Bengaaaazzziiiiiiiii. !!!!!!!!

[scottw]

pretty much sums it up....

Hillary Clinton showed us a glimpse of her soul at Benghazi
hearings. It was chilling

By K.T. McFarland

Published October 23, 2015

I did not watch the Benghazi hearings, unlike many others, in hopes of catching Secretary Clinton out, with my ears perked up for
some admission that could sink her presidential ambitions.
Secretary Clinton did not disappoint in her performance on Thursday.
She admitted to no wrongdoing, nor to breaking any laws.
Mistakes were made by others, the fault lies elsewhere.
Secretary Clinton was far more adept at bobbing and weaving than the members of Congress who questioned her were at
pinning her down.
She put up with hours and hours of questions, and no one laid a glove on her.
She brushed off blame by saying security decisions were handled at lower levels of the State Department professional staff, not
by the secretary.
She didn't receive Ambassador Stevens' requests for more security #^&#^& implying that if only she had things might have turned out
differently.
It was a masterful performance. She showed enormous discipline and nearly super#^&human stamina.
She let nothing slip. But in the end she let everything slip. She got a perfect score, but failed the test.
She didn't mean to, but she showed us a glimpse into her soul.
It was chilling.
We now know that when Secretary Clinton met the plane carrying the bodies of the four Americans who died at Benghazi she lied
about what happened.
Hillary Clinton showed us a glimpse of her soul at Benghazi hearings. It was chilling.
She stood over the flag#^&draped coffins of four dead Americans and blamed their deaths on an Internet video, which caused a
demonstration outside the consulate to turn into a deadly attack.
She looked into the eyes of the families of the fallen heroes and swore she would bring the videomaker to justice. But she was
lying .
She knew they died from a planned terrorist attack from an Al Qaeda#^&like group. That's what she told her family and foreign
leaders according to newly released emails.
Why? Because the Obama administration had an election to win eight weeks later, and a terrorist attack that killed four
Americans didn't fit into that plan.
President Obama asked voters to reelect him because he had killed Usama bin Laden. Al Qaeda was on the ropes. Qaddafi was
dead and the Libyan war a success. The wave of war was a receding. President George W. Bush's War on Terror was over
because Obama and Clinton had won it.
A terrorist attack that killed Americans at Benghazi did not fit into that campaign narrative, so it had to be retold and spun into a
different story. It wasn't radical Islamist terrorists, but a spontaneous demonstration that got out of control in reaction to an
obscure Internet video.
In the end, the Benghazi hearings probably didn't change many minds.
Secretary Clinton's supporters will say it was a waste of time, a politically motivated witchhunt.
Secretary Clinton's detractors will say she never answered the questions.
But for me it wasn't the questions or the answers that mattered.
It wasn't about negligence or criminality or incompetence.
Instead it was #^&#^& and still is #^&#^& about character. And Secretary Clinton has been found wanting.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

pretty much sums it up....

Sounds like another crybaby who's astonished their scandalous narrative isn't supported by any facts.

Here's an even more accurate version.

http://www.theonion.com/article/beng...on-limit-51708

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Sounds like another crybaby who's astonished their scandalous narrative isn't supported by any facts.

Here's an even more accurate version.

http://www.theonion.com/article/beng...on-limit-51708

Spence, without quoting MSNBC or anyone like that, just your thoughts...

(1) do you agree that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the administration was sticking to the "video" theory? Was there any hint, in the first 48 hours, that they weren't confident it was the video? For God's sake, one of the victim's father, said that Hilary told him that they were going to arrest the guy who made the video.

(2) do you believe, based on Hilary's private communications that have come to light, that she must have though there was a chance it was a planned terrorist attack?

If you agree with (1) and (2), how can you not hold her accountabke for blaming an innocent US citizen, for 4 murders? How would you like it is teh SecState went on national TV and called you out for something you didn't do?

It's not like her word is all that credible at this point. She's a pathological liar (I was shot at in Kosovo, Bill didn't cheat on me but was framed by the GOP, there were no work emails among what I deleted from my server). So why do you continue to accept everything she says, as God's word?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, without quoting MSNBC or anyone like that, just your thoughts...

(1) do you agree that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the administration was sticking to the "video" theory? Was there any hint, in the first 48 hours, that they weren't confident it was the video? For God's sake, one of the victim's father, said that Hilary told him that they were going to arrest the guy who made the video.

(2) do you believe, based on Hilary's private communications that have come to light, that she must have though there was a chance it was a planned terrorist attack?

If you agree with (1) and (2), how can you not hold her accountabke for blaming an innocent US citizen, for 4 murders? How would you like it is teh SecState went on national TV and called you out for something you didn't do?

It's not like her word is all that credible at this point. She's a pathological liar (I was shot at in Kosovo, Bill didn't cheat on me but was framed by the GOP, there were no work emails among what I deleted from my server). So why do you continue to accept everything she says, as God's word?

I don't take everything she says as God's word, I'm taking what she has said in context of the investigations on the matter.

The evidence after the attack was all over the map. Militants taking credit then not taking credit. Attackers claiming the video was indeed their motivation etc...the next day both Obama and Clinton referred to the attackers as terrorists and heavily armed militants. This is with over a dozen video protests in the region many of which were violent.

The emails presented last night have to be put in context of the thinking at that moment which by Clinton's admission went back and forth.

Add to that the multiple investigations which concluded the talking points were led by the CIA and not manipulated for political purposes.

I know you just don't want to let go, perhaps this will help. Nobody at the IRS broke the law either

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politi...rty/index.html

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't take everything she says as God's word, I'm taking what she has said in context of the investigations on the matter.

The evidence after the attack was all over the map. Militants taking credit then not taking credit. Attackers claiming the video was indeed their motivation etc...the next day both Obama and Clinton referred to the attackers as terrorists and heavily armed militants. This is with over a dozen video protests in the region many of which were violent.

The emails presented last night have to be put in context of the thinking at that moment which by Clinton's admission went back and forth.

Add to that the multiple investigations which concluded the talking points were led by the CIA and not manipulated for political purposes.

I know you just don't want to let go, perhaps this will help. Nobody at the IRS broke the law either

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politi...rty/index.html

"The evidence after the attack was all over the map"

But. That's. Not. What. She. Said. At. The. Time.

She said, repeatedly, that it was the video. If she had said, "we're trying to figure it out", I would have no issue with that. She knew there was plenty of evidence that it was something other than the video, but that explanation would paint her in the best possible light, so who cares if it involved publicly blaming a citizen she swore to serve?

Do you listen to yourself?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The evidence after the attack was all over the map"

But. That's. Not. What. She. Said. At. The. Time.

She said, repeatedly, that it was the video. If she had said, "we're trying to figure it out", I would have no issue with that. She knew there was plenty of evidence that it was something other than the video, but that explanation would paint her in the best possible light, so who cares if it involved publicly blaming a citizen she swore to serve?

Do you listen to yourself?

I don't think you've paid any attention to what she actually said...then or now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think you've paid any attention to what she actually said...then or now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree one of us hasn't paid any attention to it.

Days after the attack, she said "We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with." (so don't blame me!)

http://www.redstate.com/2015/10/22/h...terror-attack/

Yet the day after the attack (according to the hearings yesterday) she told the Egyptian Prime Minister Kandil "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest."

https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/22/h...benghazi-video

How many more do you want?

You said I don't want to let it go. Wrong. The issue, is that you don't want to go near it, because she has a "D" after her last name.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Sounds like another crybaby who's astonished their scandalous narrative isn't supported by any facts.

Here's an even more accurate version.

http://www.theonion.com/article/beng...on-limit-51708

nope...just stunned at the incredible dishonesty of this woman and that she still garners any support despite all of the years of evidence...very disturbing.....facts are irrelevant to her, the "facts" are what she says they are..shifting sands of political convenience, she is everything that you feign to abhor but "seem" to approve because you share some political views I guess, or perhaps have "enemies" in common...but hey...it works for her, and maybe you....and fools continue to support and defend her