Who is “Some”, Hillary?

During Hillary’s testimony at the Benghazi hearing yesterday I found at least one bit of information to be interesting.

This is the statement she released at 10:08pm while the attack was still ongoing.

“Some have sought to justify the vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

What I would like to know is who is “some”?

She is claiming that she was responding to an argument someone was making.  At that point how many people even knew the attack was happening and who made an argument justifying it?  One should always be suspicious of passive phrasing of that sort since it is usually used to obfuscate an issue.

Why is this important?  Because if she is not really responding to an argument anyone made then she is guilty of introducing the canard about the video being responsible for the attack on our embassy in Libya into the wild.  She seems to claim in her testimony that she was warning others not to use that argument, but that is not what she says.  She states definitively that some have already made that argument so she must respond to them.  And it would be appropriate for her to do so, only in a much clearer fashion.  But if no one has actually made that argument publicly then she is the one trying to push that justification out to the world and get it into the public consciousness.  The only way to find out would be to ask her when she is unprepared to answer and can’t go look for contemporaneous statements made by someone, somewhere on the planet that she could claim to have heard.

Just to clarify a few points.  She admits in her testimony that the “vicious behavior” she is referring to is the attack.

“And if you look at what I said, 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.”

And in the above quote she also admits she was very careful in how she phrased things.  She was very Clintonian.  This to me is more or less and admission that she was looking for a way to say things that would mislead people into thinking a video caused the attack and it was just part of the general rioting.  While at the same time she didn’t want to be caught in an outright lie.  That is when liars usually introduce fictional people named “some.”

If I say “Dad told me I could have a cookie” then mom would be able to check with him fairly quickly and I would be done for.  But if I say “someone told me I could eat this” then who can she check with without running down everyone who is in the house? And in the case of Benghazi the list to run down would potentially be everyone on the planet.  That is why liars in positions of power love to use the passive voice and ascribe things to a vague group of others.  Even so, a whole lot of people in the administration and the State Department were not as careful and were later much more explicit in blaming the video and ensuing riots so it is abundantly clear a decision was made to mislead the American people, and the first person to do so was Hillary herself.

But at the same time Hillary had no problems being very clear with the Egyptians and with her family.  She did not parse her words so exquisitely with them. She merely told them to the truth.

To the Egyptian Prime Minister:

“”We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.”

To Chelsea the night of the attack:

“Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda- like group.”

Nothing about protestors, videos, riots etc…  Even Valerie Nuland in Hillary’s own State department issued guidance to admit there was no connection between the riots in Cairo and attacks in Benghazi if pressed on that point.

Rep. Jordan from the hearing today;

She said, “If pressed by the press, if there’s a connection between Cairo and Benghazi,” she said this, “there’s no connection between the two.”

Take notice of that — only tell the truth if pressed How can that not be considered as admission that they intended to mislead if at all possible?

Also, while our diplomats and servicemen were bleeding to death, Hillary’s staff was discussing how to spin all of this as they exchanged e-mails discussing what Romney had to say — showing that political considerations were utmost in their minds even at the height of the emergency.

All of this is important and you will either find it persuasive or not.  But what is not getting enough attention is the fact that Hillary later told the parents of the men who were murdered that she would get the guy who made the video while she was standing over the corpses of their fallen sons.  That is some stone cold sociopathy of the first order and should be disqualifying from membership in the human race, let alone occupying the most powerful position on the planet.

Why would the parents care who made the film if it had nothing to do with the death of their loved ones?  And even if a video was what stirred up passions and caused every bit of this then so what?  Why would the Secretary of State and president even be talking about punishing someone for committing the crime of free speech?  There is no innocent explanation for that.  The only one that really fits is that the filmmaker was a convenient scapegoat and it was likely they could find something to arrest him for given the myriad laws we have on the books now.  There was no other reason to even care who he was.  It was simply politically advantageous that he be put away, so he was.

Any decent president or Secretary of State would have said that the US Armed forces stand at the ready to protect the free speech rights of all of our citizens and that we will defend ourselves both at home and abroad.  If anyone were to get it into their heads that they could attack us because of something one of our citizens said then the next thing that would go trough their minds would come wrapped in a depleted uranium jacket.

Then they would have opened up the White House lawn and screened the damned film no matter how bad it was.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.