Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Why do you assume my perspective is wrong?
|
Perhaps because you can't do something as morally obvious, as admitting that Hilary lies.
Spence, she flip-flopped many times on the cause of the Benghazi attack. You chalk it all up to fog of war, and conflicting reports. That may be. But boy, isn't it interesting that in every private conversation, she seemed to admit it was terrorism, and in every public statement, she relied on the video protest theory (and therefore, the attack was spontaneous and not in any way her fault).
Now, it's possible, that every time she was about to have a private conversation, she got a report saying that it was terrorism. And then just before each scheduled public statement, those same intelligence folks said to her "look, we know we just told you it was terrorism, but forget that, now we believe it was a video protest, so we want you to go with that".
That's certainly possible. But I asked you several times for some kind of timeline (who briefed her, and when) to support that notion. And you provided zip. So it appears you are accepting her explanation without any skepticism.
How fortunate for her, that every time the intelligence community told her what the cause was, it worked out in such a way that every time she made a public statement, she was reporting that she was not to blame.
We should all be so lucky.