quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

No one blamed them on a stupid Youtube video

im incredulous---Hillary Clinton said exactly that at the service when family members were present after the caskets had been brought off the plane.

Hillary also explained doing so as "The Fog of War" at the Senate Bengazi hearings. Hillary is someone therefore, someone did blame a stupid video. I watched the video. It was pretty stupid. It was supposed to be about Mohammad fucking a jackass. I was thinking Tiajana. I was pretty disappointed.

Except in either case she never blamed it on a video. That is pure nutsuckerism. The kind that you can see Russia from your house.

quote:


Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet [my emphasis]. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

quote:


This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



Since when are three eye witnesses to an event insufficient to establish proof?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

No one blamed them on a stupid Youtube video

im incredulous---Hillary Clinton said exactly that at the service when family members were present after the caskets had been brought off the plane.

Hillary also explained doing so as "The Fog of War" at the Senate Bengazi hearings. Hillary is someone therefore, someone did blame a stupid video. I watched the video. It was pretty stupid. It was supposed to be about Mohammad fucking a jackass. I was thinking Tiajana. I was pretty disappointed.

Except in either case she never blamed it on a video. That is pure nutsuckerism. The kind that you can see Russia from your house.

Except that the person that said - you can see Russia from your house was Tina Fey.

And Clinton, did of course blame benghazi on a video.



Her statement at 10 pm

quote:


Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet [my emphasis]. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

And here's her statement Sept 14:

quote:


This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.

And while clinton is toeing the line legally - there is no question the she is planting the impression that rage and violence caused by a video was responsible for the attack on benghazi. When in fact - it HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

No one - other than than the administration - was blaming the attack on inflammatory material posted on the Internet. I defy you find one mainstream cite that says that, prior to the administrations comments on the tragedy.

The only person who took contemporaneous notes - which would be admissable in a court of law - has clinton making that statement. (Woods).
Kate Quigly - also says that Clinton blamed a "spontaneous protest".
Smith said - clinton promised to arrest the film maker responsible.


Since when are three eye witnesses to an event insufficient to establish proof?

quote:

Meanwhile, at the Thursday hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) demolished Clinton's apparently fresh assertion at the hearing that she didn't actually claim an obscure anti-Islam movie trailer posted on YouTube prompted the terrorist assault in Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. She now takes a more nuanced, twisted-like-a-pretzel position in which maybe some non-terrorist Muslims were suddenly stirred to violence in Libya by the video, but really at the same time it was a terrorist attack, something she testified Thursday has been her position the whole time. She talked about the video publicly not to point fingers but as a warning, she testified, to those who might attack U.S. interests in the region. In other words, like a good defense lawyer, Hillary was trying to confuse the issues and muddy the waters.

Clinton, who seems able to function just fine with what must be chronic cognitive dissonance, said minutes before Jordan's question:

quote:

I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said some have sought to justify the attack because of the video. I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks.

Jordan fired back:

quote:

We want to know the truth. The statement you sent out was a statement on Benghazi and you say vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material on the Internet. If that's not pointing as the motive of being a video, I don't know what is. And that's certainly what -- and that's certainly how the American people saw it.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260544/hillary-i-didnt-blame-benghazi-youtube-video-matthew-vadum

quote:

Mother of Benghazi victim: Hillary and Susan Rice told me “nose to nose” that the Mohammed video was to blame.

This makes two parents of men killed in Benghazi who’ve claimed that Hillary told them personally that the video was the prime mover in the attack. Tyrone Woods’s father went a step further and alleged that she vowed to have the filmmaker “arrested and prosecuted”

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

No one blamed them on a stupid Youtube video

im incredulous---Hillary Clinton said exactly that at the service when family members were present after the caskets had been brought off the plane.

Hillary also explained doing so as "The Fog of War" at the Senate Bengazi hearings. Hillary is someone therefore, someone did blame a stupid video. I watched the video. It was pretty stupid. It was supposed to be about Mohammad fucking a jackass. I was thinking Tiajana. I was pretty disappointed.

Except in either case she never blamed it on a video. That is pure nutsuckerism. The kind that you can see Russia from your house.

Except that the person that said - you can see Russia from your house was Tina Fey.

And Clinton, did of course blame benghazi on a video.



Her statement at 10 pm

quote:


Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet [my emphasis]. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

And here's her statement Sept 14:

quote:


This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.

And while clinton is toeing the line legally - there is no question the she is planting the impression that rage and violence caused by a video was responsible for the attack on benghazi. When in fact - it HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

No one - other than than the administration - was blaming the attack on inflammatory material posted on the Internet. I defy you find one mainstream cite that says that, prior to the administrations comments on the tragedy.

The only person who took contemporaneous notes - which would be admissable in a court of law - has clinton making that statement. (Woods).
Kate Quigly - also says that Clinton blamed a "spontaneous protest".
Smith said - clinton promised to arrest the film maker responsible.


Since when are three eye witnesses to an event insufficient to establish proof?

I see vile critter parts is likely trying to parse words and thoughts like Hillary did.

here's some of what youre stating, and the despicable and decrepit position he wants to cling to:

quote:

Meanwhile, at the Thursday hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) demolished Clinton's apparently fresh assertion at the hearing that she didn't actually claim an obscure anti-Islam movie trailer posted on YouTube prompted the terrorist assault in Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. She now takes a more nuanced, twisted-like-a-pretzel position in which maybe some non-terrorist Muslims were suddenly stirred to violence in Libya by the video, but really at the same time it was a terrorist attack, something she testified Thursday has been her position the whole time. She talked about the video publicly not to point fingers but as a warning, she testified, to those who might attack U.S. interests in the region. In other words, like a good defense lawyer, Hillary was trying to confuse the issues and muddy the waters.

Clinton, who seems able to function just fine with what must be chronic cognitive dissonance, said minutes before Jordan's question:

quote:

I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said some have sought to justify the attack because of the video. I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks.

Jordan fired back:

quote:

We want to know the truth. The statement you sent out was a statement on Benghazi and you say vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material on the Internet. If that's not pointing as the motive of being a video, I don't know what is. And that's certainly what -- and that's certainly how the American people saw it.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260544/hillary-i-didnt-blame-benghazi-youtube-video-matthew-vadum

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

then of course there's this (they must be lying nutsuckers!)

quote:

Mother of Benghazi victim: Hillary and Susan Rice told me “nose to nose” that the Mohammed video was to blame.

This makes two parents of men killed in Benghazi who’ve claimed that Hillary told them personally that the video was the prime mover in the attack. Tyrone Woods’s father went a step further and alleged that she vowed to have the filmmaker “arrested and prosecuted”

news for delusional liberals

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

I guess the Republicans in Congress have nothing better to do with their time, eh?

Like....run the country? I predicted at the start of the current session of House members, that this group would accomplish....

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF USE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

After 17 months of House Republican bullshit, I am correct. Further, they are looking for something.....ANYTHING....to attack Democrats on. They can not attack them on a whole host of things, like foreign policy, domestic policy, or reality. I heard that many of those first time Tea Partier's in the House are leaving after this current session, to 'pursue other things in life'. No, the GOP realizes these morons have done absolutely nothing. That the Democratic challengers can more easily convince people whom are angered at Congress doing nothing, to vote for them. Since last time Democrats controlled Congress, SHIT GOT DONE! Don't believe me? Check out that Affordable Care Act!

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Works for me, lets grab them up and sell them out, go to national single payer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Works for me, lets grab them up and sell them out, go to national single payer.

When you nationalize it, and the Public Health Service has no hospitals, the government controls the prices of all health. Wonder how many civilian hospitals are going to close. additionally, seems like it would provide health service like the Va to the entire public (might even take the Va and put it under PHS) like the government treats its veterans. Opinion based upon the way the government already treats medical care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Wonder how many civilian hospitals are going to close.


All hospitals are civilian except military hospitals. One would think you would know that.

additionally, seems like it would provide health service like the Va to the entire public (might even take the Va and put it under PHS) like the government treats its veterans.

What issues do you have with the v.a.?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Works for me, lets grab them up and sell them out, go to national single payer.

When you nationalize it, and the Public Health Service has no hospitals, the government controls the prices of all health. Wonder how many civilian hospitals are going to close. additionally, seems like it would provide health service like the Va to the entire public (might even take the Va and put it under PHS) like the government treats its veterans. Opinion based upon the way the government already treats medical care.

All of them, they are owned by the insurance companies. the buildings and the doctors and the patients and the equipment and the medical care will be taken over by the HHS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

Note how the gobshites avoided me for my capacity scare the bejesus out of their soul like their partners, who have no idea they re here, as they seek a close up cunt shot to enslave with their meek minds

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Works for me, lets grab them up and sell them out, go to national single payer.

When you nationalize it, and the Public Health Service has no hospitals, the government controls the prices of all health. Wonder how many civilian hospitals are going to close. additionally, seems like it would provide health service like the Va to the entire public (might even take the Va and put it under PHS) like the government treats its veterans. Opinion based upon the way the government already treats medical care.

All of them, they are owned by the insurance companies. the buildings and the doctors and the patients and the equipment and the medical care will be taken over by the HHS.

Insurance companies don't own VA hospitals. If the PHS had any hospsitals any longer, they also wouldn't be privately owned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Works for me, lets grab them up and sell them out, go to national single payer.

When you nationalize it, and the Public Health Service has no hospitals, the government controls the prices of all health. Wonder how many civilian hospitals are going to close. additionally, seems like it would provide health service like the Va to the entire public (might even take the Va and put it under PHS) like the government treats its veterans. Opinion based upon the way the government already treats medical care.

All of them, they are owned by the insurance companies. the buildings and the doctors and the patients and the equipment and the medical care will be taken over by the HHS.

Insurance companies don't own VA hospitals. If the PHS had any hospsitals any longer, they also wouldn't be privately owned.