of course, because investigations always reach the right conclusion

This and similar other phrases always preface your replies that are full of spin or unsubstantiated opinions.

Amazing how our President said the victims and their families
in Boston deserve answers and justice, and yet Tyrone Wood's Dad is still
fighting for, and waiting to get all the answers and justice for his son in Benghazi for how long now?

I just want to see the truth, without the spin from the left or right. I have not been believing convinced of what has been printed in the mainstream

Spence, wrong as usual...she said, under oath, that she never personally saw any requests for any extra security from the diplomats. There is physical, tangible proof that she lied through her teeth.

Sorry this comes from Fox. Not many other outlets are reporting on this, you see..

Darrell Issa: Hillary Clinton ?wrong? on Benghazi - Kevin Cirilli - POLITICO.com

4 people are dead Spence. Fair to say that the administration bungled this from start to finish (denied the extra security, blamed the attack on a youtibe video, now doing everything to avoid talkingbaout it.

They'll rake her over the coals a bit, but it won't hurt her approval ratings much, there are too many people like you out there who don't care when a liberal is guilty of incompetence (which at least contributed to the deaths of 4 superb Americans) and perjury.

LMAO, exactly correct. When he gets all of his "news" from The Huffington Post and The Daily Worker, his "understanding" is a tad askew.

Hillary is unaware of her underwear

Do some homework, you'll see plenty of substantiation.

http://ering.foreignpolicy.com/posts...ghazi_security

GOP report faults State Department on Libya security | The Salt Lake Tribune

House GOP report says Clinton rejected plea for more security in Libya - The Washington Post

Same old story...let's rehash a sensitive subject just to create more confusion because it suits our purpose. Defeating Clinton in 2016.

-spence

Where's the proof?

-spence

I assume you ignored my link.

(1) there is video of her saying, during testimony to Congress, that she didn't personally reject any requests for increased security from her employees in Libya.

(2) it is coming out that some in Congress have memos, signed by her, that rejected the requests for security.

I'll say this...if those congressmen (mostly conservatives) who say they have those documents are lying, they should be kicked out. If they are telling the truth, she should be charged with perjury.

There is no reason for them to lie about having documents signed by her...it's too easy to show that as a lie, and they would be attacked, justly, in the media. And if it matters, I haven't seen any liberals deny that those signed documents exist...rather, the liberals are just ignoring this.

I don't believe anyone previously claimed to have physical evidence that the Secretary of State lied under oath. So if this wasn't talked about before, that means this is a breaking story, and thus it's not a "re-hashing" of anything...

Spence, this is not a closed case. The administration has done everything they can to thwart attempts to figure out what happened.

"it suits our purpose. Defeating Clinton in 2016."

That's one way of looking at it. Another (more accurate) way of looking at it, is that your side is desperately trying to make this go away, in order to elect Clinton in 2016.

Spence, please answer one simple question...If it turns out there are documents signed by her that reject requests for security, do you think that's worth discussing, given that she denied that under oath?

You should read this...

Issa’s absurd claim that Clinton’s ‘signature’ means she personally approved it - The Washington Post

-spence

OK. So just because her signature is on something, doesn't mean she actually saw it, or was aware of it.

If that's true, she didn't perjure herself. If she signed those documents herself, it means she did perjure herself.

What's her history? Does she have a history of lying to our faces? I seem to remember her telling a fantasy tale of her falling under sniper fire on a trip overseas, which turned out to be 100% fabricated. Her excuse? She was "tired". Everyone who has ever had a baby has been tired. That exhaustion never led me to claim someone was shooting at me. Whhat's your take on that, Spence?

If you want to give her the benefit of the doubt, that's your right. But this is someone who (along with her husband) has shown a willingness to look her constituents right in the face, and lie.

Am I wrong?

And your source, the Post, is as biased as it gets. That doesn't mean they are wrong...but they have an abvious bias.

Also, Spence...when confronted with the irrefutable evidence that she lied about being shot at, your response was that it doesn't really matter. SO to you, it's OK when liberals lie.

Some of us hope that our elected officials could be held to a slightly higher standard. The families of the 4 dead Americans, are entitled to an jonest explanation of what happened, EVEN IF the truth is inconvenient for those in your party. Dont you agree?

This woman lost her credibility with her past deceit, so we need to investigate.

Yup, and she loses either way. As Secretary of State the buck stops there.
If she didn't know Benghazi was a hot spot and taken action to beef up security, she loses. If she knew about it she loses.

What is it that "doesn't matter" Madam Secretary?

Again, show us the tape in the situation room in real time the night of the attack.
That will settle everything.

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.

You didn't read the link.

-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 :humpty:

-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.

Sure I did. The link said that just because her signature is on the cable, doesn't mean she signed it. Fine. So let's invetsigate and see. Because as I correctly pointed out (and which you conveniently ignored) she has lied to our faces before, and she did it with a straight face.

The Post, a liberal rag, is willing to take her word. I'm not, as she is a liar.

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

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

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.

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.

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. :huh:

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.

How about the 1 million families in Iraq who had family members die due to the bush administration's lies? How do you think they feel?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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...

Unfortunately, it's a safe bet that the GOP wouldn't be so passionate about this, if there were no politics involved. That doesn't mean there's isn't a cover-up here that needs to be investigated.

She is a very, very formidable candidate. How that lie she told about being under sniper fire, doesn't end her career, I can't figure out. Plus she was an absolute flop as Secstate, as shown by the disaster in Libya that no one wants to discuss.

Here is what you need to know about her tenure as SecState. The Pakistani doctor who told us where Bin Laden was, is rotting in a Pakistani prison. He is still there. The State Department has been absolutely impotent in terms of getting this man released. That's the thanks we give him? What message does that send to others who are thinking about sticking their necks out to help us?

What the hell does that have to do with this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device