Bengaaaazzziiiiiiiii. !!!!!!!!

[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 Jim in CT

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.

Every is pretty specific, I'd like you to report back on how many times of each...

[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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Have you read the bi-partisan Senate report?

do you know what "time" is?

it's awfully critical of Clinton and State and they didn't have all of the information to consider that's come out since....

maybe we should have another?

keep telling yourself the lies are ok....

[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."