What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (3 Viewers)

Hillary destroyed Jordan in at exchange. Have no idea how he will be elected after bein undressed like hat, but I'm sure his district is full of true believers.
Which evidence did Hillary point to which you think really sealed it for her?
I doubt you will accept this as "evidence," but Hillary gave a reasonable and plausible explanation for her comments in the context of what was happening at the time:

CLINTON: Well, I wrote a whole chapter about this in my book, Hard Choices. I'd be glad to send it to you, Congressman, because I think the insinuations that you are making do a grave disservice to the hard work that people in the State Department, the intelligence community, the Defense Department, the White House did during the course of some very confusing and difficult days.

There is no doubt in my mind that we did the best we could with the information that we had at the time. And if you'd actually go back and read what I said that night...I was very -- I was very careful in saying that some have sought to justify. In fact, the man that has been arrested as one of the ringleaders of what happened in Benghazi, Ahmed Abu Khattala, is reported to have said it was the video that motivated him.

None of us can speak to the individual motivations of those terrorists who overran our compound and who attacked our CIA annex. There were probably a number of different motivations.

I think the intelligence community, which took the lead on trying to sort this out, as they should have, went through a series of interpretations and analysis. And we were all guided by that.

We were not making up the intelligence. We were trying to get it, make sense of it, and then to share it.

When I was speaking to the Egyptian prime minister or in the other two examples you showed, we had been told by Ansar al-Sharia that they took credit for it. It wasn't until about 24 or more hours later, that they retracted taking credit for it.

We also knew, Congressman, because my responsibility was what was happening throughout the region, I needed to be talking about the video, because I needed to put other governments and other people on notice that we were not going to let them get away with attacking us, as they did in Tunis, is they did in Khartoum.

And in Tunis there were thousands of protesters who were there only because of the video, breaching the calls of our embassy, burning down the American school. I was calling everybody in the Tunisian government I could get, and finally, President Marzouki sent his presidential guard to break it up. There were -- is example after example. That's what I was trying to do, during those very desperate and difficult hours.

JORDAN: ...Secretary Clinton, you said my insinuation. I'm not insinuating anything. I'm reading what you said. Plain language. We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. That's as plain as it can get; that's vastly different than vicious behavior justified by Internet material.

Why didn't you just speak plain to the American people?

CLINTON: I did. If you look at my statement as opposed to what I was saying to the Egyptian prime minister, I did state clearly, and I said it again in more detail the next morning, as did the president.

I'm sorry that it doesn't fit your narrative, Congressman. I can only tell you what the facts were. And the facts, as the Democratic members have pointed out in their most recent collection of them, support this process that was going on, where the intelligence community was pulling together information.

And it's very much harder to do it these days than it used to be, because you have to monitor social media, for goodness's sakes. That's where the Ansar al-Sharia claim was placed. The intelligence committee did the best job they could, and we all did our best job to try to figure out what was going on, and then to convey that to the American people.

 
Squizz, thanks for the response. So what I see is (from the bolded, in terms of what she knew at the time):

  • Ansar retracted the claim of responsibility
  • Protests in Tunisia
  • the intelligence community was pulling together information
  • social media
I think that's what Hillary is referring to. Personally to me the third one is the most important. I don't know that we have learned much specifics about that though, but the ARB refers to an internal report which supports this IIRC.

eta - However I think simply relying on Ansar's youtube posting to suddenly believe them and conclude that the movie was the source of the attack is very problematic. We base our policy and the president makes speeches at the UN based on what a terrorist group says on an internet posting? That seems like a really bad idea.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tobias, maybe we should give up. It's not just Ookie Pringle and RBM here, it's practically every conservative talking head on Fox News, it's Rush Limbaugh, it's Mark Levin, it's even Hugh Hewitt whom I regard as a pretty thoughtful guy. They've all bought into this. I suppose they all just hate Hillary so much they're willing to believe anything. It's pretty sad.
I think its time to just admit defeat. The Fox crowd won. Hillary's obviously defeated. Just let them win the White House in '16 like they've earned.
The general public won't even remember this come election time. Completely irrelevant.

 
The whole thing is asinine to start with. Yeah it was stupid to say it was a video. The attack happened on 9/11. Knowing how much terrorists like Al-Qaeda assign significance to anniversaries, anyone who thought this was spontaneous related to a video was naive at best and stupid at worst. That being said, the Republicans are stupid for carrying on with this. Lots of money and wasted time and they are scoring tons of political points for Hilary. This thing was supposed to be a liability for her and I think right now she can use this as an effective political weapon.

 
The whole thing is asinine to start with. Yeah it was stupid to say it was a video. The attack happened on 9/11. Knowing how much terrorists like Al-Qaeda assign significance to anniversaries, anyone who thought this was spontaneous related to a video was naive at best and stupid at worst. That being said, the Republicans are stupid for carrying on with this. Lots of money and wasted time and they are scoring tons of political points for Hilary. This thing was supposed to be a liability for her and I think right now she can use this as an effective political weapon.
Didn't a couple of the attackers admit that they were inspired to participate in the attack due to the video?

Similar violent protests were taking place against US facilities elsewhere in the Middle East. I've never understood why folks say it was stupid to suspect the video played a role.

 
The whole thing is asinine to start with. Yeah it was stupid to say it was a video. The attack happened on 9/11. Knowing how much terrorists like Al-Qaeda assign significance to anniversaries, anyone who thought this was spontaneous related to a video was naive at best and stupid at worst. That being said, the Republicans are stupid for carrying on with this. Lots of money and wasted time and they are scoring tons of political points for Hilary. This thing was supposed to be a liability for her and I think right now she can use this as an effective political weapon.
Didn't a couple of the attackers admit that they were inspired to participate in the attack due to the video?

Similar violent protests were taking place against US facilities elsewhere in the Middle East. I've never understood why folks say it was stupid to suspect the video played a role.
Wrong and huge fail. Not even an "A" for effort here. Your Queen Hillary herself even admitted it wasn't the video.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The whole thing is asinine to start with. Yeah it was stupid to say it was a video. The attack happened on 9/11. Knowing how much terrorists like Al-Qaeda assign significance to anniversaries, anyone who thought this was spontaneous related to a video was naive at best and stupid at worst. That being said, the Republicans are stupid for carrying on with this. Lots of money and wasted time and they are scoring tons of political points for Hilary. This thing was supposed to be a liability for her and I think right now she can use this as an effective political weapon.
Didn't a couple of the attackers admit that they were inspired to participate in the attack due to the video?Similar violent protests were taking place against US facilities elsewhere in the Middle East. I've never understood why folks say it was stupid to suspect the video played a role.
Similar? Tell us about these attacks when this attack happened and how many lives were lost. Why is is so had for some of you to acknowledge it was a planned attack? All the witnesses on the ground state that their weren't any protests going on that night prior to the attack.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The whole thing is asinine to start with. Yeah it was stupid to say it was a video. The attack happened on 9/11. Knowing how much terrorists like Al-Qaeda assign significance to anniversaries, anyone who thought this was spontaneous related to a video was naive at best and stupid at worst. That being said, the Republicans are stupid for carrying on with this. Lots of money and wasted time and they are scoring tons of political points for Hilary. This thing was supposed to be a liability for her and I think right now she can use this as an effective political weapon.
Didn't a couple of the attackers admit that they were inspired to participate in the attack due to the video?Similar violent protests were taking place against US facilities elsewhere in the Middle East. I've never understood why folks say it was stupid to suspect the video played a role.
Similar? Tell us about these attacks when this attack happened and how many lives were lost. Why is is so had for some of you to acknowledge it was a planned attack? All the witnesses on the ground state that their weren't any protests going on that night prior to the attack.
I think it was a planned attack. I also think that it's possible some of the folks who participated in the attack may have been inspired to participate by anger over the videos.

Most importantly, I think that it's easy to understand why the motives of the attackers was not 100% gospel in the immediate aftermath. :shrug:

 
The whole thing is asinine to start with. Yeah it was stupid to say it was a video. The attack happened on 9/11. Knowing how much terrorists like Al-Qaeda assign significance to anniversaries, anyone who thought this was spontaneous related to a video was naive at best and stupid at worst. That being said, the Republicans are stupid for carrying on with this. Lots of money and wasted time and they are scoring tons of political points for Hilary. This thing was supposed to be a liability for her and I think right now she can use this as an effective political weapon.
Didn't a couple of the attackers admit that they were inspired to participate in the attack due to the video?Similar violent protests were taking place against US facilities elsewhere in the Middle East. I've never understood why folks say it was stupid to suspect the video played a role.
Similar? Tell us about these attacks when this attack happened and how many lives were lost. Why is is so had for some of you to acknowledge it was a planned attack? All the witnesses on the ground state that their weren't any protests going on that night prior to the attack.
I think it was a planned attack. I also think that it's possible some of the folks who participated in the attack may have been inspired to participate by anger over the videos.

Most importantly, I think that it's easy to understand why the motives of the attackers was not 100% gospel in the immediate aftermath. :shrug:
You forgot to tell us about the similar protests at that time that led to deaths of Americans.

 
The whole thing is asinine to start with. Yeah it was stupid to say it was a video. The attack happened on 9/11. Knowing how much terrorists like Al-Qaeda assign significance to anniversaries, anyone who thought this was spontaneous related to a video was naive at best and stupid at worst. That being said, the Republicans are stupid for carrying on with this. Lots of money and wasted time and they are scoring tons of political points for Hilary. This thing was supposed to be a liability for her and I think right now she can use this as an effective political weapon.
Didn't a couple of the attackers admit that they were inspired to participate in the attack due to the video?

Similar violent protests were taking place against US facilities elsewhere in the Middle East. I've never understood why folks say it was stupid to suspect the video played a role.
Because it was the anniversary of 9/11? There are 365 days in a year, and people really believe the 365:1 odds just happen to coincide? When the news broke, first thing that came to my mind was "yep, it is 9/11". I was surprised they pitched the video idea at all.

If you believe in playing those odds you'll be right 1 in 365 times I guess. But then again, we do take extra precautions as the anniversary nears every year. So I don't think anyone preaching that narrative in the government was stupid and they knew the correlation and overwhelming probability. It didn't fit the narrative they wanted out there. It's as simple as that. It's not a left/right thing, the right did it in how long they refused to admit Iraq was a mistake. It's all about the political narrative and both sides have done it. I was a little surprised they tried this one though.

 
tommyGunZ said:
Mark Davis said:
The whole thing is asinine to start with. Yeah it was stupid to say it was a video. The attack happened on 9/11. Knowing how much terrorists like Al-Qaeda assign significance to anniversaries, anyone who thought this was spontaneous related to a video was naive at best and stupid at worst. That being said, the Republicans are stupid for carrying on with this. Lots of money and wasted time and they are scoring tons of political points for Hilary. This thing was supposed to be a liability for her and I think right now she can use this as an effective political weapon.
Didn't a couple of the attackers admit that they were inspired to participate in the attack due to the video?

Similar violent protests were taking place against US facilities elsewhere in the Middle East. I've never understood why folks say it was stupid to suspect the video played a role.
:lmao: This guy wants to stick with the video reason.

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

 
tommyGunZ said:
Mark Davis said:
The whole thing is asinine to start with. Yeah it was stupid to say it was a video. The attack happened on 9/11. Knowing how much terrorists like Al-Qaeda assign significance to anniversaries, anyone who thought this was spontaneous related to a video was naive at best and stupid at worst. That being said, the Republicans are stupid for carrying on with this. Lots of money and wasted time and they are scoring tons of political points for Hilary. This thing was supposed to be a liability for her and I think right now she can use this as an effective political weapon.
Didn't a couple of the attackers admit that they were inspired to participate in the attack due to the video?Similar violent protests were taking place against US facilities elsewhere in the Middle East. I've never understood why folks say it was stupid to suspect the video played a role.
That still doesn't make it a protestProtests have chanting and banners and spray paint. Attacks have RPGs and mortar fire. They are extremely dissimilar events.

That she would even utter those words speaks to her blatant dishonesty.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ said:
Mark Davis said:
The whole thing is asinine to start with. Yeah it was stupid to say it was a video. The attack happened on 9/11. Knowing how much terrorists like Al-Qaeda assign significance to anniversaries, anyone who thought this was spontaneous related to a video was naive at best and stupid at worst. That being said, the Republicans are stupid for carrying on with this. Lots of money and wasted time and they are scoring tons of political points for Hilary. This thing was supposed to be a liability for her and I think right now she can use this as an effective political weapon.
Didn't a couple of the attackers admit that they were inspired to participate in the attack due to the video?

Similar violent protests were taking place against US facilities elsewhere in the Middle East. I've never understood why folks say it was stupid to suspect the video played a role.
:lmao: This guy wants to stick with the video reason.
Yeah it's amazing that people stick with a failed tactic well beyond the point of rational thought and seemingly lack the ability to recognize that they are acting foolishly and in vain.

 
RBM your version of the truth IMO is heavily skewed by what I would call the right wing bubble. There's no conclusive proof that Hillary or anyone else deliberately lied and I don't believe they did. There's no conclusive proof that Hillary or a one close to her level is to blame for the lack of security at Benghazi and I don't believe she was.
Didn't she admit that she lied in the hearing the other day? Wasn't there email from 9/12 from her admitting it was a terrorist attack and not a video protest?

Not sure how much more concrete you can get than that.
Wat? :lmao:

 
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/31/hillary-clinton-warned-not-blame-benghazi-youtube-video/e

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clintons embassy in Tripoli, Libya, warned State Department officials in Washington, D.C., not to blame the Youtube video, Innocence of Muslims, for the Benghazi terrorist attack.

The House Benghazi Committee released a new email Saturday that a Tripoli embassy official sent to Clintons underlings in Washington, D.C., on September 14, 2012, two days before Susan Rice appeared on Sunday talk shows to use the administrations video talking point.

The Official added:

Our monitoring of the Libyan media and conversations with Libyans suggest that the films [sic] not as explosive of an issue here as it appears to be in other countries in the region. The overwhelming majority of the FB comments and tweets weve received from Libyans since the Ambassadors death have expressed deep sympathy, sorrow, and regret. They have expressed anger at the attackers, and emphasized that this attack does not represent Libyans or Islam. Relatively few have even mentioned the inflammatory video. So if we post messaging about the video specifically, we may draw unwanted attention to it.

And it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence, the official continued. It is our opinion that in our messaging, we want to distinguish, not conflate, the events in other countries with this well-planned attack by militant extremists. I have discussed this with [redacted] and he shares PASs view.

According to a statement by Matt Wolking, press secretary of the House Select Committee on Benghazi:

This email shows that State Department staff privately raised serious concerns about conflating the terrorist attacks in Benghazi with a video on the Internet, even as the Secretary of State and other Obama administration officials continued to do so publicly. Furthermore, according to the former head of the CIA, intelligence analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks. So while Secretary Clinton may use the fog of war as a convenient excuse for why she said one thing in private and something else in public, the reality is thats just another smokescreen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/31/hillary-clinton-warned-not-blame-benghazi-youtube-video/e

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clintons embassy in Tripoli, Libya, warned State Department officials in Washington, D.C., not to blame the Youtube video, Innocence of Muslims, for the Benghazi terrorist attack.

The House Benghazi Committee released a new email Saturday that a Tripoli embassy official sent to Clintons underlings in Washington, D.C., on September 14, 2012, two days before Susan Rice appeared on Sunday talk shows to use the administrations video talking point.

The Official added:

Our monitoring of the Libyan media and conversations with Libyans suggest that the films [sic] not as explosive of an issue here as it appears to be in other countries in the region. The overwhelming majority of the FB comments and tweets weve received from Libyans since the Ambassadors death have expressed deep sympathy, sorrow, and regret. They have expressed anger at the attackers, and emphasized that this attack does not represent Libyans or Islam. Relatively few have even mentioned the inflammatory video. So if we post messaging about the video specifically, we may draw unwanted attention to it.

And it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence, the official continued. It is our opinion that in our messaging, we want to distinguish, not conflate, the events in other countries with this well-planned attack by militant extremists. I have discussed this with [redacted] and he shares PASs view.

According to a statement by Matt Wolking, press secretary of the House Select Committee on Benghazi:

This email shows that State Department staff privately raised serious concerns about conflating the terrorist attacks in Benghazi with a video on the Internet, even as the Secretary of State and other Obama administration officials continued to do so publicly. Furthermore, according to the former head of the CIA, intelligence analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks. So while Secretary Clinton may use the fog of war as a convenient excuse for why she said one thing in private and something else in public, the reality is thats just another smokescreen.
Just never going to give up on this farce, huh? :wall:

 
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/31/hillary-clinton-warned-not-blame-benghazi-youtube-video/e

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clintons embassy in Tripoli, Libya, warned State Department officials in Washington, D.C., not to blame the Youtube video, Innocence of Muslims, for the Benghazi terrorist attack.

The House Benghazi Committee released a new email Saturday that a Tripoli embassy official sent to Clintons underlings in Washington, D.C., on September 14, 2012, two days before Susan Rice appeared on Sunday talk shows to use the administrations video talking point.

The Official added:

Our monitoring of the Libyan media and conversations with Libyans suggest that the films [sic] not as explosive of an issue here as it appears to be in other countries in the region. The overwhelming majority of the FB comments and tweets weve received from Libyans since the Ambassadors death have expressed deep sympathy, sorrow, and regret. They have expressed anger at the attackers, and emphasized that this attack does not represent Libyans or Islam. Relatively few have even mentioned the inflammatory video. So if we post messaging about the video specifically, we may draw unwanted attention to it.

And it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence, the official continued. It is our opinion that in our messaging, we want to distinguish, not conflate, the events in other countries with this well-planned attack by militant extremists. I have discussed this with [redacted] and he shares PASs view.

...
Here's the actual email if anyone wants to see it.

Names have been redacted.

http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/Tab%2055.pdf

So if we post messaging about the video specifically, we may draw unwanted attention to it
I think the GOP has missed the boat here by not realizing that the administration bought into this disinformation hook, line and sinker and stupidly projected out to the rest of the world, which I am guessing is what Ansaria and AQ wanted. A US President and SOS going on global tv and to the UN decrying the "disgusting" nature of a movie that called the prophet into question is the kind of PR that one just cannot arrange for or buy. It was an astounding stupidity. I continue to say that the administration actually believing this tripe and then further blaring out to the world reflects more poorly on them than the idea that they knew it was false all along and then craftily changed the message to suit their political aims.

We've seen a few of these now - the DOD memo of around 9/15/12 has been around, and we know Hillary herself was told by Drumheller via Blumenthal that the attack was just that a military attack, and the eyewitness evidence and the mission's live taping and other additional documentation gathered in the last year all reflects that. But do I believe that Pres. Obama could have believed a movie motivated all this and was totally blind to the truth? Yeah I think it perfectly fits his worldview.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The whole thing is asinine to start with. Yeah it was stupid to say it was a video. The attack happened on 9/11. Knowing how much terrorists like Al-Qaeda assign significance to anniversaries, anyone who thought this was spontaneous related to a video was naive at best and stupid at worst. That being said, the Republicans are stupid for carrying on with this. Lots of money and wasted time and they are scoring tons of political points for Hilary. This thing was supposed to be a liability for her and I think right now she can use this as an effective political weapon.
No doubt. 10 hours of Clinton was ridiculous. This should have been a half hour interview - just bring out her communications to her family and to Egypt showing that in private she told the truth and to the American people she spun a convenient lie.

Sadly these truths were largely buried in the incredibly long interview process.

 
The whole thing is asinine to start with. Yeah it was stupid to say it was a video. The attack happened on 9/11. Knowing how much terrorists like Al-Qaeda assign significance to anniversaries, anyone who thought this was spontaneous related to a video was naive at best and stupid at worst. That being said, the Republicans are stupid for carrying on with this. Lots of money and wasted time and they are scoring tons of political points for Hilary. This thing was supposed to be a liability for her and I think right now she can use this as an effective political weapon.
No doubt. 10 hours of Clinton was ridiculous. This should have been a half hour interview - just bring out her communications to her family and to Egypt showing that in private she told the truth and to the American people she spun a convenient lie.

Sadly these truths were largely buried in the incredibly long interview process.
I'm curious about the Blumenthal angle. It seems that his influence helped drive the Libya policy

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418809/did-sid-blumenthal-break-law-his-e-mails-hillary-brendan-bordelon

 
new email shows that forces were ready to be deployed...

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]
Subject: Libya
State colleagues:
I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].


After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak
. They include a [REDACTED].
Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].
Jeremy
 
This thread will be buried quick. Anyone with half a brain knew she was lying. If this is true she should remove herself from running for president or better yet jailed for lying and dereliction of duty while in office as Secretary of State.

What a POS she is and she had the nerve to lie to the families of the med that were killed when they had a very good chance of being rescued.

Seriously how can you want this piece of garbage as your Commander in Chief.

You would think that most people, even the most left of the left would step away from her as quickly as possible.

If she was a Republican she would be hounded until she resigned from the race.

The lefts moral compass is so far skewed and corrupted.

She would achieve one thing for sure, Obama would not be the worst President ever.

 
This thread will be buried quick. Anyone with half a brain knew she was lying. If this is true she should remove herself from running for president or better yet jailed for lying and dereliction of duty while in office as Secretary of State.

What a POS she is and she had the nerve to lie to the families of the med that were killed when they had a very good chance of being rescued.

Seriously how can you want this piece of garbage as your Commander in Chief.

You would think that most people, even the most left of the left would step away from her as quickly as possible.

If she was a Republican she would be hounded until she resigned from the race.

The lefts moral compass is so far skewed and corrupted.

She would achieve one thing for sure, Obama would not be the worst President ever.
:lmao:

 
GrandpaRox said:
This thread will be buried quick. Anyone with half a brain knew she was lying. If this is true she should remove herself from running for president or better yet jailed for lying and dereliction of duty while in office as Secretary of State.

What a POS she is and she had the nerve to lie to the families of the med that were killed when they had a very good chance of being rescued.

Seriously how can you want this piece of garbage as your Commander in Chief.

You would think that most people, even the most left of the left would step away from her as quickly as possible.

If she was a Republican she would be hounded until she resigned from the race.

The lefts moral compass is so far skewed and corrupted.

She would achieve one thing for sure, Obama would not be the worst President ever.
Speak for yourself there bud. You can't speak for me. Not saying I would vote for her but in the current list of candidates, she is near the top, not the bottom.

 
Chaka said:
GrandpaRox said:
This thread will be buried quick. Anyone with half a brain knew she was lying. If this is true she should remove herself from running for president or better yet jailed for lying and dereliction of duty while in office as Secretary of State.

What a POS she is and she had the nerve to lie to the families of the med that were killed when they had a very good chance of being rescued.

Seriously how can you want this piece of garbage as your Commander in Chief.

You would think that most people, even the most left of the left would step away from her as quickly as possible.

If she was a Republican she would be hounded until she resigned from the race.

The lefts moral compass is so far skewed and corrupted.

She would achieve one thing for sure, Obama would not be the worst President ever.
:lmao:
:goodposting:

 
I'm pretty certain that Susan Rice, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton knew full well that the video didn't spark the attack in Benghazi by the time Rice appeared on all the Sunday morning talk shows 5 days after the fact, and claimed exactly that.

then Hillary Clinton told Ty Woods parents quote :We are going to have the filmmaker arrested. as though it was still the video tape that caused all this. She then went forward with plans to run ads on Pakistani TV to apologize and denounce the offending video. They then arrested the guy in the middle of the night and put him in jail for a year.

so either they just made up a story and lied to our faces about it, or they are horribly incompetent. But if I could figure out within 1 day of the attack by perusing the internet that it wasn't the video, so could they. This is why I've always assumed from day one that they just lied
I think we've found the problem. You're trying to fit everything into your narrative even after it's been shot down not only by all the participants, but 7 independent investigations as well.
i don't need the gov't to investigate itself so it can publish a report that says it didn't do anything wrong.

i have eyes, and a brain.
:lol:

Eyes, yes. the rest is debateable.
Looks like I was right all along

 
GrandpaRox said:
This thread will be buried quick. Anyone with half a brain knew she was lying. If this is true she should remove herself from running for president or better yet jailed for lying and dereliction of duty while in office as Secretary of State.
It isn't.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/12/08/fox-falsely-claims-defense-dept-email-contradic/207353

Fox Falsely Claims Defense Dept. Email Contradicts Obama Administration's Benghazi Testimony
 
I'm pretty certain that Susan Rice, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton knew full well that the video didn't spark the attack in Benghazi by the time Rice appeared on all the Sunday morning talk shows 5 days after the fact, and claimed exactly that.

then Hillary Clinton told Ty Woods parents quote :We are going to have the filmmaker arrested. as though it was still the video tape that caused all this. She then went forward with plans to run ads on Pakistani TV to apologize and denounce the offending video. They then arrested the guy in the middle of the night and put him in jail for a year.

so either they just made up a story and lied to our faces about it, or they are horribly incompetent. But if I could figure out within 1 day of the attack by perusing the internet that it wasn't the video, so could they. This is why I've always assumed from day one that they just lied
I think we've found the problem. You're trying to fit everything into your narrative even after it's been shot down not only by all the participants, but 7 independent investigations as well.
i don't need the gov't to investigate itself so it can publish a report that says it didn't do anything wrong.

i have eyes, and a brain.
:lol:

Eyes, yes. the rest is debateable.
Looks like I was right all along
:no:

 
You must not have read about Hillary telling her family it was terrorists right after it happened. Lemme help you.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/23/hillary-clinton-emails-chelsea-during-benghazi-attack-blames-al-qaeda
This might be more significant, live document/email from the DOD:

DoD had forces ready on 9/11/12 "assuming principals agree."
https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/674326887817207808

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]

Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM

To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R

Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]

Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED]
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/JW-v-State-Benghazi-support-01511.pdf

- Any thoughts on this?

 
You must not have read about Hillary telling her family it was terrorists right after it happened. Lemme help you.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/23/hillary-clinton-emails-chelsea-during-benghazi-attack-blames-al-qaeda
This might be more significant, live document/email from the DOD:

DoD had forces ready on 9/11/12 "assuming principals agree."
https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/674326887817207808

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]

Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM

To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R

Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]

Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED]
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/JW-v-State-Benghazi-support-01511.pdf

- Any thoughts on this?
Debunked above from Media Matters, Fox based their false report from JW if you bothered to read the article found at link.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must not have read about Hillary telling her family it was terrorists right after it happened. Lemme help you.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/23/hillary-clinton-emails-chelsea-during-benghazi-attack-blames-al-qaeda
This might be more significant, live document/email from the DOD:

DoD had forces ready on 9/11/12 "assuming principals agree."
https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/674326887817207808

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]

Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM

To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R

Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]

Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED]
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/JW-v-State-Benghazi-support-01511.pdf

- Any thoughts on this?
Debunked above from Media Matters, Fox based their false report from JW if you bothered to read the article found at link.
Ok I will look at the MM treatment, I'm sure it's rich and originally sourced.

I didn't quote JW, I gave the actual document.

 
You must not have read about Hillary telling her family it was terrorists right after it happened. Lemme help you.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/23/hillary-clinton-emails-chelsea-during-benghazi-attack-blames-al-qaeda
This might be more significant, live document/email from the DOD:

DoD had forces ready on 9/11/12 "assuming principals agree."
https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/674326887817207808

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]

Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM

To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R

Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]

Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED]
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/JW-v-State-Benghazi-support-01511.pdf

- Any thoughts on this?
Debunked above from Media Matters, Fox based their false report from JW if you bothered to read the article found at link.
Squizz, I find it typical for MM they do not link to their source, or when they do they misquote it.

Here they did not link to Panetta's testimony. I linked it above.

This is what it says:

The quickest response option available was the Tripoli-based security team. Within hours, this six-person team, including two U.S. military personnel, chartered a private airplane and deployed to Benghazi. Within 15 minutes of arriving at the Annex facility, they came under attack by mortar and rocket propelled grenades. Members of this team, along with others at the Annex facility, provided emergency medical assistance and supported the evacuation of all personnel. Only 12 hours after the attacks began, all remaining U.S. government personnel had been safely evacuated from Benghazi.
I've never seen this before. This is Panetta saying in testimony that we did send someone, when they arrived they were under mortar and RPG attack. That's not a spontaneous protest. What the hell?

So the US government definitely knew at that point within 12 hours per Panetta's own testimony that was a militia attack for sure.

eta - this is a good timeline from the Dept. of Defense.

From Hillary's emails we know that by September 11th, 2012 (6:24 pm) they were already saying internally the attack was by militants and that internally the attacks had been distinguished from events in Cairo, on 9/11/12 at 1142 ET Hillary herself wrote that Beghazi mission had been attacked "by an Al-Qaeda linked group," and we know that only three minutes later that Hillary had a phone meeting with Obama (9/11/12 1145 pm). By the next evening, 7:11 pm ET on 7/12/12 Hillary told the Egyptian PM, "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.”

So at what point and in what way is it ever reflected that Hillary or anyone else in the administration personally believed the movie was at the root of the attack?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bizarre (???) - Leon Panetta's testimony doesn't mention the words video, protest, film, youtube, demonstration or anything of the like.

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Panetta%2002-07-13.pdf

By our best estimate, the incident at the Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi began at 3:42 p.m. eastern daylight time on September 11th. The Embassy in Tripoli was notified of the attacks almost immediately and within 17 minutes of the initial reports – at 3:59 p.m. – AFRICOM directed that an unarmed, unmanned, surveillance aircraft that was nearby to reposition overhead the Benghazi facility. Soon after the initial reports about the attack on Benghazi, General Dempsey and I met with President Obama and he ordered all available DoD assets to respond to the attack in Libya and to protect U.S. personnel and interests in the region.
- This is not how a government responds to a protest. This reads to me as though Pres. Obama responded as though the embassy was under attack.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://nypost.com/2015/12/09/hillary-clintons-most-repugnant-lie/

Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire: Hillary Clinton still insists she didn’t tell the grieving families of the Benghazi victims that an anti-Islam video was to blame.

Yet family members say she said just that, three days after the attack, at the Sept. 14, 2012, ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base.

George Stephanopoulos asked her Sunday if she’d told the victims it was about the film. Clinton gave a flat “no.”

She added: “I said very clearly there had been a terrorist group, uh, that had taken responsibility on Facebook, um . . .”

At least four family members disagree.

Tyrone Woods’ father said he hugged Clinton and shook her hand. Then “she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son . . . She said ‘the filmmaker who was responsible for the death of your son.’ ”

Sean Smith’s mother said Hillary is “absolutely lying . . . She said it was because of the video.” Smith’s uncle backs her up.

Glen Doherty’s sister agreed: “When I think back now to that day and what she knew, it shows me a lot about her character that she would choose in that moment to basically perpetuate what she knew was untrue.”

“What she knew” refers to Clinton’s words to daughter Chelsea the night of the assault and the next day to Egypt’s prime minister, which made it plain the secretary of state knew full well that a terror group had long planned the attack.

The lie’s even in her words at the Sept. 14 ceremony: “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

Just why the administration united around this lie is another editorial. The disgrace here is Clinton’s refusal to admit her role — even pushing the fib to “comfort” the bereaved.

Stiff as the competition is, this has to count as her lowest-down, dirtiest lie of all

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
http://nypost.com/2015/12/09/hillary-clintons-most-repugnant-lie/

Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire: Hillary Clinton still insists she didn’t tell the grieving families of the Benghazi victims that an anti-Islam video was to blame.

Yet family members say she said just that, three days after the attack, at the Sept. 14, 2012, ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base.

George Stephanopoulos asked her Sunday if she’d told the victims it was about the film. Clinton gave a flat “no.”

She added: “I said very clearly there had been a terrorist group, uh, that had taken responsibility on Facebook, um . . .”

...
Wow. She never ceases to amaze.

I don't even understand this. If she believed that the moviue was at fault wouldn't she then have said yeah she would get the fimmaker? But Hillary herself says she said it was a terrorist/militia attack within 3 days of the attack?

The lies don't even make pretend-sense anymore.
This is the Dem front runner? Are we shocked and surprised by this at all?

 
...STEPHANOPOULOS: Another challenge you could face in this campaign, a majority of Americans question your honesty. Some GOP rivals and family members of the Benghazi victims are saying you lied to them in that hearing.

They point to emails that you sent the night of the attack, one to your daughter, Chelsea Clinton, saying -- I'm going to have to put my glasses on here to actually read this. "We were silent...two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group." Another one to the Egyptian prime minister, "we know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest."

But the family members, as you know, say you told them it was by a filmmaker, you'd go after the filmmaker. Here's what they said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She lied. She absolutely lied. Her daughter was able to be told differently that it was not the video, it was something else. Now if her daughter could be told, why can't I?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Either she was lying to the prime minister, or she was lying to me and to the American public.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Did you tell them it was not the film? And what's your response?

CLINTON: No.

You know, look I understand the continuing grief at the loss that parents experienced with the loss of these four brave Americans. And I did testify, as you know, for 11 hours. And I answered all of these questions.

Now, I can't -- I can't help it the people think there has to be something else there. I said very clearly there had been a terrorist group that had taken responsibility on Facebook between the time that I -- you know, when I talked to my daughter, that was the latest information. We were giving it credibility. And then we learned the next day it wasn't true. In fact, they retracted it.

This was a fast moving series of events in the fog of war. And I think most Americans understand.

...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush/story?id=35596885

- So did Hillary not tell them it was not the film, as George (the former Clinton pr man...) put it?

Does she even understand what she was saying?

And is she saying that the US government was determining what happened from a Facebook posting from a terrorist organization, when in fact per Panetta's testimony Pres. Obama sent a military response team within 17 minutes of the attack and they had boots on the ground confirming what had transpired within 12 hours of the attack?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:lol: They're so completely obsessed with Trump that this won't even register.
Well Hillary proposed closing the internet and she has a campaign spokesman arguing to put muslims in internment camps so maybe someone will take a peak at what she is actually saying at some point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CIA Director Petraeus again debunks Benghazi theories

Former CIA Director David Petraeus's testimony to the House Benghazi committee Wednesday was consistent with what he told congressional investigators more than two years ago when he debunked several conspiracy theories about the deadly attacks, according to a committee Democrat.


Petraeus spent four hours behind closed doors Wednesday answering questions from the GOP-led panel investigating the twin 2012 assaults in Libya that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Petraeus, who was CIA director when the attack occurred, testified previously before the House Intelligence committee as part of its investigation of the attacks.

"What he is saying is completely consistent with what he's said in the past and indeed with the conclusions of the bipartisan (House) Intelligence committee report," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of both panels, as he emerged from the closed-door session.

From the first reply to the article...



Since most of you have never worked in a TOC (Tactical Operations Center), let me fill you in on who gives the orders to ‘stand down’. We have SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) that we follow when an Embassy, a Base, or a Post is being attacked. Part of those procedures do NOT include calling the White House to ask for advice or permission to take action. The Battle Captain in that TOC makes the initial call to alert the QRF or CIF. Once the immediate chain of command is notified, a Colonel or a General (as in this case) will make the final decision as to ramp up, execute, or stand down. Again, we don’t ever call the White House to ask for permission or guidance in these matters. Generals already have the authority to take immediate action in those situations. That’s why we have Colonels and Generals. These High ranking officers are entrusted to make these type of decisions on the battlefield. So I hate to break it to you guys, but the President is NOT part of that decision making process. The President and high ranking officials like Hillary, Panetta, and Petraeus are eventually notified of situations like this and kept updated thereafter. However, it’s the Combatant Commander that is responsible for that area who makes the final call to execute mission or ‘stand down’. In this case, the AOR (Area of Responsibility) was AFRICOM and the Combatant Commander for AFRICOM was GEN Ham.

Although, GEN Ham is the AFRICOM Commander and would normally give the final order and what most of the media on Broadcast and Cable have failed to mention is that GEN Ham was actually in DC during the attack. In this case, his 2nd in command assumes the responsibility the day he leaves area. In addition, the Commander of SOCAFRICA also comes into play because it falls under AFRICOM and they are directly in charge of the Special Forces for that AOR. That Commander was Rear Adm Brian Losey...and he testified, along with other officers, that there was NO stand down order ever given.

In summary, Stand Down orders are not given by the President or Hillary Clinton...that's why we have Generals, Admirals, and other Commanders.

My Background: Served 21 years in the US Army as an Infantryman...both as an enlisted member and a commissioned officer. Deployed 4 times (Bosnia, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan).

I also worked in a BDOC and JTOC.
Maybe another Benghazi fishing trip. Or an Affordable Care Act vote. Or Planned Parenthood investigation. Go go team GOP!... No governing, just politics.

 
I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].
Not sure what happened after this..

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top