Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MinuteGal
Note the exact wording he chose, though:

...she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her... who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received...

Notice that he didn't say their best understanding of the intelligence provided to them. He's attempting to give himself wiggle-room he can drive a truck through, for later on. Mark my words: the investigation is going to come back to this statement-- and as the truck drives through that hole, he's going to throw her right under.

This, of course, begs the question: Why send the UN Ambassador out to all these talk shows. She doesn't have anything to do with the chain-of-command in charge of embassies. If you're going to send someone in the State Department, why not someone that actually speaks from authority? Is it because no one qualified would be caught dead carrying that muddy water? Is it because she had no dog in the fight, no responsibility, so no one could attack her, and she might be able to lend credence to the story?

38 posted on 11/14/2012 4:47:45 PM PST by Egon (Apparently, Jimmy Carter DOES need a third term.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: Egon

She was sent out for the exact reason we saw today... so Obama could let her off the hook by claming she had nothing to do with Benghazi.


45 posted on 11/14/2012 5:38:28 PM PST by ez (When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson