[QUOTE/Spence]:
When you look at what Clinton herself said on Sept 12th:
"Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together.
Makes it sound as if there was adequate security personnel (even though there was not), but it was simply overwhelmed by unnamed "armed militants "(even though on the same day she said it was al-Qaeda affiliates). And the American security, if I recall correctly, was in a different compound and didn't arrive in time. And the Libyan security, if I recall correctly, mostly did not put up a sustained fight, some even joined in the attack on the consulate.
"Four Americans were killed. ...
Yeah, the Ambassador, an aide, and two American soldiers who were not part of the consulate security. Had there been the adequate American military security needed in a dangerous place (a hotbed of terrorism as I once phrased it and which you poo-pooed) things would have ended differently. As Jim in CT has pointed out several times, other countries consulates had pulled out of Libya because of the danger. And Hillary just didn't know about any of the 600 requests for more security. And that was, of course, not Hillary's fault, but that of Ambassador Stephens for not calling her directly. Her function as Secretary of State sure reeks of competence here, eh?. She actually believed al Qaeda was on the run, a non-factor, the Libyans were pro-American and would protect the consulate,(after all, it was she that called for the toppling of Qadaffi and intervention in Libya and the grateful Libyans would befriend us not attack us), yada yada yada. All was well and secure . . . nothing to be unduly concerned about. Her underlings assured her that all was well. Other consulates that pulled out were simply uninformed or cowards.
"This is an attack that should shock the conscience of people of all faiths around the world. We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence, and we send our prayers to the families, friends, and colleagues of those we’ve lost. ...There will be more time later to reflect, but today, we have work to do.
This sounds like a prelude to some revelation of what really happened. And how could she say it was a senseless act of violence if she knew on the same day that she said this, that it was a well-planned al Qaeda attack? There was a great deal of sense about it. It was September 11. There were warnings of it. It was a soft target. It was what al Qaeda is partially about--the removal of American presence from Muslim countries. Too bad that she had to wait till the day late "Today" to have work to do.
"There is no higher priority than protecting our men and women wherever they serve.
It seems that the priority was not high enough in Benghazzi. It only became higher, for her, after it was too late to competently provide in the first place.
"We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault.
Aha! The "precise" motivations. We get from the prelude to motivation to what it precisely is . . .
"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.
Bingo! There's your motivation. The video. Aside from the "some" named here, no others are referred to. It could be argued that the "some" implies others. But its a nice trick not to name others and leave this particular lump of motivation to stand alone with all that implies.
"America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.
What does religious tolerance have to do with a "senseless act of violence"?
"But let me be clear—there is no justification for this, none. Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith.
A response to a video, "spontaneous" or otherwise (though spontaneous would conveniently make it less forseeable ergo less preventable) which maligns Islam would be a sort of 'honoring" of Islam. But al Qaeda violence is meant more to impose Islam, not merely to "honor" it. (Subliminal hint--it was the video!)
"And as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace."
Or those who would take an innocent life under any name. Quite a cheap platitude to make her sound like a high-minded drum-major for peace who would never take evil for granted . . . and would certainly protect us as well as the Benghazzi consulate from such evil
[QUOTE/Spence]I don't see much inconsistency.[QUOTE]
You would if you really tried. But you're too deep in the tank to see.
The vagueness of her statement and its obvious implications are inconsistent with the surety of her comments to her daughter and to the Egyptian minister. And the several platltudinous remarks are meant to separate her from culpability or incompetence re Benghazi.
Here is another article re Hillary and Benghazi:
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1
Threaded Mode