Susan Rice new Secretary of State?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The Defense Department hasn't labeled the Ft Hood shootings as terrorism for legal reasons...he's not up on terror charges.

To convict on terror charges would require a higher burden of proof around the conspiracy, motivation etc...Certainly with the Hassan case he appears to have gone a bit nutty and while there's communication with an al Qaeda operative there doesn't appear to be evidence his actions were necessarily directed.

Simply put, bringing Hassan up on terror charges would give him a chance to muddy the waters and escape a conviction or harsher charges.

As it is being prosecuted, the case should be open and shut.

It's funny, you like to accuse the left of acting on emotion rather than facts and rational thought.

Yet this is what you do all the time.

-spence

I want to make sure I understand...you are sayng, that Obama won 't call it a terrorist attack, so that it will be easier to convict Hassan at trial. Is that what you are saying?

Once again...is Obama even claiming that? Spence, if Obama says that Hassan is a terririst, does that mean you can't charge him with anything other than terror? Meaning, does calling him a terrorist preclude us from ever charging him with anything that doesn't make it harder to convict?

Answer - of course not.

Spence, if what you say is true (and as usual, it's not) why would any President, ever, refer to someone as a terrorist who is awaiting trial? Obama has referred to Khalid Shiek Mohammed as a terrorist. So why isn't anyone criticizing Obama for that, since using your logic, that would make it significantly harder to convict him?

Spence, you really threw some egg on your own face here...unbelievable...I've seen love drive some people to do some pretty strange things.

Spence, here is what happened in Benghazi. Stevens asked for extra security. He listed lots of reasons why he thought he needed it, lots of threats, lots of attacks. Someone in the administration denied that request, and even reduced the security.

Then the attack happened.

Now, Obama is not someone who, let's say, welcomes criticism. In this case, Obama can be criticized on 2 fronts...first, he looks like a clown for not granting the request for extra security. Second, since it was an Al Queda-affioiated group that carried out the attack, Obama looks inept for saying that Al Queda was ineffective since he killed Bin Laden.

So Obama tooka page rigt out of the Spence playbook, and came up with a ridiculous story, one that naturally absolves him of any responsibility for what happened. According to Obama...thsi wasn't an attack that Stevens saw coming, but rather, a protest over a video that spiraled out of control, therefore no one can blame Obama.

Except there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that immediately afetr the attack, the CIA, the State Dept, and the Libyans, knew there was no protest before the attack, and that the attack was sophisticated, and pre-planned by a known terror group.

Again, Obama's fantastic story is right out of your playbook. It doesn't matter if it's true, it doesn't matter if it passes the common sense test. All that matters is that it paints your Messiah in the most favorable possible light.

Unfreakinbelievable.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I want to make sure I understand...you are sayng, that Obama won 't call it a terrorist attack, so that it will be easier to convict Hassan at trial. Is that what you are saying?

only if he shaves the beard...I think the ACLU is defending him on that one




Again, Obama's fantastic story is right out of your playbook. It doesn't matter if it's true, it doesn't matter if it passes the common sense test. All that matters is that it paints your Messiah in the most favorable possible light.

Unfreakinbelievable.

it is an odd obsession of his

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I want to make sure I understand...you are sayng, that Obama won 't call it a terrorist attack, so that it will be easier to convict Hassan at trial. Is that what you are saying?

Once again...is Obama even claiming that? Spence, if Obama says that Hassan is a terririst, does that mean you can't charge him with anything other than terror? Meaning, does calling him a terrorist preclude us from ever charging him with anything that doesn't make it harder to convict?

The government specifically said they don't want to bias the open and shut case before the military court.

Spence, if what you say is true (and as usual, it's not) why would any President, ever, refer to someone as a terrorist who is awaiting trial? Obama has referred to Khalid Shiek Mohammed as a terrorist. So why isn't anyone criticizing Obama for that, since using your logic, that would make it significantly harder to convict him?

KSM was charged with terrorism.

Spence, you really threw some egg on your own face here...unbelievable...I've seen love drive some people to do some pretty strange things.

Usually when you say things like this is means you've waded into water a little too deep.

Spence, here is what happened in Benghazi. Stevens asked for extra security. He listed lots of reasons why he thought he needed it, lots of threats, lots of attacks. Someone in the administration denied that request, and even reduced the security.

Then the attack happened.

Now, Obama is not someone who, let's say, welcomes criticism. In this case, Obama can be criticized on 2 fronts...first, he looks like a clown for not granting the request for extra security. Second, since it was an Al Queda-affioiated group that carried out the attack, Obama looks inept for saying that Al Queda was ineffective since he killed Bin Laden.

So Obama tooka page rigt out of the Spence playbook, and came up with a ridiculous story, one that naturally absolves him of any responsibility for what happened. According to Obama...thsi wasn't an attack that Stevens saw coming, but rather, a protest over a video that spiraled out of control, therefore no one can blame Obama.

Except there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that immediately afetr the attack, the CIA, the State Dept, and the Libyans, knew there was no protest before the attack, and that the attack was sophisticated, and pre-planned by a known terror group.

Have you seriously tried to read ANYTHING about this attack that's not a half baked conspiracy theory?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The government specifically said they don't want to bias the open and shut case before the military court.


KSM was charged with terrorism.


Usually when you say things like this is means you've waded into water a little too deep.


Have you seriously tried to read ANYTHING about this attack that's not a half baked conspiracy theory?

-spence

"KSM was charged with terrorism."

But why? If charging someone with terrorism makes it harder to convict them (compared to just charging them with murder), WHY charge KSM with terrirism?

"Have you seriously tried to read ANYTHING about this attack that's not a half baked conspiracy theory?"

Sure I have.

I posted Obama's dodge from the debate. You said Obama coukdn't answer, because of an ongoing investigation. Spence, did you even read Obama's response? Please show us where in that response, Obama said he couldn't answer because it might jeopardize an investigation?

"half baked conspiracy theory?"

Spence, is it a half-baked conspiracy theory that Stevens asked for extra security, and was denied? Am I making that up? Is that a Foxnews, right-wing conspiracy?

That's the most troubling part of this. And when Obama was asked about it at the debate, he absolutely misled America with his answer. You won't admit that, because you cannot admit that Obama would do something so sleazy. But the proof is right there in the transcript. You said Obama never misled anyone, but we have physical proof that he did.