Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 11
60
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Ahhh the old plausible deniability card eh

Looks like the hideous snake in a human costume has shown it's true face, confirming to us all she nor her consorts give a damn about doing their job nor care about the safety of national security.

Like with 911, they decided it was Bin laden just minutes after the first plane hit.. it did not matter after that it was going to be Bin laden and those evil Muslims after that because what difference does it make at this point .... umm yeah well figure it out excuse hence the commission report , a contrived pile of B.S. and lies.


Like I have always said, these politicians do not work for us the whole lot of them nor do they answer to us let alone anyone on the stand. They have a sub agenda and their handlers will always bail them out in the end and they know it.


They also hunted Bin Laden down, killed him boondock saints style and threw him in the ocean


While she is up there ask her what really happened to Bin Laden... see her cringe


We need to round em all up and ship them off to some secluded island occupied by headhunters
edit on 25-1-2013 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by theconspirator
 


That's the same question.

Why did it happen? Protest, planned etc.

SAME QUESTION.

Some of us in America are not dumb enough to fall for this circle talk...or doublespeak.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


no the question was, why didnt the state department know the cause of the attack immediatly after. That is a different question then why did the attack happen.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
If you hold Hillary in any type of esteem or would ever consider voting for her, take a look at her early political career:

Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior

Read more: joemiller.us...



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


This is an important thread and I hope her words are analyzed further. It's terrible how she's making it out to be the equivalent of an auto accident.

Not to derail, but check out the second video in this article: www.weeklystandard.com...
I don't think it looks like Hillary. After all, she was MIA for a while with her mysterious fall and blood clot situation. I honestly think it could possibly be a body double. Even the sound of her voice is different. I don't know. Maybe this is nothing, but I thought I'd throw it out there.


OMG It's clearly NOT her. And wtf is she talking about in those videos??? And those fake tears. Seriously.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Shema
 

You can tell when a politician is lying, their lips move.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   
She burns.
4 dead,she claims she didn't know,dereliction of duty,failure to prepare,unsatisfactory command of a national office.
No reason is an excuse.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee

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.


That still makes no sense. The Administration has assesed over 28 specific areas of issue with security to change and the state department has accepted responsibility and they have made changes. they have welcomed investigations and conducted them internal and external....but you think this should have been complete 5 days after? And that they were trying to hide what they themselves have admitted? By giving false information as to the cause?

The Newton shooting was in Conn/USA and the State Police say it will be another 5 months before they complete thier investigation...but you wanted the FBI to have all the details rock solid 5 days after Behngazi?

Not buying that you even believe that is rational. This appears to me to me nothing more than a partisan motivated kick off to 2016 on the backs of dead Americans.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I think people on this side of the reality-divide need to see this

feministing.com...

Romney/Ryan 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edit to add: It is going to be a LANDSLIDE!
edit on 27-1-2013 by narwahl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by SunnyDee

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.


That still makes no sense. The Administration has assesed over 28 specific areas of issue with security to change and the state department has accepted responsibility and they have made changes. they have welcomed investigations and conducted them internal and external....but you think this should have been complete 5 days after? And that they were trying to hide what they themselves have admitted? By giving false information as to the cause?

The Newton shooting was in Conn/USA and the State Police say it will be another 5 months before they complete thier investigation...but you wanted the FBI to have all the details rock solid 5 days after Behngazi?

Not buying that you even believe that is rational. This appears to me to me nothing more than a partisan motivated kick off to 2016 on the backs of dead Americans.


Indigo, I'm gonna try your way. Here we go.....Wow, can't believe you really think everything you are told on t.v. is the truth, Honestly, I'm really trying to understand you, but I just can't believe you can come to this thread, over and over, and repeat the official diatribe to us all here, mock me in the thread, and when that doesn't work bring in other subjects (sandy hook) and add some partisonship as a final stab.

It has been helpful that you keep posting, because you give others the opportunity to post our sentiments, that are contrary to yours. It's is good to keep these conversations on-going and in the spotlight. I just have to add, I voted for Obama....once.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I don't think this is in the MSM anymore so the topic is over.

If it aint in the news it just don't matter.

No1cur.





new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join