Hillary

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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.

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Is this how we move forward?

-spence

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Is this how we move forward?

-spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

I've asked before, where's the "new evidence?"

The same document alleged by the House report was already part of the Mullen investigation.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've asked before, where's the "new evidence?"

The same document alleged by the House report was already part of the Mullen investigation.

-spence

Yes, you have asked that before, and I answered. That you choose to dismiss my response for political convenience, does not mean I didn't respond.

Now, we have administration employees saying they were pressured to keep quiet. I don't recall hearing this before, so that might be new evidence.

The Mullen report said there was no help available to send. That is contradicted by multiple special operations warriors, who say they were stationed close enough to have rendered aid during the 8 hour firefight. Nothing to see there, I guess, because your hero has already been exonerated.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, you have asked that before, and I answered. That you choose to dismiss my response for political convenience, does not mean I didn't respond.

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

Now, we have administration employees saying they were pressured to keep quiet. I don't recall hearing this before, so that might be 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?

The Mullen report said there was no help available to send. That is contradicted by multiple special operations warriors, who say they were stationed close enough to have rendered aid during the 8 hour firefight. Nothing to see there, I guess, because your hero has already been exonerated.

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

[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..

[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 don't believe the House had any new information, -spence

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

How many investigations do you need?



-spence

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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.

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I cannot begin to imagine how the families of those 4 dead Americans must feel. They must love this administration.

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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...

LOL, still can't figure how Hillary went from one of the most criticized and unlikeable persons on this forum and in general 6 or 7 years ago, to now becoming a formidable candidate in 2016.

Must be because the disaster unfolding with the current administration suddenly makes her look good.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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.

If people bring credible new information to the table then it should be evaluated. That being said, the opinion of a whistle blower may just be another piece of information.

From what I've read so far they're talking about a claim some special ops troops that were training in the EU that could have potentially gotten there in 4 or so hours.

Is this new information? We've known there were troops in Europe all along...do you not think the independent investigation didn't look at options and how response alternatives were evaluated?

For the whistle blower to have any impact they have to show there was a feasible option on the table, not just a group that is pissed they didn't get sent in.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

If people bring credible new information to the table then it should be evaluated. That being said, the opinion of a whistle blower may just be another piece of information.

From what I've read so far they're talking about a claim some special ops troops that were training in the EU that could have potentially gotten there in 4 or so hours.

Is this new information? We've known there were troops in Europe all along...do you not think the independent investigation didn't look at options and how response alternatives were evaluated?

For the whistle blower to have any impact they have to show there was a feasible option on the table, not just a group that is pissed they didn't get sent in.

-spence

Spence, be honest, would you be of the same opinion if this was the same
issue under Bush and Rice?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, be honest, would you be of the same opinion if this was the same
issue under Bush and Rice?

Fair question.
Would your/Jim's be the same?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Fair question.
Would your/Jim's be the same?

Yes. I don't like it when anyone (regardless of party) sends people to harm's way, rejects requests for extra security, refuses to send them aid when under attack, and then lies about what happened to protect their political careers.

I cannot believe I have ever posted anything that would make anyone think I am so blinded by ideology, that I wouldn't be critical of something like this. Unlike someone else here, I have been critical of those in my party when they earn it. and justplugit is even more level-headed than I am.

Rockhound, have you ever seen me thoughtlessly defending a conservative, despite substantial evidence? I doubt it.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Fair question.
Would your/Jim's be the same?

Fair also, but I would like to see Spence's answer to my question before commenting.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, be honest, would you be of the same opinion if this was the same
issue under Bush and Rice?

I've never claimed Bush lied. I'd place Rice in the same boat as Powell, trying to do the right thing but surrounded by others who had an agenda. I'd note they've both been publicly ostracized by the Admin insiders.

Also, just as the Senate investigated Benghazi it investigated Iraq as well. Phase 1 found the Intel was bogus and Phase 2 (after repeated attempts by the GOP to kill it) found 10-5 that the Administration made repeated claims as fact that weren't supported by actual evidence.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Also, just as the Senate investigated Benghazi it investigated Iraq as well. Phase 1 found the Intel was bogus and Phase 2 (after repeated attempts by the GOP to kill it) found 10-5 that the Administration made repeated claims as fact that weren't supported by actual evidence.

-spence

So in that case, your previous statement, "How many investigations do you need", wouldn't apply as they had your so called 2 phases.
I would say in any investigation you should be open to any and all information that will lead to the truth and rule out the bogus. You can't know the whole truth until all information is investigated.
There is very good reason to continue the investigation in Benghazi as one of the characters involved was facing re-election a month later and would have been negatively affected by the outcome if this were called a terrorist attack, and the other character wanting it to appear she did a stellar job in the position she held lead to a Presidential run in 2016.

Common sense would say both would want to stonewall info if they didn't do their jobs, or open the flood gates of info if they had done a stellar job.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

So in that case, your previous statement, "How many investigations do you need", wouldn't apply as they had your so called 2 phases.

Well, in that case it was political. The Senate Dems couldn't get the Repubs to do anything unless they agrees to push off the Admin use of intel into a future phase. And then, the Repubs dragged their heels until the Dems took the Senate.

I would say in any investigation you should be open to any and all information that will lead to the truth and rule out the bogus. You can't know the whole truth until all information is investigated.
There is very good reason to continue the investigation in Benghazi as one of the characters involved was facing re-election a month later and would have been negatively affected by the outcome if this were called a terrorist attack, and the other character wanting it to appear she did a stellar job in the position she held lead to a Presidential run in 2016.

That's a presumption of guilt.

Common sense would say both would want to stonewall info if they didn't do their jobs, or open the flood gates of info if they had done a stellar job.

The Mullen investigation was pretty substantial and from everything I've read they had good cooperation by the Administration. They interviewed over 100 people and apparently made public attempts to solicit information. Why didn't these people come forth earlier? Because they were intimidated? Come on...

I'd also note (as I assume nobody here has taken a second to bother and read up about it) it lays plenty of blame on the State Department for not having better contingency plans on the table or responding to escalating threats.

This is the rub, all this whistle blower flack appears to just be some ticked off insiders stating things that have already been investigated.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by justplugit

There is very good reason to continue the investigation in Benghazi as one of the characters involved was facing re-election a month later and would have been negatively affected by the outcome if this were called a terrorist attack, and the other character wanting it to appear she did a stellar job in the position she held lead to a Presidential run in 2016.

Spence- [/Quote] "that is an assumption of guilt."

No Spence ,it's just a red flag going up in an inquiring mind.