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.

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.../?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

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....

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

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.

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-...gazi-hearings/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

Hillary Rodham was expelled from the Nixon Investigation for lying.

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."

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!

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

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.

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/379387491...=3793874919001

I highly suggest not watching FOX News documentaries.

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

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

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/201.../?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"

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?

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

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.

You're not paying attention.

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