Hillary

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, you've responded that you "think" there's new evidence...not that there IS new evidence.


Funny how that story never really made Drudge and now has even slipped off the front page of Fox News.

The timing with the House report can't just be a coinkidink can it?


First, there was no 8 hour firefight, this is a matter of record.

Second, just because people think they can get there after the fact--and I'm sure they would have gone--doesn't mean the leadership is A) aware of this in time and B) agrees with the wisdom of that decision.

Or are you calling Admiral Mullen a liar? Perhaps you just think he's incompetent?

-spence

"just because people think they can get there after the fact--and I'm sure they would have gone--doesn't mean the leadership is A) aware of this in time"

OK. So if a vicious firefight is taking place, IN YOUR OPINION, it's too much to ask that the leadership be aware of what help is available to send in. I'm sure Obama knew where Jay-Z was at the time, and he knew what shape the fairways were in at his club...but whether or not help is available to superb Americans fighting for their lives?

Spence says back off, the President isn't omnipotent.

Got it.

[Jim in CT]

Spence -

It gets a little tiring when I constantly respond to all of your questions, and when I ask a tough one, you choose not to answer. So here it is.

Everyone knows that Hilary lied through her teeth when she claimed that she was under sniper fire on an overseas trip. And rational person knows that it's a load of crap thatshe only made that claim because she was tired.

So Spence, please tell me...how is it, that this lie, doesn't undermine her credibility?

Good luck..

[scottw]

QUOTE NEBE

"Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements. Liberals are mostly very educated and are in careers that use their creative minds."



"liberals".....as I read this stuff and listen to the news of the day I just don't see any evidence of this....maybe the "creative" part of their minds allow them to delude themselves into believing things that help maintain their odd worldview.... I see no independent thought...mindless regurgitation.....little recognition of good and bad except as it pertains to political designation.....really bad judgment and there are plenty of "very educated" people who don't have a shred of common sense....most are elected "liberal" democrats elected by "liberals".....

we have the worst economy in terms of growth in 84 years...lowest home ownership....highest dependence on food stamps and disability benefits....Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster and the ripple effect is devastating.......our foreign policy is a disaster, we are apparently importing and funding terrorism through our generous social programs and we have "liberals" like Chris Matthews and some here who were desperate to portray in the early going, the Marathon Bombing as almost certainly a lone wolf probably white tea party type upset over having to pay his taxes and not at all likely tied to islamic extremism when all common sense pointed to islamic extremism....

I think "liberals" tell themselves....delude themselves into believing Eben's description in many cases....which ultimately makes them a danger to themselves and others.....


Jim, if you were arguing with a brainwashed cult member he'd tell you that you were, in fact, the one who is wrong, has everything upside down, and suggest that you have some nefarious reason for unfairly attacking his leader

Bengazi is just another unfair attack on Dear Leader...move along........

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

QUOTE NEBE

"liberals" like Chris Matthews and some here who were desperate to portray in the early going, the Marathon Bombing as almost certainly a lone wolf probably white tea party type upset over having to pay his taxes and not at all likely tied to islamic extremism when all common sense pointed to islamic extremism....

......

I ponder this often...why do so many (not all) liberals bend over backwards to deny the connection between Islam and Islamic extremists? Why is the Fort Hood attack referred to as "workplace violence", when we all know the shooter was yelling "Allah Hu Akhbar" (Allah is great) as he was killing our soldiers? The administration has dropped the phrase "war on terror"...We're not at war with Islamic jihadists? They seem to be under the impression that we are at war...

How do you begin to win a war, when you won't admit who the enemy is?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Everyone knows that Hilary lied through her teeth when she claimed that she was under sniper fire on an overseas trip. And rational person knows that it's a load of crap thatshe only made that claim because she was tired.

So Spence, please tell me...how is it, that this lie, doesn't undermine her credibility?

From what I've read there was a threat of sniper fire and her aircraft used standard evasion techniques as a precaution and they were even issued flack jackets. So it's not like the idea of a threat was made up, she just stretched it and mischaracterized what ultimately happened.

She also had to deal with the fallout. Did it damage her credibility? Yes, but that's not so say credibility can't be rebuilt. In the grand scheme of things this wasn't a huge event...it got play because of the election.

You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative. I think the reality is there's a sufficient body of serious work to offset that assertion.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

From what I've read there was a threat of sniper fire and her aircraft used standard evasion techniques as a precaution and they were even issued flack jackets. So it's not like the idea of a threat was made up, she just stretched it and mischaracterized what ultimately happened.

She also had to deal with the fallout. Did it damage her credibility? Yes, but that's not so say credibility can't be rebuilt. In the grand scheme of things this wasn't a huge event...it got play because of the election.

You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative. I think the reality is there's a sufficient body of serious work to offset that assertion.

-spence

Seriously, are you OK?

In the situation we are discussing, Hilary's claim was not that she travels under routine threat of sniper fire. If she said that, no one would deny that.

That's not what she said. Am I going too fast for you? That's not what she said, so there was no reason for you to bring it up.

Here is what she said...

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

According to you, she didn't lie. Rather, "she just stretched it and mischaracterized what ultimately happened."

You should work in PR for people like Hilary and Lindsay Lohan and Osama Bin Laden. As long as someone agrees with you on political issues, you are physicalluy incapable of calling them out for egregious and immoral behavior.

"You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative"

Not a pathological liar...rather, pathologically immoral. I recall scandals involving FBI files, Whitewater, this bold-faced lie, travelgate. Then there is her loving husband...So I'm not "trying to establish" this pattern of moral bankruptcy - I'm just pointing out the irrefutable facts...facts for whicj you will do anything to deny or mitigate. You are the one bending over backwards to adjust the facts to fit your political narrative (that narrative being that it's wrong to kill convicted murderers, but it's OK to slaughter unborn babies), not I.

"She also had to deal with the fallout"

What fallout? Not from the likes of you. She got promoted to SecState. Maybe not the best position for someone who is so disconnected from reality that she think sse has been shot at when she hasn't. What if she is sitting across from the president of Mexico, and she falsely accuses him of trying to shoot her?

This lie, by the way, was a slap in the face to the security personnel at the arrival site (2 of whom were friends of mine) who risked their lives to secure the area surrounding her arrival site. They risk their lives to keep her safe, and she shows her gratitude by saying that they are incompetent. Classy.

I just can't figure out how you can support her so blindly, and not feel like you need to take a shower. She's repugnant.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative. I think the reality is there's a sufficient body of serious work to offset that assertion.

-spence

actually, there's a sufficient body of sufficient lying to support the narrative and establish a trend for either Clinton.....I believe an esteemed American once accurately referred to Hillary as a "congenital liar".....that was long before these lies....but for some this is ...resume enhancement...particularly if you get away with it

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

actually, there's a sufficient body of sufficient lying to support the narrative and establish a trend for either Clinton.....I believe an esteemed American once accurately referred to Hillary as a "congenital liar".....that was long before these lies....but for some this is ...resume enhancement...particularly if you get away with it

And yet she exited the job with a 69% approval rating (Gallup).

I'd note her husband left the presidency with a 66% approval rating (Gallup).

And all this after killing Vince Foster.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

And yet she exited the job with a 69% approval rating (Gallup).

I'd note her husband left the presidency with a 66% approval rating (Gallup).



-spence

YET 100% DISHONEST.......America is a wonderful place.....pretty sure Hill had her highest approval ratings when she was being seen or viewed as victim of Bill's transgressions.....odd world

GALLUP

The current rating is just one percentage point below her all-time high rating of 67%, from December 1998.

Clinton's popularity may be partly due to the nature of the secretary of state position, which is somewhat above the fray of partisan politics and focused on defending U.S. interests globally.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK. So if a vicious firefight is taking place, IN YOUR OPINION, it's too much to ask that the leadership be aware of what help is available to send in. I'm sure Obama knew where Jay-Z was at the time, and he knew what shape the fairways were in at his club...but whether or not help is available to superb Americans fighting for their lives?

Spence says back off, the President isn't omnipotent.

Got it.

I never said such a thing. As in most of these threads, you're responding to what you think I believe rather than reading what I'm actually saying.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I never said such a thing. As in most of these threads, you're responding to what you think I believe rather than reading what I'm actually saying.

-spence

You said the administration might not have known that help was available. Let me ask you, so that I'm not putting words in your mouth. If 4 superb Americans died because Obama never bothered to ask if help was available, is that acceptable to you?

[Nebe]

because of the instant news cycle, we all expect instant answers and instant results. Its a shame about what happened, but i dont think it is reasonable to expect that there was a possible instant response to the situation. Thats just my take on the matter.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

because of the instant news cycle, we all expect instant answers and instant results. Its a shame about what happened, but i dont think it is reasonable to expect that there was a possible instant response to the situation. Thats just my take on the matter.

Here's my take, which isn't that difefrent from your take...

Those former Navy SEALs fought for their lives, for several hours.

Now, I know we can't expect that every single person in a dangerous post, will have a division of Marines across the street waiting.

However, we know this particular fight lasted for hours. We know that some special forces folks have said that they could have been sent to Libya, and gotten there in time to help - that may or may not be true, but that's what some soldiers are saying.

If help is available...even if you don't send them rushing in, you at least get the pieces moving, so that if you decide to send help, they are standing by as closely as they can safely get to.

Jimmy Carter could not have possibly bungled this any more...

Also, I don't expect instant answers. But I don't expect a cover-up, nor do I expect to close the book until we have all the answers. Brett Baier (who is not a partisan hack) had a soldier on who says he was close enough to have been sent to the annex before it was over. Others are saying they were pressured to keep quiet. Those things need to be looked into.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You said the administration might not have known that help was available. Let me ask you, so that I'm not putting words in your mouth. If 4 superb Americans died because Obama never bothered to ask if help was available, is that acceptable to you?

I love it, now you're asking people to defend hypothetical situations.

Perhaps Obama was too stoned to even think about it...did you consider that?

-spence