Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
At the time she was likely getting information from the CIA that they were leaning toward the video motivation. If this was the case I could certainly believe the Administration would be looking for legal options to arrest the offender.
You keep pretending like there's zero evidence the video had a role in the attack...
|
Oh, she was "likely" getting info that it was the video? You're getting a tad desperate now.
Let's assume she was getting conflicting data, which is certainly plausible. If that's true, why didn't she say, at the time, "we aren't sure what triggered this, we are looking into it". Instead, her public statements put the blame squarely on the guy who made the video (thus shielding herself from any culpability), yet in private she seemed to be saying it was a planned terrorist attack.
Why the conflicting statements, Spence? Why didn't she just say "we're looking into it"?
Isn't it also "likely" that she was very specific in her public statements, that it was the video, because that explanation suggests that the State Dept didn't do anything wrong? You think it's a coincidence, that even though she was getting conflicting reports as to what triggered the attack, that she settled on the possibility that paints her in the best possible light? That wasn't "likely" a deliberate calculation on her part?
Don't blame me that I'm proving my case that she's a lying witch who was willing to throw an American citizen under the bus, and make him a target for terrorists, to cover up the fact that her Agency badly mishandled security in Benghazi.
Look, I don't think the SeState personally makes every decision on where to deploy finite security assets. And no one has a crystal ball. This isn't an exact science, mistakes happen.
It's her lying, and the cover-up to make it seem like it was a spontaneous (thus not forseeable) event, that tells us exactly who she is.
Threaded Mode