Via Glenn Beck, the bit about Hillary comes at the start of the second clip but both are worth listening to as an insight into how O, Biden, and Clinton allegedly operate in semi-private circumstances. The awkward “cueballs” line from Biden rings especially true, although I think he meant it as a compliment in his own oafish, hey-hiya-howareya way. With all due respect to Beck and Mr. Woods, though, I find Hillary’s comment about the movie significant for reasons different than they do. They seem to take it as evidence of a lie. She was pretending that the movie was to blame when we now know that the White House was tipped off to a terrorist connection in the earliest hours after the attack. Fair enough, but that gets back to the point I made last night: As far as I can tell, even now, the White House isn’t treating the “spontaneous outrage over a YouTube movie” and “organized terrorist attack” narratives as mutually exclusive. As recently as last week, long after the entire administration had finally gotten on board with the idea that this was in fact terrorism, the State Department was still looking at what role the Mohammed movie might have played in inspiring the attack. The going theory, I guess, is that the attackers seized on the uproar over the film elsewhere in the region as an incentive to hit the consulate in hopes of ingratiating themselves with people angry about the movie. That seems unlikely given how many people were involved and the sophistication of the weapons they used — there had to be some planning beforehand to pull this all together — but it beats the chump theory that none of this would have happened if jihadists’ delicate sensibilities hadn’t been inflamed. The assault on the embassy in Cairo pretty clearly used the movie as a pretext, to flex Islamists’ muscles; in theory, the attack on the consulate was a more vicious exercise towards the same end. As I said last night, The One and Hillary owe us a firm explanation on what their theory is.
What I found significant about this wasn’t the “movie protest” versus “preplanned attack” element, it was the fact that Hillary’s promise of vengeance to the father of a fallen SEAL wasn’t that we’d get the jihadis who killed him but that we’d punish the filmmaker. That’s perverse, but in keeping with the fact that she decided to run ads on Pakistani TV apologizing for the film while Islamist cretins menaced American diplomats across the region. Even if you give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she had no intention of prosecuting the filmmaker but was merely telling Woods something she thought would console him, why on earth would she zero in on the filmmaker as the target of blame instead of the degenerates who actually shot his son? She and O need to answer. Let’s see how much they really value free speech. Simple question for both: Is Woods a liar or not?