Bengaaaazzziiiiiiiii. !!!!!!!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

From what I understand (didn't watch any of it, but read summaries), ther ewas evidence presented which might suggest that Hilary suspected this was a planned terrorist attack, while saying pubicly (to cover her azz) that it was a spontaneous response to the video.

Let's remember that the video was made by an American citizen. Hilary is supposed to be working for that person. Instead, she (and Obama) gleefully threw him under the bus, for political expediency.

Actually she explained pretty well why that wasn't the case.

Not to mention the previous investigations that went deep on the topic and found no intentional misrepresentation.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Not to mention the previous investigations that went deep on the topic and found no intentional misrepresentation.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually she explained pretty well why that wasn't the case.

Not to mention the previous investigations that went deep on the topic and found no intentional misrepresentation.

Her explanation that I saw, was that they were getting conflicting data from outside intelligence at the time. If that's true, why was she (and Obama) sticking with the video story? In the days following the attack, the administration wasn't being guarded or ambiguous in their assertion that it was the video. I never heard anyone, in the 3 days after the attack, say they didn't know what happened. All I heard, was that it was a spontaneous reaction to a video. And by an amazing coincidence, that explanation absolves her from any blame for what happened, becaue that explanation, as opposed to the truth, would make it impossible for anyone to have predicted the attack. How fortunate for her!

Is her explanation, especially when it contradicts her previous actions, always enough for you?

Yesterday's hearing referred to some pretty blunt private communications from Hilary, within 48 hours of the attack, that she thought it was a planned terrorist attack. Yet every public statement from Hilary, Obama, Jay Carney, and Susan Rice, blamed the video, thus blaming an American citizen.

In my opinion, she stuck to the video story, knowing that there was at least a great chance it was false, to paint a picture that no one could have reasonably foreseen the attack. It wasn't true, and it threw an American citizen under the bus, But you have no concerns, because unless she openly admits she was lying, then she couldn't possibly have been lying.

[Nebe]

How many lies are told by politicians every day? The whole Iraq war was based on a lie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

How many lies are told by politicians every day? The whole Iraq war was based on a lie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) How many presidential candidates have lied about the deaths of Americans in their employ at the time?

You don't justify awful behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

(2) only the tin foil hat crowd thinks Bush lied. He was wrong, as were many, many people. No evidence that he intentionally lied, if there were, he would have been crucified by everyone, and I would have been leading the charge. Being wrong, isn't the same as lying.

[Doover]

Originally Posted by Nebe

How many lies are told by politicians every day? The whole Iraq war was based on a lie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Congress reviewed the Iraq War documents.
Among them where Senator Hillery Clinton and Senator John Kerry, both of whom voted YES to go to war.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

How many lies are told by politicians every day? The whole Iraq war was based on a lie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

which lie specifically?

have you checked your facts yet regarding the 60 Americans supposedly killed in embassy attacks during the Bush years?

if you believe that they all lie how can you conceivably support someone who promises to grow the size and scope of the government exponentially funneling greater sums of the nations wealth though it's organs and out it's orifices....you'd think you want to take as much money and power away from the liars as possible

[Jim in CT]

According to the father of one of the victims, as his son's body was taken off plane, draped in the flag, Hilary told the father that she was going to arrest the filmmaker who was responsible for his son's death.

We know that Hilary told the Egyptian prime minister that she knew it was a planned terrorist attack. That email was revealed in the hearing yesterday. Yet after that, in public, the administration (you know, the most open and honest administration ever) claimed it was the video.

And Hilary is declared the winner by her PR folks such as Spence.

I don't get it. If someone is liberal, they cannot be called a liar when they are a liar?

[Nebe]

No #^&#^&#^&#^& Sherlock. I said politicians. Not republicans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

They all lie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Doover]

That's some position you have there!

You find no redeeming value in ANY elected official?

They why do YOU post down here?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Nebe

They all lie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe,I agree some politicians do lie, but if ALL politicians lie we are doomed as a country because without truth we are not living in reality. There is no way I could ever vote for a known liar.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Nebe,I agree some politicians do lie, but if ALL politicians lie we are doomed as a country because without truth we are not living in reality. There is no way I could ever vote for a known liar.

Time to face facts......we are doomed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Time to face facts......we are doomed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know how to refute that. We are on the verge of a decline of historic magnitude - a decline of economy, culture, values, and of our historic exceptionalism.

[Jim in CT]

Tyrone Woods' father, Charles, recalled meeting Clinton when his son's body arrived at Andrews Air Force Base two days after the attacks.

"I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand and she said, 'We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son," Woods said, reading the account from his journal.

"That was a complete bald-faced lie," he told FoxNews.com Friday. "The day after the attack, she was talking to the Prime Minister of Egypt and she said the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the video."

Also...

"The thing that was shocking – one of the pinnacle moments – was the revelation she told her family there was a terrorist attack while she told America something else," Smith's uncle, Michael Ingmire, told FoxNews.com. "Mrs. Clinton is a serial liar."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt2

[scottw]

she said, "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son"


Presidential material right there....


so much wrong with that...hard to fathom...

we are in very troubling times

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

she said, "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son"


Presidential material right there....


so much wrong with that...hard to fathom...

we are in very troubling times

Right. She was saying she was going to arrest the guy (an American citizen), KNOWING that there was at lest a great chance that he had nothing to do with tit, so that no one could blame her for the attack.

THAT'S who Spence wants to be President? Someone who will put you in jail, for no reason, for political gain?

[scottw]

what you need to understand and accept is that it does not matter...this stuff is accepted and condoned, HRC understands that she will never be held accountable and not only that, the MSM and Spence types will dutifully defend her...

great line I read this morning

"The point is that when it comes to Clinton's lying and the press not caring and turning their derision on those who do, it’s déjà vu for as far as the eye can see."

what we are on the verge of is a state of irreconcilable differences that will not be solved politically or peacefully...we have opposing views that would like us to start over as a nation...one would like to dissolve what we have been in terms of founding principles and institute their own version which will be much smarter and more efficient because they fancy themselves much smarter and more efficient...the other side would like to dissolve what we've become and return to our founding principles and has no interest in being dragged down the path of smarter living through some incarnation of socialism.....I suppose there are a bunch in the middle who have absolutely no clue what's going on......the Constitution guarantees that we will not be dragged down the path were government rules the individual... and it provides the remedies. At some point there(and I suspect sooner than later) will be an event which allows the one side to announce that the guarantees are no longer operable and at that point the other side will have had enough....won't be the first time in history...or the last....

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Right. She was saying she was going to arrest the guy (an American citizen), KNOWING that there was at lest a great chance that he had nothing to do with tit, so that no one could blame her for the attack.

THAT'S who Spence wants to be President? Someone who will put you in jail, for no reason, for political gain?

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...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

At the time she was likely getting information from the CIA that they were leaning toward the video motivation. don't think so


If this was the case I could certainly believe the Administration would be looking for legal options to arrest the offender. "offender"?

You keep pretending like there's zero evidence the video had a role in the attack...

it's not pretending...the only "role" was as a purposeful lie the admin could and did disseminate...happily

[Doover]

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...

Again you ignore the post stating the FACT that the Administration perused YouTube, video shopping, and finally settled on the video the Administration ran with.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

If this was the case I could certainly believe the Administration would be looking for legal options to arrest the offender.

Do you certainly believe that it is OK for an administration to "look" for legal options to prosecute someone who made a video which did not violate the law?

Uh . . . don't bother to answer that . . . you certainly believe an administration that you favor should "look" for ways to create a narrative which will absolve it from incompetence.

[Jim in CT]

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.

[Nebe]

Another link- looking for more answers.

http://www.dailydot.com/lol/hillary-...gazi-hearings/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

[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

[scottw]

you'd think if anyone, Spence, would recognize Hillary using Spence Speak

and I'll add/remind of this....he later statement to the families of the dead Servicemen...

she said, "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

you'd think if anyone, Spence, would recognize Hillary using Spence Speak

and I'll add/remind of this....he later statement to the families of the dead Servicemen...

she said, "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son"

Correct. And she said this to a grieviung father, AFTER she told the PM of Egypt that she knew it had nothing to do with the video. And to top it all of, th eguy who made the video, who she threw under the bus, is an American citizen.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Correct. And she said this to a grieviung father, AFTER she told the PM of Egypt that she knew it had nothing to do with the video. And to top it all of, th eguy who made the video, who she threw under the bus, is an American citizen.

Jim, do you know what "time" is?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, do you know what "time" is?

I believe I do.

Do you know what a "lie" is?

You keep giving her a pass because she was possibly receiving conflicting intelligence about the suspected cause of the attack. But her actions spit in the face of your theory that she wasn't being deliberately dishonest. If she came out publicly and said "we are receiving conflicting information, we are trying to sort it out", no sane person would fault her for that. And in that case, your defense would have merit.

But that's not what she did. Not by a long shot.

In public, she kept blaming the video. The only possible explanation for why she stuck to that story (especially in light of the fact that in private communications, she conisstently called it a planned terrorist attack) is that it painted her in the best possible light.

Spence, her statements weren't always based on the last intelligence reports she receivced. They were always crafted to make it seem like she could not have foresen what happened, therefore she is not at fault.

That's good enough for you. We'll see if it's good enough for people who aren't liberal zealots. I think it may be. But I know I'm right, her actions leave no room for doubt. I'm sorry if that's disturbing to you.

Her statement to the grieving dad at the airport (we'll get the filmmaker who did this!), came after her private emails in which she said she knew it wasn't the video. Do you expect us to believe that at first she thought it was a terrorist attack, then a few days later, it looked like it was the video?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

At the time she made both of those remarks the CIA had definitively and incorrectly stated it was a well planned attack. The detail from the Senate report noted a non-analyst changed the analyst's initial findings which wasn't realized until the next day...where is was corrected...and the summary which involved the video was sent to State for Rice's TV tour.

I'm still perplexed why some can't fathom that the video protests in Cairo and other cities inspired the militants to attack a US presence they'd been itching to get at for months...