Father Of Benghazi Victim Challenges Hillary Clinton To Lie Detector Test [VIDEO]...

[Care4all]

does he get paid for every interview?

Did Hillary tell these parents that it was the video airing, after the CIA released their official report on Sept. 24th?

If it was beforehand, when it was still 'foggy' then why make an issue out of it but for solely political reasons?

Yes, blame the victim. Just like y'all do with her pervert rapist husband's victims. Y'all are real sickos.

the lady that is now claiming rape, swore an oath on an affidavit stating that Bill did not rape her in her hotel room that she invited him up to.

And she also attended a Clinton support rally, for him, 3 weeks after he supposedly raped her.....rape is a vicious crime...how could she attend a Clinton fund raising event AFTERwards?

AS a thinking human being, I find it very very very hard to accept that any woman would attend a rally in support of the rapist that raped them just 21 days earlier.

Call me crazy if you want....

No, you blame the victims because the perpetrators are Democrats. You approve of Bill Clinton's pervert predator behavior, simply because he has a (D) beside his name. And the same goes for his corrupt lying wife. You're not nearly as deep or complex as you think you are. Seriously.

If you were viciously raped, would you attend a support rally for your rapist just 21 days after he violently raped you?

Yes or no?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Lie detector tests are notoriously inaccurate. Even if they worked, one would have to feel guilty about lying. Hillary lies so much and has no conscience so she could pass no problem.

Either that or the machine would burst into flames the second she opened her big mouth

 

[easyt65]

If you were viciously raped, would you attend a support rally for your rapist just 21 days after he violently raped you?

Yes or no?

Care....'NO' means 'NO'. Period.

 

[Care4all]

If you were viciously raped, would you attend a support rally for your rapist just 21 days after he violently raped you?

Yes or no?

Care....'NO' means 'NO'. Period.

Yes, I agree but did she say no?

And would you attend a Support Rally for your rapist just 3 weeks after he raped you?

yes or no?

 

[Fueri]

does he get paid for every interview?

Did Hillary tell these parents that it was the video airing, after the CIA released their official report on Sept. 24th?

If it was beforehand, when it was still 'foggy' then why make an issue out of it but for solely political reasons?

If it was 'foggy' they shouldn't have laid blame where they were unsure it actually belonged.

I don't buy this fog story at all. I don't see how anyone that actually looked at the timeline, e-mails and other available information could either. To me, it's nothing but an excellent BS story, in that is not disprovable. Plausible deniability and all that, except for the fact that there is a record on all of this if people choose to read it. I'm not going to post all of the evidence contradicting their 'fog' story, but there is plenty here:

Benghazi Timeline

"The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points."

Two days before Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.” The answer in the email parroted — nearly word for word — Rice’s talking points when it said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” The Rhodes email was released April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41 State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act."


To me this was a total BS story, made up from whole cloth to, in their own words make it seem that "these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy"

they lied. no doubt in my mind about it. Grabbed that feeble straw of this video, knew they were lying, trotted Rice out to lie to people and rode that pony as long as it took for the short attention span of the American public to get into 'yesterday's news' territory.

Then Rice got her reward for being a good soldier and was appointed as National Security Advisor, which would be belly-laugh territory if it wasn't an actually important post. They should have appointed her ambassador to Libya instead......

I don't care if they initially used the video, there was unrest and riots in the region due to the video elsewhere, they had intelligence saying the unrest was spreading to other middle eastern regions and cities, the State dept was concerned with it spreading and found an opportunity to speak out against the violence and try to quell the swelling anger over it in the region...

Without having a definitive answer on whether the video some how inspired the attack by the terrorists from the Intelligence community, which did not come until about 2 weeks later, then using the video, which the CIA said was a part of this attack was okay to do if they felt it would serve our Nation best at the time.

And even then, after the two weeks it took for the CIA to come out with their report on the attack, and to this very day, Our Intelligence community has NOT taken the video off the table as being a part of this attack.

They, the intelligence agencies, the State Department and Defense Dept and Military commanders have their reasons for handling things the way they do in foreign affairs, and I am not privileged to know those security reasons.

Now if they continue to hound that it was simply a video outburst, and nothing else, AFTER the CIA released their analysis of the situation, then I'd be concerned.

First, thanks for not shrieking at me for disagreeing.

Anyhoo, I can't agree with simply trusting them. Not because I don't think there are times when the government needs to do things on the fly for the good of the country, but because in this case it does not appear that this serves anyone's interests but those of the administration in this case. That is, of course, arguable

If you read through the link you will see Hillary herself blaming an al qaeda like group immediately after the attack.

“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.”

then the talking points issued by the CIA are massaged, yes? I posted this before, precisely because the CIA's original position WAS altered, but here it is again.

The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.

Here are some other tidbits:

"We call attention in particular to these key facts:

• 
  
  
  • There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
  • Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
  • Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
  • Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24."

As to intelligence agencies never taking the video off the table as a possible contributor, I'm not sure what that really means. They'd have to prove a negative to do so. They can't prove anything did NOT contribute to something.

Sorry, I don't buy it, not for a second. Not their story and not this fog of war stuff, which I think is nonsense.

Evidence provided by Politifact is there for anyone that chooses to read it. To me it would seem to indicate that the administration, including Clinton, knew what happened but decided to play CYA in an election year by trying to deflect blame away from something that could be construed as a "broader failure of policy"- their own words yet again:

"Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.”

 

[easyt65]

If you were viciously raped, would you attend a support rally for your rapist just 21 days after he violently raped you?

Yes or no?

Care....'NO' means 'NO'. Period.

Yes, I agree but did she say no?

And would you attend a Support Rally for your rapist just 3 weeks after he raped you?

yes or no?

Care, she just tweeted out 2 days ago that she was RAPED. Since Hillary is your 'Queen' and SHE declared that ALL women who claim to have been sexually assaulted, harassed, and / or raped MUST be believed then you MUST believe Juanita! By Hillary's own edict, Slick Willey - her husband - is a RAPIST.

'No' means 'No'. (Something Billy never figured out...)

 

[BlindBoo]

The man's son unnecessarily lost his life in the service of his country because this lying, deceitful.........,

No I'm pretty sure it was a mortar round that killed him, not what anyone said later on.

 

[easyt65]

Father of Benghazi Hero Tyrone Woods Issues Major Challenge to Hillary Clinton: ‘I Have Attempted to [Take] the High Road’

Hillary Clinton: ‘I Have Attempted to [Take] the High Road’

Translation: 'There is no way I am taking a polygraph. The man has called me out for lying, and I am completely avoiding him, the polygraph, and the fact that I not only lied to the grieving family members but then called THEM liars!'



The 'high road'. Hillary has NEVER taken the 'high road'. She's been on the 'low road' for so long they named it after her!

 

[boilermaker55]

Every parent/wife/husband/brother/sister of those killed in the Iraq war need to have the 2 lying fucks, gwb and dickless cheney to lie detector tests.

The father of former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, one of the four Americans killed by terrorists in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, is challenging Hillary Clinton to a lie detector test to prove that she did not blame an anti-Muslim video for the attacks during private conversations with the victims’ families.

“I would love to sit down with Hillary Clinton, if she’d agree to do it as well, and at the same table by the same operator, have a lie detector test,” Charles Woods told One America News Network’s Neil W. McCabe during an interview this week...



Read more: Father Of Benghazi Victim Challenges Hillary To Lie Detector Test [VIDEO]

 

[easyt65]

Every parent/wife/husband/brother/sister of those killed in the Iraq war need to have the 2 lying fucks, gwb and dickless cheney to lie detector tests.

The father of former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, one of the four Americans killed by terrorists in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, is challenging Hillary Clinton to a lie detector test to prove that she did not blame an anti-Muslim video for the attacks during private conversations with the victims’ families.

“I would love to sit down with Hillary Clinton, if she’d agree to do it as well, and at the same table by the same operator, have a lie detector test,” Charles Woods told One America News Network’s Neil W. McCabe during an interview this week...



Read more: Father Of Benghazi Victim Challenges Hillary To Lie Detector Test [VIDEO]

Things have gotten really uncomfortable for libs on this thread, which about HILLARY...so what happens.....? There it is....right on time....

'B...b...b...but BUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSHHHHHH!'



The crying, whining, dying wail of desperate, blame-shifting, diversion-attempting Liberals!

 

[boilermaker55]

The administration of gwb lied about getting us into a war. You cannot take the truth about that fucked up asshole. You belong to the same club as they belong.

Every parent/wife/husband/brother/sister of those killed in the Iraq war need to have the 2 lying fucks, gwb and dickless cheney to lie detector tests.

The father of former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, one of the four Americans killed by terrorists in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, is challenging Hillary Clinton to a lie detector test to prove that she did not blame an anti-Muslim video for the attacks during private conversations with the victims’ families.

“I would love to sit down with Hillary Clinton, if she’d agree to do it as well, and at the same table by the same operator, have a lie detector test,” Charles Woods told One America News Network’s Neil W. McCabe during an interview this week...



Read more: Father Of Benghazi Victim Challenges Hillary To Lie Detector Test [VIDEO]

Things have gotten really uncomfortable for libs on this thread, which about HILLARY...so what happens.....? There it is....right on time....

'B...b...b...but BUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSHHHHHH!'



The crying, whining, dying wail of desperate, blame-shifting, diversion-attempting Liberals!

 

[easyt65]

That's right, BM, 'double-down': In a 'Hillary' thread that exposes her as a criminal douche-bag, bawl out, 'Buuuusssshhhhhhh'!

 

[Care4all]

does he get paid for every interview?

Did Hillary tell these parents that it was the video airing, after the CIA released their official report on Sept. 24th?

If it was beforehand, when it was still 'foggy' then why make an issue out of it but for solely political reasons?

If it was 'foggy' they shouldn't have laid blame where they were unsure it actually belonged.

I don't buy this fog story at all. I don't see how anyone that actually looked at the timeline, e-mails and other available information could either. To me, it's nothing but an excellent BS story, in that is not disprovable. Plausible deniability and all that, except for the fact that there is a record on all of this if people choose to read it. I'm not going to post all of the evidence contradicting their 'fog' story, but there is plenty here:

Benghazi Timeline

"The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points."

Two days before Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.” The answer in the email parroted — nearly word for word — Rice’s talking points when it said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” The Rhodes email was released April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41 State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act."


To me this was a total BS story, made up from whole cloth to, in their own words make it seem that "these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy"

they lied. no doubt in my mind about it. Grabbed that feeble straw of this video, knew they were lying, trotted Rice out to lie to people and rode that pony as long as it took for the short attention span of the American public to get into 'yesterday's news' territory.

Then Rice got her reward for being a good soldier and was appointed as National Security Advisor, which would be belly-laugh territory if it wasn't an actually important post. They should have appointed her ambassador to Libya instead......

I don't care if they initially used the video, there was unrest and riots in the region due to the video elsewhere, they had intelligence saying the unrest was spreading to other middle eastern regions and cities, the State dept was concerned with it spreading and found an opportunity to speak out against the violence and try to quell the swelling anger over it in the region...

Without having a definitive answer on whether the video some how inspired the attack by the terrorists from the Intelligence community, which did not come until about 2 weeks later, then using the video, which the CIA said was a part of this attack was okay to do if they felt it would serve our Nation best at the time.

And even then, after the two weeks it took for the CIA to come out with their report on the attack, and to this very day, Our Intelligence community has NOT taken the video off the table as being a part of this attack.

They, the intelligence agencies, the State Department and Defense Dept and Military commanders have their reasons for handling things the way they do in foreign affairs, and I am not privileged to know those security reasons.

Now if they continue to hound that it was simply a video outburst, and nothing else, AFTER the CIA released their analysis of the situation, then I'd be concerned.

First, thanks for not shrieking at me for disagreeing.

Anyhoo, I can't agree with simply trusting them. Not because I don't think there are times when the government needs to do things on the fly for the good of the country, but because in this case it does not appear that this serves anyone's interests but those of the administration in this case. That is, of course, arguable

If you read through the link you will see Hillary herself blaming an al qaeda like group immediately after the attack.

“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.”

then the talking points issued by the CIA are massaged, yes? I posted this before, precisely because the CIA's original position WAS altered, but here it is again.

The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.

Here are some other tidbits:

"We call attention in particular to these key facts:

• 
  
  
  • There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
  • Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
  • Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
  • Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24."

As to intelligence agencies never taking the video off the table as a possible contributor, I'm not sure what that really means. They'd have to prove a negative to do so. They can't prove anything did NOT contribute to something.

Sorry, I don't buy it, not for a second. Not their story and not this fog of war stuff, which I think is nonsense.

Evidence provided by Politifact is there for anyone that chooses to read it. To me it would seem to indicate that the administration, including Clinton, knew what happened but decided to play CYA in an election year by trying to deflect blame away from something that could be construed as a "broader failure of policy"- their own words yet again:

"Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.”

thank you as well!

Let me address the Hillary email to her daughter right after the attack.

(I watched the Benghazi hearing with her and have read the previous Benghazi reports lead by Republicans Committees.)

The CIA and other intelligence reports had supplied the administration with information that a terrorist group was taking credit for the attack, of which the CIA claims they had no warning or previous Knowledge that something like this would happen.

The CIA AT THE SAME TIME also supplied them with information that some of their intelligence sources are saying it was an attack inspired by the video and this video resentment was getting ready to explode across the middle east.

that night when she spoke to Chelsea, a terrorist group had taken credit for it....thus what she mentioned to Chelsea.

The following morning, CIA/NSA intelligence told the administration that the group that initially tweeted that they were responsible came out and RETRACTED/ RENEGED their initial claim....so as she had said, the intelligence was fluid, and changing by the minute....

Also just two weeks after the incident, the Intelligence community came out with their analysis and said it was a specific terrorist group, this was in the news everywhere and it was still 6 weeks minimum until the election. It would have made no difference to the American people Knowing on the 12th of September or knowing on the 24th of September....they had plenty of time to change their minds about voting for Obama.

and I might add that Obama NEVER SAID AlQaeda was completely eliminated as the right wing is trying to mix in as a "talking point" with all of this and give this as a reason for not claiming it was terrorists.... and Romney would have won if the people knew this garbage....yahdahdahdahdah..... Obama said we were making good progress against Alqaeda, NOT that they were gone forever and a day....

And, I might add that Alqaeda has basically disappeared since he mentioned our progress and now the terrorists we are against are ISIL.

 

[paulitician]

does he get paid for every interview?

Did Hillary tell these parents that it was the video airing, after the CIA released their official report on Sept. 24th?

If it was beforehand, when it was still 'foggy' then why make an issue out of it but for solely political reasons?

If it was 'foggy' they shouldn't have laid blame where they were unsure it actually belonged.

I don't buy this fog story at all. I don't see how anyone that actually looked at the timeline, e-mails and other available information could either. To me, it's nothing but an excellent BS story, in that is not disprovable. Plausible deniability and all that, except for the fact that there is a record on all of this if people choose to read it. I'm not going to post all of the evidence contradicting their 'fog' story, but there is plenty here:

Benghazi Timeline

"The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points."

Two days before Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.” The answer in the email parroted — nearly word for word — Rice’s talking points when it said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” The Rhodes email was released April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41 State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act."


To me this was a total BS story, made up from whole cloth to, in their own words make it seem that "these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy"

they lied. no doubt in my mind about it. Grabbed that feeble straw of this video, knew they were lying, trotted Rice out to lie to people and rode that pony as long as it took for the short attention span of the American public to get into 'yesterday's news' territory.

Then Rice got her reward for being a good soldier and was appointed as National Security Advisor, which would be belly-laugh territory if it wasn't an actually important post. They should have appointed her ambassador to Libya instead......

I don't care if they initially used the video, there was unrest and riots in the region due to the video elsewhere, they had intelligence saying the unrest was spreading to other middle eastern regions and cities, the State dept was concerned with it spreading and found an opportunity to speak out against the violence and try to quell the swelling anger over it in the region...

Without having a definitive answer on whether the video some how inspired the attack by the terrorists from the Intelligence community, which did not come until about 2 weeks later, then using the video, which the CIA said was a part of this attack was okay to do if they felt it would serve our Nation best at the time.

And even then, after the two weeks it took for the CIA to come out with their report on the attack, and to this very day, Our Intelligence community has NOT taken the video off the table as being a part of this attack.

They, the intelligence agencies, the State Department and Defense Dept and Military commanders have their reasons for handling things the way they do in foreign affairs, and I am not privileged to know those security reasons.

Now if they continue to hound that it was simply a video outburst, and nothing else, AFTER the CIA released their analysis of the situation, then I'd be concerned.

First, thanks for not shrieking at me for disagreeing.

Anyhoo, I can't agree with simply trusting them. Not because I don't think there are times when the government needs to do things on the fly for the good of the country, but because in this case it does not appear that this serves anyone's interests but those of the administration in this case. That is, of course, arguable

If you read through the link you will see Hillary herself blaming an al qaeda like group immediately after the attack.

“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.”

then the talking points issued by the CIA are massaged, yes? I posted this before, precisely because the CIA's original position WAS altered, but here it is again.

The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.

Here are some other tidbits:

"We call attention in particular to these key facts:

• 
  
  
  • There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
  • Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
  • Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
  • Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24."

As to intelligence agencies never taking the video off the table as a possible contributor, I'm not sure what that really means. They'd have to prove a negative to do so. They can't prove anything did NOT contribute to something.

Sorry, I don't buy it, not for a second. Not their story and not this fog of war stuff, which I think is nonsense.

Evidence provided by Politifact is there for anyone that chooses to read it. To me it would seem to indicate that the administration, including Clinton, knew what happened but decided to play CYA in an election year by trying to deflect blame away from something that could be construed as a "broader failure of policy"- their own words yet again:

"Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.”

thank you as well!

Let me address the Hillary email to her daughter right after the attack.

(I watched the Benghazi hearing with her and have read the previous Benghazi reports lead by Republicans Committees.)

The CIA and other intelligence reports had supplied the administration with information that a terrorist group was taking credit for the attack, of which the CIA claims they had no warning or previous Knowledge that something like this would happen.

The CIA AT THE SAME TIME also supplied them with information that some of their intelligence sources are saying it was an attack inspired by the video and this video resentment was getting ready to explode across the middle east.

that night when she spoke to Chelsea, a terrorist had taken credit for it....thus what she mentioned to Chelsea.

The following morning, CIA/NSA intelligence told the administration that the group that initially tweeted that they were responsible came out and RETRACTED/ RENEGED their initial claim....so as she had said, the intelligence was fluid, and changing by the minute....

Also just two weeks after the incident, the Intelligence community came out with their analysis and said it was a specific terrorist group, this was in the news everywhere and it was still 6 weeks minimum until the election. It would have made no difference to the American people Knowing on the 12th of September or knowing on the 24th of September....they had plenty of time to change their minds about voting for Obama.

and I might add that Obama NEVER SAID AlQaeda was completely eliminated as the right wing is trying to mix in as a "talking point" with all of this and give this as a reason for not claiming it was terrorists.... and Romney would have won if the people knew this garbage....yahdahdahdahdah..... Obama said we were making good progress against Alqaeda, NOT that they were gone forever and a day....

And, I might add that Alqaeda has basically disappeared since he mentioned our progress and now the terrorists we are against are ISIL.

Go spew that nonsense to the victims' families she lied to. I dare you.

 

[Care4all]

does he get paid for every interview?

Did Hillary tell these parents that it was the video airing, after the CIA released their official report on Sept. 24th?

If it was beforehand, when it was still 'foggy' then why make an issue out of it but for solely political reasons?

If it was 'foggy' they shouldn't have laid blame where they were unsure it actually belonged.

I don't buy this fog story at all. I don't see how anyone that actually looked at the timeline, e-mails and other available information could either. To me, it's nothing but an excellent BS story, in that is not disprovable. Plausible deniability and all that, except for the fact that there is a record on all of this if people choose to read it. I'm not going to post all of the evidence contradicting their 'fog' story, but there is plenty here:

Benghazi Timeline

"The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points."

Two days before Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.” The answer in the email parroted — nearly word for word — Rice’s talking points when it said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” The Rhodes email was released April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41 State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act."


To me this was a total BS story, made up from whole cloth to, in their own words make it seem that "these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy"

they lied. no doubt in my mind about it. Grabbed that feeble straw of this video, knew they were lying, trotted Rice out to lie to people and rode that pony as long as it took for the short attention span of the American public to get into 'yesterday's news' territory.

Then Rice got her reward for being a good soldier and was appointed as National Security Advisor, which would be belly-laugh territory if it wasn't an actually important post. They should have appointed her ambassador to Libya instead......

I don't care if they initially used the video, there was unrest and riots in the region due to the video elsewhere, they had intelligence saying the unrest was spreading to other middle eastern regions and cities, the State dept was concerned with it spreading and found an opportunity to speak out against the violence and try to quell the swelling anger over it in the region...

Without having a definitive answer on whether the video some how inspired the attack by the terrorists from the Intelligence community, which did not come until about 2 weeks later, then using the video, which the CIA said was a part of this attack was okay to do if they felt it would serve our Nation best at the time.

And even then, after the two weeks it took for the CIA to come out with their report on the attack, and to this very day, Our Intelligence community has NOT taken the video off the table as being a part of this attack.

They, the intelligence agencies, the State Department and Defense Dept and Military commanders have their reasons for handling things the way they do in foreign affairs, and I am not privileged to know those security reasons.

Now if they continue to hound that it was simply a video outburst, and nothing else, AFTER the CIA released their analysis of the situation, then I'd be concerned.

First, thanks for not shrieking at me for disagreeing.

Anyhoo, I can't agree with simply trusting them. Not because I don't think there are times when the government needs to do things on the fly for the good of the country, but because in this case it does not appear that this serves anyone's interests but those of the administration in this case. That is, of course, arguable

If you read through the link you will see Hillary herself blaming an al qaeda like group immediately after the attack.

“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.”

then the talking points issued by the CIA are massaged, yes? I posted this before, precisely because the CIA's original position WAS altered, but here it is again.

The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.

Here are some other tidbits:

"We call attention in particular to these key facts:

• 
  
  
  • There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
  • Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
  • Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
  • Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24."

As to intelligence agencies never taking the video off the table as a possible contributor, I'm not sure what that really means. They'd have to prove a negative to do so. They can't prove anything did NOT contribute to something.

Sorry, I don't buy it, not for a second. Not their story and not this fog of war stuff, which I think is nonsense.

Evidence provided by Politifact is there for anyone that chooses to read it. To me it would seem to indicate that the administration, including Clinton, knew what happened but decided to play CYA in an election year by trying to deflect blame away from something that could be construed as a "broader failure of policy"- their own words yet again:

"Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.”

thank you as well!

Let me address the Hillary email to her daughter right after the attack.

(I watched the Benghazi hearing with her and have read the previous Benghazi reports lead by Republicans Committees.)

The CIA and other intelligence reports had supplied the administration with information that a terrorist group was taking credit for the attack, of which the CIA claims they had no warning or previous Knowledge that something like this would happen.

The CIA AT THE SAME TIME also supplied them with information that some of their intelligence sources are saying it was an attack inspired by the video and this video resentment was getting ready to explode across the middle east.

that night when she spoke to Chelsea, a terrorist had taken credit for it....thus what she mentioned to Chelsea.

The following morning, CIA/NSA intelligence told the administration that the group that initially tweeted that they were responsible came out and RETRACTED/ RENEGED their initial claim....so as she had said, the intelligence was fluid, and changing by the minute....

Also just two weeks after the incident, the Intelligence community came out with their analysis and said it was a specific terrorist group, this was in the news everywhere and it was still 6 weeks minimum until the election. It would have made no difference to the American people Knowing on the 12th of September or knowing on the 24th of September....they had plenty of time to change their minds about voting for Obama.

and I might add that Obama NEVER SAID AlQaeda was completely eliminated as the right wing is trying to mix in as a "talking point" with all of this and give this as a reason for not claiming it was terrorists.... and Romney would have won if the people knew this garbage....yahdahdahdahdah..... Obama said we were making good progress against Alqaeda, NOT that they were gone forever and a day....

And, I might add that Alqaeda has basically disappeared since he mentioned our progress and now the terrorists we are against are ISIL.

Go spew that nonsense to the victims' families she lied to. I dare you.

It's not garbage, it is documented with time stamps, on all the different things going on and being said.

 

[easyt65]

Care, thank you for YOUR INTERPRETATION / OPINION / JUSTIFICATION / EXCUSE for Hillary's e-mail to her daughter and the foreign PM, in which she clearly declared that she KNEW this was a terrorist attack and that she KNEW the video had nothing to do with it....but I would rather take HILLARY'S OWN WORDS FOR IT.

Through her e-mails, SHE testified. Just like with this latest e-mail through which SHE 'testifies' and exposes the FACT that SHE ordered a subordinate to BREAK THE LAW, her own words, her own e-mails explains it all and does not need or merit any 'clarification' from proven/obvious partisan 'apologists/defenders'.

We get it. Bill Clinton could hump a goat on the steps of the WH...Hillary's diary could be found in which she brags how she has completely 'played' the American people and that even if they find the evidence to indict her she will never go to jail because the 'pathetic sheep will not get the best of her', there are liberals out there who will defend her until they die!

Much like 'endorsements', I couldn't give a crap who says what for someone else. Hillary's own words speak for themselves.

But thanks for telling us what YOU believe.

 

[aaronleland]

Lie detector tests are notoriously inaccurate. Even if they worked, one would have to feel guilty about lying. Hillary lies so much and has no conscience so she could pass no problem.

Either that or the machine would burst into flames the second she opened her big mouth

Or her legs...

 

[Redfish]

Care and the other raving libs on this board would love Hillary if she shit in their coffee. They are obsessed with the Clintons, they consider them a higher form of life, it amazes me, but liberalism is a mental disease.

Look it up libs, you have a defective gene, its been identified as DRD4. google it, you might learn something about yourselves.

 

[Fueri]

does he get paid for every interview?

Did Hillary tell these parents that it was the video airing, after the CIA released their official report on Sept. 24th?

If it was beforehand, when it was still 'foggy' then why make an issue out of it but for solely political reasons?

If it was 'foggy' they shouldn't have laid blame where they were unsure it actually belonged.

I don't buy this fog story at all. I don't see how anyone that actually looked at the timeline, e-mails and other available information could either. To me, it's nothing but an excellent BS story, in that is not disprovable. Plausible deniability and all that, except for the fact that there is a record on all of this if people choose to read it. I'm not going to post all of the evidence contradicting their 'fog' story, but there is plenty here:

Benghazi Timeline

"The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points."

Two days before Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.” The answer in the email parroted — nearly word for word — Rice’s talking points when it said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” The Rhodes email was released April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41 State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act."


To me this was a total BS story, made up from whole cloth to, in their own words make it seem that "these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy"

they lied. no doubt in my mind about it. Grabbed that feeble straw of this video, knew they were lying, trotted Rice out to lie to people and rode that pony as long as it took for the short attention span of the American public to get into 'yesterday's news' territory.

Then Rice got her reward for being a good soldier and was appointed as National Security Advisor, which would be belly-laugh territory if it wasn't an actually important post. They should have appointed her ambassador to Libya instead......

I don't care if they initially used the video, there was unrest and riots in the region due to the video elsewhere, they had intelligence saying the unrest was spreading to other middle eastern regions and cities, the State dept was concerned with it spreading and found an opportunity to speak out against the violence and try to quell the swelling anger over it in the region...

Without having a definitive answer on whether the video some how inspired the attack by the terrorists from the Intelligence community, which did not come until about 2 weeks later, then using the video, which the CIA said was a part of this attack was okay to do if they felt it would serve our Nation best at the time.

And even then, after the two weeks it took for the CIA to come out with their report on the attack, and to this very day, Our Intelligence community has NOT taken the video off the table as being a part of this attack.

They, the intelligence agencies, the State Department and Defense Dept and Military commanders have their reasons for handling things the way they do in foreign affairs, and I am not privileged to know those security reasons.

Now if they continue to hound that it was simply a video outburst, and nothing else, AFTER the CIA released their analysis of the situation, then I'd be concerned.

First, thanks for not shrieking at me for disagreeing.

Anyhoo, I can't agree with simply trusting them. Not because I don't think there are times when the government needs to do things on the fly for the good of the country, but because in this case it does not appear that this serves anyone's interests but those of the administration in this case. That is, of course, arguable

If you read through the link you will see Hillary herself blaming an al qaeda like group immediately after the attack.

“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.”

then the talking points issued by the CIA are massaged, yes? I posted this before, precisely because the CIA's original position WAS altered, but here it is again.

The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.

Here are some other tidbits:

"We call attention in particular to these key facts:

• 
  
  
  • There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
  • Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
  • Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
  • Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24."

As to intelligence agencies never taking the video off the table as a possible contributor, I'm not sure what that really means. They'd have to prove a negative to do so. They can't prove anything did NOT contribute to something.

Sorry, I don't buy it, not for a second. Not their story and not this fog of war stuff, which I think is nonsense.

Evidence provided by Politifact is there for anyone that chooses to read it. To me it would seem to indicate that the administration, including Clinton, knew what happened but decided to play CYA in an election year by trying to deflect blame away from something that could be construed as a "broader failure of policy"- their own words yet again:

"Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.”

thank you as well!

Let me address the Hillary email to her daughter right after the attack.

(I watched the Benghazi hearing with her and have read the previous Benghazi reports lead by Republicans Committees.)

The CIA and other intelligence reports had supplied the administration with information that a terrorist group was taking credit for the attack, of which the CIA claims they had no warning or previous Knowledge that something like this would happen.

The CIA AT THE SAME TIME also supplied them with information that some of their intelligence sources are saying it was an attack inspired by the video and this video resentment was getting ready to explode across the middle east.

that night when she spoke to Chelsea, a terrorist group had taken credit for it....thus what she mentioned to Chelsea.

The following morning, CIA/NSA intelligence told the administration that the group that initially tweeted that they were responsible came out and RETRACTED/ RENEGED their initial claim....so as she had said, the intelligence was fluid, and changing by the minute....

Also just two weeks after the incident, the Intelligence community came out with their analysis and said it was a specific terrorist group, this was in the news everywhere and it was still 6 weeks minimum until the election. It would have made no difference to the American people Knowing on the 12th of September or knowing on the 24th of September....they had plenty of time to change their minds about voting for Obama.

and I might add that Obama NEVER SAID AlQaeda was completely eliminated as the right wing is trying to mix in as a "talking point" with all of this and give this as a reason for not claiming it was terrorists.... and Romney would have won if the people knew this garbage....yahdahdahdahdah..... Obama said we were making good progress against Alqaeda, NOT that they were gone forever and a day....

And, I might add that Alqaeda has basically disappeared since he mentioned our progress and now the terrorists we are against are ISIL.

Do you have sources for your assertions on these things? Not being accusatory, as actually I believe that you believe what you're saying, but this is simply a version with no supporting evidence. The timeline I found at politifact is the best synopsis I've found that is sourced and supported.

Here's another correspondence

"Sept. 12, 3:04 p.m.: Clinton calls then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and tells him, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.” An account of that call was contained in an email written by State Department Public Affairs Officer Lawrence Randolph that summarizes the call between the two leaders. The email was released by the House Benghazi committee."

I was also two days later (Sept 14) that the e-mail written by Rhodes went out regarding their desires to have this not be seen as a failure of policy, so this shift and new information has to have come during that ~48 hour time period. That is certainly possible, but I've seen nothing to this point that supports it other than this claim of 'fluidity' and 'fog of war' stuff. Who said what and when to shift from this position of a terrorist attack to a video and why were the CIA's talking points massaged to omit references to Al Qaeda and by whom?

Obama said Al Qaeda was 'decimated' several times. Completely eliminated? No, that's not possible to actually claim, but decimated, 'on the run' etc. He was stumping big on this supposed victory. I can post quotes here, but I think everyone remembers that stuff.

We can say, well people had time to change their minds, however, once the facts are muddled how is it expected that voters by and large can do that. We're still debating it years later.

At the time it's a win politically if they can simply confuse or convince enough people that what they've been saying all along, is in fact true, otherwise they lose that plank. Fighting it to a draw is a win for them in this case, as otherwise they lose ground.

Do they lose the election if they get egg splattered squarely on them on this? Probably not, but at the time we didn't know that- and neither did they.

 

[boilermaker55]

If you want past transgressions exposed via lie detector you seem to not want the same thing for your party.
Hypocrite is your name.

That's right, BM, 'double-down': In a 'Hillary' thread that exposes her as a criminal douche-bag, bawl out, 'Buuuusssshhhhhhh'!