Hillary Clinton - "what difference does it make at this point"

page: 10
60
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The WH is directly responsible for the dissemnation of this false information then, by not CLEARLY stating that a video was not responsible or might not have been responsible, from day 1. In fact, It was so irresponsible to allow such a rumor to get out in the first place, that it reaks of intention.

No matter what went down at Benghazi, a rumor was allowed to be the storyline, that is the bottom line. A spokesman for the WH, came too little to late and with too little. I mean what kind of intelligent govt are we running, if we can't come up with a safe way to present this type of situation from the get-go with well thought out information?

The answer is, it was thought out, the WH house response or lack of response. You can't tell me there were not a lot of brains involved in all this.




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
you people are stupidly predictable. or predictably stupid. maybe both. Just like the "you didnt build that" comment, you refuse to hear the entire conversation. Instead you hear 1 edited line from foxnews, and think that was the only thing said. If you listen to what she said in its entirety, you would agree with her.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The WH is directly responsible for the dissemnation of this false information then, by not CLEARLY stating that a video was not responsible or might not have been responsible, from day 1. In fact, It was so irresponsible to allow such a rumor to get out in the first place, that it reaks of intention.


The WH let an Ambassador to the UN (Rice) make a statement that began with



RICE:

Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.


And ended with...


We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present.


And said this in between





But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.



The news media did the rest, and yes the WH and Intelligence community did not update/correct them each day as the intelligence evolved. I don't fault them for that. If the mission is to track down those responsible it does not serve the CIA to forfiet intelligence as it evolves to the news media in real-time.


Originally posted by SunnyDee

No matter what went down at Benghazi, a rumor was allowed to be the storyline, that is the bottom line. A spokesman for the WH, came too little to late and with too little.


Whatever you want to "feel"...OK. Damned if they do...Damned if they don't. Contrary to the unity and respect the minority party displayed toward the Administration on 9-11, the GOP were attacking this administration while the attack was still occuring. They demanded "ANSWERS!!!" the morning after. The Administration, prepared a heavily hedged statement outlining what they were able to share of what they knew. Damned if they did, damned if they didn't. The argument that they should have shared nothing until they were certain is painful BS, cuz the GOP...Romney and others ...were twittering BS before we even recovered Ambassador Stephens body.

Partisan BS and political exploitation are all the more ugly in this context.

I am actually grateful that Pres. Bush was in office vs. a Democrat on 9-11. I don't think my heart could have stomached this type of polticizing tragedy if the GOP had been the minority then and behaving as they are now. It is cold-hearted opportunism and dishonesty on the backs of dead Americans.
edit on 25-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by theconspirator
. If you listen to what she said in its entirety, you would agree with her.


No...They have in fact read her whole statement. I provided it on page one...It just doesn't matter...that's not how idealogical extemists think. It's not lack of full context...it's an aversion to any context or facts that contradicts what they "feel".
edit on 25-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The WH is directly responsible for the dissemnation of this false information then, by not CLEARLY stating that a video was not responsible or might not have been responsible, from day 1. In fact, It was so irresponsible to allow such a rumor to get out in the first place, that it reaks of intention.

No matter what went down at Benghazi, a rumor was allowed to be the storyline, that is the bottom line. A spokesman for the WH, came too little to late and with too little. I mean what kind of intelligent govt are we running, if we can't come up with a safe way to present this type of situation from the get-go with well thought out information?

The answer is, it was thought out, the WH house response or lack of response. You can't tell me there were not a lot of brains involved in all this.




i think from now on through his 2nd term, the president and his entire staff should not release any information about anything that could cause speculation, until a full investigation is completed.....republicans cannot handle speculation, pre-intelligence briefs, or conjectures, without their heads exploding with anger, conspirecy theory, and paranoia.
since they trust nothing said from any democrat, liberal, or even a republican that is not on the far-right, any information that might be in doubt, should not be released.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

To take 1 sentence out of this quote and put it in a different context to make her sound like she doesnt care about people dying is manipulative, and a tactic by MSM and a lot of politicians that is causing a lot of damage to this country.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


You are very good at cut and paste, and your examples point to exactly what I just said, and that is in a nutshell, a late and shoddy response from the WH that enabled a rumor to become the headline for weeks.

Or do you deny it was a late response and that is was shoddy? After all Rice did not grant us an official response to the situation until September 16th, a full 5 days after the event. By then, riots were in full swing.

And Rice is not just some nobody. She is intelligent so it would seem.

en.wikipedia.org...
Rice was managing director and principal at Intellibridge from 2001 to 2002.[30][31] In 2002 she joined the Brookings Institution as senior fellow in the foreign policy program. At Brookings, she focused on U.S. foreign policy, weak and failing states, the implications of global poverty, and transnational threats to security.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, Rice served as a foreign policy adviser to John Kerry.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by theconspirator
reply to post by Indigo5
 


"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

To take 1 sentence out of this quote and put it in a different context to make her sound like she doesnt care about people dying is manipulative, and a tactic by MSM and a lot of politicians that is causing a lot of damage to this country.


What? Did you watch her during this line of questioning? Her response that you quoted was what she said. And it came off as ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
No offense...but this is getting a little exhausting on my end.


Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by Indigo5
 


You are very good at cut and paste,


Funny...I see it as providing actual transcripts, text, citations etc. in the face of emotional and dishonest responses. Are you deriding the fact that I choose to bring actual facts, transcripts and links to the discussion?


Originally posted by SunnyDee
and your examples point to exactly what I just said, and that is in a nutshell, a late and shoddy response from the WH that enabled a rumor to become the headline for weeks.

Or do you deny it was a late response and that is was shoddy? After all Rice did not grant us an official response to the situation until September 16th, a full 5 days after the event. By then, riots were in full swing.


I think we disagree on what is "late"...You seem to not be reading the excerpt of Rice's statement to the press explaining that nothing was certain, intelligence was evolving and investigations were still early stage?

By "late"...you mean 5 days after the event? By then they should know every detail with certaintity? I think we fundementally disagree on how long it takes to confirm or discredit human intelligence. In the case of WMD in Iraq we didn't discredit that false intelligence until YEARS afterward, after we had toppled a government and thousands had died. I will forgive someone not having precise information 5 days after the event and wouldn't qualify it as "late".



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
i think from now on through his 2nd term, the president and his entire staff should not release any information about anything that could cause speculation, until a full investigation is completed.....republicans cannot handle speculation, pre-intelligence briefs, or conjectures, without their heads exploding with anger, conspirecy theory, and paranoia.
since they trust nothing said from any democrat, liberal, or even a republican that is not on the far-right, any information that might be in doubt, should not be released.


Well I cant read your take on this from your response above, but to make this about the 2 parties is doing a disservice to us all.

We just want either the truth or when not yet available, a timely response that keeps the peace.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Well if you are exhausted you can quit now. but do you not think 5 days is a late response? 5 days is quite late, when nations are rioting. Should I build a timeline of those 5 days of all the ensuing riots the kept building day after day in those 5 days?



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee

Well I cant read your take on this from your response above, but to make this about the 2 parties is doing a disservice to us all.


Agree here! Now maybe you can explain why two men looking to run on the GOP ticket in 2016 (Marco Rubio and Rand Paul) were without explanation appointed to the special committee right before the Secretary of State, (who also is seen as potential candidate for President in 2016) testifies?

Why Darryl Issa who heads the committee released sensitive documents exposing Libyian contacts?

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday, according to Obama administration officials.


thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

Why Mitt Romney was "twittering" for political points while the attack was still unfolding?

I agree..
edit on 25-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Well if you are exhausted you can quit now. but do you not think 5 days is a late response? 5 days is quite late, when nations are rioting. Should I build a timeline of those 5 days of all the ensuing riots the kept building day after day in those 5 days?


You seem confused? The riots were occuring before and during the attack as well as after. Are you allledging some strange causality between the initial reports of the attack being related to protestors/the film and the protests that continued afterward regarding the film? ...I don't get it.

If anything the possibility that the attack was spurred by film protestors made other countries tone down thier protests related to the film...several cases of protestors taking to the streets in the middle east vehemently denouncing the attack on the consulate...while continuing to protest the film itself.

What are you contending?



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee

Originally posted by theconspirator
reply to post by Indigo5
 


"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

To take 1 sentence out of this quote and put it in a different context to make her sound like she doesnt care about people dying is manipulative, and a tactic by MSM and a lot of politicians that is causing a lot of damage to this country.


What? Did you watch her during this line of questioning? Her response that you quoted was what she said. And it came off as ridiculous.


Hillary made a fool out of herself.
That's why the MSM pleaded for another headline to change the subject away from Hillary.
Give us something! Anything!
No. No not that.
No.
How about Women Serving in Combat? THAT'S IT !!!



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by Indigo5
 


but do you not think 5 days is a late response?


Simply put, no. The President and others responded with a public statement immediately. Rice provided further info 5 days later and heavily qualified that info as uncertain. They then clarified that intelligence within what? a week. Compared to the false intelligence of WMDs in Iraq which took years to discredit and after an invasion and thousands of lives lost, I might add...I think 5 days isn't late by any standard.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Well if you are exhausted you can quit now. but do you not think 5 days is a late response? 5 days is quite late, when nations are rioting. Should I build a timeline of those 5 days of all the ensuing riots the kept building day after day in those 5 days?


You seem confused? The riots were occuring before and during the attack as well as after. Are you allledging some strange causality between the initial reports of the attack being related to protestors/the film and the protests that continued afterward regarding the film? ...I don't get it.

If anything the possibility that the attack was spurred by film protestors made other countries tone down thier protests related to the film...several cases of protestors taking to the streets in the middle east vehemently denouncing the attack on the consulate...while continuing to protest the film itself.

What are you contending?



So now I seemed confused? I for one see what your purpose in this thread is. And I have no doubt others do too. We'll just leave it at, you think the WH response was fine, and I think it was handled in a way that allowed the truth to be obscured for a short enough time, by way of a contentious rumor that overtook the headlines for weeks, and allow the admin the time to form a metered response.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
and I think it was handled in a way that allowed the truth to be obscured for a short enough time, by way of a contentious rumor that overtook the headlines for weeks, and allow the admin the time to form a metered response.


OK..Thanks for explaining what you were inferring. So you think that the WH intentionally misled the public to "allow the admin the time to form a metered response."

Honestly...no offense...but still don't get it? What was the motivation for the alledged "obscuring" of a truth they knew?
edit on 25-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by SunnyDee
and I think it was handled in a way that allowed the truth to be obscured for a short enough time, by way of a contentious rumor that overtook the headlines for weeks, and allow the admin the time to form a metered response.


OK..Thanks for explaining what you were inferring. So you think that the WH intentionally misled the public to "allow the admin the time to form a metered response."

Honestly...no offense...but still don't get it? What was the motivation for the alledged "obscuring" of a truth they knew?
edit on 25-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


The motivation? The facts have shown that there was security issues prior to the attack I think it's possible that mistakes or even true negligence occured, and that is not something an admin might want to share immediately after the fact of the attack.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by theconspirator
 


So you seriously don't see the irony in her statement?

Sentence one.

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans?

Sentence two.

What difference at this point does it make?

Sentence three.

It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."


It doesn't matter what happened, we just need to find out what happened?

Stupid is as stupid does.

You can't find out WHY, unless you know WHY.








posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


that would be a good point if the question she was anwsering "why did this attack happen" but that was not the question.

The question was, ... why the State Department couldn't immediately determine whether the attack had come out of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video, or a terrorist attack.





new topics
top topics
 
60
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join