotbed of terrorism as I once phrased it and which you poo-pooed) things would have ended differently. As Jim in CT has pointed out several times, other countries consulates had pulled out of Libya because of the danger. And Hillary just didn't know about any of the 600 requests for more security. And that was, of course, not Hillary's fault, but that of Ambassador Stephens for not calling her directly. Her function as Secretary of State sure reeks of competence here, eh?. She actually believed al Qaeda was on the run, a non-factor, the Libyans were pro-American and would protect the consulate,(after all, it was she that called for the toppling of Qadaffi and intervention in Libya and the grateful Libyans would befriend us not attack us), yada yada yada. All was well and secure . . . nothing to be unduly concerned about. Her underlings assured her that all was well. Other consulates that pulled out were simply uninformed or cowards.

"This is an attack that should shock the conscience of people of all faiths around the world. We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence, and we send our prayers to the families, friends, and colleagues of those we’ve lost. ...There will be more time later to reflect, but today, we have work to do.

This sounds like a prelude to some revelation of what really happened. And how could she say it was a senseless act of violence if she knew on the same day that she said this, that it was a well-planned al Qaeda attack? There was a great deal of sense about it. It was September 11. There were warnings of it. It was a soft target. It was what al Qaeda is partially about--the removal of American presence from Muslim countries. Too bad that she had to wait till the day late "Today" to have work to do.

"There is no higher priority than protecting our men and women wherever they serve.

It seems that the priority was not high enough in Benghazzi. It only became higher, for her, after it was too late to competently provide in the first place.

"We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault.

Aha! The "precise" motivations. We get from the prelude to motivation to what it precisely is . . .

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.

Bingo! There's your motivation. The video. Aside from the "some" named here, no others are referred to. It could be argued that the "some" implies others. But its a nice trick not to name others and leave this particular lump of motivation to stand alone with all that implies.

"America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.

What does religious tolerance have to do with a "senseless act of violence"?

"But let me be clear—there is no justification for this, none. Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith.

A response to a video, "spontaneous" or otherwise (though spontaneous would conveniently make it less forseeable ergo less preventable) which maligns Islam would be a sort of 'honoring" of Islam. But al Qaeda violence is meant more to impose Islam, not merely to "honor" it. (Subliminal hint--it was the video!)

"And as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace."

Or those who would take an innocent life under any name. Quite a cheap platitude to make her sound like a high-minded drum-major for peace who would never take evil for granted . . . and would certainly protect us as well as the Benghazzi consulate from such evil

[QUOTE/Spence]I don't see much inconsistency.[QUOTE]

You would if you really tried. But you're too deep in the tank to see.

The vagueness of her statement and its obvious implications are inconsistent with the surety of her comments to her daughter and to the Egyptian minister. And the several platltudinous remarks are meant to separate her from culpability or incompetence re Benghazi.

Here is another article re Hillary and Benghazi:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2015/10/24/hillary-clinton-owns-the-war-in-libya-and-its-horrible-aftermath0/?subscriber=1

you'd think if anyone, Spence, would recognize Hillary using Spence Speak

and I'll add/remind of this....he later statement to the families of the dead Servicemen...

she said, "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son"

you'd think if anyone, Spence, would recognize Hillary using Spence Speak

and I'll add/remind of this....he later statement to the families of the dead Servicemen...

she said, "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son"

Correct. And she said this to a grieviung father, AFTER she told the PM of Egypt that she knew it had nothing to do with the video. And to top it all of, th eguy who made the video, who she threw under the bus, is an American citizen.

Correct. And she said this to a grieviung father, AFTER she told the PM of Egypt that she knew it had nothing to do with the video. And to top it all of, th eguy who made the video, who she threw under the bus, is an American citizen.
Jim, do you know what "time" is?

Jim, do you know what "time" is?

I believe I do.

Do you know what a "lie" is?

You keep giving her a pass because she was possibly receiving conflicting intelligence about the suspected cause of the attack. But her actions spit in the face of your theory that she wasn't being deliberately dishonest. If she came out publicly and said "we are receiving conflicting information, we are trying to sort it out", no sane person would fault her for that. And in that case, your defense would have merit.

But that's not what she did. Not by a long shot.

In public, she kept blaming the video. The only possible explanation for why she stuck to that story (especially in light of the fact that in private communications, she conisstently called it a planned terrorist attack) is that it painted her in the best possible light.

Spence, her statements weren't always based on the last intelligence reports she receivced. They were always crafted to make it seem like she could not have foresen what happened, therefore she is not at fault.

That's good enough for you. We'll see if it's good enough for people who aren't liberal zealots. I think it may be. But I know I'm right, her actions leave no room for doubt. I'm sorry if that's disturbing to you.

Her statement to the grieving dad at the airport (we'll get the filmmaker who did this!), came after her private emails in which she said she knew it wasn't the video. Do you expect us to believe that at first she thought it was a terrorist attack, then a few days later, it looked like it was the video?

Oh, did Jim just say he knows he is right again??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Her statement to the grieving dad at the airport (we'll get the filmmaker who did this!), came after her private emails in which she said she knew it wasn't the video. Do you expect us to believe that at first she thought it was a terrorist attack, then a few days later, it looked like it was the video?
Yes, because of time...

In between her communications and airport meeting the CIA changed it's analysis on the event shifting from a planned attack to one motivated by the video...which was what Rice's public remarks a few days later were based on.

This was well documented during the Senate investigation.

Yes, because of time...

In between her communications and airport meeting the CIA changed it's analysis on the event shifting from a planned attack to one motivated by the video...which was what Rice's public remarks a few days later were based on.

This was well documented during the Senate investigation.

I see. So it's all a function of timing, that her public statements blamed the video, while her private statements claimed it was a planned attack. She was only regurgitating what she had been last told. And the fact that every one of her public statements painted a picture that absolves her of any responsibility, is just coincidence?

What good fortune for her!

Spence, when she testified "what difference does it make", was that also from a CIA report? Or was she still trying to avoid admitting that she had every opportunity to prevent these deaths?

I guess CIA told her to ask what difference it makes.

The answer, of course, is this...if it was a spontaneous response to a youtube video, she is not to blame. If it was a planned attack that other nations foresaw but we didn't, she looks like a moron. A moron with blood on her hands.

I see. So it's all a function of timing, that her public statements blamed the video, while her private statements claimed it was a planned attack.
You're not paying attention.

Sort of like how the story of the drone hit on the Dr w/o Borders changed.

Sort of like how the story of the drone hit on the Dr w/o Borders changed.
Totally different scenario. The GOP isn't trying to destroy the credibility of the US Military.

Also Jim, I'd appreciate it if you'd start calling her Mrs. President.

Totally different scenario. The GOP isn't trying to destroy the credibility of the US Military.

Also Jim, I'd appreciate it if you'd start calling her Mrs. President.

True, we have to concede that the GOP is out to get her.

That aside. Spence, why didn't she just say "we are trying to figure it out, it's a fluid situation at the moment"?

Can you support your claim that every time she flip-flopped, it's because there was another intelligence report that said "forget what we told you 5 minutes ago, we changed our mind, now we think it was caused by _____".

I'll call her FCOTUS, that's the closest I can get. And I don't know that she's beatable.

That aside. Spence, why didn't she just say "we are trying to figure it out, it's a fluid situation at the moment"?
I think there's a lot of public pressure to get as much information out as possible, which is why the official statements did tend to have a qualifier. Even Rice's often touted remarks were not stated as absolute and final.

Can you support your claim that every time she flip-flopped, it's because there was another intelligence report that said "forget what we told you 5 minutes ago, we changed our mind, now we think it was caused by _____".
If you look at the CIA testimony and how the information evolved and the timeline compared to Administration remarks it does align pretty well.

This was all laid out in detail during the bi-partisan majority findings of the Senate investigation.

Yes, because of time...

In between her communications and airport meeting the CIA changed it's analysis on the event shifting from a planned attack to one motivated by the video...which was what Rice's public remarks a few days later were based on.

This was well documented during the Senate investigation.

that explanation is about as dumb as telling parents of Servicemen slain by terrorists in Libya that you are going to go get those responsible by arresting some obscure video maker who was nowhere near the attack.....

please stop Spence...if you are stupid enough to believe this crap it doesn't mean others are


Jim...it's not a function of timing...it's a function of LYING....the problem with LYING is that you have to keep LYING

that explanation is about as dumb as telling parents of Servicemen slain by terrorists in Libya that you are going to go get those responsible by arresting some obscure video maker who was nowhere near the attack.....

please stop Spence...if you are stupid enough to believe this crap it doesn't mean others are


Jim...it's not a function of timing...it's a function of LYING....the problem with LYING is that you have to keep LYING

You are right, it doesn't come close to passing the common sense smell test. Every private communication, she seems to say it was a planned attack. Every pubkic statement, she blames it on the video, thus denying any fault oin her part. I don't claim to be non-partisan here, as I think she is truly a wretched woman. But putting that aside, there's only one possible conclusion, that she lied when it suited her, to make it appear that the attack was not something that could have been foreseen, therefore she's not at fault.

Let's say that the attack was prompted by the video (no one believes that, let's just say). If Hilary thinks the guy who made the video is criminally responsible for the actions of people (on the other side of the world) who get upset by its message, then why doesn't she think Al Sharpton is similarly responsible for people who have been murdered after he works up crowds into a violent, white-hating rage?

I'd LOVE to see someone ask her that.

that explanation is about as dumb as telling parents of Servicemen slain by terrorists in Libya that you are going to go get those responsible by arresting some obscure video maker who was nowhere near the attack.....

please stop Spence...if you are stupid enough to believe this crap it doesn't mean others are


Jim...it's not a function of timing...it's a function of LYING....the problem with LYING is that you have to keep LYING
Have you read the bi-partisan Senate report?

Every private communication, she seems to say it was a planned attack. Every pubkic statement, she blames it on the video, thus denying any fault oin her part.
Every is pretty specific, I'd like you to report back on how many times of each...

....the problem with LYING is that you have to keep LYING

She must have one heck of a memory to remember her lies, she wouldn't
need a memory if she told the truth.
" Oh what a terrible web we weave when at first we try to deceive."

Have you read the bi-partisan Senate report?

do you know what "time" is?

it's awfully critical of Clinton and State and they didn't have all of the information to consider that's come out since....

maybe we should have another?

keep telling yourself the lies are ok....:kewl:

Also Jim, I'd appreciate it if you'd start calling her Mrs. President.

"Mrs. President." Is that a Freudian slip? Wasn't she sort of a Mrs. President for Bill when he was President? I think the more standard formal title would be Madam President. Or that would have been so before gender expansion and required normalization. Both Mrs. and Madam are "sexist"--as well as being too restrictive to differentiate between the number of genders now existing.

That depends on the context of what the current thinking was when the email was sent.

The context of whose current thinking? There were various contexts of current thinking. Pick and choose the one which best suits your "current" thinkings at various contexts of time? Oh, the preferred current thinking at this moment of the day is planned terrorist attack nothing to do with the video--oh, oh, might better go with the more preferred current thinking at this later moment of the day being video had something to do with attack . . . Oh, uh, better go public with the context which emphasizes the video. . . oh, better to slant both ways . . . be definitive sounding but vague enough to have plausible deniability.

What a jumbled mess of gibberish.

I'd note the formal investigations into the general matter found that communication to Congress and the public was consistent with the state of the intelligence at that time.[/QUOTE]

The reported state of intelligence was conflicting at various times. It was later resolved into a more coherent state which crystalized the perception of the attack as planned and coordinated by al Qaeda affiliates, not a spontaneous protest because of the video--which seemed, ironically, to be its initial perception, if we are to believe Hillary's first "context of current thinking."

And the formal investigation, which you cling to, the Senate committee report on Benghazi, found State Dept. extremely culpable for lack of security for the compound. It blistered the State Dept. for not providing proper security even though violence was on the rise there--violence, much not connected to the video but which began preceding it and connected to other issues dear to the organized al Qaeda terrorists.

"The committee found the attacks were preventable based on extensive intelligence reporting on terrorist activity in Libya-- to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets--and given the known security shortfalls at the U.S. mission."

The report which you cling to did not have the information now available because the administration and its Secretary of State withheld it, only to dribble it out much later, bit by inadequate bit, and still not entirely forthcoming.

So the Report was wrong in its assessment that the attack appeared not to be planned. It was wrong about the significance of the video, and, ultimately, in my opinion, on placing the blame on underlings rather than the boss. You have said that it was a systemic problem, which Hillary, after the attack and too late, was going to fix. Wasn't Hillary part of the system? The leading part?

And isn't it peculiar that the CIA, which seems to have been giving conflicting and erroneous reports (gee, haven't we heard that criticism of the CIA even before Benghazi) bolstered its security at its compound only a mile away, but State did not do so for the embassy compound? Sure, blame it on Chris Stevens who turned down offers from General Ham, or on some other underling, even though hundreds of requests for more security were given--just, reputedly, never got to Hillary. It seems, from this picture, that Hillary as a Sec. State was being so in fundamentally disconnected name only. She is portrayed as the head of something that goes about its business without regard to her, she being a mere functionary who can be replaced by another without consequence. If it does well, she gets the credit. If it effs up, she "takes responsibility" but not the blame.

But she would fix the "systemic problem" by finally becoming an active part of the system. She would become truly the head of the organization, delve into its workings and fix its problems--which is what the head of most, at least non-political, organizations, are expected to do before crises happen, not after, which is why they are paid so much and should be fired or downgraded or replaced, not promoted to higher levels when things go wrong. But then, in the big corporate world, which Hillary purports also to want to fix, the same insane reward for failure is often seen.

So what was Hillary's role in the Benghazi tragedy. She would take responsibility, but not the blame. She would root out the cause and exact the cures and justice. Granted, even though "the contexts of current thinking" were supposedly rapidly shifting back and forth from two scenarios (not correctly so, if even true) she would, according to Spence, "look" for ways to prosecute the video maker. Even though his video did not violate the law.

Why would she do something so despotic? OK . . . OK, I know that Progressives do have a despotic mindset. But this is almost too egregious, even for a Progressive. Perhaps there is a broader context of thinking which is more current than day to day, but is a fact in History. Mind you, She is so good at deflecting, obfuscating, dodging questions, filibustering to fill up "current contexts" of time-restricted investigations as in her just concluded appearance before Congress, that she appears (to those who want her to appear so) . . . as Presidential. There has been this context of thinking that has been current for many years about her. She has been grooming herself for over a decade to appear Presidential. It was laughably ironic when Spence tried to put down Cruz for grandstanding in order to put himself in the potential limelight of being a Presidential candidate. But Hillary's grandstanding is just peachy with Spence. Even in spite of (or because of) all the lying and manipulation, her grandstanding is "Presidential." We should begin referring to her as Mrs. President.

So why would she promise to do something as psychopathically despotic as trying to criminally prosecute someone for a crime he has not committed? What is the fact in history which could shift the "current context of thinking" about her regarding responsibility for Benghazi, or regarding her being Presidential?

Who is ultimately responsible for the presence of al Qaeda affiliates who were terrorizing Libya and who killed the four Americans at the Benghazi compound? Was the video responsible for all that, and for the chaos, terror, killing, occurring in Libya now. Who steered the administration into deposing Qaddafi? Qaddafi warned what would happen if he was eliminated, which is what is happening now.

Hillary did that.

She was so enamored of the idea of an Arab Spring. But was so ignorant of Arab Consequence. George Bush was discredited as stupid, incompetent, even a war criminal, for toppling Saddam.

Better to blame it all on a video and "systemic failure" and bad intel, certainly not on policy failure as advised in an administration internal memo--and Presidentially go after the video maker. It would not be Presidential to look like a Clinton in Bush clothing.

"Mrs. President." Is that a Freudian slip? Wasn't she sort of a Mrs. President for Bill when he was President? I think the more standard formal title would be Madam President. Or that would have been so before gender expansion and required normalization. Both Mrs. and Madam are "sexist"--as well as being too restrictive to differentiate between the number of genders now existing.
I agree, Madam President has a better ring to it.

To be honest I'm sort of looking forward to watching Jim's head explode :humpty:

I agree, Madam President has a better ring to it.

To be honest I'm sort of looking forward to watching Jim's head explode :humpty:

You love him that much, do you? :doh:

I agree, Madam President has a better ring to it.

To be honest I'm sort of looking forward to watching Jim's head explode :humpty:

I think she'd be a big improvement over the incumbent...and Bill would be an even bigger improvement as First Spouse, compared to the angry, entitled, spoiled brat we have now.

At this point, I'd love to see all republicans stop voting. Give liberals the reins to take over everything completely, so that when the inevitable happens, we all are forced to concede (everyone except you, at least) that liberalism doesn't work. You'll be the last holdout.

Spence, if liberal economics has any validity to it...why is CT in the shape it's in? Or Mass, Illinois, you name it? Is it because they aren't liberal enough? Are taxes still way too low? Are houses too cheap? Is it that we haven't been generous enough to public labor unions? I'd be genuinely curious to hear your take on that. Especially as regards CT, which ought to be the best state in the union - lots of educated folks, high average salaries, beautiful state. Yet thanks precisely to the agenda you embrace, it's almost impossible to be middle class here, the cost of living is crushing, our debt is going to cause incomprehensible damage, and we are one of the VERY few states that are losing population.

Also Jim, I'd appreciate it if you'd start calling her Mrs. President.

Now UUUU RRRRR hitting below the belt....:)

I agree, Madam President has a better ring to it.

To be honest I'm sort of looking forward to watching Jim's head explode


Inmate # 43678 has an even better ring to it...

President Trump and Vice President Palin have full permission to go wild with Executive Orders and the Republican Congress may engage in any legislative Tom Foolery that they might invent on the fly in order to pass their agenda items.... so that we may watch your head explode :rotf2: be careful what you support, condone and wish for...payback can be a beeotch :)

The vagueness of her statement and its obvious implications are inconsistent with the surety of her comments to her daughter and to the Egyptian minister. And the several platltudinous remarks are meant to separate her from culpability or incompetence re Benghazi.
At the time she made both of those remarks the CIA had definitively and incorrectly stated it was a well planned attack. The detail from the Senate report noted a non-analyst changed the analyst's initial findings which wasn't realized until the next day...where is was corrected...and the summary which involved the video was sent to State for Rice's TV tour.

I'm still perplexed why some can't fathom that the video protests in Cairo and other cities inspired the militants to attack a US presence they'd been itching to get at for months...

Inmate # 43678 has an even better ring to it...
I wouldn't get your hopes up.

President Trump and Vice President Palin have full permission to go wild with Executive Orders and the Republican Congress may engage in any legislative Tom Foolery that they might invent on the fly in order to pass their agenda items.... so that we may watch your head explode :rotf2: be careful what you support, condone and wish for...payback can be a beeotch :)
I like the idea of a Trump-Palin ticket :rotflmao:

I'm still perplexed why some can't fathom that the video protests in Cairo and other cities inspired the militants to attack a US presence they'd been itching to get at for months...



it's not perplexing...they didn't need video motivation as you stated, they'd been itching.....which is why blaming the video and it's source is stupid....you answered your own perplexion

but Spence, if a left wing group produces a video depicting Tea Party members in all sorts compromising and unsavory acts and members of a Tea Party group get offended and ransack a DNC office...maybe kill a few people...are you willing to blame the video and would you want the video makers jailed? will it perplex you if people blame the video and makers rather than the Tea Party members for the damage and death?

it's not perplexing...they didn't need video motivation as you stated, they'd been itching.....which is why blaming the video and it's source is stupid....you answered your own perplexion
Then why didn't they attack in scale before? Why wasn't it well planned? Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

Then why didn't they attack in scale before? irrelevant Why wasn't it well planned? irrelevant Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation? irrelevant

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

the video is irrelevant to the equation....it was nothing more than a smoke screen for the killers and the administration

the video is irrelevant to the equation....it was nothing more than a smoke screen for the killers and the administration
I see, so it's just because you say so. Right.

Then why didn't they attack in scale before?

Are you serious? "They" have and were attacking "in scale" well before the video.

Why wasn't it well planned?

Ok. This is still getting confusing and in the mode of constant change. Is the current thinking-investigation-talking point-whatever that it was not well planned? And what does well planned mean? Planned but not well? Not planned at all? Even though they were "itching" to attack? Hey--if they were itching to attack, and 9/11 just popped up unexpectedly, not giving them time to plan an attack, couldn't they "spontaneously" make an unplanned attack even if the video didn't exist? Was the video necessary to make it spontaneous? And if the video was necessary, how spontaneous is that. The video was (erroneously) blamed for previous attacks elsewhere. Then how would it be "spontaneous" if it was the cause of a chain of previous attacks? Seems, in that case, it would just be more of an expected reaction.

Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

I could think of several reasons, including covering up senseless killing and mayhem by providing a "reason" to justify it. Lying is often use to cover up mistakes or evil.

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

The video is, obviously, not out of the equation. Or, more accurately, out of various equations, only one of which can be true--except in a relative world, in which case all things are true and what would be the point of arguing about it?

If we have an equation where after the equal sign there must be the attack, and we use Occam's razor of the simplest explanation, what can be left out of causes before the equal sign and still have the result? If we took the video out of the equation would the result still be valid. Yes.

Which puts in question what is the purpose of putting the video into the equation? It could be used to facilitate a circumstance that would occur wthout the use of it. Just as all evil will be justified by some excuse to make it appear as good. Or to cover up that which incriminates.

If the video was used, it was obviously done so to somehow make sensible, excuse, what otherwise might be seen by the world as senseless violence (even though, to the attackers ,it was not senseless without the video), or as a cover-up for the incompetence in not preventing the attack.

Making an issue of the video deflects from the ignorant incompetence of the administration.

And promising to prosecute the maker of the video even though it was not illegal raises the level of incompetence to psychopathic justification for it.

Making an issue of the video deflects from the ignorant incompetence of the administration.

And promising to prosecute the maker of the video even though it was not illegal raises the level of incompetence to psychopathic justification for it.

yup...and deflects blame from those that actually did the attacking and killing

If we have an equation where after the equal sign there must be the attack, and we use Occam's razor of the simplest explanation, what can be left out of causes before the equal sign and still have the result? If we took the video out of the equation would the result still be valid. Yes.
You're making an assumption that the attack would have happened at the same time and same veracity regardless. That's a big assumption not supported by any facts...which greatly complicates your equation.

Occam's Razor = FAIL :eek:

Then why didn't they attack in scale before? Why wasn't it well planned? Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

Jeepers? That video only had a handful of hits up until the night of the attack.
That video, AFTER the Administration viewed it and settled on it and THEN presented it to the World as the cause of the deadly Benghazi attack, then had MANY views.

Why has there been no OTHER attacks on OUR interests related to THIS video?

You're making an assumption that the attack would have happened at the same time and same veracity regardless. That's a big assumption not supported by any facts...which greatly complicates your equation.

Occam's Razor = FAIL :eek:

it was September 11th...nothing ever happened that was related on September 11th

it was September 11th...nothing ever happened that was related on September 11th

You're making more assumptions and complicating Detbuch's equation.

You're making more assumptions and complicating Detbuch's equation.

people like to celebrate anniversaries

You're making more assumptions and complicating Detbuch's equation.

Here's what is not an assumption.

(1) other nations, as well as the Red Cross, were aware that Benghazi was too dangerous to safely keep their people there, so they were evacuated. Clinton's State Dept didn't come to the same conclusion.

(2) Stevens, sensing the danger, made many requests for extra security that were denied.

It would appear that the State Dept really screwed this up, and left those people up the creek without a paddle.

She was in charge, was she not?

Here's what is not an assumption.

(1) other nations, as well as the Red Cross, were aware that Benghazi was too dangerous to safely keep their people there, so they were evacuated. Clinton's State Dept didn't come to the same conclusion.

(2) Stevens, sensing the danger, made many requests for extra security that were denied.

3) It would appear that the State Dept really screwed this up, and left those people up the creek without a paddle.

She was in charge, was she not?

1) True. Stevens was part of the state department, why did he chose to go to Benghazi if he was that worried and it was that dangerous. That is not blaming Stevens, but he certainly knew the ground conditions better than most.

2) in part, see 1), but what I want to know, is who denied the extra security. Did it actually cross Clinton's desk or is that handled at a lower level

3) State department screwed up; mistakes were made and it was a tragedy. This has been turned from something to learn from and not repeat, to a political event.

You asked earlier about the video and the conflicting statements. Frankly, I don't give a #^&#^&#^&#^& what they told the Egyptian prime minister. I am sure there was and always is politicking on these events when dealing with other countries with dubious ally relations. The timeline, as I read it, seems to support initially, many in the intelligence community blaming things on a video. that metric changed over time. Maybe Clinton et al should have caveated their remarks a bit more, but that to me does not equate to out-right lying.

1) True. Stevens was part of the state department, why did he chose to go to Benghazi if he was that worried and it was that dangerous. That is not blaming Stevens, but he certainly knew the ground conditions better than most.

2) in part, see 1), but what I want to know, is who denied the extra security. Did it actually cross Clinton's desk or is that handled at a lower level

3) State department screwed up; mistakes were made and it was a tragedy. This has been turned from something to learn from and not repeat, to a political event.

You asked earlier about the video and the conflicting statements. Frankly, I don't give a #^&#^&#^&#^& what they told the Egyptian prime minister. I am sure there was and always is politicking on these events when dealing with other countries with dubious ally relations. The timeline, as I read it, seems to support initially, many in the intelligence community blaming things on a video. that metric changed over time. Maybe Clinton et al should have caveated their remarks a bit more, but that to me does not equate to out-right lying.

" want to know, is who denied the extra security. Did it actually cross Clinton's desk or is that handled at a lower level"

Agreed. I suspect it's handled at a lower level. But we don't know who made those decisions, but I believe we know that no one was fired. I'd like to know why that is, if it's true.

"The timeline, as I read it, seems to support initially, many in the intelligence community blaming things on a video"

That doesn't explain why her early private emails (to Egypt and to her family) asserted that it was a planned terrorist attack. Yet after that, in public, she blamed the video. She told the families of the victims it was the video, and that was also after she claimed privately it was a planned attack.

If she blamed the video, knowing that it was really a pre-planned attack, her only conceivable reason for doing so, is to avoid looking like her agenccy bungled this. That doesn't raise any red flags to you, in terms of her qualifications for the job?

The guy who made the video is an American citizen. It doesn't bother you that she likely threw him under the bus, to save her own skin?

Jim, all your questions have been answered over and over and over and over...

Jim, all your questions have been answered over and over and over and over...

No, they haven't. You are assuming that every time she changed her tune, it was in response to a new conclusion from intelligence.

Have there been any confirmed intelligence reports, that told her "look, we know what we said yesterday, but we were wrong, so now we want you to say this.."

Here is a questoion for which I have not seen the answer. If it has been answered, please share. Here goes...if half the reports were blaming the video, and half said it was planned, shouldn't she have said "we are getting conflicting reports, we are looking into what happened"?

Why didn't she do that? Because the statements I have seen attributed to her, aren't very ambiguous. In public, she seems certain it was a spontaneous response to a video, and by an amazing coincidence, that means she can't be held accountable for not preventing it.

Spence, I admit I cannot stand the woman, and may not be looking at this with a completely objective eye (though I try, as when I say I don't think she's personally responsible for every bad decision made by everyone who works for her). But what you will never admit, is that you are so blinded by ideology, that you will never fault her for anything, ever.

If I can see a timeline of what reports she got when, and how those coincide with her changing stories, then it's POSSIBLE that every one of her flip-flopping claims was based exactly on the most recent report. And that would not be her fault. But it's extremely unlikely that was the case.

It's not like she always blamed the video up to a certain date, and then said it was a planned attack. She kept flip-flopping. The commonality, is the audience she was speaking to. In private, she admitted it was a planned attack, nothing to do with the video. In public, she said it was a spontaneous reaction to the video, therefore nothing she could have foreseen, therefore not her fault.

Coindicence? Possible. Highly unlikely.

Then why didn't they attack in scale before? Why wasn't it well planned? Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

In Libya? Video had nothing to do with it. The leaser of the attackers blamed that after he was caught, the Guv's investigation determined the video was not the instigator but the attack was planned for the Sept 11th anniversary.

In Libya? Video had nothing to do with it. The leaser of the attackers blamed that after he was caught, the Guv's investigation determined the video was not the instigator but the attack was planned for the Sept 11th anniversary.
I've read through all the reports and never seen that finding stated explicitly.

I've read through all the reports and never seen that finding stated explicitly.

Did you read that every time she changed her story, it was after receiving a report that a reasonable person would conclude was more credible, than the previous one? You must have, because that's what you keep insisting she did.

You're saying that every time she flip-flopped, it had nothing to do with avoiding guilt, but rather, she was always reacting to the most current, most credible, report?

Did you read that every time she changed her story, it was after receiving a report that a reasonable person would conclude was more credible, than the previous one? You must have, because that's what you keep insisting she did.
The focus of her remarks follows quite closely what the CIA was giving the State Department at the time, yet it does...

I don't see how the email to her daughter is even contradictory to anything. She just said there was an attack. There was...

The focus of her remarks follows quite closely what the CIA was giving the State Department at the time, yet it does...

I don't see how the email to her daughter is even contradictory to anything. She just said there was an attack. There was...

Can you post something to support your statement that she was always relying on the latest CIA report? The CIA flip-flops dovetailed with her flip-flops? The CIA flip-flopped as many times as she did? And all those flip-flops from CIA, were timed perfectly, so that she never had to say in public that it was a planned terrorist attack? Boy, what good fortune for her.

The email to her daughter, I thought, stated that it was a pre-planned terrorist attack, which is contradictory to the theory that it ws a spontaneous reaction to the video.

Here's what is not an assumption.

(1) other nations, as well as the Red Cross, were aware that Benghazi was too dangerous to safely keep their people there, so they were evacuated. Clinton's State Dept didn't come to the same conclusion.


She was in charge, was she not?

So now in addition to France, we have to listen to what the Red Cross is doing? No more America leading, but instead follow the Red Cross.

She was in charge and took responsibility for it. Did Bush ever take responsibility for the colossal screw up in Iraq?

So now in addition to France, we have to listen to what the Red Cross is doing? No more America leading, but instead follow the Red Cross.

She was in charge and took responsibility for it. Did Bush ever take responsibility for the colossal screw up in Iraq?

I'll tell you, when you disagree with me, you have a really hard time distinguishing what I actually said, from what you are claiming that I said.

I think we went through this before. I did not ever say we have to follow the French or the Red Cross. What I said was, I want to know why, in this case, everyone else sems to have done a better job of gauging the threat level. Why were we outperformed by everyone else in this case.

She seems to struggle with the concept of accurately summarizing threat level. Sometimes, she thinks the threat level is higher than it really is (like when she said she came undr sniper fire at an airport, when video showed her shaking hands with a big smile). In this case, it sure seems like we thought Benghazi was a lot safer than it actually was - after all, we left our people there, and denied their repeated requests for extra security.

Maybe you don't care about such things when the people under scrutiny are Democrats.

"She was in charge and took responsibility for it"

She did? By shrieking "what difference does it make" what happened?

"Did Bush ever take responsibility for the colossal screw up in Iraq"

Do you honestly not know if he has ever conceded that he was wrong about WMDs? As were a lot of other people, like Hilary. She made the same mistake that Bush did, and she supported the war based on the same evidence. So why don't you claim she made a colossal screw up, when she voted for that war, based on her often-stated conclusion that they had WMDs?

You have fun with that.

Jim, you really should read the Senate Intelligence and House Select reports from 2014.

Jim, you really should read the Senate Intelligence and House Select reports from 2014.

I did. And nowhere, can I find conflicting reports that coincide precisely with her flip-flopping.

Why can't you post the data that supports what you are saying?

I did. And nowhere, can I find conflicting reports that coincide precisely with her flip-flopping.

Why can't you post the data that supports what you are saying?

Originally Posted by spence
"I see, so it's just because you say so. Right."

he projects a lot.....

You're making an assumption that the attack would have happened at the same time and same veracity regardless. That's a big assumption not supported by any facts...which greatly complicates your equation.

No I am not making such an assumption. I am assuming that if we set up a system of verbal equations re attacks by al Qaeda, each with combinations of different known or assumed causes on the left hand side of the equations, but each with the same known constant result on the right hand side=an attack by al Qaeda--and there was included a constant variable in all the left hand sides of the equations but the other causative variables differed from equation to equation, were not constant, then the constant one could be assumed to be the basic and necessary cause. The others being peripheral, or not even true.

The video would be an assumed variable in very few of the known al Qaeda attacks. Ergo, assuming the constant variable was necessary to all of al Qaeda attacks, the video does not have to be considered as a reason for the Benghazi attack. It would not be necessary for the attack to occur. And wouldn't have to be considered a "veracity" as a reason for the attack, even if some of the participants said it was. They haven't been vetted. We don't know if they were truthful. Or even if they really exist. If they do, and if they were ginned up to it by al Qaeda operatives, they would be more tools in the attack rather than merely spontaneous let's have a party and go kill Americans because of a video we were told about (by al Qaeda operatives) types. But the video can fit into an equation which explores not actual reasons for the attack, but cosmetic justifications for it.

It can be used as lipstick on a pig. The pig being a brutal massacre of not only innocent beings, but those who, as you claim, are loved and supported by the Libyan people. Or the pig being failed policy which made possible the massacre.

And I still wonder what you think about Hillary's promise to prosecute the video maker as a result of something that is not illegal. Or about Hillary's role in creating a vacuum for "extremists" by her recommendation to remove Qaddafi--which created vastly more of a condition for the Benghazi massacre than the video could. And how she is any better than Bush was in his removal of Saddam.

if you replace the video with some other source of blame...like the anniversary of 9/11....some guy drawing a cartoon somewhere....a guy in Texas burning a stack of Korans.....

would Hillary then have told the families of the victims she was going to arrest those responsible for the deaths?....which would be who? the folks that brought you 9/11??...a cartoonist??.....a guy burning Korans on the other side of the planet??

and would the administration and willing media the push those stories in order to deflect .......oh probably

future terrorist attackers should blame George Bush as the motivation for their actions and then we can enjoy the spectacle of President Shillary announcing that she's going to track down and jail the person responsible for the "tragedy"...George Bush....and that would just please a bunch of leftists to no end and probably make sense to them too...

bizarro world....

No I am not making such an assumption. I am assuming that if we set up a system of verbal equations re attacks by al Qaeda, each with combinations of different known or assumed causes on the left hand side of the equations, but each with the same known constant result on the right hand side=an attack by al Qaeda--and there was included a constant variable in all the left hand sides of the equations but the other causative variables differed from equation to equation, were not constant, then the constant one could be assumed to be the basic and necessary cause. The others being peripheral, or not even true.

The video would be an assumed variable in very few of the known al Qaeda attacks. Ergo, assuming the constant variable was necessary to all of al Qaeda attacks, the video does not have to be considered as a reason for the Benghazi attack. It would not be necessary for the attack to occur. And wouldn't have to be considered a "veracity" as a reason for the attack, even if some of the participants said it was. They haven't been vetted. We don't know if they were truthful. Or even if they really exist. If they do, and if they were ginned up to it by al Qaeda operatives, they would be more tools in the attack rather than merely spontaneous let's have a party and go kill Americans because of a video we were told about (by al Qaeda operatives) types. But the video can fit into an equation which explores not actual reasons for the attack, but cosmetic justifications for it.

Who ever said this was an alQaeda attack? More assumptions?

Who ever said this was an alQaeda attack? More assumptions?

Al Qaeda affiliates? That was not said? And what did you mean by not being able to leave the video out of the equation? What do you mean by an equation . . . a=c? No a+b=c, or a+b+x=c? That the video was the sole reason for the attack? Is that truly what you meant by saying that the video could not be left out of the equation?

if you replace the video with some other source of blame...like the anniversary of 9/11....some guy drawing a cartoon somewhere....a guy in Texas burning a stack of Korans.....


Yes, those are some of the types of reputed causes for various attacks. And if the differently motivated attacks are treated as separate incidents specifically caused by different reasons, there is the (manufactured?) appearance of no connective tissue holding them together as individual parts of a greater whole. If Korans are not burned, there will be no attacks. If cartoons are not drawn, there will be no attacks . . .

But if there is a broader issue binding the attacks together in a more basic cause such as Bin Laden's call for a global jihad against the satanic West and against even those Muslims who bastardize Islam . . . a jihad for the ultimate purpose of establishing a new, powerful, caliphate destined to rule the world . . . and the jihad to be carried out by individuals (lone wolves) as well as groups whether directly sponsored by his al Qaeda or philosophically affiliated with it . . . then wouldn't that be a constant variable added to the different and not constant variable reasons in each specific attack? Wouldn't that be the real reason for the attacks?

Otherwise we would have to hold those who burn Korans, or draw cartoons, or make videos, or who foster any incidence or lifestyle contrary to Islamic law, as the culprits, as the guilty parties who must be prosecuted for causing the attacks. Which means that all of us who are not proper Muslims are guilty and the cause of Muslim attacks.

And isn't that exactly the point of view of the Islamic attackers. And don't we corroborate that point of view by shifting blame to the rest of the world when we accuse various peripheral reasons for the attacks by Muslim perpetrators rather than understanding really why they do what they do?

Al Qaeda affiliates? That was not said? And what did you mean by not being able to leave the video out of the equation? What do you mean by an equation . . . a=c? No a+b=c, or a+b+x=c? That the video was the sole reason for the attack? Is that truly what you meant by saying that the video could not be left out of the equation?
I believe the investigation found the attackers were a diverse mix of militants, Gaddafi loyalists and angry locals. A few of which had some connection al Qaeda members. That's a LONG way from saying it was an affiliate...and even LONGER from suggesting that previous al Qaeda behavior should be used as any measure in trying to establish a motive for the attack.

I believe the investigation found the attackers were a diverse mix of militants, Gaddafi loyalists and angry locals. A few of which had some connection al Qaeda members. That's a LONG way from saying it was an affiliate...and even LONGER from suggesting that previous al Qaeda behavior should be used as any measure in trying to establish a motive for the attack.

You have complained about "how many investigations" there were on Benghazi, which produced nothing, so I don't know which "investigation" you're referring to.

The Senate Report, as well as many others, said it was an organized terrorist attack which included individuals affiliated with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. As well, in many other reports, Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda allied militia, was involved. Many reports included the Mohammad Jamal network, headed by an Egyptian trained by al Qaeda. The Jamal network was in direct contact with Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, in 2011 and 2012, and conspired with AQAP, AQIM, and al Qaeda's leadership according to the U.S. govt. and the UN.

The House Permanent Select Committee, HPSI, said intelligence analysts and policy makers received a stream of piecemeal intelligence regarding witnesses and senior military officials who testified that they knew from the moment the attacks began that the attacks were deliberate terrorist attacks against U.S. interest. The report stated "why the administration sent Rice on to five Sunday talk shows with the talking points she had is a question beyond the scope of this report, and is, no doubt, a political question."

The HSPI report said that the CIA's Office of Public Affairs removed reference to al Qaeda in the second bullet of the original draft. And that the CIA should have challenged its own initial assessments about existence of a protest earlier. The Chairman concluded, among other things, that senior U.S. officials, including Hillary Clinton, perpetuated an inaccurate story that matched the administration's misguided view that the U.S. was nearing a victory over al Qaeda. Which contributed to the inadequate security protection in Benghazi. The chairmen claimed that Clinton received numerous reports of attacks in and around Benghazi yet did not approve repeated requests for additional security.

A N.Y. Times article, 11/20/2014, titled "Militants in Benghazi Attack Tied to al Qaeda Affiliate" was ironically co-authored by the Kirkpatrick who had previously written in The Times that al Qaeda had nothing to do with the attack. The article, in contradiction to what Kirkpatrick previously wrote, says that witnesses in Benghazi, as well as U.S. officials, say that Ansar al Sharia fighters played a major role in the assault on the Benghazi mission.

There are many more articles corroborating all the above, and which point out other various connections to al Qaeda and to the importance of al Qaeda affiliates in coordinating and leading the attack.

There is also this interesting information gathered by Judicial Watch which further points out the intentional deception regarding the video, etc. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/the-truth-about-benghazi-slowly-emerges.php

There is another Judicial watch discovery previous to the above one that indicates the administration was checking Google regarding about another video which they initially wanted to blame the attack on. I'm too tired and disinterested at this point to find it again. As you've said to Jim in CT--do the search--if you care to. Oops, never mind, found it quick--http://www.newsmax.com/TomFitton/Benghazi-Scandal-Hillary-Clinton/2015/10/26/id/699133/

But if you insist on minimizing al Qaeda's involvement, especially its' affiliated "militants" leadership, remove al Qaeda as the constant variable cause in "the equation," and replace it with Islamic extremism. Or, simply, replace it with Islam. That works.

Everyone is missing Three key items:
1) The Secretary of State put people in harms way and failed to protect them adequately.
2) The Secretary of State ignored/"was not aware of" HUNDREDS of requests for more security from on of her direct reports.
3)The Secretary of State knowing and willfully lied about the root cause of the attack and stood by the fabricated narrative up until the day it became public that the real cause was known.

Any one of these items, never mind all three bring into question her ability to govern.

Lets say your child got beat up in the school yard after telling the teacher kids were after him or her and after the beating the teacher who was there at the time said she was distracted by another child when some thugs jumped your child even though on video the teacher saw the whole thing. You would do everything in your power to have that teacher removed... Why a different standard for someone sworn to uphold The Constitution?

There are many more articles corroborating all the above, and which point out other various connections to al Qaeda and to the importance of al Qaeda affiliates in coordinating and leading the attack.
I don't think anyone ever doubted the contribution of Ansar al Sharia, hell, 30,000 Benghazi's protested stormed their headquarters in response to the attack.

But you're trying to dodge the question. If previous al Qaeda behavior diminishes the potential role of the video, yet, it can't be shown that it was an al Qaeda attack, then what's the point?

Aren't you guys getting tired of this. :huh:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dogs chasing their tails is how I view them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This place is going to be a nut house once Bernie is elected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This place is going to be a nut house once Bernie is elected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

John will probably shut it down once Bernie figures how to tax site owners.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh snap !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In another page everyone will agree and we'll never read about this again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think anyone ever doubted the contribution of Ansar al Sharia, hell, 30,000 Benghazi's protested stormed their headquarters in response to the attack.

But you're trying to dodge the question. If previous al Qaeda behavior diminishes the potential role of the video, yet, it can't be shown that it was an al Qaeda attack, then what's the point?

al Qaeda did attack. And that has been shown. That others may have attacked as well doesn't mean that al Qaeda didn't. Two "core" al Qaeda groups, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula were part of the attack. And at least two al Qaeda affiliated groups, the aforementioned Ansar al Sharia and the Mohammad Jamal network, the latter being very closely allied with al Qaeda. And it has been shown that they had leadership roles in the attack. And it has been shown that the attack was planned, not spontaneous.

Well, if it was planned, who was in on the planning? Certainly not the supposed unaffiliated video-angry folks spontaneously deciding on a whim to destroy and kill. And if such folks were part of it, they were most likely egged on by others who were in control of the planning and execution of the attack. And how did al Qaeda and its affiliates just happen to come by fully armed with big weapons and all join in on the spontaneity? It's ridiculous to believe that Al Qaeda, some of its affiliates and some militia which had the same tactics and common ideology as al Qaeda just spontaneously coalesced into the attack.

And arguing over the silly proposition that it was a spontaneous attack, having nothing to do with previous al Qaeda behavior, or with core common ideological similarities of the "radical" Islamists involved in the attack is a way of deflecting from what many of us here have said are failed policies which should greatly "tarnish," to borrow a word from you, the political aspiration of H. Clinton.

You wonder at the failure of those who just can't see that the video can be a part of the equation, that it can be a co-factor since it has not been "proven" that it isn't. In the larger picture of failed policy and deceit, others wonder "what difference does it make" if it is or isn't, and why you must insist that it is.

In that you can't prove a negative, what is the importance of "some" spontaneity in the mix of a planned attack by al Qaeda-like groups and individuals? Other than, of course, to deflect from the broader picture of failed policy which was far more important in and causative of the attack.

You claim to have read all the reports. But there appear to be several reports that you haven't read, or as is your habit/tactic, just ignore as if they don't exist.

And it has been shown that the attack was planned, not spontaneous.
That's not the conclusion of the CIA, Senate or House investigations.

The problem here is that you're reading judicialwatch, a conservative website run by conspiracy theorists that has a process of using FOIA requests to get "raw data" which they then take out of context and make wild claims to discredit the Administration amd stir the pot.

In the same breath of the 10 day planning "finding" they also argue the CIA was shipping arms to Syria which the House Intelligence Committee found ZERO evidence of.

John will probably shut it down once Bernie figures how to tax site owners.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, if Bernie is elected President, all fish will be renamed the same, all fishing types merged into one, and everyone will get one fish.


That's not the conclusion of the CIA, Senate or House investigations.

The problem here is that you're reading judicialwatch, a conservative website run by conspiracy theorists that has a process of using FOIA requests to get "raw data" which they then take out of context and make wild claims to discredit the Administration amd stir the pot.

In the same breath of the 10 day planning "finding" they also argue the CIA was shipping arms to Syria which the House Intelligence Committee found ZERO evidence of.

I am not sure if he used JW as a source but what he posted surely sounds like LWJ which if you have a shred of credibility will realize this is one of the best open source intelligence sources there is. Period. Full Stop.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/01/_intelligence_on_al.php

You really do sound like the Huffington Post spokesgenerderneutral

I am not sure if he used JW as a source but what he posted surely sounds like LWJ which if you have a shred of credibility will realize this is one of the best open source intelligence sources there is. Period. Full Stop.
There's nothing in this article that wasn't cited in government reports, and nothing that confirms this was a planned attack. Just because some people with connections are involved, doesn't mean it was instigated, led or otherwise carried the signature of al Qaeda, quite to the contrary, the NCTC and DIA analysis cited in the Republican led House Intelligence report that it was rather uncoordinated and sloppy leads in the opposite direction.

Where is the outrage over this ????

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/02/453979013/watchdog-u-s-paid-for-worlds-most-expensive-gas-station-in-afghanistan?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202603
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where is the outrage over this ????

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/02/453979013/watchdog-u-s-paid-for-worlds-most-expensive-gas-station-in-afghanistan?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202603
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's how big government spends money Eben, don't worry, Bernie plans to greatly increase government obligations and spending which will probably eliminate government waste :smash:

Where is the outrage over this ????

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/02/453979013/watchdog-u-s-paid-for-worlds-most-expensive-gas-station-in-afghanistan?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202603
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Clinton wasn't involved? :huh:

That's not the conclusion of the CIA, Senate or House investigations.

So what? Those investigations did not confirm, or prove, that it was a spontaneous protest or that the video was the cause. If you're going to require Proof, where is your proof that the video was the cause. The first CIA reports from those on the ground reported a terrorist attack and that it appeared likely that al Qaeda linked terrorists were involved. That was changed later deleting reference to al Qaeda, convenient for the administration talking points, by the CIA director in order to suposedly "protect" classified information. In the House investigation, General Ham, at the time of the attack said that defense officials did not believe the attack was from an out-of-control demonstration and had no evidence of it. And that it was certainly a terrorist attack and not just something sporadic. He relayed his info to Sec. Def. Panetta who then relayed it to Obama. Panetta said he never thought it was a protest but that it was a terrorist attack. But the emphasis of the administration talking points laid the blame on the video. And it maintained that emphasis for weeks even though the evidence was contrary.

The problem here is that you're reading judicialwatch, a conservative website run by conspiracy theorists that has a process of using FOIA requests to get "raw data" which they then take out of context and make wild claims to discredit the Administration amd stir the pot.

The problem here is that your whole sentence sounds like a uncorroborated conspiracy full of wild claims to discredit Judicial Watch.

In the same breath of the 10 day planning "finding" they also argue the CIA was shipping arms to Syria which the House Intelligence Committee found ZERO evidence of.

Well, you make claims for which there is ZERO evidence. Anyway, zero evidence is often in dispute regarding what is considered evidence. And, further anyway, no evidence is not proof. Neither is evidence proof.

And no-one, except God and Spence always gets it right.

And what is your proof, again, that the video was the motivation for the attack


There's nothing in this article that wasn't cited in government reports, and nothing that confirms this was a planned attack.

One of the few things actually confirmed in the investigations to which you like to refer, is State Dept., headed by H. Clinton, incompetence. In this article and those investigations, there is certainly no confirmation that the attack was not planned. The Obama admin. now classifies it as an ORGANIZED terrorist attack. There is such a thing as spontaneous organization in nature and to some degree in human affairs. But the implementation of it, once it occurs, requires some discussion, bargaining, and planning. There is certainly a strong implication of planning when a human activity is referred to as organized.

Just because some people including actual al Qaeda members with connections are involved, doesn't mean it was instigated, led or otherwise carried the signature of al Qaeda,

Doesn't mean it wasn't. And it is a "signature" of al Qaeda when some of those involved are not only either actual al Qaeda members or affiliated to al Qaeda and directly in contact and coordination with al Qaeda in other matters

quite to the contrary, the NCTC and DIA analysis cited in the Republican led House Intelligence report that it was rather uncoordinated and sloppy leads in the opposite direction.

The Senate investigation said that the attack didn't require significant amounts of preplanning. And much of al Qaeda hit and run attacks are sloppy and minimalist in planning. And none of that leads in the direction that there was no planning. Quite the contrary, when the totality of what is known, or testified to, is summed up, the notion that the attack was purely spontaneous is ridiculous.

So, in the broader picture, "What difference does it make" if the video had anything to do with the attack or not? The video was not necessary. It may have made it more convenient as a motive to stir up others to do damage to U.S. interests and to help, even in a little way, to eventually bring down the U.S. backed Libyan govt. Do you doubt that without the video, there would have been an attack?

Again, what is your "equation" as to cause and effect re Benghazi? You're the one who brought up the notion of an equation. Is your version a(the video)=x(the attack)--the video being the sole reason for the attack? Or are there other causes a+b+. . .=x? And if b were to be Islamic "extremism" which promotes various x's worldwide on a fairly regular basis, would a(the video) be necessary for an attack to occur?

And what about the even broader picture, the attempt to have a low profile of American power and influence as a matter of good will so as to pump up the Libyan govt's. feeling of control? Thus not providing more security (even though the CIA increased its security in the annex) which would be a visible presence of American power, control and interference. And the having a perception that al Qaeda was "on the run," not a threat to be protected against, in spite of various warnings and attacks, and the departure of other embassies due to the growing violence and threats which the Senate investigation concluded should have been a trigger to either increase protection of the mission or, even more so, to disband and remove it?

And the further failure of policy in supporting the overthrow of Ghaddafi leading to the predicted instability and violence, a repeat of Bush's so-called failure in Iraq?

And oh, by the way, why are you so comfortable with the idea of Hillary telling a parent of one of those killed in the attack that she promised to prosecute the video maker, even though his video was not illegal. That sounds psychopathic or sociopathic to me as defined in psychology: "Both types of personality have a pervasive pattern of disregard for the safety and rights of others. Deceit and manipulation are central features to both types of personality."

About the only thing I can think of which needs the video to be the motivation for the attack, is to use it as a cover to deflect from that only thing confirmed by "investigations," the administration's failed policy--which is what actually, and eventually, led to the Benghazi attack.

Well, you make claims for which there is ZERO evidence. it's part of the routine

Hillary telling a parent of one of those killed in the attack that she promised to prosecute the video maker, even though his video was not illegal. That sounds psychopathic or sociopathic to me as defined in psychology: "Both types of personality have a pervasive pattern of disregard for the safety and rights of others. Deceit and manipulation are central features to both types of personality."

About the only thing I can think of which needs the video to be the motivation for the attack, is to use it as a cover to deflect from that only thing confirmed by "investigations," the administration's failed policy--which is what actually, and eventually, led to the Benghazi attack.

starting to see a pattern over time yet? defend the indefensible..the list is long.... and supports a sociopath/psychopath for president....:confused: troubling and probably not curable

Where is the outrage over this ????

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/02/453979013/watchdog-u-s-paid-for-worlds-most-expensive-gas-station-in-afghanistan?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202603
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


It's horrible, yet it is not even a rounding error on the problems we have with the budget NOW. Courtesy of EITHER party.

In other words, the National Debt is 418,604,651 over-priced Afghani Gas Stations

One of the few things actually confirmed in the investigations to which you like to refer, is State Dept., headed by H. Clinton, incompetence. In this article and those investigations, there is certainly no confirmation that the attack was not planned. The Obama admin. now classifies it as an ORGANIZED terrorist attack. There is such a thing as spontaneous organization in nature and to some degree in human affairs. But the implementation of it, once it occurs, requires some discussion, bargaining, and planning. There is certainly a strong implication of planning when a human activity is referred to as organized.

Sure the State department made mistakes, nobody is discounting that, but they were described as systemic mistakes. Did Clinton create any entirely new system when she became Secretary? Did Clinton direct any structural changes that complicated the interdepartmental communication?

The findings were that nobody was derelict in their duty...

Also, yes, it's not been "proven" it wasn't planned in advance but there's significant evidence that it also wasn't and our intelligence agencies have at times believed the video was a motivator.

Well, you make claims for which there is ZERO evidence.
Like what?

And no-one, except God and Spence always gets it right.
God is certainly wrong on occasion.

And what is your proof, again, that the video was the motivation for the attack
I've never claimed there is "proof" but there is substantial evidence that it could have been, evidence that was accepted by government analysts and relayed to the Administration.

The Senate investigation said that the attack didn't require significant amounts of preplanning. And much of al Qaeda hit and run attacks are sloppy and minimalist in planning. And none of that leads in the direction that there was no planning. Quite the contrary, when the totality of what is known, or testified to, is summed up, the notion that the attack was purely spontaneous is ridiculous.
You're contradicting yourself in this paragraph.

Additionally, It's not hard to believe that well armed and experienced militants couldn't get this attack together in a few hours.

So, in the broader picture, "What difference does it make" if the video had anything to do with the attack or not? The video was not necessary. It may have made it more convenient as a motive to stir up others to do damage to U.S. interests and to help, even in a little way, to eventually bring down the U.S. backed Libyan govt. Do you doubt that without the video, there would have been an attack?
There certainly could have been an attack in the future, but without the video scandal and a chance to derail a presidential campaign this entire story becomes far less substantial. If the video was a motivator, even if just influencing the timing or providing encouragement then a lot of the Administration criticism is baseless.

This by the way, is exactly what the ARB, Senate Intel and House Intel reports suggest.

And what about the even broader picture, the attempt to have a low profile of American power and influence as a matter of good will so as to pump up the Libyan govt's. feeling of control? Thus not providing more security (even though the CIA increased its security in the annex) which would be a visible presence of American power, control and interference.
The initial low profile in Benghazi was the desire of Amb. Stevens, not directed by the State Department. The failure to adequately increase security to match the threat environment has been studied and changes made to improve the process.

Why doesn't this have to mean there was a scandal? Oh yes, Clinton.

And the further failure of policy in supporting the overthrow of Ghaddafi leading to the predicted instability and violence, a repeat of Bush's so-called failure in Iraq?
If you were holding Bush to the same standard as you're holding Clinton he would have been invalid for a second term...or worse.

And unlike Bush, in Libya the United Nations had legal authority.

And oh, by the way, why are you so comfortable with the idea of Hillary telling a parent of one of those killed in the attack that she promised to prosecute the video maker, even though his video was not illegal. That sounds psychopathic or sociopathic to me as defined in psychology: "Both types of personality have a pervasive pattern of disregard for the safety and rights of others. Deceit and manipulation are central features to both types of personality."
First off, this was not a public statement so I don't know what she really said. Secondly, on the day (Sept 14) she allegedly said that the CIA analysts were pointing to the video as a key motivator for the attack.

If that was the case one would assume the DOJ would be looking for any legal justification to go after the film maker, which they found, and he was arrested...

Shame on the woman for trying to console a grieving parent.

Sure the State department made mistakes, nobody is discounting that, but they were described as systemic mistakes. Did Clinton create any entirely new system when she became Secretary? Did Clinton direct any structural changes that complicated the interdepartmental communication?

The findings were that nobody was derelict in their duty...

Also, yes, it's not been "proven" it wasn't planned in advance but there's significant evidence that it also wasn't and our intelligence agencies have at times believed the video was a motivator.


Like what?


God is certainly wrong on occasion.


I've never claimed there is "proof" but there is substantial evidence that it could have been, evidence that was accepted by government analysts and relayed to the Administration.


You're contradicting yourself in this paragraph.

Additionally, It's not hard to believe that well armed and experienced militants couldn't get this attack together in a few hours.


There certainly could have been an attack in the future, but without the video scandal and a chance to derail a presidential campaign this entire story becomes far less substantial. If the video was a motivator, even if just influencing the timing or providing encouragement then a lot of the Administration criticism is baseless.

This by the way, is exactly what the ARB, Senate Intel and House Intel reports suggest.


The initial low profile in Benghazi was the desire of Amb. Stevens, not directed by the State Department. The failure to adequately increase security to match the threat environment has been studied and changes made to improve the process.

Why doesn't this have to mean there was a scandal? Oh yes, Clinton.


If you were holding Bush to the same standard as you're holding Clinton he would have been invalid for a second term...or worse.

And unlike Bush, in Libya the United Nations had legal authority.


First off, this was not a public statement so I don't know what she really said. Secondly, on the day (Sept 14) she allegedly said that the CIA analysts were pointing to the video as a key motivator for the attack.

If that was the case one would assume the DOJ would be looking for any legal justification to go after the film maker, which they found, and he was arrested...

Shame on the woman for trying to console a grieving parent.

"Did Clinton create any entirely new system when she became Secretary?"

I believe she was the first Secstate to use the particular email system in her basement.

Also, she was personally the one (well, one of the ones) who kept flip-flopping about the root cause of the attack. You have stated that every time she stated the cause, it was based on the latest credible intelligence she had received. Yet you offered exactly no proof of that, which means you don't have any. Also, by a stunning coincidence, all of her public statements blamed the attack on the video, thus implying that she could not have foreseen that attack (despite the fact that other agencies and the Red Cross foresaw this exact threat).

Do you see the pattern here Spence? You take everything she says at face value, with no skepticism, no demand for proof. Everything that makes her look like a liar, you categorically deny, regardless of the supporting evidence.

Then she testified "what difference does it make" what the cause was? In other words, if the cause was a planned attack, she looks like an incompetent liar, so let's drop the subject and talk about things that really matter, like the war on women and ATM fees.

Spence, isn't there another totalitarian nitwit out there that you agree with on every single issue, who doesn't have the scandals that she has, that you could get behind?


If you could show us a chain of intelligence reports, where her flip-flops timed exactly with when the CIA kept changing its mind about the cause, i would never bring this up again.

But if you coulda, you woulda.

I don't doubt there are differing reports. But what clearly happened, was that she chose to rely NOT on th elatest report, but on which report gave her th ebest political cover at that time.

I believe she was the first Secstate to use the particular email system in her basement.

Versus the living room? Totally different issue and largely irrelevant.

Versus the living room? Totally different issue and largely irrelevant.

It was a joke. You asked if she installed any new systems, and she did - in her basement. But she wasn't th efirst Secstate to use a personal server.

As to the flip-flopping on the cause.

Rubio called her a liar, flat-out, in the GOP debate.

Now, if she was always basing her statements on the latest intelligence, no one can fault her for changing her tune, right? But if that were the case, she would have shown that evidence by now, because then it's a non story. If every single one of her flip-flops was the result of a new intelligence report (which said, "I know what we told you yesterday, but disregard that, because we have new intel"...), then no one can blame her for flip-flopping.

Th efact that she hasn't shown a timeline that shows that her statements were always based on the latest report, tells all of us that there is no such connection. At every moment in time, she probably had some reports that said it was the video, and some that said it was planned.

What all fair-minded people conclude, is that she based her statement-d- jour not on the most recent credible report, but on whichever report gave her the best political cover at the time, if she felt she needed any.

That's what is deplorable. It's beneath the character requirements for the job she seeks.

Then there's that whole sniper fire thing. And her claim that Bill didn't cheat on her, but was rather the "victim", naturally, of the GOP who was framing him. How can you defend THAT? Do you think she honestly believed, at the time, that Bill was innocent, and that the GOP was framing him? Or do you think she knew she was lying?

Spin that any way you want.

And I think she's close to un-beatable unless she gets indicted, which is extremely unlikely.

Rubio called her a liar, flat-out, in the GOP debate.


Something he will regret if he makes it further. The facts aren't on his side.

You like facts right?

Something he will regret if he makes it further. The facts aren't on his side.

You like facts right?

What facts are you using to disprove that Hillary didn't lie, Spence?

Something he will regret if he makes it further. The facts aren't on his side.

You like facts right?

Which facts, exactly, aren't on his side?

If Hilary has a timeline of when she got the differing reports, and that timeline shows she was always relying on the latest report, then she is not lying. But the only one saying that, is you. I said this before, I'll say it one last time. If you have the proof that she was simply relying on what she was told every time she flip-flopped, let's see it. If it holds water, I will be the first person to say we can't blame her for the fact that the intelligence community kept telling her to change her tune.

But you haven't shared any such facts. Neither has she. There's only one reason why that is.

Spence, the woman is a serial liar. I was shot at by snipers. Bill didn't cheat on me, the GOP just made it look that way.

Sure the State department made mistakes, nobody is discounting that, but they were described as systemic mistakes.

Systemic mistakes are made by people's use of the system, unless the system has a flaw that always or often results in mistakes in spite of human deployment. Such a system would not, or should not, last long. Had the system been making Benghazi type mistakes before? If so, every Sec. State newly coming on board would, or should, have reviewed the status and operation of what she was about to direct. I would assume, if the Sec. State and her staff had done due diligence, they would have noticed a record of such egregious systemic failure--if it existed. I don't know of any ongoing previous failure attributable solely to the system itself as designed.

The independent review of the Sep. 11 attacks cited "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies" at the State Department. And a CNN report on the review listed the failures and deficiencies, which all seemed to be more problems of human decision rather than a long standing, prior, system design for State Dept. operational procedure.

The most systemic appearing flaw was what appeared to be a (traditional?) lack of congressional support for State Dept. needs.

The other cited failures seemed to me to be of the leadership and management deficiencies--poor implementation of the State Dept system:
Inadequate diplomatic security.
Lack of transparency, responsiveness, and leadership at the senior levels
Short term nature of the mission's staff, many of whom were inexperienced U.S. personnel, resulted in diminished institutional knowledge, continuity and mission capacity.
Mission was severely under-resourced with regard to certain needed equipment.
Dependence on poorly skilled members of local militia and unarmed guards.
A security plan that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack.

Was Hillary, being head of State, exempt from these leadership and management deficiencies? This was a special mission for which she appointed the ambassador. It was her baby. Or was she detached from it all, just Secretary of State in name only? The whole shebang simply taking care of itself? She took "responsibility" but not the blame.

Did Clinton create any entirely new system when she became Secretary? Did Clinton direct any structural changes that complicated the interdepartmental communication?

She signed, or should have signed, the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya, which were a departure from normal State Dept. system of engagement--the low profile thing which resulted in most of the deficiencies.

The findings were that nobody was derelict in their duty...

Being stupid or incompetent is not a dereliction of duty.

Also, yes, it's not been "proven" it wasn't planned in advance but there's significant evidence that it also wasn't

What "significant" evidence?

and our intelligence agencies have at times believed the video was a motivator.

Believed at times? What kind of rock is that to build your church on? Can that really be called intelligence? And did the "intelligence" agencies "believe" that the video was made in order to incite violence and murder? Is dying your hair red a motive for someone who has unstable, violent reaction to red hair to kill you? In that case anything you do or are is a motivator to violence by anyone who is "offended" by what you do or are. That is pure, unadulterated, toxic BS. The motivator for the attack on Benghazi is ensconced deep in the effed-up heads of the attackers.


Like what?

Do the search.

God is certainly wrong on occasion.

There is ZERO evidence for that.

I've never claimed there is "proof" but there is substantial evidence that it could have been, evidence that was accepted by government analysts and relayed to the Administration.

What "substantial" evidence?

You're contradicting yourself in this paragraph.

Nope.

Additionally, It's not hard to believe that well armed and experienced militants couldn't get this attack together in a few hours.

Now who's contradicting himself? What is so spontaneous about getting an attack together in a few hours?

There certainly could have been an attack in the future, [without the video]

Or at the same time--9/11.

but without the video scandal and a chance to derail a presidential campaign this entire story becomes far less substantial.

Or to create a video scenario in order to prevent the self derailment of a presidential campaign.

If the video was a motivator, even if just influencing the timing or providing encouragement then a lot of the Administration criticism is baseless.

The video cannot , or should not, be a motivator to a rational mind. And if we have to watch our every little step so as not to "motivate" irrational minds, better we should not leave our personal caves and should remain disassociated from the world. Understand this. There is nothing about a non-Muslim which cannot be construed as "motivation" for jihad to a fundamental Islamist. The real "motivator" for so-called "extremist" Muslims is Islam . . . Fundamental Islam. They don't need videos to attack American interests. They only need American interests to exist to be motivated to attack them. Looking to the video as the motivator and not understanding, or accepting, what really motivates Islamists, is the very essence of policy failure.


this by the way, is exactly what the ARB, Senate Intel and House Intel reports suggest.

Poof . . .

The initial low profile in Benghazi was the desire of Amb. Stevens, not directed by the State Department.

Actually the low profile would have to have been OK'd and signed by Sec. State as the State Department Rules of Engagement For Libya. It doesn't matter whose original idea it was. State Dept. is responsible. And the head of State Dept. is ultimately held responsible for any change in the rules of engagement. A competent Sec. State would have overruled Stevens' desire as too dangerous to implement considering the conditions in Libya.

The failure to adequately increase security to match the threat environment has been studied and changes made to improve the process.

The failure should not have happened in the first place.

Why doesn't this have to mean there was a scandal? Oh yes, Clinton.

Is Clinton untouchable? For some reason she is above reproach?

If you were holding Bush to the same standard as you're holding Clinton he would have been invalid for a second term...or worse.

There is ZERO evidence for that.

And unlike Bush, in Libya the United Nations had legal authority.

Then why were we involved, choosing sides, giving aid, and influencing decisions, UN or otherwise? Didn't you say previously that the U.S was the leader or some such power thing in the UN?

First off, this was not a public statement so I don't know what she really said.

Did she say it "off the record"? If not, it was public. And why doubt the father of the killed soldier? And has she denied it? I mean it has made a rather "substantial" splash.

Secondly, on the day (Sept 14) she allegedly said that the CIA analysts were pointing to the video as a key motivator for the attack.

By the CIA, do you mean Director Morrell who had deleted al Qaeda from the first memo, not because al Qaeda and affiliates were not known or "substantially" suspected of being part or more of the attack, but in order to "protect classified information"?

If that was the case one would assume the DOJ would be looking for any legal justification to go after the film maker, which they found, and he was arrested...

Why on earth would the DOJ be looking for "any" legal justification to go after the film maker? Yeah, they found something which was not that the video itself was illegal, and put him in jail.

Shame on the woman for trying to console a grieving parent.

Shame on her for trying to console a grieving parent by saying she would prosecute a fellow American for making a video. For trying to direct whatever anger that was mixed in with the grief toward someone who was not guilty of the attack, and deflecting any notion the parent might have that State Dept., Hillary, failed administration policy, was more responsible than the video maker for the attack.

And I don't understand your rather cold-blooded, vindictive sounding logic that the DOJ should just go find something to go after the video maker. Something is wrong with that.