• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

New Disclosures on Benghazi - Part II

We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.

Yet the Candidate said nothing when one of her stooges lied to the American people the following Sunday.

Pathetic

This only happened in you imagination..

My imagination?

Lolz!

Might want to click on links to the actual emails I posted first!

Here it is again:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Defs-Document-Production-March-7-2016.pdf

FANTASTIC!!!!
 
"I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son," Patricia Smith said.

That ought to earn at least a couple of laughing dogs from the Shillaries.

Pathetic
Yet, those folks claim Hillary's server somehow caused the planned attack on s US embassy. How did the desert dwelling force get access to her server?
 
Merely making excuses after the people got killed in Benghazi does not put resposibility on Hillary. The people that put the embassy in Benghazi are responsible for poor planning. But they in fact were doing their job. You would need to prove personal gain from that.

CNN
The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.
"For me and my staff, it was abundantly clear that we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident," Nordstrom said.
Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but 'was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with." It was unclear whether he was talking about Nordstrom.
After not getting security, the state department, Obama etc continued with the effort in Benghazi. That was the mistake. The embassy did not need to be there, yet. It had little to do in an unstable area. Tripoli would have covered all embassy needs.

But, there is no crime. These are poor decisions by the state department. Bush state department made plenty of those.
 
The misrepresentations about Hillary's claims regarding the cause of the Benghazi attack become infuriating quite quickly. It is not a black and white path, nor a linear one, nor do the email to Chelsea nor the comments to the Egyptian PM change what was claimed.

In simplified form:

The video inspired the Cairo protests

The attack in Benghazi started, and the assumption by analysts at a distance was that it mirrored the Cairo protests. Clinton assumed the analysts were correct.

Ansar-al-Sharia claimed responsibility.

Clinton sent the email to Chelsea and made comments to the Egyptian PM that jihadists were involved.

Ansar-al-Sharia retracted claims of responsibility, so the idea of video involvement came back to the fore.

CIA analysis was poorly written and badly headlined leaving the impression of video as a cause.

Morrell badly rewrote the CIA talking points, leaving the impression of video as a cause.

Rice oversteps even what the CIA talking points said and the White House and State circle the wagons to defend her (this is, imo, the one point at which Obama and Clinton played politics with it and intentionally fuzzied things).

CIA issues final report correcting the earlier mistakes, and Clinton accepts the findings.

===

It's convoluted but not difficult.
 
Merely making excuses after the people got killed in Benghazi does not put resposibility on Hillary. The people that put the embassy in Benghazi are responsible for poor planning. But they in fact were doing their job. You would need to prove personal gain from that.

CNN

After not getting security, the state department, Obama etc continued with the effort in Benghazi. That was the mistake. The embassy did not need to be there, yet. It had little to do in an unstable area. Tripoli would have covered all embassy needs.

But, there is no crime. These are poor decisions by the state department. Bush state department made plenty of those.
True.

Plus there is the bit about the victims' families. Only two of the family members claim Clinton said anything about the video as cause at Andrews Air Force Base, and both of them made them claim a long time after in discussion with Fox News. They are directly contradicted by several family members who said Clinton said nothing about the video. And her saying that the families are wrong is not saying they are lying; it was the interviewer who said that either Clinton or the families were lying; she did not take the bait.
 
True.

Plus there is the bit about the victims' families. Only two of the family members claim Clinton said anything about the video as cause at Andrews Air Force Base, and both of them made them claim a long time after in discussion with Fox News. They are directly contradicted by several family members who said Clinton said nothing about the video. And her saying that the families are wrong is not saying they are lying; it was the interviewer who said that either Clinton or the families were lying; she did not take the bait.

Hillary's story has been contradicted by four family members from 3 different families. Furthermore, I remember Tyrone Woods' father recounting what Hillary said about having the videomaker arrested shortly after she was claimed to have said it. I have little doubt that Hillary told them all it was because of a video, and that she is lying about that now. Whether or not Hillary was lying when she said that the video was responsible is another question, and one that might not be knowable. But the evidence we have that she is lying about what she said to the families is about as strong as it gets short of an actual video or audio record.
 
The misrepresentations about Hillary's claims regarding the cause of the Benghazi attack become infuriating quite quickly. It is not a black and white path, nor a linear one, nor do the email to Chelsea nor the comments to the Egyptian PM change what was claimed.

In simplified form:

The video inspired the Cairo protests

The attack in Benghazi started, and the assumption by analysts at a distance was that it mirrored the Cairo protests. Clinton assumed the analysts were correct.

Ansar-al-Sharia claimed responsibility.

Clinton sent the email to Chelsea and made comments to the Egyptian PM that jihadists were involved.

Ansar-al-Sharia retracted claims of responsibility, so the idea of video involvement came back to the fore.

CIA analysis was poorly written and badly headlined leaving the impression of video as a cause.

Morrell badly rewrote the CIA talking points, leaving the impression of video as a cause.

Rice oversteps even what the CIA talking points said and the White House and State circle the wagons to defend her (this is, imo, the one point at which Obama and Clinton played politics with it and intentionally fuzzied things).

CIA issues final report correcting the earlier mistakes, and Clinton accepts the findings.

===

It's convoluted but not difficult.

That timeline is ridiculous. Here is the real timeline.

“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official would later say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”

6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. This is based on information from Embassy Tripoli

About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.

11:12 p.m.: Clinton sends an email to her daughter, Chelsea, that reads: “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.”

Sept. 12: Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, sends an email prior to Obama’s Rose Garden address to Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security advisor for strategic communications at the White House, and others that says, “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’”

September 12 Statement from Ansar al Sharia:
Ansar al-Shariah Brigade didn’t participate in this popular uprising as a separate entity, but it was carrying out its duties in al-Jala’a hospital and other places where it was entrusted with some duties. The Brigade didn’t participate as a sole entity; rather, it was a spontaneous popular uprising in response to what happened by the West.

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.”

Sept. 12, 6:06 p.m.: Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department officials that reads in part: “[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.”

It's convoluted but not difficult
 
Hillary's story has been contradicted by four family members from 3 different families. Furthermore, I remember Tyrone Woods' father recounting what Hillary said about having the videomaker arrested shortly after she was claimed to have said it. I have little doubt that Hillary told them all it was because of a video, and that she is lying about that now. Whether or not Hillary was lying when she said that the video was responsible is another question, and one that might not be knowable. But the evidence we have that she is lying about what she said to the families is about as strong as it gets short of an actual video or audio record.

Four family members :rolleyes:

Tell me, when did Michael Ingmire (uncle) speak with Clinton ?

Kate Quigley (sister), 3 years later, said Clinton didn't mention a video. And her mother, who was presumably in the same meeting, doesn't recall Clinton saying anything at all about it.

Patricia Smith (mother) claimed a year later that Obama, Rice, Clinton, and anyone who ever spoke to her told her it was a video.

Only Woods (Father) told anyone somewhat contemporaneously with the event that clinton said it was the video ( "We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted")

But this evidence is "as strong as it gets" ?? :rolleyes:
 
Hillary's story has been contradicted by four family members from 3 different families.

Yes, let's talk a little bit about that. First, Woods' mother contradicts that the word "video" was even said.

Tyrone Woods’ mother, Cheryl Bennett, told PolitiFact that when she spoke with Clinton, she "never heard the word ‘video’ mentioned. That’s just a fact.

Then the article you posted goes on to link itself as a source for some of the other ******** that they spew. Then it sources Brietbart, always a reliable one. I can't even find a second, reliable source for Glen Doherty's sister when searching for the exact quote. So basically we have a mostly unsourced claim by a website that is described as:

The Independent Journal Review was founded in 2012 by entrepreneurs and former Republican party staffers Alex Skatell and Phil Musser.[3] The editor is Bert Atkinson, a former waiter.[4] Skatell has described the site as targeting a "mainstream center-right audience." The site has been described as a cross between BuzzFeed and RedState,[4] and a cross between the Drudge Report and Upworthy.[5]

That's right, edited by a former waiter, and a cross between "Drudge Report and Upworthy". Go ahead and cry ad hominem while I cry "use a reliable source."
 
Last edited:
Hillary's story has been contradicted by four family members from 3 different families. Furthermore, I remember Tyrone Woods' father recounting what Hillary said about having the videomaker arrested shortly after she was claimed to have said it. I have little doubt that Hillary told them all it was because of a video, and that she is lying about that now. Whether or not Hillary was lying when she said that the video was responsible is another question, and one that might not be knowable. But the evidence we have that she is lying about what she said to the families is about as strong as it gets short of an actual video or audio record.

Four family members :rolleyes:

Tell me, when did Michael Ingmire (uncle) speak with Clinton ?

Kate Quigley (sister), 3 years later, said Clinton didn't mention a video. And her mother, who was presumably in the same meeting, doesn't recall Clinton saying anything at all about it.

Patricia Smith (mother) claimed a year later that Obama, Rice, Clinton, and anyone who ever spoke to her told her it was a video.

Only Woods (Father) told anyone somewhat contemporaneously with the event that clinton said it was the video ( "We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted")

But this evidence is "as strong as it gets" ?? :rolleyes:
I got beaten to the response.
 
That timeline is ridiculous. Here is the real timeline.

“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official would later say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”

6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. This is based on information from Embassy Tripoli

About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.

11:12 p.m.: Clinton sends an email to her daughter, Chelsea, that reads: “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.”

Sept. 12: Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, sends an email prior to Obama’s Rose Garden address to Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security advisor for strategic communications at the White House, and others that says, “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’”

September 12 Statement from Ansar al Sharia:

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.”

Sept. 12, 6:06 p.m.: Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department officials that reads in part: “[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.”

It's convoluted but not difficult
There is nothing in your timeline that contradicts my conclusion. Rather, it supports it.

Initial confusion over whether the video was part of it. Ansar-al-Sharia's initial claim made Clinton believe the video was not part and she spoke in that fashion. She simultaneously mentioned the video without giving it as a cause for the Benghazi attacks, partly because those who wrote the comments weren't sure and wanted to cover all bases. When Ansar-al-Sharia retracted their claim, the belief that the video may have played a part came back into play and remained in play until the final CIA assessment. This is backed up by your own link of the Ansar-al-Sharia statement which says in the part you did not highlight "It was a spontaneous popular uprising in response to what happened by [sic] the West."
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom