Bengaaaazzziiiiiiiii. !!!!!!!!

[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 Jim in CT

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?

Yes, because of time...

In between her communications and airport meeting the CIA changed it's analysis on the event shifting from a planned attack to one motivated by the video...which was what Rice's public remarks a few days later were based on.

This was well documented during the Senate investigation.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, because of time...

In between her communications and airport meeting the CIA changed it's analysis on the event shifting from a planned attack to one motivated by the video...which was what Rice's public remarks a few days later were based on.

This was well documented during the Senate investigation.

I see. So it's all a function of timing, that her public statements blamed the video, while her private statements claimed it was a planned attack. She was only regurgitating what she had been last told. And the fact that every one of her public statements painted a picture that absolves her of any responsibility, is just coincidence?

What good fortune for her!

Spence, when she testified "what difference does it make", was that also from a CIA report? Or was she still trying to avoid admitting that she had every opportunity to prevent these deaths?

I guess CIA told her to ask what difference it makes.

The answer, of course, is this...if it was a spontaneous response to a youtube video, she is not to blame. If it was a planned attack that other nations foresaw but we didn't, she looks like a moron. A moron with blood on her hands.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, because of time...

In between her communications and airport meeting the CIA changed it's analysis on the event shifting from a planned attack to one motivated by the video...which was what Rice's public remarks a few days later were based on.

This was well documented during the Senate investigation.

that explanation is about as dumb as telling parents of Servicemen slain by terrorists in Libya that you are going to go get those responsible by arresting some obscure video maker who was nowhere near the attack.....

please stop Spence...if you are stupid enough to believe this crap it doesn't mean others are


Jim...it's not a function of timing...it's a function of LYING....the problem with LYING is that you have to keep LYING

[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...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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...

it's not perplexing...they didn't need video motivation as you stated, they'd been itching.....which is why blaming the video and it's source is stupid....you answered your own perplexion

but Spence, if a left wing group produces a video depicting Tea Party members in all sorts compromising and unsavory acts and members of a Tea Party group get offended and ransack a DNC office...maybe kill a few people...are you willing to blame the video and would you want the video makers jailed? will it perplex you if people blame the video and makers rather than the Tea Party members for the damage and death?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

it's not perplexing...they didn't need video motivation as you stated, they'd been itching.....which is why blaming the video and it's source is stupid....you answered your own perplexion

Then why didn't they attack in scale before? Why wasn't it well planned? Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Then why didn't they attack in scale before? irrelevant Why wasn't it well planned? irrelevant Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation? irrelevant

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

the video is irrelevant to the equation....it was nothing more than a smoke screen for the killers and the administration

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

the video is irrelevant to the equation....it was nothing more than a smoke screen for the killers and the administration

I see, so it's just because you say so. Right.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Then why didn't they attack in scale before?

Are you serious? "They" have and were attacking "in scale" well before the video.

Why wasn't it well planned?

Ok. This is still getting confusing and in the mode of constant change. Is the current thinking-investigation-talking point-whatever that it was not well planned? And what does well planned mean? Planned but not well? Not planned at all? Even though they were "itching" to attack? Hey--if they were itching to attack, and 9/11 just popped up unexpectedly, not giving them time to plan an attack, couldn't they "spontaneously" make an unplanned attack even if the video didn't exist? Was the video necessary to make it spontaneous? And if the video was necessary, how spontaneous is that. The video was (erroneously) blamed for previous attacks elsewhere. Then how would it be "spontaneous" if it was the cause of a chain of previous attacks? Seems, in that case, it would just be more of an expected reaction.

Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

I could think of several reasons, including covering up senseless killing and mayhem by providing a "reason" to justify it. Lying is often use to cover up mistakes or evil.

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

The video is, obviously, not out of the equation. Or, more accurately, out of various equations, only one of which can be true--except in a relative world, in which case all things are true and what would be the point of arguing about it?

If we have an equation where after the equal sign there must be the attack, and we use Occam's razor of the simplest explanation, what can be left out of causes before the equal sign and still have the result? If we took the video out of the equation would the result still be valid. Yes.

Which puts in question what is the purpose of putting the video into the equation? It could be used to facilitate a circumstance that would occur wthout the use of it. Just as all evil will be justified by some excuse to make it appear as good. Or to cover up that which incriminates.

If the video was used, it was obviously done so to somehow make sensible, excuse, what otherwise might be seen by the world as senseless violence (even though, to the attackers ,it was not senseless without the video), or as a cover-up for the incompetence in not preventing the attack.

Making an issue of the video deflects from the ignorant incompetence of the administration.

And promising to prosecute the maker of the video even though it was not illegal raises the level of incompetence to psychopathic justification for it.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Making an issue of the video deflects from the ignorant incompetence of the administration.

And promising to prosecute the maker of the video even though it was not illegal raises the level of incompetence to psychopathic justification for it.

yup...and deflects blame from those that actually did the attacking and killing

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If we have an equation where after the equal sign there must be the attack, and we use Occam's razor of the simplest explanation, what can be left out of causes before the equal sign and still have the result? If we took the video out of the equation would the result still be valid. Yes.

You're making an assumption that the attack would have happened at the same time and same veracity regardless. That's a big assumption not supported by any facts...which greatly complicates your equation.

Occam's Razor = FAIL

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You're making an assumption that the attack would have happened at the same time and same veracity regardless. That's a big assumption not supported by any facts...which greatly complicates your equation.

Occam's Razor = FAIL

it was September 11th...nothing ever happened that was related on September 11th

[Doover]

Originally Posted by spence

Then why didn't they attack in scale before? Why wasn't it well planned? Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

Jeepers? That video only had a handful of hits up until the night of the attack.
That video, AFTER the Administration viewed it and settled on it and THEN presented it to the World as the cause of the deadly Benghazi attack, then had MANY views.

Why has there been no OTHER attacks on OUR interests related to THIS video?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Then why didn't they attack in scale before? Why wasn't it well planned? Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

In Libya? Video had nothing to do with it. The leaser of the attackers blamed that after he was caught, the Guv's investigation determined the video was not the instigator but the attack was planned for the Sept 11th anniversary.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

In Libya? Video had nothing to do with it. The leaser of the attackers blamed that after he was caught, the Guv's investigation determined the video was not the instigator but the attack was planned for the Sept 11th anniversary.

I've read through all the reports and never seen that finding stated explicitly.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've read through all the reports and never seen that finding stated explicitly.

Did you read that every time she changed her story, it was after receiving a report that a reasonable person would conclude was more credible, than the previous one? You must have, because that's what you keep insisting she did.

You're saying that every time she flip-flopped, it had nothing to do with avoiding guilt, but rather, she was always reacting to the most current, most credible, report?