Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
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?