I don't believe anyone previously claimed to have physical evidence that the Secretary of State lied under oath. So if this wasn't talked about before, that means this is a breaking story, and thus it's not a "re-hashing" of anything...

Spence, this is not a closed case. The administration has done everything they can to thwart attempts to figure out what happened.

"it suits our purpose. Defeating Clinton in 2016."

That's one way of looking at it. Another (more accurate) way of looking at it, is that your side is desperately trying to make this go away, in order to elect Clinton in 2016.

Spence, please answer one simple question...If it turns out there are documents signed by her that reject requests for security, do you think that's worth discussing, given that she denied that under oath?

You should read this...

Issa’s absurd claim that Clinton’s ‘signature’ means she personally approved it - The Washington Post

-spence

OK. So just because her signature is on something, doesn't mean she actually saw it, or was aware of it.

If that's true, she didn't perjure herself. If she signed those documents herself, it means she did perjure herself.

What's her history? Does she have a history of lying to our faces? I seem to remember her telling a fantasy tale of her falling under sniper fire on a trip overseas, which turned out to be 100% fabricated. Her excuse? She was "tired". Everyone who has ever had a baby has been tired. That exhaustion never led me to claim someone was shooting at me. Whhat's your take on that, Spence?

If you want to give her the benefit of the doubt, that's your right. But this is someone who (along with her husband) has shown a willingness to look her constituents right in the face, and lie.

Am I wrong?

And your source, the Post, is as biased as it gets. That doesn't mean they are wrong...but they have an abvious bias.

Also, Spence...when confronted with the irrefutable evidence that she lied about being shot at, your response was that it doesn't really matter. SO to you, it's OK when liberals lie.

Some of us hope that our elected officials could be held to a slightly higher standard. The families of the 4 dead Americans, are entitled to an jonest explanation of what happened, EVEN IF the truth is inconvenient for those in your party. Dont you agree?

This woman lost her credibility with her past deceit, so we need to investigate.

Yup, and she loses either way. As Secretary of State the buck stops there.
If she didn't know Benghazi was a hot spot and taken action to beef up security, she loses. If she knew about it she loses.

What is it that "doesn't matter" Madam Secretary?

Again, show us the tape in the situation room in real time the night of the attack.
That will settle everything.

To follow up, Bret Baird started a 3 part series today which included an interview of a member of a special military ops group that was 3 and 1/2 hours away, able to get there in time for the second half of the fight.
In addition it was reported that 3 whistle blowers from the State Dept. and 1
from the CIA have lawyered up in order to give info about Benghazi.
Just sayin.

You didn't read the link.

-spence

I think that's from last fall before the Mullen report. What's funny is that while the Mullen report lays plenty of blame on the State Department, because it doesn't hang Clinton people like Jim ignore it.

GOD PLEASE LET THERE BE A CONSPIRACY :humpty:

-spence

No Spence, it was the lead story on his 6PM program today and will continue for 2 more nights.

GOD PLEASE LET THE TRUTH COME OUT NO MATTER WHAT IT IS.

Sure I did. The link said that just because her signature is on the cable, doesn't mean she signed it. Fine. So let's invetsigate and see. Because as I correctly pointed out (and which you conveniently ignored) she has lied to our faces before, and she did it with a straight face.

The Post, a liberal rag, is willing to take her word. I'm not, as she is a liar.

How many investigations do you need? There's already been an exhaustive and non-partisan led by Admiral Mullen which was highly critical of the State Department.

I don't believe the House had any new information, yet they decided to present a report which came to a damning conclusion based off of incomplete and what appears to be incompetent analysis.

Is this how we move forward?

-spence

Enough with the Obama slogans :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The issue Spence, is that you (and 99% of the media) would have us move forward by ignoring lies and incompetence when it comes from anyone with a "D" after their name. If there is new evidence that the Secretary Of State lied under oath, that's worth exploring. You don't think so, simply because of what party she is affiliated with.

How about the possibility (not a certainty) of a document signed by the SecState, which could show that she lied under oath?

You would sweep that under the rug, because she supports your agenda. It's as simple as that.

As many as it takes to get at the truth.

When questioned about the 4 new whistle blowers this morning at his news conference, he said he "wasn't aware of it."
I guess that should be the end of it for you. :huh:

Yep. This is yet another new (Spence: that means it's not a re-hashing of anything) allegation of a cover-up. It's just an allegation, but it needs to be investigated. Spence would prefer that we stick our fingers deeper into our ears, and our heads deeper into the sand. When the president is hip, black, and uber-liberal, he's not supposed to be investigated I guess.

I cannot begin to imagine how the families of those 4 dead Americans must feel. They must love this administration.

How about the 1 million families in Iraq who had family members die due to the bush administration's lies? How do you think they feel?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My hope is, this is what is driving the investigation, and not that it is not driven by the threat of Hillary in 2016, because the right recognizes she is a formidable candidate...

Unfortunately, it's a safe bet that the GOP wouldn't be so passionate about this, if there were no politics involved. That doesn't mean there's isn't a cover-up here that needs to be investigated.

She is a very, very formidable candidate. How that lie she told about being under sniper fire, doesn't end her career, I can't figure out. Plus she was an absolute flop as Secstate, as shown by the disaster in Libya that no one wants to discuss.

Here is what you need to know about her tenure as SecState. The Pakistani doctor who told us where Bin Laden was, is rotting in a Pakistani prison. He is still there. The State Department has been absolutely impotent in terms of getting this man released. That's the thanks we give him? What message does that send to others who are thinking about sticking their necks out to help us?

What the hell does that have to do with this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure they are devastated. And if President Bush did indeed lie about starting that war, he should be punished for the pain and suffering he caused. He hasn't been so punished, because no sane person believes that he lied about the war because his goal was to make money. He (and many liberal Democrats) were "wrong" about WMDs. That doesn't mean they lied.

However, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are not charged with looking out for the welfare of families in Iraq. They are charged with protecting and representing American interests. Failing to provide available help to Americans under fire, and then blaming the attack on another American citizen who made a dopey video, are serious charges that need to be investigated. There's abundant evidence that suggests gross incompetence, as well as a possible cover-up.

Agreed. Your point is valid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Completely off topic. Halliburton charges the us government $75 for a soldier's single load of laundry in Iraq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

LOL, still can't figure how Hillary went from one of the most criticized and unlikeable persons on this forum and in general 6 or 7 years ago, to now becoming a formidable candidate in 2016.

Must be because the disaster unfolding with the current administration suddenly makes her look good.

I've asked before, where's the "new evidence?"

The same document alleged by the House report was already part of the Mullen investigation.

-spence

If people bring credible new information to the table then it should be evaluated. That being said, the opinion of a whistle blower may just be another piece of information.

From what I've read so far they're talking about a claim some special ops troops that were training in the EU that could have potentially gotten there in 4 or so hours.

Is this new information? We've known there were troops in Europe all along...do you not think the independent investigation didn't look at options and how response alternatives were evaluated?

For the whistle blower to have any impact they have to show there was a feasible option on the table, not just a group that is pissed they didn't get sent in.

-spence

Yes, you have asked that before, and I answered. That you choose to dismiss my response for political convenience, does not mean I didn't respond.

Now, we have administration employees saying they were pressured to keep quiet. I don't recall hearing this before, so that might be new evidence.

The Mullen report said there was no help available to send. That is contradicted by multiple special operations warriors, who say they were stationed close enough to have rendered aid during the 8 hour firefight. Nothing to see there, I guess, because your hero has already been exonerated.

Spence, be honest, would you be of the same opinion if this was the same
issue under Bush and Rice?

Fair question.
Would your/Jim's be the same?

Yes. I don't like it when anyone (regardless of party) sends people to harm's way, rejects requests for extra security, refuses to send them aid when under attack, and then lies about what happened to protect their political careers.

I cannot believe I have ever posted anything that would make anyone think I am so blinded by ideology, that I wouldn't be critical of something like this. Unlike someone else here, I have been critical of those in my party when they earn it. and justplugit is even more level-headed than I am.

Rockhound, have you ever seen me thoughtlessly defending a conservative, despite substantial evidence? I doubt it.

Fair also, but I would like to see Spence's answer to my question before commenting.

I've never claimed Bush lied. I'd place Rice in the same boat as Powell, trying to do the right thing but surrounded by others who had an agenda. I'd note they've both been publicly ostracized by the Admin insiders.

Also, just as the Senate investigated Benghazi it investigated Iraq as well. Phase 1 found the Intel was bogus and Phase 2 (after repeated attempts by the GOP to kill it) found 10-5 that the Administration made repeated claims as fact that weren't supported by actual evidence.

-spence

No, you've responded that you "think" there's new evidence...not that there IS new evidence.

Funny how that story never really made Drudge and now has even slipped off the front page of Fox News.

The timing with the House report can't just be a coinkidink can it?

First, there was no 8 hour firefight, this is a matter of record.

Second, just because people think they can get there after the fact--and I'm sure they would have gone--doesn't mean the leadership is A) aware of this in time and B) agrees with the wisdom of that decision.

Or are you calling Admiral Mullen a liar? Perhaps you just think he's incompetent?

-spence

"just because people think they can get there after the fact--and I'm sure they would have gone--doesn't mean the leadership is A) aware of this in time"

OK. So if a vicious firefight is taking place, IN YOUR OPINION, it's too much to ask that the leadership be aware of what help is available to send in. I'm sure Obama knew where Jay-Z was at the time, and he knew what shape the fairways were in at his club...but whether or not help is available to superb Americans fighting for their lives?

Spence says back off, the President isn't omnipotent.

Got it.

Spence -

It gets a little tiring when I constantly respond to all of your questions, and when I ask a tough one, you choose not to answer. So here it is.

Everyone knows that Hilary lied through her teeth when she claimed that she was under sniper fire on an overseas trip. And rational person knows that it's a load of crap thatshe only made that claim because she was tired.

So Spence, please tell me...how is it, that this lie, doesn't undermine her credibility?

Good luck..

QUOTE NEBE

"Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements. Liberals are mostly very educated and are in careers that use their creative minds."



"liberals".....as I read this stuff and listen to the news of the day I just don't see any evidence of this....maybe the "creative" part of their minds allow them to delude themselves into believing things that help maintain their odd worldview.... I see no independent thought...mindless regurgitation.....little recognition of good and bad except as it pertains to political designation.....really bad judgment and there are plenty of "very educated" people who don't have a shred of common sense....most are elected "liberal" democrats elected by "liberals".....

we have the worst economy in terms of growth in 84 years...lowest home ownership....highest dependence on food stamps and disability benefits....Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster and the ripple effect is devastating.......our foreign policy is a disaster, we are apparently importing and funding terrorism through our generous social programs and we have "liberals" like Chris Matthews and some here who were desperate to portray in the early going, the Marathon Bombing as almost certainly a lone wolf probably white tea party type upset over having to pay his taxes and not at all likely tied to islamic extremism when all common sense pointed to islamic extremism....

I think "liberals" tell themselves....delude themselves into believing Eben's description in many cases....which ultimately makes them a danger to themselves and others.....


Jim, if you were arguing with a brainwashed cult member he'd tell you that you were, in fact, the one who is wrong, has everything upside down, and suggest that you have some nefarious reason for unfairly attacking his leader :uhuh:

Bengazi is just another unfair attack on Dear Leader...move along........

I ponder this often...why do so many (not all) liberals bend over backwards to deny the connection between Islam and Islamic extremists? Why is the Fort Hood attack referred to as "workplace violence", when we all know the shooter was yelling "Allah Hu Akhbar" (Allah is great) as he was killing our soldiers? The administration has dropped the phrase "war on terror"...We're not at war with Islamic jihadists? They seem to be under the impression that we are at war...

How do you begin to win a war, when you won't admit who the enemy is?

I never said such a thing. As in most of these threads, you're responding to what you think I believe rather than reading what I'm actually saying.

-spence

You said the administration might not have known that help was available. Let me ask you, so that I'm not putting words in your mouth. If 4 superb Americans died because Obama never bothered to ask if help was available, is that acceptable to you?

because of the instant news cycle, we all expect instant answers and instant results. Its a shame about what happened, but i dont think it is reasonable to expect that there was a possible instant response to the situation. Thats just my take on the matter.