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.

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.

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.

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.

Have you read the bi-partisan Senate report?

Every is pretty specific, I'd like you to report back on how many times of each...

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."

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:

"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.

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.

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 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.

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

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 :)

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...

I wouldn't get your hopes up.

I like the idea of a Trump-Palin ticket :rotflmao:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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?

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

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

people like to celebrate anniversaries

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?

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?