Hillary’s Video Claim Officially Proven to Be Deliberate Lie

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

LOL OMG...

MystikMushroom just said exactly what I said... The real scandal here is not whether she lied about a video... I quoted excerpts from reputable journalism showing this is/should be the issue.


The messenger seems to make a bigger difference than the message for some people.
/shrug

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

If you think your posts have anything in common with Mystik's ... well ... suffice it to say ...

They don't. You alleged all the predictable right-wing mainstream media garbage ... over and over.

Mystik asked us to look beyond all that.

Your two posts are literally like night and day.

Susan Rice blamed the video and said not premeditated.

She got Hur Ordaz from Obama and Hillary.

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

'This Week' Transcript: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice

Uh... No... You just didn't like the messenger.

Lets see, Mystik mentions shadiness of the CIA, State Department running cover, and the GOP possibly involved...

I posted excerpts of illegal arms transfers, illegal weapon sales, Illegal support to known terror organisations.

I also when asked (by you) why wasn't Trey going for it, on page 5 I responded because it's bigger than Clinton and would implicate a lot of people on the other side of the aisle :

*cough*John McCain*cough*

That ring a bell ? As well as bring under scrutiny the material & financial support for "not so moderate" rebels in multiple theaters for the last 4-5 years.


Ya.. Night & day stuff there...

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Great thing about ATS and the world; we can all see ourselves however we want.

You keep congratulating yourself.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Great thing about ATS and the world; we can all see ourselves however we want.

You keep congratulating yourself.

The best part is it's all in print so others can decide themselves.
Have a nice day.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?

if you have done the research, you're not missing a thing....the right is trying to characterize liberals and democrats as being un-patriotic, treasonous, and someone no American should trust. they keep saying these things over and over, so it sticks in their fellow republicans (and others) minds as being the actual truth......a classic case study in usage of propaganda from chapter 6 of Mein Kampf

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Aside from the fact that the OP has been proven to be basically hoaxed repeatedly here, let's get to the root of this issue.

On September 11, 2012, The AP and other news sources initially reported that the events in Benghazi were related to violent reactions on the part of Muslims across the Middle East to the video "Innocence of Muslims."

Here is what Clinton said in her first official announcement:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

Here is what Clinton said in the much-ballyhooed email to Chelsea:

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.

Here's what she said the next day (after Mr. Obama had referred to what happened as "an act of terror" in the Rose Garden):

All the Americans we lost in yesterday’s attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future.

(Obama also referred to the attacks as "an act of terror" later on the night of September 12th at a speech.)

Etc. etc. etc.

Now. Those with an agenda against the Obama Administration, the President, and Mrs. Clinton see this as a horrendous set of lies. I and others see this as a situation in flux. I see Clinton and Obama being careful in public to make comments before the facts were fully known. However, there was no attempt to mislead the American people, as both referred to the events as violent acts of terror.

Now, here's the thing ... I'll say the same thing that Mrs. Clinton has said: full disclosure or not ... what difference does it make?

Nah, let's quote exactly what she said (as well as what Rep Johnson said for context):

Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Now, like Mrs. Clinton or not, that's what she said, and what she said about what she said.

Source: Many, but mostly: Factcheck.org: Benghazi Timeline and Hillary Clinton's "What Difference Does it Make" Quote in Context

Umm her e mail to chelsea didnt mention a video did it? SO why say something diffrent? In her transscript to th e egyptians she said it had nothing to do with a video. THats what they are on about. is her PUBLIC STATEMENT not jiving with her PRIVATE STATEMENT. HEr willingness to hide details for political expeediency is the real issue here.

ALso DIdnt she get convicted of a felony with whitewater? I thought felons could not run for president.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Gryphon66

well that would be news to the world

are you saying stephens is not dead?

are you saying that Hillary was not in charge of the request cables and the whole system of diplomats?

No. Ambassador Stevens is most certainly and sadly dead.

And his death and the deaths of three other Americans are being used by the Republican traitors in the Congress for the dirtiest reasons possible.

Read one of the previous thirteen reports from the investigations (eight by the Republicans) regarding the facts of Benghazi; that will answer all your questions ...

... except that you're not really looking for facts. You have clearly established that you are belief-based.

Thanks for the convo.

So...a couple simple questions. The administration including Obama and Clinton knew the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with the video but lied and told others to lie (directly or indirectly) to the American people. Agree or disagree?

Disagree...So reading through this now famous first statement by Susan Rice less than 4 days after the attack...Where is the lie?

It is only a "Lie" if you assume the investigation was complete and they had all the information within 4 days...which she clearly and repeatedly explained they did not.

You can say they should have known every detail 4 days after an attack...but then explain to me why congress feels the need to conduct the 30th "investigation" years after the attack...

the answer of course is politics...as the GOP defectors have clearly admitted recently.

RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present.

abcnews.go.com...

a reply to: Indigo5
The criminal part is where they had an attack in cairo and already knew that Stephens was seriously concerned because of lack of support yet they still ignored his request even after things began to blow up around him. Incompetence can be criminal.

There were several cables in the days prior requesting protection and support and as soon as things began to fall apart they should have responded before anything ever happened to Stephens.

That little tidbit of logic I just wrote also ignores the fact that Clinton was the one who put the people in harms way in the first place and then she ignored hundreds of request over the coarse of months in an area where they should not have been there in the first place.

Either way lerner is cleared now and the remnants of irs racism has been swept under the rug.

Does anyone know why we had an embassy in the area at the time anyhow. I mean what kind of reasoning could justify putting resources under protected in that area at that time.

a reply to: xuenchen

We all know this will go absolutely no where. Clinton could claim she was abducted by Aliens and no one would believer her, but the MSM would never call her out on it and if the MSM doesn't mention it.......its not a lie!

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Indigo5
The criminal part is where they had an attack in cairo and already knew that Stephens was seriously concerned because of lack of support yet they still ignored his request even after things began to blow up around him. Incompetence can be criminal.

You seem to have not followed the thorough and public debunking of the "Stand down" order?

Does anyone know why we had an embassy in the area at the time anyhow. I mean what kind of reasoning could justify putting resources under protected in that area at that time.

It was a CIA operation.

Your ignorance on the issue feeds your gullibility to political/GOP spin.

a reply to: Indigo5

Perhaps you have some substance to go with your critique?

By all means what is public debunking

I made a clear point that she was in charge of putting him there and in charge of protecting him and she failed to protect him and now some seek to dismiss her responsibility of putting him there in the first place.

The real Benghazi scandal

In 2011, the U.S. led a NATO coalition that bombed Libya for over seven months, destroying the government and leaving behind a political vacuum, large parts of which have been filled by extremist groups. Today, downtown Benghazi is in ruins, and chunks of the city are under the control of Ansar al-Sharia, an extremist Salafi Islamist militia that is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S.

This is a great op-ed on the utter destruction this ignorant evil woman has wrought on Libya.


And how the GOP really missed the real scandal in Benghazi.

Trump is right; Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of state in the history of the country.

Hillary justifies her bungling of Libya as she also supports doing the same destruction in Syria.

a reply to: yuppa

You'd have to ask Mrs. Clinton about her difference different choices of words at different times in different venues ... I don't pretend to be able to read minds like some here and in the Congress.

So, there is no lie that you know of ... just a different description? Fair enough, I can see that too.

The only place that Mrs. Clinton has ever been convicted of anything is in the minds of Republicans.

Seriously, though, you couldn't afford six seconds to type that into a search engine and find out for yourself?

I love it. How many times here has Hillary Clinton been referred to as "evil."

Isn't that usually reserved for mass-murderers and Dark Lords of the Sith?

I mean, come on, do you guys just not have any compunction about putting your rabid bias toward this woman on public display?

She's Evil, she's solely responsible for the fall of Libya, Syria, and anything else going wrong anywhere in the world ...

All with nothing more than the pumped up rhetoric you've been fed through your media sources.

You've been questioned here time after time about her supposed "lies" and her supposed "crimes" and you can't come up with a single thing except to say "well, everyone knows it's true."

It goes something like this (in general, not pretending to quote anyone)

QUESTION: "How do you know she lied?"

ANSWER: "Because she's a liar, duh."

QUESTION: "What crimes did she commit, specifically?"

ANSWER: "We all know she's guilty, we don't need actual proof."

ANSWER2: "Yeah, besides that she killed her best friend and was convicted of something in the 90s."

ANSWER3: "Why are you DEFENDING her? It's obvious to everyone with a brain that she is EEEVVVIIIILLLLL."

It'd be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You get the national deflection award.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Gryphon66

You get the national deflection award.

No, I think you deserve it for another zero-content post.

Here, take two ...

Was Hillary responsible for the embassy being open there?

In other related news ... apparently Representative Gowdy maintains his own private email server ...

Addicting Info

It’s difficult to be happy about something that in all reality just adds to the sheer ridiculousness of the BENGHAZI! witch-hunt; something that shows an hypocrisy unlike any seen in a Republican since…yesterday. Yet it can’t help but be just a little bit satisfying to know that members of the BENGHAZI! Attack Force Derpa™, including Chairman Harold Watson “Trey” Gowdy, are in fact hypocrites of epic proportions.

Alternet

Yet it's important to note that Gowdy maintains his own domain treygowdy.com. For example, one campaign contact email he used was [email protected]. While it's not unusual to maintain such a thing particularly for campaign work, it's not clear that Gowdy utilizes this email solely for political campaign work and not congressional tasks. AlterNet asked Gowdy's office through both a telephone inquiry followed up by an email communication to his press secretary about how he segregates work he conducts through his personal domain vs congressional work. We also inquired about where his personal email server is stored and how it is secured. We also attempted to contact Gowdy campaign manager George Ramsey, but he did not return our phone calls. In 48 hours, the deadline we set, we received no response.

Now admittedly, I see no evidence presented of actual wrongdoing on Mr. Gowdy's part here ... but it does bring up "interesting questions" doesn't it? (At least, by the standards of evidence on display here regarding Mrs. Clinton.)