Hillary Gives Away the Game

Wehrwolfen

Senior Member
May 22, 2012
2,750
340
48
Hillary Gives Away the Game​

By Daren Jonescu
January 28, 2013


Hillary Clinton's angry flip-out at Senator Ron Johnson during her Benghazi testimony was a charmed moment. All at once, before the whole world, one of the highest ranking progressive authoritarians on the planet spilled the beans -- all of them -- about the left's modus operandi.

The revelation might be overlooked, however, if we focus too closely on Clinton's easily quotable "What difference does it make?" The line as quoted merely shows Clinton to be a trapped liar trying to fake her way through an awkward moment with pomposity and bravado. In truth, however, "What difference does it make?" is merely a media-friendly ellipsis of her actual words. What she actually said, without the convenient editing, is far more telling.

Here is the exchange:

Johnson: We were misled that there were supposedly protests and then... an assault sprang out of that. And that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days -- and they didn't know that.

Clinton (shouting, glaring, and waving her arms): With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference -- at this point -- does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened, and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.​

Note in passing the obvious contradiction in saying that it makes no difference what happened, and then immediately saying that "our job" is "to figure out what happened." Clearly, in her flustered state, Clinton confused her talking points, the intended gist of which was presumably that the job of finding out what happened is the responsibility of the administration's own internal investigators alone, because only the administration itself will be able to construct a tale that "gets to the bottom of things" without incriminating anyone in the administration.

All contradictions aside, however, let us turn to Clinton's central point. Johnson's question was a straightforward one, and the one people have been asking since the first days after the attack, when, thanks to foreign media sources, Americans were learning that there was no evidence of any video protest anywhere in Libya on September 11. That question gained force and significance when the world learned that the assault had lasted for seven hours, and that throughout the battle, administration officials in Washington were receiving live communications from those under attack, as well as real time images from a U.S. drone on the scene. It gained further urgency when Clinton promised Tyrone Woods' father that the government would hunt down... no, not the terrorists who killed his son, but the maker of the video that supposedly ignited the non-existent protests.

The simple question Senator Johnson revived gained a fever pitch of relevance when President Obama went on television, and to the United Nations, to condemn an anti-Islamic video which by that time he had to know was in no way related to the attacks. (See here.) And of course the precise context which heightened the relevance of this "video protest" lie was on display when, during a debate, Obama refused to answer questions about what he had done to help the Americans under attack, instead glaring condescendingly at Mitt Romney while delivering a carefully prepared (and frequently repeated) diatribe about his supposed "three orders," none of which addressed the actual question as to what he had done during the assault to rescue the victims.



[Excerpt]

Read more:
Articles: Hillary Gives Away the Game
 
Last edited by a moderator:
America just brings out the worst in other people around the world. This is not Hillary Clinton's fault. The U.S. brings these things onto itself because we like to start wars, invade sovereign nations and steal foreign resources.

EMBASSY Number of Attacks
United States 32
France 10
Israel 7
Soviet Union 6
Turkey 6
United Kingdom 6
Denmark 5
Russia 4
Japan 4
Chile 3
Egypt 3
Iran 3
Saudi Arabia 3
China 2
Germany 3 (2 after 1990, 1 before)
Greece 2
India 2
Spain 2
Switzerland 2
Australia 1
Belgium 1
Bulgaria 1
Canada 1
Costa Rica 1
Cuba 1
Dominican Republic 1
Ethiopia 1
Indonesia 1
Iraq 1
Italy 1
Jordan 1
Kuwait 1
Libya 1
Malaysia 1
Mexico 1
Myanmar 1
Pakistan 1
Philippines 1
Poland 1
Portugal 1
Romania 1
Slovakia 1
The Netherlands 1
West Germany 1 (also included in Germany)
Belarus 1

List of attacks on diplomatic missions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
America just brings out the worst in other people around the world. This is not Hillary Clinton's fault. The U.S. brings these things onto itself because we like to start wars, invade sovereign nations and steal foreign resources.

EMBASSY Number of Attacks
United States 32
France 10
Israel 7
Soviet Union 6
Turkey 6
United Kingdom 6
Denmark 5
Russia 4
Japan 4
Chile 3
Egypt 3
Iran 3
Saudi Arabia 3
China 2
Germany 3 (2 after 1990, 1 before)
Greece 2
India 2
Spain 2
Switzerland 2
Australia 1
Belgium 1
Bulgaria 1
Canada 1
Costa Rica 1
Cuba 1
Dominican Republic 1
Ethiopia 1
Indonesia 1
Iraq 1
Italy 1
Jordan 1
Kuwait 1
Libya 1
Malaysia 1
Mexico 1
Myanmar 1
Pakistan 1
Philippines 1
Poland 1
Portugal 1
Romania 1
Slovakia 1
The Netherlands 1
West Germany 1 (also included in Germany)
Belarus 1

List of attacks on diplomatic missions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It must be tiring to constantly deflect and obfuscate every criticism of your beloved leaders. Reading your posts certainly is.
 
I pointed this out 2 minutes after she said it. What difference does it make, and we are trying to find out what happened. I used the term double talking liar. The definition of the democrat party is double talking liars.
 
It's typical doublespeak from a professional psychopath. This is par for the course, and no additional questions will be raised because of it. The world of politics today is flooded with this type of behaviour.

It doesn't matter now what happened, but we're going to spend money and resources finding out what happened, because that is our job. If this was a civilian criminal case, someone would be held for contempt while others would be brought in for further intense questioning. All documentation would become criminal case matter.

But in the world of politicians on politicians, it's just another day at teh "office".
 
Last edited:
the cat is out of the bag.....:clap2:

Hillary Clinton's angry blurting out of the truth is applicable to much more than just the Benghazi fiasco. With that revealing little qualification -- "at this point" -- she actually gave away the entire progressive game that has been played on Western civilization for more than a hundred years, and has now all but shut the door on the five hundred year adventure the West has dubbed "modernity."

This is the big secret at the core of the progressives' conception of "progress": You cannot justify the unjustifiable in advance, or persuade people of the rationally unpersuasive. Rather, you must simply push "forward" into ever-deepening waters, repeatedly building reserves of social pressure and then releasing them in little thrusts of propelling energy to carry civilization ever nearer the vortex -- all the while promising to save men from the frightening depths, if only they will hold on tight, and follow you, the progressive, just a little farther forward, just a little farther forward.

The key to the progressive "ratchet," as it is often, correctly, called, is that no step forward may ever be retraced. Each stage of degradation is to be rationalized after the fact, precisely by the means exemplified in Hillary Clinton's stark question: "What difference -- at this point -- does it make?"

Was modern public education conceived as a tool for preventing the development of individualism and exceptional men, in favor of a morally and intellectually stunted "workforce" of the compliant to support an entrenched oligarchy? "What difference -- at this point -- does it make?" say the defenders of public education. "After all, we can't just abolish an education system we've come to depend on for generations to raise our children."

Would ObamaCare's individual mandate stand up to the judgment of the framers of the U.S. Constitution? "What difference -- at this point -- does that make?" says the Supreme Court. "After all, it was passed by a duly elected Congress and president of today, so who's to say James Madison himself would not have approved, had he seen Barack Obama's well-creased pant leg?"

FDR rammed New Deal legislation through an intimidated Supreme Court, and against strong Republican and public outcries that it betokened the thin edge of the socialist wedge. "What difference -- at this point -- does it make?" say subsequent generations of Americans when the question of "Social Security reform" is tentatively raised. "After all, we can't just unravel programs that have come to be taken for granted by generations of Americans, even if they are bankrupting the country."

Throughout the dilapidated West, the same now goes, or soon will go, for wealth redistribution, government-controlled medicine, abortion, affirmative action, the abolition of private property, government-ordered euthanasia, gay/transgender/bi-species marriage, a ban on private gun ownership, anti-industrial "green" legislation, restrictions on soft drink serving sizes, government-mandated molestation at airports, the outlawing of all forms of private education, and mental health assessments for those showing excessive reverence for individual liberty.

The key to the success of Western socialism's "progress" is not the periodic lurches toward the abyss. It is the art of effective stalling. All of today's political and moral outrages will be rationalized with a shrug tomorrow: "What difference -- at this point -- does it make?"


Read more: Articles: Hillary Gives Away the Game
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
 
itt: conservotards demonstrate their complete ineptitude on foreign policy and that they have no clue how fucking inept they are.

your old road is rapidly aging, conservoturds.

Thanks for your report from Pluto. Other than deposing Saddam, our strategic objective in Iraq was to establish a permanent military presence (via a Status of Forces Agreement) to counter the threat of an increasingly belligerent Iran. Thanks to the inept efforts of the Obama/Biden team, we have literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
 
America just brings out the worst in other people around the world. This is not Hillary Clinton's fault. The U.S. brings these things onto itself because we like to start wars, invade sovereign nations and steal foreign resources.

EMBASSY Number of Attacks
United States 32
France 10
Israel 7
Soviet Union 6
Turkey 6
United Kingdom 6
Denmark 5
Russia 4
Japan 4
Chile 3
Egypt 3
Iran 3
Saudi Arabia 3
China 2
Germany 3 (2 after 1990, 1 before)
Greece 2
India 2
Spain 2
Switzerland 2
Australia 1
Belgium 1
Bulgaria 1
Canada 1
Costa Rica 1
Cuba 1
Dominican Republic 1
Ethiopia 1
Indonesia 1
Iraq 1
Italy 1
Jordan 1
Kuwait 1
Libya 1
Malaysia 1
Mexico 1
Myanmar 1
Pakistan 1
Philippines 1
Poland 1
Portugal 1
Romania 1
Slovakia 1
The Netherlands 1
West Germany 1 (also included in Germany)
Belarus 1

List of attacks on diplomatic missions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It must be tiring to constantly deflect and obfuscate every criticism of your beloved leaders. Reading your posts certainly is.

Well of course. Its easier to point a finger at the past than answer the questions about the present. Of course none of the defenders of that fuck and his administration want to admitt what a bunch of fucked up idiots are running that State Department.

Its easy to say "Well. It happend here and here." Rather than try to defend what happened in Benghazi.

As I said. For them its just four dead men. No sweat.
 
It has been four months since the Benghazi attacks, said Colbert, “and every day the American people on Fox News have been demanding that the American people demand answers.”

Given the chance to hold Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “feet to the fire,” Senate Republicans proved once and for all, said Colbert, “that they suck at their jobs.”

He then rolled a clip reel of Fox News Channel pundits despairing that the questioning senators didn’t “drill down” on “the questions.” Charles Krauthammer was shown lamenting that no one asked “sequential follow-ups” of Clinton and that her interlocutors were merely making speeches.

“The Republicans looked like weenies,” said Fox contributor Lt. Col. Ralph Peters.

“Yes, weenies,” Colbert agreed. “Pink and plump with just a little bit of sphincter!”

It was Wisconsin’s Sen. Ron Johnson, however, who Colbert found the most “embarrassing.”

“Bill, roll the footage of Hillary stomping Ron’s ‘johnson,’

......

Clinton, he said, “slapped these guys around and walked out of there with their nuts in her attaché case.”

Colbert: Hillary left Benghazi hearing with GOP?s ?nuts in her attaché case? | The Raw Story
 
She just can't help either getting it wrong because of her drunken fall and concussion or is just a serial liar.

Here are her words:

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference -- at this point -- does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened, and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

The lying liberal brings up two possibities both of which we know for CERTAINTY didn't happen.
 
It has been four months since the Benghazi attacks, said Colbert, “and every day the American people on Fox News have been demanding that the American people demand answers.”

Given the chance to hold Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “feet to the fire,” Senate Republicans proved once and for all, said Colbert, “that they suck at their jobs.”

He then rolled a clip reel of Fox News Channel pundits despairing that the questioning senators didn’t “drill down” on “the questions.” Charles Krauthammer was shown lamenting that no one asked “sequential follow-ups” of Clinton and that her interlocutors were merely making speeches.

“The Republicans looked like weenies,” said Fox contributor Lt. Col. Ralph Peters.

“Yes, weenies,” Colbert agreed. “Pink and plump with just a little bit of sphincter!”

It was Wisconsin’s Sen. Ron Johnson, however, who Colbert found the most “embarrassing.”

“Bill, roll the footage of Hillary stomping Ron’s ‘johnson,’

......

Clinton, he said, “slapped these guys around and walked out of there with their nuts in her attaché case.”

Colbert: Hillary left Benghazi hearing with GOP?s ?nuts in her attaché case? | The Raw Story

Well at least Colbert realizes she is a lying liberal who was let off the hook by the GOP. You know the guys you folks keep saying won't let thing lie. At leas Colbert knows that Hillary should have been excoriated but wasn't. I wonder if Colbert is all for trying Hillary in a civil case. Funny how when the perpetrator of lies and distortion, Hillary, isn't pillaged enough that becomes the problem. Not the fact that she is lying out her kazoo and everyone knows it. No the problem, according to Colbert, is that the white guys didn't beat her up enough. Man the liberal left is disingenuous.
 
Last edited:
All of the major media, including Fox News, were initially attributing the Benghazi attack to the video. How quickly Fox forgets that.

There were protests happening in several locations in the Middle East over that video. The Benghazi attack occurred at the same time as those protests, so it wasn't exactly surprising anyone assumed the attack was connected.

I find it ironic the dipshits who swallowed the partisan piss in the weeks that followed and regurgitated a non-stop stream of manufactured bullshit all the way up to and beyond the election believe they have a moral leg to stand on about not getting facts straight.

Once again, the idiots shot their credibility to hell, and then fail to see their own hypocrisy in their decrying over what Obama said in the immediate days after the attack.

You dipshits spent WEEKS making shit up, and you dare criticize someone else for making a perfectly understandable assumption that the attack was related to the video? Seriously? As I said, even Fox News made that assumption.



"Obama watched as they died." "There was a stand down order". Remember that manufactured diarrhea you greedily slurped up, fuckheads?

You post topic after topic after topic every day on this forum of complete and total bullshit without making the slightest effort to fact check. The "gun grabbing unconstitutional EOs" just being the most recent example.

So excuse the fuck out of me if no one takes your whining about Obama's confusion over the initial facts seriously.

How can you stand the stench of your own hypocrisy?
 
Last edited:
What difference...at this point...does it make?
untitled.png


moveon.jpg


148786446.jpg


obama_change-WE-NEED.jpg


gives their slogans new meaning....:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top