Hillary

[justplugit]

To follow up, Bret Baird started a 3 part series today which included an interview of a member of a special military ops group that was 3 and 1/2 hours away, able to get there in time for the second half of the fight.
In addition it was reported that 3 whistle blowers from the State Dept. and 1
from the CIA have lawyered up in order to give info about Benghazi.
Just sayin.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

To follow up, Bret Baird started a 3 part series today which included an interview of a member of a special military ops group that was 3 and 1/2 hours away, able to get there in time for the second half of the fight.
In addition it was reported that 3 whistle blowers from the State Dept. and 1
from the CIA have lawyered up in order to give info about Benghazi.
Just sayin.

I think that's from last fall before the Mullen report. What's funny is that while the Mullen report lays plenty of blame on the State Department, because it doesn't hang Clinton people like Jim ignore it.

GOD PLEASE LET THERE BE A CONSPIRACY

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I think that's from last fall before the Mullen report. What's funny is that while the Mullen report lays plenty of blame on the State Department, because it doesn't hang Clinton people like Jim ignore it.

GOD PLEASE LET THERE BE A CONSPIRACY

-spence

No Spence, it was the lead story on his 6PM program today and will continue for 2 more nights.

GOD PLEASE LET THE TRUTH COME OUT NO MATTER WHAT IT IS.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

No Spence, it was the lead story on his 6PM program today and will continue for 2 more nights.

GOD PLEASE LET THE TRUTH COME OUT NO MATTER WHAT IT IS.

How many investigations do you need? There's already been an exhaustive and non-partisan led by Admiral Mullen which was highly critical of the State Department.

I don't believe the House had any new information, yet they decided to present a report which came to a damning conclusion based off of incomplete and what appears to be incompetent analysis.

Is this how we move forward?

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Is this how we move forward?

-spence

Enough with the Obama slogans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Is this how we move forward?

-spence

The issue Spence, is that you (and 99% of the media) would have us move forward by ignoring lies and incompetence when it comes from anyone with a "D" after their name. If there is new evidence that the Secretary Of State lied under oath, that's worth exploring. You don't think so, simply because of what party she is affiliated with.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The issue Spence, is that you (and 99% of the media) would have us move forward by ignoring lies and incompetence when it comes from anyone with a "D" after their name. If there is new evidence that the Secretary Of State lied under oath, that's worth exploring. You don't think so, simply because of what party she is affiliated with.

I've asked before, where's the "new evidence?"

The same document alleged by the House report was already part of the Mullen investigation.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've asked before, where's the "new evidence?"

The same document alleged by the House report was already part of the Mullen investigation.

-spence

Yes, you have asked that before, and I answered. That you choose to dismiss my response for political convenience, does not mean I didn't respond.

Now, we have administration employees saying they were pressured to keep quiet. I don't recall hearing this before, so that might be new evidence.

The Mullen report said there was no help available to send. That is contradicted by multiple special operations warriors, who say they were stationed close enough to have rendered aid during the 8 hour firefight. Nothing to see there, I guess, because your hero has already been exonerated.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't believe the House had any new information, -spence

How about the possibility (not a certainty) of a document signed by the SecState, which could show that she lied under oath?

You would sweep that under the rug, because she supports your agenda. It's as simple as that.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

How many investigations do you need?



-spence

As many as it takes to get at the truth.

When questioned about the 4 new whistle blowers this morning at his news conference, he said he "wasn't aware of it."
I guess that should be the end of it for you.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

As many as it takes to get at the truth.

When questioned about the 4 new whistle blowers this morning at his news conference, he said he "wasn't aware of it."
I guess that should be the end of it for you.

Yep. This is yet another new (Spence: that means it's not a re-hashing of anything) allegation of a cover-up. It's just an allegation, but it needs to be investigated. Spence would prefer that we stick our fingers deeper into our ears, and our heads deeper into the sand. When the president is hip, black, and uber-liberal, he's not supposed to be investigated I guess.

I cannot begin to imagine how the families of those 4 dead Americans must feel. They must love this administration.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I cannot begin to imagine how the families of those 4 dead Americans must feel. They must love this administration.

My hope is, this is what is driving the investigation, and not that it is not driven by the threat of Hillary in 2016, because the right recognizes she is a formidable candidate...

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

When questioned about the 4 new whistle blowers this morning at his news conference, he said he "wasn't aware of it."
I guess that should be the end of it for you.

If people bring credible new information to the table then it should be evaluated. That being said, the opinion of a whistle blower may just be another piece of information.

From what I've read so far they're talking about a claim some special ops troops that were training in the EU that could have potentially gotten there in 4 or so hours.

Is this new information? We've known there were troops in Europe all along...do you not think the independent investigation didn't look at options and how response alternatives were evaluated?

For the whistle blower to have any impact they have to show there was a feasible option on the table, not just a group that is pissed they didn't get sent in.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

If people bring credible new information to the table then it should be evaluated. That being said, the opinion of a whistle blower may just be another piece of information.

From what I've read so far they're talking about a claim some special ops troops that were training in the EU that could have potentially gotten there in 4 or so hours.

Is this new information? We've known there were troops in Europe all along...do you not think the independent investigation didn't look at options and how response alternatives were evaluated?

For the whistle blower to have any impact they have to show there was a feasible option on the table, not just a group that is pissed they didn't get sent in.

-spence

Spence, be honest, would you be of the same opinion if this was the same
issue under Bush and Rice?