Rice acknowledges some of her Benghazi info was incorrect but has no regrets

[The Rabbi]

"First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired."

Here's the difference. Nixon covered up crimes committed by a special unit called the plumbers. Crime, then cover up. Rice was a spokesmen sent out to explain an tragic event. What crime was Ms. Rice covering up when she claimed they thought there was a copy cat protest like the ones in Cairo outside the consulate before the extremist launched their attack on the building?

The administration knew it was a terrorist attack immediately. They sent Rice with a cover story because Obama was running on the meme that the terrorists were on the run on his watch. The issue of crime is a red herring. The act was a callous cynical lie designed to further Obama's political ambitions.

What was one of the main themes Bush ran on in 2004? "don't change horses in midstream"? Bush's claim that with an ongoing war he should be reelected. Would it not make more sense for Obama to claim it was a terrorist attack and there was more to be done than to say otherwise? If it worked for Bush it must be good. The concept that Obama was trying to make this into some sort of political play is ludicrous.

Oh wait I think the slogan was actually, "Don't Change Horsemen mid-apocalypse."

It is documented that Obama wanted to push the idea he was winning the war on terror, or whatever the hell he called it.
So you're backtracking here is irrelevant.

 

[kaz]

They claimed that they thought there was a protests caused by the reaction to the video like the one in Cairo

All the retired generals on TV immediately after it happened said they had no intelligence, but just from the timing and power used in the attack it was clearly an orchestrated, military attack and not an out of control mob. Yet liberals believe it took the generals with intelligence in the white house months to figure that out. Suurreee it did...

It was all to cover the despicable action of the GOP nominee that night.

It didn't work. Except on those dedicated to the cause.

Republicans didn't pick the timing, and the criticism was completely legitimate, the white house clearly committed manslaughter.

On the other hand, you silently support the party that on the verge of elections released impactful news like W had a DUI and had smoked pot decades before the election when he had admitted long ago he had substance abuse issues during that time. Wow, that was relevant to the election. Then there was Slick Willy attacking Afghanistan and the Sudan while the Lewinski scandal was at it's height so Democrats could run around and attack Republicans for being political while our troops were engaged.

Your attacks are overtly insincere and hollow.

 

[Oldstyle]

"First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired."

Here's the difference. Nixon covered up crimes committed by a special unit called the plumbers. Crime, then cover up. Rice was a spokesmen sent out to explain an tragic event. What crime was Ms. Rice covering up when she claimed they thought there was a copy cat protest like the ones in Cairo outside the consulate before the extremist launched their attack on the building?

The administration knew it was a terrorist attack immediately. They sent Rice with a cover story because Obama was running on the meme that the terrorists were on the run on his watch. The issue of crime is a red herring. The act was a callous cynical lie designed to further Obama's political ambitions.

What was one of the main themes Bush ran on in 2004? "don't change horses in midstream"? Bush's claim that with an ongoing war he should be reelected. Would it not make more sense for Obama to claim it was a terrorist attack and there was more to be done than to say otherwise? If it worked for Bush it must be good. The concept that Obama was trying to make this into some sort of political play is ludicrous.

Oh wait I think the slogan was actually, "Don't Change Horsemen mid-apocalypse."

Ah, Random? If you'll recall...Obama was running for reelection on a theme that he had killed Osama bin Laden and had Al Queda on the run. The reason the Obama White House lied about what happened in Benghazi is that it showed quite clearly that Al Queda was NOT on the run and was in fact growing bolder.

 

[Oldstyle]

Obviously you choose to be disingenuous. Does the reason (We hate you for a movie or we hate you because you're an American) a group of men decide to attack a building matter to the tactical defense of that building?

How could you think they were coming out with assuredness about the event when they qualified their statements every time with something like:

"First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired."

Lets just say it WAS the video...

Then commenting by saying "we believe it was the video" as they did, would have compromised the investigation.

Now, seeing as the WH was informed within minutes that it was a terrorist attack, it seems illogical that they would say it "may have been the video"....

This was intentional misleading of the American people during the final days of an election campaign.

The fact that you refuse to see that simply shows us one of two things...

1) You refuse to admit was is obvious for it will make your party of choice look bad
2) you are easily fooled by spin and rhetoric.

It's a Fauxrageous scandal.

They were informed that a militia in Libya had claimed responsibility for it.

They claimed that they thought there was a protests caused by the reaction to the video like the one in Cairo.

"What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation."

Of course they briefed Congress with the Classified version of events which we, John Q Public, are not privy to.

The election was over 6 weeks away.

It was all to cover the despicable action of the GOP nominee that night.

It didn't work. Except on those dedicated to the cause.

The Obama White House made a calculated decision to mislead the American people and the families of the four Americans who died in Benghazi because they felt admitting that Al Queda was not as weakened as they'd claimed would hurt Barack Obama's reelection chances. Mitt Romney simply pointed out the truth...how THAT becomes "despicable" you'll have to explain.

 

[kaz]

The Obama White House made a calculated decision to mislead the American people and the families of the four Americans who died in Benghazi because they felt admitting that Al Queda was not as weakened as they'd claimed would hurt Barack Obama's reelection chances. Mitt Romney simply pointed out the truth...how THAT becomes "despicable" you'll have to explain.

I agree with you on "what" they did but not "why." They were not taking seriously that the fundamentalists hate them like like W and didn't want to believe they were a threat. They also didn't want a strong visible military presence because they thought that would give the Libyan people the impression that the fundamentalists still consider us the bad guys. They believed it would work out. That lead to the lie because that would have required them to admit directly not only the mistake they made but that they were directly wrong. Obama has no self reflection, it wasn't going to happen. Everyone around that knows he's incapable of recognizing he is wrong and they knew and did what was expected of them.

 

[tinydancer]

Obviously you choose to be disingenuous. Does the reason (We hate you for a movie or we hate you because you're an American) a group of men decide to attack a building matter to the tactical defense of that building?

How could you think they were coming out with assuredness about the event when they qualified their statements every time with something like:

"First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired."

Lets just say it WAS the video...

Then commenting by saying "we believe it was the video" as they did, would have compromised the investigation.

Now, seeing as the WH was informed within minutes that it was a terrorist attack, it seems illogical that they would say it "may have been the video"....

This was intentional misleading of the American people during the final days of an election campaign.

The fact that you refuse to see that simply shows us one of two things...

1) You refuse to admit was is obvious for it will make your party of choice look bad
2) you are easily fooled by spin and rhetoric.

It's a Fauxrageous scandal.

They were informed that a militia in Libya had claimed responsibility for it.

They claimed that they thought there was a protests caused by the reaction to the video like the one in Cairo.

"What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation."

Of course they briefed Congress with the Classified version of events which we, John Q Public, are not privy to.

The election was over 6 weeks away.

It was all to cover the despicable action of the GOP nominee that night.

It didn't work. Except on those dedicated to the cause.

Oh just shut up with your lies.

Panetta's testimony is on record that they knew instantly that it was a terror attack. What's with all the ******* lies?

 

[tinydancer]

And opportunistic? Bullshit. This plan had been in the works for some time.

If anyone on the progressive side has a brain, you'd be able to connect the dots between a drone kill of AQ #2 who was LIBYAN AQ#1 calling for revenge and voila. Dead Americans.

No brainer.

 

[RandomVariable]

The administration knew it was a terrorist attack immediately. They sent Rice with a cover story because Obama was running on the meme that the terrorists were on the run on his watch. The issue of crime is a red herring. The act was a callous cynical lie designed to further Obama's political ambitions.

What was one of the main themes Bush ran on in 2004? "don't change horses in midstream"? Bush's claim that with an ongoing war he should be reelected. Would it not make more sense for Obama to claim it was a terrorist attack and there was more to be done than to say otherwise? If it worked for Bush it must be good. The concept that Obama was trying to make this into some sort of political play is ludicrous.

Oh wait I think the slogan was actually, "Don't Change Horsemen mid-apocalypse."

Ah, Random? If you'll recall...Obama was running for reelection on a theme that he had killed Osama bin Laden and had Al Queda on the run. The reason the Obama White House lied about what happened in Benghazi is that it showed quite clearly that Al Queda was NOT on the run and was in fact growing bolder.

So you think right at this point Obama is going to go all out and make up some "ridiculously false" explanation of a terrorist attack in Benghazi.

 

[BlindBoo]

She was not covering up a crime.

She was protecting the campaign mantra of Obama....you know...."al quaeda is on the run"

In other words, she was instructed to mislead the American people to ensure President Obama's re-election.

It is not rocket science.

And if she wanted to protect the integrity of the investigation, then she would have said "it is an ongoing investigation and I don't want to comment and compromise its integrity"

Again, not rocket science.

Doesn't the fact that extremist attacked us again on 9-11 defeat that premise regardless if there was a protest before the attack or not?

I mean that's as foolish as thinking Obama was running guns to the Cartels in order to increase violence so he can enact gun control measures in this country!

Can you imagine the hooting an hollering the Reactionary Right would have done had the administrations gave a no comment. That's funny. You know it was Congress that asked the WH for talking point about the incident right?

SO then why a comment that:

1) Directly contradicts what Obama was told
2) Directly contradicts what the Libyan President said
3) Put blame on an American Citizenfor using his free speech, albeit irresponsibly
4) Put blame on one of the things radicals in that region hate about us...our right to free speech.

Why not say "it was an attack and we are looking into what caused it"....

First you're not privy to everything the President was told are you?

Second is true. Why she didn't address the Libyan President and ask him for more information I don't know. Perhaps they did just not in a public forum where everyone and their brother can hear.

Massive riots were still unfolding across the ME during that Sunday talk fest. 50 or more people lost their lives in the protests from furor the Mullahs created over a really badly made movie. Are you trying to tell me that the video was not the cause of those?

Sorry but the President and his administration defended free speech.

 

[BlindBoo]

They claimed that they thought there was a protests caused by the reaction to the video like the one in Cairo

All the retired generals on TV immediately after it happened said they had no intelligence, but just from the timing and power used in the attack it was clearly an orchestrated, military attack and not an out of control mob. Yet liberals believe it took the generals with intelligence in the white house months to figure that out. Suurreee it did...

It was all to cover the despicable action of the GOP nominee that night.

It didn't work. Except on those dedicated to the cause.

Republicans didn't pick the timing, and the criticism was completely legitimate, the white house clearly committed manslaughter.

On the other hand, you silently support the party that on the verge of elections released impactful news like W had a DUI and had smoked pot decades before the election when he had admitted long ago he had substance abuse issues during that time. Wow, that was relevant to the election. Then there was Slick Willy attacking Afghanistan and the Sudan while the Lewinski scandal was at it's height so Democrats could run around and attack Republicans for being political while our troops were engaged.

Your attacks are overtly insincere and hollow.

It appears to have worked on you. You certainly are dedicated. Manslaughter? Really?

 

[Freewill]

What was one of the main themes Bush ran on in 2004? "don't change horses in midstream"? Bush's claim that with an ongoing war he should be reelected. Would it not make more sense for Obama to claim it was a terrorist attack and there was more to be done than to say otherwise? If it worked for Bush it must be good. The concept that Obama was trying to make this into some sort of political play is ludicrous.

Oh wait I think the slogan was actually, "Don't Change Horsemen mid-apocalypse."

Ah, Random? If you'll recall...Obama was running for reelection on a theme that he had killed Osama bin Laden and had Al Queda on the run. The reason the Obama White House lied about what happened in Benghazi is that it showed quite clearly that Al Queda was NOT on the run and was in fact growing bolder.

So you think right at this point Obama is going to go all out and make up some "ridiculously false" explanation of a terrorist attack in Benghazi.

It is past the point of thinking he did, we know he did. Now the question is why? I don't believe the election had anything to do with it.

 

[RandomVariable]

They claimed that they thought there was a protests caused by the reaction to the video like the one in Cairo

All the retired generals on TV immediately after it happened said they had no intelligence, but just from the timing and power used in the attack it was clearly an orchestrated, military attack and not an out of control mob. Yet liberals believe it took the generals with intelligence in the white house months to figure that out. Suurreee it did...

It was all to cover the despicable action of the GOP nominee that night.

It didn't work. Except on those dedicated to the cause.

Republicans didn't pick the timing, and the criticism was completely legitimate, the white house clearly committed manslaughter.

On the other hand, you silently support the party that on the verge of elections released impactful news like W had a DUI and had smoked pot decades before the election when he had admitted long ago he had substance abuse issues during that time. Wow, that was relevant to the election. Then there was Slick Willy attacking Afghanistan and the Sudan while the Lewinski scandal was at it's height so Democrats could run around and attack Republicans for being political while our troops were engaged.

Your attacks are overtly insincere and hollow.

Look at this graph and tell me who was having an election crisis and needed something big to change the momentum. You really think that Obama tried to use the Benghazi attack to increase his numbers? Someone tried to use the attack to better their numbers alright but it wasn't the guy who had almost exactly 100 electoral votes up on his opponent. You might want to check again who has blood on their hands.

 

[Jarhead]

Doesn't the fact that extremist attacked us again on 9-11 defeat that premise regardless if there was a protest before the attack or not?

I mean that's as foolish as thinking Obama was running guns to the Cartels in order to increase violence so he can enact gun control measures in this country!

Can you imagine the hooting an hollering the Reactionary Right would have done had the administrations gave a no comment. That's funny. You know it was Congress that asked the WH for talking point about the incident right?

SO then why a comment that:

1) Directly contradicts what Obama was told
2) Directly contradicts what the Libyan President said
3) Put blame on an American Citizenfor using his free speech, albeit irresponsibly
4) Put blame on one of the things radicals in that region hate about us...our right to free speech.

Why not say "it was an attack and we are looking into what caused it"....

First you're not privy to everything the President was told are you?

Second is true. Why she didn't address the Libyan President and ask him for more information I don't know. Perhaps they did just not in a public forum where everyone and their brother can hear.

Massive riots were still unfolding across the ME during that Sunday talk fest. 50 or more people lost their lives in the protests from furor the Mullahs created over a really badly made movie. Are you trying to tell me that the video was not the cause of those?

Sorry but the President and his administration defended free speech.

First.. No, I am not. But Leon Panetta admitted that he informed the President that it was a terrorist attack 15 minutes after the attack started.

Second...she did not need to ask him for more information. She was told to say what she said. But that doesn't change the fact that she was told to tell what was known by her superiors to be a lie.

Third....massive riots or not, they had nothing to do with the death of AMERICANS and that is what this debate is about...so that is a deflection

Finally.....the president KNOWINGLY telling a mis truth and blaming an American citizen who had exercised his right to free speech is not the president defending free speech.

Instead, it is the president using his ability to get the ears of people worldwide and BLAMING our right to free speech as the reason 4 Americans died.

How you see that as defending is beyond me.

 

[BlindBoo]

The administration knew it was a terrorist attack immediately. They sent Rice with a cover story because Obama was running on the meme that the terrorists were on the run on his watch. The issue of crime is a red herring. The act was a callous cynical lie designed to further Obama's political ambitions.

What was one of the main themes Bush ran on in 2004? "don't change horses in midstream"? Bush's claim that with an ongoing war he should be reelected. Would it not make more sense for Obama to claim it was a terrorist attack and there was more to be done than to say otherwise? If it worked for Bush it must be good. The concept that Obama was trying to make this into some sort of political play is ludicrous.

Oh wait I think the slogan was actually, "Don't Change Horsemen mid-apocalypse."

Ah, Random? If you'll recall...Obama was running for reelection on a theme that he had killed Osama bin Laden and had Al Queda on the run. The reason the Obama White House lied about what happened in Benghazi is that it showed quite clearly that Al Queda was NOT on the run and was in fact growing bolder.

Growing bolder? Gezzz, the attack simply did have the characteristics of a long planned al Qaeda operation. Multiple truck bombs, high profile targets, like Embassies. Hundreds of casualties. In eleven years they went from taking down buildings at the WTC, killing thousands of people, hitting the Center of our entire defense network, the Pentagon, to attacking one of the farthest and outposts in the ME killing 4 Americans.

 

[kaz]

They claimed that they thought there was a protests caused by the reaction to the video like the one in Cairo

All the retired generals on TV immediately after it happened said they had no intelligence, but just from the timing and power used in the attack it was clearly an orchestrated, military attack and not an out of control mob. Yet liberals believe it took the generals with intelligence in the white house months to figure that out. Suurreee it did...

It was all to cover the despicable action of the GOP nominee that night.

It didn't work. Except on those dedicated to the cause.

Republicans didn't pick the timing, and the criticism was completely legitimate, the white house clearly committed manslaughter.

On the other hand, you silently support the party that on the verge of elections released impactful news like W had a DUI and had smoked pot decades before the election when he had admitted long ago he had substance abuse issues during that time. Wow, that was relevant to the election. Then there was Slick Willy attacking Afghanistan and the Sudan while the Lewinski scandal was at it's height so Democrats could run around and attack Republicans for being political while our troops were engaged.

Your attacks are overtly insincere and hollow.

It appears to have worked on you. You certainly are dedicated. Manslaughter? Really?

They asked for help and were refused it. I'm not the one who conditioning "worked on." It's better than what they did in Fast and Furious though where they actually provided and funded the arms used to kill people. And that was better than Janet Reno who actually ordered the murder of people. So maybe Democrats are at least headed the right direction.

 

[kaz]

They claimed that they thought there was a protests caused by the reaction to the video like the one in Cairo

All the retired generals on TV immediately after it happened said they had no intelligence, but just from the timing and power used in the attack it was clearly an orchestrated, military attack and not an out of control mob. Yet liberals believe it took the generals with intelligence in the white house months to figure that out. Suurreee it did...

It was all to cover the despicable action of the GOP nominee that night.

It didn't work. Except on those dedicated to the cause.

Republicans didn't pick the timing, and the criticism was completely legitimate, the white house clearly committed manslaughter.

On the other hand, you silently support the party that on the verge of elections released impactful news like W had a DUI and had smoked pot decades before the election when he had admitted long ago he had substance abuse issues during that time. Wow, that was relevant to the election. Then there was Slick Willy attacking Afghanistan and the Sudan while the Lewinski scandal was at it's height so Democrats could run around and attack Republicans for being political while our troops were engaged.

Your attacks are overtly insincere and hollow.

Look at this graph and tell me who was having an election crisis and needed something big to change the momentum. You really think that Obama tried to use the Benghazi attack to increase his numbers? Someone tried to use the attack to better their numbers alright but it wasn't the guy who had almost exactly 100 electoral votes up on his opponent. You might want to check again who has blood on their hands.

I was addressing the point that Democrats accused Republicans of using it for the election. What you said is a non-sequitur to my point.

 

[Two Thumbs]

"that *****" has at least 50 IQ points beyond yours, she is better educated and busted through the glass ceiling on talent, hard work and people skills. No wonder you call her a "*****", morons like you must feel so inadequate when a women of color has credentials which far exceed anything you could dream of, and is light years beyond anything you have ever done.

so it's ok to be a lying degenerate as long as she is a she and a person of color.

that's a whole new kind of pathetic


nice try to make this about race and sex though. guess you saw that trying to use bush and mitt failed so you broke out the older stuff.

She's not a degenerate and she didn't lie at all.

You guys make up whole new definitions for words that have nothing to do with English.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0x6vIAtFcI]English, ************, do you speak it? - YouTube[/ame]

So a well organised, militarily precise attack on a compound was done by a bunch of pissed off movie goers.




Do you even see your own bigotry?

 

[BlindBoo]

SO then why a comment that:

1) Directly contradicts what Obama was told
2) Directly contradicts what the Libyan President said
3) Put blame on an American Citizenfor using his free speech, albeit irresponsibly
4) Put blame on one of the things radicals in that region hate about us...our right to free speech.

Why not say "it was an attack and we are looking into what caused it"....

First you're not privy to everything the President was told are you?

Second is true. Why she didn't address the Libyan President and ask him for more information I don't know. Perhaps they did just not in a public forum where everyone and their brother can hear.

Massive riots were still unfolding across the ME during that Sunday talk fest. 50 or more people lost their lives in the protests from furor the Mullahs created over a really badly made movie. Are you trying to tell me that the video was not the cause of those?

Sorry but the President and his administration defended free speech.

First.. No, I am not. But Leon Panetta admitted that he informed the President that it was a terrorist attack 15 minutes after the attack started.

Second...she did not need to ask him for more information. She was told to say what she said. But that doesn't change the fact that she was told to tell what was known by her superiors to be a lie.

Third....massive riots or not, they had nothing to do with the death of AMERICANS and that is what this debate is about...so that is a deflection

Finally.....the president KNOWINGLY telling a mis truth and blaming an American citizen who had exercised his right to free speech is not the president defending free speech.

Instead, it is the president using his ability to get the ears of people worldwide and BLAMING our right to free speech as the reason 4 Americans died.

How you see that as defending is beyond me.

First, so you think Leon Panetta is the sole provider of information to the President. Didn't Leon say he knew it was a terrorist attack within 15 minutes, but he told the President that it was an attack during the briefing where they informed the President of the situation?

Second, the only thing they got wrong on the initial assessment was there was no protest before the extremist attacked.

Third. Since you don't know the motive of the attackers you're just speculating like everyone else.

Lastly, "I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so.

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities."


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/w...eneral-assembly-text.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Harry Dresden]

Falwell and Robertson on The 700 Club after 9/11 - YouTube

You guys blame Americans for terrorist attacks.

have lunch with Dean again Sallow?....have you read his book yet?....."if one Conservative says it.....they all believe it"....by Rdean.....

Eyah Harry.

Did any conservative rebuke Falwell? Did they even stop talking to him?

Did Pat Robertson suddenly lose favor in the Conservative community?

Did George W. Bush instantly fire all those Regents lawyers he hired?

Oh yeah.

None of that happened.

Tell you what did happen.

Romney criticized Obama for Benghazi while it was ongoing.

That was unprecedented and bodes badly for a functioning executive branch during elections.

But instead of saying that? Conservatives went apeshit on Benghazi.

It was a totally partisan attack.

Multiple diplomatic outposts were attacked during the Bush administration.

They lied about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman.

And there were plenty of Security Contractors killed during the Iraq war.

None of that even came into the radar of conservatives.

Did any conservative rebuke Falwell? Did they even stop talking to him?

anyone without Deans mindset will tell you that most Conservatives dont think Falwell is a spokesman for anyone outside of the Christian far right Religious Conservatives....and there have been Conservatives here who have said as much back when that video was being played a lot....

Did Pat Robertson suddenly lose favor in the Conservative community?

out side of the Christian right,did he ever have any?....i worked with a girl who was pretty dam Conservative and Religious who told me while she was listening to Hanitties show who had Robertson on that day that he does not speak for all of us,certainly not me....so even among them he was so so....

so how was Deans book?....

 

[Two Thumbs]

Someday Benghazi will be fully explored, and we will understand how devious; criminal this administration is! Rice is guilty of misleading the people; coverup!

Hogwash. She is guilty of flawlessly delivering the public message, a.k.a. talking points developed by the various departments of the Federal Government. Not even a hint of a cover up.

I don't think there is a cover up, maybe just enough to gloss over some mistakes, but not to cover murder.

That ***** lied, and has no regrets about her lies.

It's one thing to not say 'sorry', it's another level to say, 'I'm not sorry.'