Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
That depends on the context of what the current thinking was when the email was sent.
|
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.