It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House Approved 'Video Caused Benghazi Attack' Fraud

page: 1
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+20 more 
posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Some new documents obtained by Judicial Watch by court order apparently show the "Blame it on the Video" excuse used to cover the story about the 9/11/2012 Benghazi attack came from Hillary and was agreed upon by the White House.

Interesting because this info is actually from emails obtained by a FOIA request and ordered released by court order.

I guess they forgot to erase all the evidence.

Read how they were so clever.

I bet they were scrambling like jealous sea horses that night because the 2012 elections were coming up fast.

All that press BS and still somebody uncovers the real deal.

long detailed article with many links to glory....



Judicial Watch released a new set of State Department documents indicating that the instructions to fraudulently blame the attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi on a lousy YouTube Mohammed video came from Hillary but was approved by the White House The new documents were forced from the U.S. State Department under court order in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)).

The first email sent at 6:21 p.m. by State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland to Meehan, Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, and Clinton’s personal aide Jacob Sullivan shows that the State Department deferred to the White House on the official response to the Benghazi attack.


New Judicial Watch Find Shows White House Approved 'Video Caused Benghazi Attack' Fraud



bonus story related to the fraud...


The State Department is refusing to release the contents of a 15-minute conversation between President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from the night of Sept. 11, 2012 — the night Islamist terrorists attacked a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, and killed four Americans, including the country’s ambassador to Libya.

And the State Department isn’t even claiming that the conversation is classified, according to Fox News. It calls the talk part of “internal deliberations,” Fox reported.

State Dept. refuses to turn over conversation between Obama and Clinton on night of Benghazi attack



What Difference does it MAKE !!







posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I don't think this will come as a surprise to anybody.
S&F



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen A lot of things could have caused this tragedy. Just like many other attacks on our embassies and outposts worldwide. This one has become just a Republican talking point , though. That is sad.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


I bet they were scrambling like jealous sea horses...


Hahahahaha, I lost it!

Just wait until Hilary gets more airtime. Its going to turn into whack-a-mole.

Their quick, but we'll be quicker!



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I'm glad they found the smoking gun!...If that's the right term. Earlier today, FOX said that this evidence was "mysteriously missing" from the most recent batch of FOIA documents. Hillary's goose is cooked anyway. I think more Democrats like Bernie Sanders and his ideas.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Man, if only you would have spent half this much energy trying to find the true cause of the Iraq war, maybe 4000 soldiers would still be alive.

Bengazi. A surprise attack. 4 dead. Hundreds of millions spent to find no wrong doing, just a cover up.

Iraq. A planned war. 4000 dead. Hundreds of billions, if not trillions spent. Blatent lies to get those 4000 killed. Nothing happens.

One was a dem, so cons want blood.

The other a con, so cons let it pass.


+4 more 
posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: xuenchen A lot of things could have caused this tragedy. Just like many other attacks on our embassies and outposts worldwide. This one has become just a Republican talking point , though. That is sad.



No, what's sad is your attempt to excuse Obama and Clintons actions. At this point, what different does it make.....right?

Pladuim



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pladuim

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: xuenchen A lot of things could have caused this tragedy. Just like many other attacks on our embassies and outposts worldwide. This one has become just a Republican talking point , though. That is sad.



No, what's sad is your attempt to excuse Obama and Clintons actions. At this point, what different does it make.....right?

Pladuim

I did nothing of the kind and now you sound like a fox news talking point. Are there permanent committees on the similar places where more US employees died when republicans were in office? NO.
edit on 30-6-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pladuim

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: xuenchen A lot of things could have caused this tragedy. Just like many other attacks on our embassies and outposts worldwide. This one has become just a Republican talking point , though. That is sad.



No, what's sad is your attempt to excuse Obama and Clintons actions. At this point, what different does it make.....right?

Pladuim


Um...yeah. Please tell me what difference it makes?

It's not like 4000 people got killed over a made up war over made up reasons.


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormson

originally posted by: Pladuim

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: xuenchen A lot of things could have caused this tragedy. Just like many other attacks on our embassies and outposts worldwide. This one has become just a Republican talking point , though. That is sad.



No, what's sad is your attempt to excuse Obama and Clintons actions. At this point, what different does it make.....right?

Pladuim


Um...yeah. Please tell me what difference it makes?

It's not like 4000 people got killed over a made up war over made up reasons.


I'm certain this thread is not about the Iraq war, please lets stick to the topic. If you'd like to discuss the Iraq war, start a thread and I'll be more than happy to join you there.

Pladuim



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormson

originally posted by: Pladuim

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: xuenchen A lot of things could have caused this tragedy. Just like many other attacks on our embassies and outposts worldwide. This one has become just a Republican talking point , though. That is sad.



No, what's sad is your attempt to excuse Obama and Clintons actions. At this point, what different does it make.....right?

Pladuim


Um...yeah. Please tell me what difference it makes?

It's not like 4000 people got killed over a made up war over made up reasons.


Well, at least Bush turn his back on people being burned alive in cages.

Yeah, we fought a war cause Bush wanted revenge for the assassination attempt.

Bush was too stupid to know the difference.

Obama knows damn well what he's doing.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Pladuim

Your right, its not about the war.

I'm showing contrast. I'm showing how cons didn't blink an eye over a made up war, over made up reasons that got 4000 soldiers killed, yet lose their minds over 4 killed in a surprise attack.

I'm showing how cons make mountains over mole hills based on nothing but party.

Hillary asked, you repeat, what difference does it make? I've yet to get an answer.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: Pladuim

Your right, its not about the war.

I'm showing contrast. I'm showing how cons didn't blink an eye over a made up war, over made up reasons that got 4000 soldiers killed, yet lose their minds over 4 killed in a surprise attack.

I'm showing how cons make mountains over mole hills based on nothing but party.

Hillary asked, you repeat, what difference does it make? I've yet to get an answer.


What made up reasons are you referring to?

Pladuim



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: Pladuim

Your right, its not about the war.

I'm showing contrast. I'm showing how cons didn't blink an eye over a made up war, over made up reasons that got 4000 soldiers killed, yet lose their minds over 4 killed in a surprise attack.

I'm showing how cons make mountains over mole hills based on nothing but party.

Hillary asked, you repeat, what difference does it make? I've yet to get an answer.


The big difference is more than likely Obama wouldn't be currently sitting as President if the public knew he was running a secret gun running program, a failed one at that.

Pladuim


+4 more 
posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: stormson

You mean that war that dems, including Hilary, voted for? Yeah it was definitely a mistake, and I don't approve of it. Likewise I don't approve of Hilary intentionally misleading the American people as to the events that lead to the death of Americans in Benghazi.

What difference does it make? Well for starters, as a presidential candidate for the United States, she should be honest to the American people. She shouldn't have to spin stories if the real causes aren't incriminating. If it's such a minor thing why can't she just tell the damn truth and let everyone be done with it? As facts like this keep leaking out, we can clearly see she still hasn't been honest.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Pladuim

Not about the war, remember? But to answer your question, try the main reason: wmds. Even tenant, head of the CIA, said there weren't any and bush ignored him.

Now answer my question. What difference does it make? A surprise attack that killed 4 people.
edit on 30-6-2015 by stormson because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: stormson

Your question has been answered, see above.

Pladuim

Wmds were found in Iraq, along with yellow cake which is needed to make nuclear weapons.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: sine.nomine

They voted based on the Intel they were given. False Intel cooked up by rummy.

Honesty and politicians don't go together. Like how family values, anti gay politicians always get caught in gay scandels.

Now, 20 cities rioted. 19 over the vid, so its easy to assume that the 20th was over the same thing.

It's already been shown that no wrong doing occurred. So you're angry over the reason given, and not the actual event. That seems superficial at best.

Bush lied and 4000 died.

Hillary lied and...nothing. No one died because of it.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Pladuim

He would have still won cause no one cared then, just like now, except cons.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pladuim
a reply to: stormson

Your question has been answered, see above.

Pladuim

Wmds were found in Iraq, along with yellow cake which is needed to make nuclear weapons.


Source for that?

The wmds were very few and extremely degraded, to the point trying to move them was more dangerous than using them. No where near what was made out to be.

The yellow cake story has been completely debunked.







 
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join