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.

 

Hillary’s Video Claim Officially Proven to Be Deliberate Lie

page: 11
43
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
No thoughts about the link I posted?

You know, the one that leads to a clip from the actual hearing. It shows Hillary being pinned down and forced to admit the known motives behind the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate and CIA annex. They knew before the attack was over that it didn't have anything to do with a video.

You'd know what I'm talking about it you could set aside your biases long enough to click the link.




posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

CC, you used a quote from the New York Times in your diatribe about illegal acts on the part of Clinton, et. al.

I showed that the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH AFTER YOUR QUOTE states that there was no evidence linking what you are desperately trying to link.

Now you're merely twisting out of being proven to be cherry-picking your "information."

Focus: what illegal acts? Specific acts, specific laws broken, etc.



I wasn't stating that the weapons were used on Stevens in Libya ! That's the problem your having, or it's intentionally being obtuse.

Try reading my posts, it's very clearly stated. What was Stevens, the CIA and all those weapons doing there in the first place ? It wasn't for Benghazi... And they weren't being given to Gaddafi.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

The real scandal here, is the Secretary of State ignored the law and Ok'ed weapon sales on the down-low to known and listed terrorists and subsequent organizations.


"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants"

-Newyork Times Dec. 5'th 2012

"The State Department initially approved a weapons shipment from a California company to Libyans seeking to oust Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 even though a United Nations arms ban was in place, according to memos recovered from the burned-out compound in Benghazi.

"The documents, obtained by The Washington Times, show U.S. diplomats at the Benghazi compound were keeping track of several potential U.S.-sanctioned shipments to allies, one or more of which were destined for the Transitional National Council, the Libyan movement that was seeking to oust Gadhafi and form a new government."

-Washington Times Oct. 20'th 2015



The real scandal, is The Secretary of Stated facilitating the attack of a sovereign government, while her contacts chase down business leads and opprotunities. War for profit....


" According to the Times, Blumenthal was, at the same time, advising associates who were trying to win business from the transitional Libyan government Clinton had helped install by pushing for a coalition war to oust Qaddafi..... But the emails released by State do show that Blumenthal, who had no connection to the US government, acted as an unofficial adviser to Clinton on Libya — and that she sent her own aides to chase down his leads, no matter how implausible. "

-Vox & NewYork Times


"The real scandal here, is the State department shipping weapons and terrorists into Syria."


"The Obama administration has decided to launch a covert operation to send heavy weapons to Syrian rebels,"
- Christina Lamb of The Sunday Times of London reports.

"Last month The Wall Street Journal reported that the State Department presence in Benghazi "provided diplomatic cover" for the now-exposed CIA annex. It follows that the "weapons transfer" that Stevens negotiated may have involved sending heavy weapons recovered by the CIA to the revolutionaries in Syria."

-Bussiness Insider , Also reports in NewYork Times




The real scandal is terrorist hell hole that Libya is now, because of her Clinton-Foundation & future Business greed. Literally capitalizing on the suffering and instability SHE fomented, to make a buck. Civillians died in those SORTIES, so she and others could make money. Wicked, horrific terrorists, terrorizing civilian populations so she could set up money making opprotunities.


"On Sept. 6 a Libyan ship carrying 400 tons of weapons for Syrian rebels docked in southern Turkey. The ship's captain was "a Libyan from Benghazi" who worked for the new Libyan government. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head Abdelhakim Belhadj, worked directly with Stevens during the Libyan revolution."

-Fox news

"Much of the Libya intelligence that Mr. Blumenthal passed on to Mrs. Clinton appears to have come from a group of business associates he was advising as they sought to win contracts from the Libyan transitional government. The venture, which was ultimately unsuccessful, involved other Clinton friends, a private military contractor and one former C.I.A. spy seeking to get in on the ground floor of the new Libyan economy."

-New York Times may 18'th, 2015











Now read this again.. This time forget about the Benghazi-attack, forget about stupid videos, forget about Stevens dying..

The Scandal and illegality is clearly NOT about if she lied on what caused the attack. It's what the U.S. state department was doing there in the first place! What the CIA was doing there, and what the objective to "our policy" really was.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
did it ever occur to you that maybe this was done on purpose?...the CIA and DOJ were trying to track these terrorists down right after the attack...so maybe a conversation happened this way....Obama possibly saying, "we need a couple of days to see if we can identify these attackers, the CIA, in conjuction with DOJ, has ask us for 48 to 72 hours, to go publicly with the notion that this attack was a result of the video, like in Egypt" that way they may be able to flush these guys out of hiding there in Benghazi"...



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

There's a transcript, why don't you post it instead of gesturing at your video?

But again, see above, I've linked Clinton's comments directly after the attacks, and the comment in the email to Chelsea.

Why don't you demonstrate the horrific lie that makes any difference to anything that happened in Benghazi?

What's so hard about that?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

My goodness you do love screen-scroll and seeing your own words ...

We're getting closer, let's try to focus:

Here's what you just said:



The Scandal and illegality is clearly NOT about if she lied on what caused the attack. It's what the U.S. state department was doing there in the first place! What the CIA was doing there, and what the objective to "our policy" really was.


What was illegal about "what the State Department was doing there in the first place"?

What was illegal about "what the CIA was doing there"?

What was illegal about "the objective to what 'our policy' really was."

Thanks so much for trying, I think we're actually getting somewhere.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
You'll find the answer on Page 5, when we went over this the first time. What is the reoccurring theme, you keep avoiding but keeps coming up when Libya and Bengahzi get discussed and reported on by crediable news outlets ?

Weapons...
Radicals...
Syria...





edit on 26-10-2015 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
You'll find the answer on Page 5, when we went over this the first time.




Another cop out? LOL. Another "you can look it up" dodge?

It's fine if you don't have answers, I didn't think you did.

EDIT: Oh, you stealth edited. Classy.

You're still gesturing wildly at nothing.

The only "fact" you attempted to address on page 5 was the connection between the Qatari Arms Deals and Benghazi (yes, you know, the one you denied a few posts ago.)

My quote from the NYT shows that there was (and is) NO EVIDENCE of what you're claming.

I see that you're used to discussing this matter with people who believe the same things you do, what you've been fed from Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media echo chamber.

When confronted with a simple request for facts, you sputter and whine and try to dance aside.

You've just officially bored me to death with your little zigs and zags.

Enjoy.
edit on 11Mon, 26 Oct 2015 11:44:06 -050015p1120151066 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
You'll find the answer on Page 5, when we went over this the first time.




Another cop out? LOL. Another "you can look it up" dodge?

It's fine if you don't have answers, I didn't think you did.


For a guy who keeps saying it shouldn't be personal, and twisting things you do a lot of it.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
You'll find the answer on Page 5, when we went over this the first time.




Another cop out? LOL. Another "you can look it up" dodge?

It's fine if you don't have answers, I didn't think you did.


For a guy who keeps saying it shouldn't be personal, and twisting things you do a lot of it.


I don't think you even understand the concept of "personal" ... I'm focusing on the misdirections and errors that you keep posting. Because you take that "personally" doesn't make my comments personal.

Now, have fun.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
No your quote was about none the of the weapons being used in the attack on Benghazi, killing Stevens..

That's a big difference, from them ending up in the hands of radicals in Syria.

"Last month The Wall Street Journal reported that the State Department presence in Benghazi "provided diplomatic cover" for the now-exposed CIA annex. It follows that the "weapons transfer" that Stevens negotiated may have involved sending heavy weapons recovered by the CIA to the revolutionaries in Syria."

-Bussiness Insider

www.businessinsider.com...

What you decided to NOT do, was to look at the post I made as a reply to you. This is the scandal, the Administration supporting "Not so moderate" terrorists to affect regime change in Syria. Ignore that, make some snarky comment about me, cry and denounce that im attacking you personally, then finish with another snarky comment.

EDIT: I see you already did that last part.

Have fun going back to the NON-Issue if she lied. We already know she lied. The administration supported radical jihadists, and took down a stable sovereign government while doing so. Clinton just happen to leave a paper trail of her and Sid trying to make money off it personally.




edit on 26-10-2015 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Regime change in Syria is not the topic of this discussion.

I really am bored with your tactics; this is my last response to you here.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
You'll find the answer on Page 5, when we went over this the first time.




Another cop out? LOL. Another "you can look it up" dodge?

It's fine if you don't have answers, I didn't think you did.


For a guy who keeps saying it shouldn't be personal, and twisting things you do a lot of it.


I don't think you even understand the concept of "personal" ... I'm focusing on the misdirections and errors that you keep posting. Because you take that "personally" doesn't make my comments personal.

Now, have fun.


keep up the good work...the right on ATS was like this before you came on....I can tell you from experience, that after checking out approx. 20 of their stories in detail from several sources, and finding misinformation, and out and out lies, I no longer do it, I just assume their stories to be false, or at the least leaving out a critical piece of information, when I first see them here.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Thanks Jimmy.

Am I missing something? Is there some Clinton lie about the video that I've missed in her comments?

If there is a lie, does it make any difference at all to the outcome of the Benghazi tragedy?

Has the House reversed their attempts to cut security funding to the State Department so that we can defend our people?

Has the Republican Congress done ANYTHING to make Americans anywhere in the world safer?

What am I missing here?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Regime change in Syria is not the topic of this discussion.

I really am bored with your tactics; this is my last response to you here.




Good..
Because on page 4 when I said her lying wasn't the scandal people should be upset about. It's the what and the why of what happened in Libya is the real scandal you have nothing on it. Because it's clearly not defendable, and illegal on multiple levels.


" Thanks so much for trying, I think we're actually getting somewhere."



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Something tells me that Hillary is being painted a target for a few reasons...

1. obvious political trolling to discredit her

2. make some members of the GOP appear "tough"

...and the real interesting one....

3. keep us distracted and from looking into what was really going on...

I think the CIA was up to some pretty shady stuff and Hillary is running interference. I even think the GOP might be on board. I think there may have been a bi-partisian supported operation that went belly up in Benghazi -- and Hillary agreed to take a grilling, the GOP agreed to do the grilling...everyone seems to be getting something from all of this.

Hillary gets free exposure and press, the GOP gets an opportunity to strike at her...This might be why Hillary doesn't look overly concerned, and the GOP is going full tilt. They've both agreed to this beforehand perhaps?

Any time the finger of the media or congress points one direction, I want/try to look the opposite. There's more to the story here, I can feel it. We're being told to look at Hillary and not someplace else....

Why?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Is the issue here about Libya or Syria?

Folks can't seem to make up their minds.

Here it is again. I quoted Clinton above in her statements right after the attack. The information is plain.

She and Obama BOTH stated that the situation was in flux and that they weren't going to go into details with the public until they had better information.

What either one of them actually thought at the time, what they may have said to family or may have said "in private" is utterly irrelevant to any of that in light of even an elementary understanding of international politics.

The facts don't serve the political rhetoric.

I really hope Mrs. Clinton does not get elected. (I'm not a Bernie fan either.) I REALLY don't want to see us waste four or eight more critical years on this kind of partisan garbage.

EDIT: I like Bernie's feisty presentation. I like many of his ideas. But like Clinton, Trump, Carson, Paul and the rest, he's not a uniting force, and we desperately need that.
edit on 12Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:09:49 -050015p1220151066 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The first real evidence of a genuine conspiracy theory I've seen here!

Those are REALLY good questions.

EDIT: Which means that they will never be asked in Congress or probably anywhere else.

Good show, though.
edit on 12Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:11:40 -050015p1220151066 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
They have meddled so much that in the rare case an outsider became president everything would unravel.

It is like a backwards game of jenga where instead of sticks they use lies and that giant pile they made is what we call reality.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I mean, look at what its doing to the conspiracy minded people of ATS?

We're all arguing over emails, timelines, sound bites...We're not doing our due diligence to dig deeper, look where we're not supposed to be looking, or dig where we're not expected to be digging.

We're allowing the media to tell us what to care about, what to be angry with and who to blame. We're all falling for this partisan "my team vs. your team" crapola hook, line and sinker!

Everyone from the GOP to Hillary is making out with something to show from all of this -- and we ought to be asking ourselves what is really going on that we're not supposed to know about.




top topics



 
43
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join