Bengaaaazzziiiiiiiii. !!!!!!!!

[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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

You're not paying attention.

[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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

You are right, it doesn't come close to passing the common sense smell test. Every private communication, she seems to say it was a planned attack. Every pubkic statement, she blames it on the video, thus denying any fault oin her part. I don't claim to be non-partisan here, as I think she is truly a wretched woman. But putting that aside, there's only one possible conclusion, that she lied when it suited her, to make it appear that the attack was not something that could have been foreseen, therefore she's not at fault.

Let's say that the attack was prompted by the video (no one believes that, let's just say). If Hilary thinks the guy who made the video is criminally responsible for the actions of people (on the other side of the world) who get upset by its message, then why doesn't she think Al Sharpton is similarly responsible for people who have been murdered after he works up crowds into a violent, white-hating rage?

I'd LOVE to see someone ask her that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

Have you read the bi-partisan Senate report?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

....the problem with LYING is that you have to keep LYING

She must have one heck of a memory to remember her lies, she wouldn't
need a memory if she told the truth.
" Oh what a terrible web we weave when at first we try to deceive."