Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Actually she explained pretty well why that wasn't the case.
Not to mention the previous investigations that went deep on the topic and found no intentional misrepresentation.
|
Her explanation that I saw, was that they were getting conflicting data from outside intelligence at the time. If that's true, why was she (and Obama) sticking with the video story? In the days following the attack, the administration wasn't being guarded or ambiguous in their assertion that it was the video. I never heard anyone, in the 3 days after the attack, say they didn't know what happened. All I heard, was that it was a spontaneous reaction to a video. And by an amazing coincidence, that explanation absolves her from any blame for what happened, becaue that explanation, as opposed to the truth, would make it impossible for anyone to have predicted the attack. How fortunate for her!
Is her explanation, especially when it contradicts her previous actions, always enough for you?
Yesterday's hearing referred to some pretty blunt private communications from Hilary, within 48 hours of the attack, that she thought it was a planned terrorist attack. Yet every public statement from Hilary, Obama, Jay Carney, and Susan Rice, blamed the video, thus blaming an American citizen.
In my opinion, she stuck to the video story, knowing that there was at least a great chance it was false, to paint a picture that no one could have reasonably foreseen the attack. It wasn't true, and it threw an American citizen under the bus, But you have no concerns, because unless she openly admits she was lying, then she couldn't possibly have been lying.