Hillary's Teflon pantsuit -- nothing is going to stick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buzz

It's the Republicans and their media outlet FOX News that insult the intelligence.

Pure politics.

---

VS. the Democrats, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews and the state run media?
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/b...51/ROFLMAO.jpg

Are you here all week?????

I just read a brief CNN article which referred to UN Ambassador Rice's appearance on 5 Sunday television shows. They did say that she was on the shows to provide White House talking points. However, CNN then reported that the statements she had made in the White House' behalf as being later found to be INCOMPLETE. That's how CNN ended its story.

Incomplete? How about INCORRECT. There is a big difference.

If this was the only article anyone had read, they would think Rice just left something out when she went around to the 5 talk shows to feed the Administration's propaganda.

That was CNN... not Fox News.

I am wondering what the military is thinking about all of this. Someone could have responded in 6 or 7 hours. I recall that one representative referred to Benghazi as a death trap. It was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by helencalif

I just read a brief CNN article which referred to UN Ambassador Rice's appearance on 5 Sunday television shows. They did say that she was on the shows to provide White House talking points. However, CNN then reported that the statements she had made in the White House' behalf as being later found to be INCOMPLETE. That's how CNN ended its story.

Incomplete? How about INCORRECT. There is a big difference.

If this was the only article anyone had read, they would think Rice just left something out when she went around to the 5 talk shows to feed the Administration's propaganda.

That was CNN... not Fox News.

---

"At this point, what difference does it make???"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buzz

It's the Republicans and their media outlet FOX News that insult the intelligence.

Pure politics.

---

Does this mean that you believe Hillary's testimony? That she was unaware of the need for more security at Benghazi? That she did not see the requests? However, operating in such an administrative vacuum, she takes full responsibility? I find that, alone, very inconsistent. If someone takes full responsibility, why would they not expect messages of high priority to reach them?

These seem reasonable questions of competency.

If you want to dump this whole series of events into "just politics", then we cannot rule out that the concealment of these events, just prior to the election, was a strong political motive for the incumbent administration. Hillary had already announced that she was ending her tenure as SOS, and probably holding her breath that nothing would blow up before she left.