In response to:

Shouting Louder

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 8:52 AM
Regular readers of TH please forgive me for repeating this point yet again but I believe it is vital understand how to deal with the opposition. Here is my idea of how the questioning should have gone: 1. Secretary Clinton when did you first become informed that there was a situation at the embassy in Benghazi? 2. Where were you at that time? 3. What were you told? 4. Who told you 5. By what means was this information conveyed? 6. What documentation is available regarding that? 7. When did you first encounter the idea that it was an unorganized mob responding to that video? 8. Where were you at that time? 9. What were you told? 10. Who told you? 11. By what means was this information conveyed? 12. What documentation is available regarding
Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 8:52 AM
13. You have stated that you did not want to engage in unsupported speculation. What credible evidence did they provide to support the idea that the attack was because of the video?
14. Did you request credible evidence?
15. Wouldn’t you agree that relying on someone else’s unsupported speculation is itself engaging in unsupported speculation?
16. How many times do you now know Ambassador Stephens reported that there was trouble brewing and ask for assistance?
17. For each one:
a. How did he communicate this information?
b. What documents are available for that?
c. To whom did he communicate?
d. How far up the State Department organization did this information go?
e. What documents are available for that?

Get the idea now boneheads?
bruce130 Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 9:03 AM
In response to questions 1 through 17, what difference does it make now? The defense rests.
Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 9:16 AM
If you are serious, that inane defense has been annihilated several times over. If you are being sarcastic I would just point out how difficult it is to reliably recognize sarcasm of the Left given the silly positions they so often take.
ghost_of_Hayek Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 9:23 AM
I vote for sarcasm, Raymond, but you are correct.

Hard to distinguish between mocking sarcasm of liberal positions and their actual statements.

An old-time trial lawyer once said, "When your case is weak, shout louder!"

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shouted louder when asked about the Obama administration's story last fall that the September 11th attack on the U.S. ambassador's quarters in Benghazi was due to an anti-Islamic video that someone in the United States had put on the Internet, and thereby provoked a protest that escalated into violence.

She shouted: "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...