|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
11-04-2015, 03:14 PM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Sure the State department made mistakes, nobody is discounting that, but they were described as systemic mistakes. Did Clinton create any entirely new system when she became Secretary? Did Clinton direct any structural changes that complicated the interdepartmental communication?
The findings were that nobody was derelict in their duty...
Also, yes, it's not been "proven" it wasn't planned in advance but there's significant evidence that it also wasn't and our intelligence agencies have at times believed the video was a motivator.
Like what?
God is certainly wrong on occasion.
I've never claimed there is "proof" but there is substantial evidence that it could have been, evidence that was accepted by government analysts and relayed to the Administration.
You're contradicting yourself in this paragraph.
Additionally, It's not hard to believe that well armed and experienced militants couldn't get this attack together in a few hours.
There certainly could have been an attack in the future, but without the video scandal and a chance to derail a presidential campaign this entire story becomes far less substantial. If the video was a motivator, even if just influencing the timing or providing encouragement then a lot of the Administration criticism is baseless.
This by the way, is exactly what the ARB, Senate Intel and House Intel reports suggest.
The initial low profile in Benghazi was the desire of Amb. Stevens, not directed by the State Department. The failure to adequately increase security to match the threat environment has been studied and changes made to improve the process.
Why doesn't this have to mean there was a scandal? Oh yes, Clinton.
If you were holding Bush to the same standard as you're holding Clinton he would have been invalid for a second term...or worse.
And unlike Bush, in Libya the United Nations had legal authority.
First off, this was not a public statement so I don't know what she really said. Secondly, on the day (Sept 14) she allegedly said that the CIA analysts were pointing to the video as a key motivator for the attack.
If that was the case one would assume the DOJ would be looking for any legal justification to go after the film maker, which they found, and he was arrested...
Shame on the woman for trying to console a grieving parent.
|
"Did Clinton create any entirely new system when she became Secretary?"
I believe she was the first Secstate to use the particular email system in her basement.
Also, she was personally the one (well, one of the ones) who kept flip-flopping about the root cause of the attack. You have stated that every time she stated the cause, it was based on the latest credible intelligence she had received. Yet you offered exactly no proof of that, which means you don't have any. Also, by a stunning coincidence, all of her public statements blamed the attack on the video, thus implying that she could not have foreseen that attack (despite the fact that other agencies and the Red Cross foresaw this exact threat).
Do you see the pattern here Spence? You take everything she says at face value, with no skepticism, no demand for proof. Everything that makes her look like a liar, you categorically deny, regardless of the supporting evidence.
Then she testified "what difference does it make" what the cause was? In other words, if the cause was a planned attack, she looks like an incompetent liar, so let's drop the subject and talk about things that really matter, like the war on women and ATM fees.
Spence, isn't there another totalitarian nitwit out there that you agree with on every single issue, who doesn't have the scandals that she has, that you could get behind?
If you could show us a chain of intelligence reports, where her flip-flops timed exactly with when the CIA kept changing its mind about the cause, i would never bring this up again.
But if you coulda, you woulda.
I don't doubt there are differing reports. But what clearly happened, was that she chose to rely NOT on th elatest report, but on which report gave her th ebest political cover at that time.
|
|
|
|
11-04-2015, 04:17 PM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,182
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
I believe she was the first Secstate to use the particular email system in her basement.
|
Versus the living room? Totally different issue and largely irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
11-04-2015, 04:36 PM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Versus the living room? Totally different issue and largely irrelevant.
|
It was a joke. You asked if she installed any new systems, and she did - in her basement. But she wasn't th efirst Secstate to use a personal server.
As to the flip-flopping on the cause.
Rubio called her a liar, flat-out, in the GOP debate.
Now, if she was always basing her statements on the latest intelligence, no one can fault her for changing her tune, right? But if that were the case, she would have shown that evidence by now, because then it's a non story. If every single one of her flip-flops was the result of a new intelligence report (which said, "I know what we told you yesterday, but disregard that, because we have new intel"...), then no one can blame her for flip-flopping.
Th efact that she hasn't shown a timeline that shows that her statements were always based on the latest report, tells all of us that there is no such connection. At every moment in time, she probably had some reports that said it was the video, and some that said it was planned.
What all fair-minded people conclude, is that she based her statement-d- jour not on the most recent credible report, but on whichever report gave her the best political cover at the time, if she felt she needed any.
That's what is deplorable. It's beneath the character requirements for the job she seeks.
Then there's that whole sniper fire thing. And her claim that Bill didn't cheat on her, but was rather the "victim", naturally, of the GOP who was framing him. How can you defend THAT? Do you think she honestly believed, at the time, that Bill was innocent, and that the GOP was framing him? Or do you think she knew she was lying?
Spin that any way you want.
And I think she's close to un-beatable unless she gets indicted, which is extremely unlikely.
|
|
|
|
11-04-2015, 06:26 PM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,182
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Rubio called her a liar, flat-out, in the GOP debate.
|
Something he will regret if he makes it further. The facts aren't on his side.
You like facts right?
|
|
|
|
11-04-2015, 09:12 PM
|
#5
|
Registered Grandpa
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Something he will regret if he makes it further. The facts aren't on his side.
You like facts right?
|
What facts are you using to disprove that Hillary didn't lie, Spence?
|
" Choose Life "
|
|
|
11-04-2015, 10:03 PM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Something he will regret if he makes it further. The facts aren't on his side.
You like facts right?
|
Which facts, exactly, aren't on his side?
If Hilary has a timeline of when she got the differing reports, and that timeline shows she was always relying on the latest report, then she is not lying. But the only one saying that, is you. I said this before, I'll say it one last time. If you have the proof that she was simply relying on what she was told every time she flip-flopped, let's see it. If it holds water, I will be the first person to say we can't blame her for the fact that the intelligence community kept telling her to change her tune.
But you haven't shared any such facts. Neither has she. There's only one reason why that is.
Spence, the woman is a serial liar. I was shot at by snipers. Bill didn't cheat on me, the GOP just made it look that way.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:13 PM.
|
| |