New documents show conclusively that she knew from the beginning it was a terrorist attack, despite her bald-faced lies about the video to the families on the tarmac. This will, and should be a campaign issue.
31 thoughts on “Benghazi”
Comments are closed.
Hillary is evil. We can not, under any circumstance, allow her to become president. So you might just have to hold your nose and vote for Trump. He is a loose cannon. Which is still better than being tied to the cannon muzzle with Hillary.
I can’t believe anyone would so loath Trump that they would elect Hillary.
With all *due* respect to her, Hillary Clinton is an evil duplicitous bitch.
I find the current struggle for the Democratic presidential nomination (“I’m the bigger statist!” “No, you’re not! I hate liberty even more than you do!”) interesting, because for decades the “liberal” Hive and its media arm have been depicting conservative Republicans as either villains or fools. And yet here, on the Dem side, we have a blithering idiot sparring against a really evil witch.
The press statement Clinton released to Americans on the same day attributed the attack to “inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”
No, it doesn’t. The full sentence from the press statement was: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” That isn’t Clinton making an attribution, it’s Clinton claiming that anonymous others have made such an attribution.
If Clinton really did lie to the public about Benghazi the rightist press wouldn’t have so much trouble finding an actual example of her doing so.
She lied to the families’ faces on the tarmac.
I’m far more concerned with what she said publicly, to millions. We have recordings and transcripts of her public statements.
I’m far more concerned with what she said publicly,
To any reasonable person, you just admitted she lied about the death of Americans in her charge. There is no defense for this.
EEee – ville!!! [Mike Myers impersonation]
I don’t know that Clinton lied to the families. We don’t have a record of what she said, so it isn’t a question that can be settled definitively. It could easily be a misunderstanding. Look at the article that Rand linked to in this post: it manages to totally misconstrue Clinton’s official press statement. If a professional journalist can misunderstand a simple written statement, it hardly seems impossible that grieving family members could come to a similar misinterpretation under much more difficult circumstances.
Yes, the families are all lying about what Hillary told them on the tarmac. It must be terrible to be a Clinton, and always have all these awful people, like the women that Bill raped, continually lying about you.
the families are all lying
It is totally plausible that Clinton told them that the U.S. would go after the creator of “Innocence of Muslims”, thinking they’d be comforted or reassured that something was being done to take some of the energy out of the protests that were threatening their loved ones’ colleagues at other locations across the Muslim world. It’s just as plausible that some of them could misinterpret that to mean that she was blaming their loved ones’ deaths on the video. They’d have plenty of company: how many media outlets misinterpreted her public statements in just the same way? With the public statements we have the luxury of time and a transcript to understand what she actually said, and even then sites like the one you linked to in this post continue to misrepresent her words.
She didn’t say “We’re going to hunt down the terrorists who did this.” She said “We’re going to arrest the guy who made the video.” She was obviously blaming the video, and lying to their faces.
She was obviously blaming the video
Obvious only to a mind-reader. She might have just been blaming the video for triggering the protests and violence at other diplomatic facilities that week. If you recall, that’s exactly what she did in her public remarks that day. Is it so hard to imagine that she’d have meant the same thing in her private comments, and that Woods, like you, could have taken her words to mean something they didn’t?
She might have just been blaming the video for triggering the protests and violence at other diplomatic facilities that week.
Why would the Benghazi families give a damn about that? They’re not as stupid as you apparently are.
…continue to misrepresent her words.
Jim was looking in a mirror when he wrote this.
What’s the threshold, Jim? How many people does she have to lie to while she represents the US before it becomes a problem for you?
Jim, the documents include a quote from a telephone conversation between HRC and then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil on the night of the Sept. 11, 2012 attack: “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest,” she said.
Yes, that quote’s been known for quite a while. Is there any reason to believe it misrepresented her view at the time, i.e. that it was a lie?
Besides the people in her department sending reports to Congress and Sunday news shows that it was a protest? Is your claim Jim that Hillary is Presidential material because she couldn’t get the people who worked for her to tell the truth?
Between the time she made that statement, and Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk shows, the intelligence community issued an assessment that there was a protest. Do you think Clinton should have overruled the CIA? Based on what?
Really, it’s not that difficult if you look. I’d provide you with some Breitbart stories but you’ll never look at them.
Go ahead, give me evidence of one public Clinton statement about Benghazi that she knew was untrue at the time she made it.
It’s already been given. She told the family it was a protest of the film. Your definition of public seems to mean anybody but public citizens you want to dismiss.
We don’t know what she told the families. Her private comments could well have been similar to what she said at the public ceremony — comments that were misinterpreted to blame the Benghazi attack on the video.
Charles Woods took notes. She said “we’re going to arrest and prosecute the person who made that video.” There is no other possible interpretation of that.
Gee, believe Charles Woods and the other families, who have nothing to gain from lying, or believe someone with a long history of lying and mendacity in her own interest? Decisions, decisions.
There is no other possible interpretation of that.
Of course there is! The video had inspired dozens of protests across the Muslim world, protests that had included violent assaults on multiple U.S. diplomatic facilities. Why shouldn’t Clinton tell people whose family members had lost their lives serving in one U.S. diplomatic facility that the U.S. was doing what it could to keep others from sharing their fate?
Both you and Woods may have jumped to the conclusion that Clinton was blaming Benghazi on the video, but that is hardly the only possible interpretation.
“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior”
She is referring to the Obama administration and herself.
These “new” documents weren’t really new. It was known previously that she told the Egyptian PM that it was a planned terrorist attack and had categorically ruled out a protest over a video that spun out of control like Ferguson.
The interesting thing here is that while Jim is trying to say that Hillary didn’t lie, he is really saying that Obama and Rice lied, just not Hillary.
The fact remains that the Obama administration deliberately chose to tell a falsehood and scapegoat a minority, that was persecuted in his original country, and jail him. Hillary was intimately involved in this as it was her agency that was criminally mismanaged at the time and it was she was one of the driving forces behind the illegal unilateral war of choice in Libya.
The war in Libya unleashed ISIS on the world and has lead to untold human suffering not seen in generations if not centuries. But some say that is ok because no American soldiers were killed, just an ambassador, some contractors, and State Department staff. Oh, and other Americans were later killed by ISIS including soldiers.
Let’s not forget that after Obama, Hillary, Rice, and the administration at large blamed the video, Coptic Christians were viciously attacked in Egypt. Churches were burned down, people were killed, and many other terrible things inflicted on this minority group.
The interesting thing here is that while Jim is trying to say that Hillary didn’t lie, he is really saying that Obama and Rice lied, just not Hillary.
With public media. Apparently, it’s just fine if she does it when there’s no one recording.
Really, here, it sounds to me like Jim is trying to claim that it’s ok for a politician to lie as long as they make sure they’re not being recorded or they do it through a subordinate. I wonder if this magic thinking causes as much trouble for Jim in his private life as it does in his public arguments.
Meanwhile in the real world, superiors are responsible for taking corrective action when a subordinate misbehaves on the job. And real leaders don’t stand idle when associates, of whatever relative rank, do evil.
it sounds to me like Jim is trying to claim that it’s ok for a politician to lie as long as they make sure they’re not being recorded or they do it through a subordinate.
That isn’t my argument. The claim isn’t that it’s okay to lie privately, but that it’s near-impossible to tell if a private statement is a lie, because it’s near-impossible for a neutral party to know precisely what was said.
As for subordinates, the statements Rice is criticized for making on the Sunday talk shows were taken from CIA talking points. Neither Rice nor Clinton had any reason to overrule them, and it would have been inappropriate for them to do so.