CIA talking points that have been shown to have been written by the white house.So CIA talking points and classified documents qualify as incompetence now? How does that even make sense?
What she did was attempt to avoid a question that is central to the event and that she has obfuscated, avoided, and refused to answer accurately.What she belittled was the repeat asking of an irrelevant and political question which had already been answered.
Here was the original question: "Did anybody in the State Department talk to those folks very shortly afterwards?"
Here was the multitude of answers:
Hillary's 'What Difference Does It Make' in Context*|*Alan Colmes"There was discussion going on afterwards, but once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them, and so other than our people in Tripoli -- which, I think you're talking about Washington, right?"
"We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did not -- I think this is accurate, sir -- I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC [Intelligence Community] talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows."
"Senator, you know, when you're in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one--"
"Well, no, it's the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown"
Clinton had answered the question multiple times.
Uhh, no, they were shown to have been written by the CIA. They underwent "revisions" and the recently released e-mail which has been made a big ado about nothing noted how some in the White House wanted to make sure the focus was on protests, but the intelligence and the talking points came from the CIA. These are just facts.CIA talking points that have been shown to have been written by the white house.
See above. She answered it accurately. Johnson just was trying to get her to say something which would hurt politically (which she did to people unconcerned about context of words) and once Johnson was satisfied the question became a political football, he quit asking questions. Hillary said NOTHING different in the full "what difference does it make" paragraph she hadn't already said once or twice before, but once she gave a soundbite which Johnson/Republicans thought they could use to the ignorants who would never look for the full context of the quote, then Johnson was done.What she did was attempt to avoid a question that is central to the event and that she has obfuscated, avoided, and refused to answer accurately.
It was simply political. Nothing Clinton said was offensive and anyone saying otherwise is simply not interested in truth, only partisanship. Which is what I said from the very beginning.
What would I recant? Calling a left wing extremist isn't a slur as far as I know? Maybe it will become one. Hillary's word are not misconstrued, not being used falsely, for they mearly illustrate how she intends to handle adversity and her own mishaps. Any way your post comes off as one hurt by being labeled with your beliefs. It makes me wonder why you'd be hurt with a political leaning you so continuously promote?
"What difference" "does it make?"
Days later, Clinton looked the parents of the murdered men in the eye and told them she would make sure the maker of the video would go to jail when she knew the video had nothing to do with it.
Absolutely they are. I've proven that multiple times in this thread.Hillary's word are not misconstrued
The only leaning I promote is one dedicated to the facts. I cannot help it if right now a Democrat is in office and the Republicans are constantly having to lie in order to get him out of office. I have no doubt when the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats will do the same thing.Any way your post comes off as one hurt by being labeled with your beliefs. It makes me wonder why you'd be hurt with a political leaning you so continuously promote?
But the fact is that right now, most of the lies and misinformation are coming from the right wing. So when I enter a thread to correct those spewing false information, and they happen to be right wing, that says far more about the willingness of those practicing team politics than it does about my own personal political leanings.
You show me where I called you a liar and I'll apologize accordingly. Stating your opinion is wrong is my right. Hilda uttered the words for all to hear. I don't even put them in context, and only one so extreme as to blindly defend her at all costs to their integrity would try to apply her words to a context that doesn't matter.
Hilda's refusal to label these terrorists as such is merely a second simple indication of how she would fail to handle serious issues of our time.
"What difference" "does it make?"