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

This is horrible and ties in so much with this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And I mentioned this thread in that thread
Because despite what she said in this thread, people as you will see in that thread still defend her.

Originally posted by Indigo5
By "pretty much the same" you mean strategically edited to meet with your constructed narrative?

Um ... no. 'what difference does it make at this point' and 'what difference does it make at this point' ... that's looking the same to me. If it makes you happy to think it's different .. then knock yourself out ... enjoy ...

Her attitude came out loud and clear.
Surprised the heck out of me.

I'm really thinking it's the concussion that made her so honest about her feelings in this matter. Like I said, I had a concussion once and for about 2 months after getting it, I would let things fly. I was very candid with what I was thinking and my emotions didn't have anything holding them back. I'm wondering if she's having the same kind of concussion symptoms.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7


Was she or was she not the Secretary of State? Yes she was.
Is Libya a dangerous place? I do believe it is.
Did they send an envoy of ambassadorial staff to a war zone essentially unprotected without support effectively deployable?
Yes SHE DID.
What FACTS confuse you?

Originally posted by cavtrooper7

Normally in the TRADITIONAL AMERICAN method of SOP you don't just drop off people in hot zones without an extraction plan IN PLACE.Usually the SECDEF has knuckle draggers on staff but Hillary has a LONG history of hating the military.
I have no idea why it isn't understood,but that's the game after Reagan"It's not MY fault".

It was not a designated war zone.
They were not without protection staff.
They did deploy an extraction team.
They did not "deny" assistance.
They did not watch it "live".

"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts"

From an OP that begins with a heavily edited excerpt to meet a narrative...to a whole lot of dishonesty or less than informed claims. Its hard to have a legitmate discussion.

Originally posted by bknapple32
I highly doubt she was saying what does it matter about those people being dead. C'mon.

She didn't say that at all. She wasn't saying that it didn't matter that they were dead. She said that it didn't matter how they got that way. And she gave two examples to pick from ... neither of them were what really happened (which was a planned out terrorist attack).

Seriously .. I'm thinking the concussion has peeled back a layer or something and we are seeing where her thoughts really are .... I can't prove that of course, but that's my thought on it.

Agreed. Really hard to have a discourse when no one can agree on a set of facts. And those who intentionally muddy the water will blame that on those in charge. But its an empty claim.

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater
for her and many other politicians the truth makes no difference.

Oh it does.

That's why they lie so much.

reply to post by smurfy


I don't know for sure, but it seems as though the answer she provides simply refers us back to the original question.
The question:

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

The answer:

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

She's totally avoiding the question. Discovering whether it happened because of a protest or a bunch of thugs is very important to figuring out the nature as to why it's happening at all. So, Hillary, why are you avoiding discussing pertinent details that will answer this, so we can move on?
We are never going to learn the truth. She's been well trained in the art of evading sensitive questions so that she won't have to plead the 5th., which would make her guilt obvious and attract more attention. Once you remove her snide remark, it appears that she does not want the answer to this question to be known. The snide remark is an obvious release of nervous energy.
Is Hillary trying to stall because the UN can't decide if it wants to demonize protestors or gangbangers next? Who's the next boogieman going to be?

Quick poll.... Do all of you assume every single one of these politicians lie with every breath they take? If so, why punish yourself by keeping tabs on all of this?

reply to post by Afterthought


The one thing shes not doing is avoiding questions. She stayed for an extra hour... She took the grilling from some very partisan republicans... You may not believe what she says, but she hasnt avoided anything. She has even prefaced that some of her answer is classified thus cant elaborate.

Its really a disservice to truth to just pick and chose single questions and answers. Some times she answered items out of order in how they were asked. So you can quote one answer, but it may have been elaborated on later.

reply to post by bknapple32

The one thing shes not doing is avoiding questions. She stayed for an extra hour... She took the grilling from some very partisan republicans... You may not believe what she says, but she hasnt avoided anything.

Fair enough. I haven't watched her complete testimony, so you may be right. Maybe she wasn't evading the questions and answering questions by rephrasing the question into statement form.
To your knowledge, did she answer the question of what started the situation at any time in the hearing? At any point did she say that the protestors started it, or a gang of thugs? Maybe she said it was something else? Just wondering because I am very interested in if she ever revealed these details.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by smurfy

 

I don't know for sure, but it seems as though the answer she provides simply refers us back to the original question.
The question:

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

The answer:

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

She's totally avoiding the question.

No..the question is how they breached security and managed to kill Americans.

Originally posted by Afterthought
Discovering whether it happened because of a protest or a bunch of thugs is very important to figuring out the nature as to why it's happening at all.

Do you envision a world without thugs or terrorists? Or how about we simply assume there will always be folks looking to hurt American officials and focus on the security failure.

The CIA are the ones tasked with finding the specific parties involved.

The state department has to assume that there will always be security threats and address security to it's ambassadors. Again, this is precisely what she is saying.

Originally posted by okiecowboy
This has been the most amazing dog and pony show you can imagine....she has danced and circled, twisted and turned. Done everything except give a direct answer to questions.

That's what I saw,she danced around each question,

But you know it's complicated.
That's what we are trying to figure out.
I never said that.

Well if you are not responsible, your highness who is?

Oh wait, Obama and Hillary never make mistakes, no one in this administration has. fricken awesome.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Indigo5
By "pretty much the same" you mean strategically edited to meet with your constructed narrative?

Um ... no. 'what difference does it make at this point' and 'what difference does it make at this point' ... that's looking the same to me. If it makes you happy to think it's different .. then knock yourself out ... enjoy ...

Her attitude came out loud and clear.
Surprised the heck out of me.

I'm really thinking it's the concussion that made her so honest about her feelings in this matter. Like I said, I had a concussion once and for about 2 months after getting it, I would let things fly. I was very candid with what I was thinking and my emotions didn't have anything holding them back. I'm wondering if she's having the same kind of concussion symptoms.

Forget about concussion, you are adding your own hearsay as to, and you continue to quote out of context. A court of law would throw both that out. Had you took the whole quote, and then said the woman is talking porkies, since there should have been no one US in the embassy in the first place going by the prior events, like Red Cross attack, UN attack, British diplomatic attack and evacuation, that IS something to discuss.

reply to post by Afterthought


She said it was definitely a terrorist attack.

reply to post by Indigo5


So you say now please show us.


Libya isn't a war zone? Oh yes it was completely pacified and all hosile elements were in check....not.
AKA "war zone","hot zone" if you're arguing semantics you still miss the point.

reply to post by Indigo5

Do you envision a world without thugs or terrorists? Or how about we simply assume there will always be folks looking to hurt American officials and focus on the security failure.

Every day I fantasize about living in a world that's not run by psychopaths for psychopaths.

The CIA are the ones tasked with finding the specific parties involved.

Yes. Central "intelligence". The same people who were supposed to have reported the need for assistance request to Hillary's attention. What happened? Who dropped the ball here or is Hillary just going to throw them under the bus?
Why was their request for additional security ignored or placed on the back burner?

reply to post by Afterthought


Actually that's a fib growing into a lie.


5 security personnel were requested. And that's exactly what they had the night of the attack.

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by Afterthought

 

She said it was definitely a terrorist attack.

Thank you for answering what she stated, but who organized this terrorist attack?
Did she name a specific group or individual responsible for organizing the attack?

reply to post by bknapple32

5 security personnel were requested.

That's what I said. They requested more security.
How can my statement be a fib when you're supplying the details to my "untrue" statement?

Edit to Add: I would like to see the testimony regarding the time that elapsed from the time of the request to the time of the responders' arrival. Where does it state that five were requested? Who estimated, then recommended that only five more security personnel were necessary considering the situation they were experiencing on their end.

I suppose I'll have to take the time to watch the entire testimony before commenting again. It has been a while since the event and details are fuzzy.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Libya isn't a war zone? Oh yes it was completely pacified and all hosile elements were in check....not.
AKA "war zone","hot zone" if you're arguing semantics you still miss the point.

No. It wasn't a "War Zone"...nor was it "Completely pacified"....Most places in the world are somewhere in-between...and for you to offer a false binary choice that any region is either designated a "War Zone" like Afghanistan or "completely pacified" like Japan is false.

It was not a "War Zone" like you stated amongst other innaccuricies.

It was simply a dangerous place, like most of the world is to US Ambassadors. ....and I agree with Clinton...the CIA worries about "who"...the State Department worries about "how"...because there will always be a "who" in this dangerous world.